Ali Abunimah at EI, on Hamas's softening, post Cairo:
Another analysis of Hamas'
shift currently circulating argues that Hamas has accepted the
Palestinian "consensus" position of a two-state solution on every inch
of the 1967 occupied territories with removal of all settlements and
with the Right of Return. But it knows that no potential peace deal
coming from the Obama initiative will ever reach even these minimal
conditions, and that if Abbas and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert could not reach even the outlines of an agreement after two
years of negotiations, the chances of any deal with a
Netanyahu-Lieberman government are even tinier. In this scenario, Hamas
need not stand in the way of a two-state solution because it will fail
anyway. But by saying it would accept that minimalist outcome, it would
avoid blame for the failure and its adherence to resistance would be
vindicated….
[Khaled] Meshal's speech [of June 25] confirms Hamas' long-term shift away from Islamist
rhetoric toward mainstream Palestinian nationalist discourse. It
indicates that Hamas is highly sensitive to international and
Palestinian public opinion and is aware that Palestinians need to build
real international solidarity as part of a strategy to level the
glaring power imbalance with Israel. But it is not prepared to seek
recognition at any price. All this has implications for the movement's
message and methods.
This leaves the field open for an urgent debate among Palestinians
about what that future vision should be and what role resistance in all
its legitimate forms should play. No group of leaders, whether from
Hamas or any other organization, could or should carry the burden of
restoring Palestinian rights by itself. Hamas, like other Palestinian
organizations, can only be a guardian of fundamental rights to the
extent that it is embedded in a broader movement mobilized in Palestine
and globally to defend those rights.
What part of targeting unarmed Jews for murder is legitimate? That's what I thought…
So the Palestinians are graciously willing to accept a two state solution with both states being Palestinian. And Israel's motivation to commit national and (for the Jews) individual suicide is?
In what way is "We agree to take Israel from the Jews and kill them" "softening"?
Ali is an idiot, I saw him speak about his book a few years ago. He was talking about 1 one state government with Meshal as PM and Bibi serving in the opposition. I laughed my ass off for a couple minutes then walked out :)
ad hominem? I expected better from you, Yoni. Usually, your points are quite valid
In what way does this article even say that? Anything that doesn't play to your prejudices must be false. The Palestinians agree to a two-state solution, they're lying. They call for a bi-national state, somehow that translates to a genocide of the Israelis.
No longer do you get to make up, from fear and desire, your own version of what the Palestinians intend and have it be the only one heard. But you do get to continue to be part of the conversation. Don't waste the opportunity, Thom.
Thanks Shafiq! it is early……
The only "two-state solution" described in the above post is a "two-Palestinian-state" solution. They get Palestine and (through the right of return) they also get Israel. The Arabs have not been subtle or obscure about what they plan to do if they ever take over Israel. So, yes, that translates to genocide. When a terrorist group says they plan genocide (if they ever get the chance), damned if they aren't convincing.
As I said, I don't have to make up what they intend. They say it themselves. Go read Hamas' charter. It calls for the worldwide extermination of the Jews. I hear all kinds of excuses from the appeasers about how "they don't really mean it" (same thing they said about Mein Kampf). But if they don't mean it, then why not change it in the spirit of making peace.
I'm confused as to whether Ali advocates for a civil democratic state or a Palestinian national state. Its an ODD view of democracy or even "justice" to originate in the past. Its as if he would consider that because he has only been in Chicago for four years, that he shouldn't get an equal vote, and that anyone that is a great-grand-child of anyone that lived in Chicago and was forced to move by unemployment or "urban renewal", should be able to. One-person, one-vote.
Also, the "Hamas is too moderate" theme, is a bit confusing.
through limited right of return (enough to get a sense of justice though not dramatically change the demographic make-up of Israel) and an acceptance of Israeli settlers as Palestinian citizens
And id Israel really doesn't want to annex the West Bank, why keep the settlements? Why not get rid of them in the spirit of making peace?
The Obama approach is the one that will yeild a two-state solution. Abunimeh will either have to live with it, or resist it and expose his people and the world to unnecessary and very harmful war and likely further defeat. It is succeeding incrementally, and if continued without fundamental compromise, will continue to.
Thom, "When a terrorist group says they plan genocide (if they ever get the chance), damned if they aren't convincing" But when they say they don't plan genocide, somehow you don't find that at all convincing? You prefer the earlier version because it chimes in with your prejudices. "why not change it in the spirit of making peace." Yes, because obviously you would be really convinced by that, just as you were by the PLO changing its charter. Were Hamas to do so, you would argue that it was merely a blind to conceal its true genocidal intentions, wouldn't you? It would make absolutely no difference at all to you – so please drop the bullshit.
Actually, Hamas has joined the consensus long before Obama was president and there was this new push. It's not like they're getting softer. More accurately, they were softer before, and now the barbarians in America are beginning to wake up to the reality of their position.
Abunimah stated "full right of return" is not negotiable. It is a minimal demand. Sounds pretty reasonable. Two Arab Muslim States. No Jewish States. Exactly what Phil , Adam, Pappe and the rest of the Israel haters want. I can't figure out why Israel would refuse it.
What an irony. When Hamas was created and was against all negociations, therefore, when it was truly antisemitic, Israel fostered them with money and hidden support, to counter-act the PLO; and now that Hamas asks for negociations on the '67 borders, Israel suddenly finds that its ex-enemy-of-my-enemy is too antisemitic. Read the charter! – The one we didn't care about when we fostered Hamas ! – How do you get away with that ? Zionists have aided antisemites in the past; they have an agenda of dominion which precludes principles. Please stop acting like you care about justice. You're an enemy of peace. You are among the ones who collaborated with the Nazis. I have one word to say to you: Ha’avara. Go on thinking you're defending Jews. Go on stabbing them in the name of a land that no man or group of men can own. Go on assimilating defense of Jews with agression of non-Jews. You are the curse of the Jewish people everywhere around the world. If Hamas says they're for negociations, then it cannot hurt taking them up on that, whatever hidden intentions they can have.
"limited" right of return. Where is the word limited in this article?
perhaps you can tell us why the Zionists were apparently quite happy to agree to two Arab Muslim states in 1947 then, and why they are constantly boasting about this acceptance as part of the basis for Israel's legitimacy?
Does Israel have a limited right of return?
Because the jews over there, there and then in 1947, and now, never have had any intention of sticking to the Partition boundaries, even though those boundaries discriminated in their favor.
"Please stop acting like you care about justice. You're an enemy of peace. " So true. Thom is someone who changes the subject to help his defense of illegal occupation. You cannot build homes on illegally occupied territory, ever. Temporary outposts can be built, but not houses and swimming pools.
Bad analogy. The settlements have independent value to the people who live in them. They piss off the Palestinians, but they also provide homes to the people who live in them. Exactly what additional benefit does a pro-genocide charter have for the Palestinians? Also, changing a document is a lot easier logistically than moving hundreds of thousands of people and their belongings. Are you really that blind that you can't see the difference?
Well, I'm afraid you'll have to move then. Unless you live in Antarctica, the place where you live is illegally occupied from whoever was kicked out to make room for your people. In America, it was the Native Americans. In Prussia, the Pruthenian tribes. In England, the Celts. Etc. The West Bank is legally occupied from Jordan in consequence of the 6-day war. I have never heard anyone make a good moral case why the Arabs should be allowed to try to destroy Israel and take its land but not have to lose their land when they lose their war. Anyone care to field that one?
If Hamas changed its charter, I would suspect they were just doing it as a blind to conceal their intentions. I would not know it for a fact. However, since they have not changed their charter, I know for a fact that they plan genocide. Some things are not symmetrical. We tend to believe it when someone accused of a crime confesses. We give little weight when someone accused of a crime says he didn't do it. Same reason as here. A self serving statement has no credibility, a statement that goes against your interests does.
Because they would have been in a slight majority in the originally designated boundaries of Israel. Also because the Arabs had only made occasional massacres of Jews and hadn't spent the previous 6 decades trying to exterminate them. Why are people willing to live with their ex-Wives before they are ex-wives?
a limited right of return is taken for granted. It isn't feasible for all the 5 million refugees to return home, but it should be carried out where possible. The Hamas vision of a two state solution is much closer to the internationally accepted one that Bibi's Jewish state and an Arab prison.
And how does that change the fact that they're illegal? Fine, let me be more accommodating – how about recognising all the settlements as illegal under International Law? That way, the Israelis get to make a symbolic gesture towards peace, without having actually done anything.
The West Bank is legally occupied. What isn't legal is the transferring of Israeli citizens into that territory and the abduction of Palestinians and their transferring into Israeli territory. " I have never heard anyone make a good moral case why the Arabs should be allowed to try to destroy Israel and take its land but not have to lose their land when they lose their war. " Simple. Because it was Israel who attacked first, starting the war and NOT the Arabs.
That is false. You may take the "limited" right of return for granted, but I have never heard of any Palestinian leader willing to agree to any deal that sets any limits on it whatsoever. I have however, seen plenty of statements that demand that the right of return be unconditional, with no limits of any kind.
The legality of the settlements is irrelevant in this discussion. The question was "why keep the settlements" as a counter to "why keep the pro-genocide sections of the Hamas charter". As to declaring them illegal, Israel does not believe they are illegal. If they said they were, then that would also put them at a further disadvantage in front of already prejudiced international courts. And again, bad analogy. Whether the settlements are illegal or not is a matter of law, whether Hamas plans genocide is a matter of intent. How would the anti-Semites here react if the charter of the ruling party in Israel called for the extermination of all Muslims?
And I have seen every Israeli leader unwilling to accept any kind of 'Right of Return'. The only place they can meet is the middle.
Oh, well if the principle is "whoever started the war is allowed to lose territory, and the side that got attacked is allowed to keep territory" then Israel gets to keep the West Bank. Both the 6-day war as a whole and the fighting over the West Bank were started by the Arabs. As was the fighting when Israel was founded, and every other war Israel has been in. Thanks for conceding that Israel has a right to the West Bank.
The fact is, they are illegal, whether you like it or not. By keeping them legal, Israel is declaring their intent to steal these lands and ethnically cleanse them of Palestinians – no different to the Hamas charter. The analogy is perfectly fine
BTW, if you mean the Geneva convention. There are two problems with declaring them illegal. First, the Fourth Geneva convention rules about occupied territory only apply to "high contracting parties" (parties that have signed and ratified the 4th GC) or to a party which "accepts and applies the provisions thereof". The Palestinians are neither a high contracting party, nor have they accepted and applied the provisions of the 4th GC. Therefore, the 4th GC provisions about occupied territory do not apply. Second, the 4th GC prohibits an occupying power from deporting or transferring its population to the occupied territory (of an HCP). On the face of it, that would seem to indicate that the occupying power can't send its people there. It doesn't say they can't go of their own accord. There may well be contrary case law, but I wouldn't know. If you want to talk about law, remember that laws aren't as nebulous as morality. There are specific conditions under which they apply.
Also, most people don't realize that international law is fundamentally different from regular laws within nations. Within nations, the laws are imposed from above, ideally with a neutral judge deciding when those laws have been broken and on appropriate punishments. There is no need to get the consent of an individual for a law to apply to him, and you are still bound by the law even if your enemy breaks it. If he smashed your car window (and then leaves), you are supposed to call the cops. It is illegal for you to go over and smash his window. In international law, things are different. The laws go by the consent of the governed (in the form of treaties). Most treaties are in the form of a contract. They agree not to bomb your ambulances, in exchange you agree not to use ambulances as troop transports. In this case, they agree to certain rules for treating occupied territories in exchange for you agreeing to apply the same rules. Unlike national laws, if one party breaks the deal, the other party is often released from his obligations under the deal. As is the case here. The Palestinians routinely violates the 4th GC, therefore, Israel is not obligated to unilaterally obey rules that only apply bilaterally.
Crud, I meant the pose starting with "also" to follow the one starting "BTW".
No. They can meet where the Palestinians accept their own country and accept that Israel is its own country. What is the middle between you want to kill me and I don't want you to kill me? You wound me? Why would I agree to an unacceptable demand just because you make a more extreme demand first? Why not just make your demand be that you get to kill me twice, then meeting in the middle would be you get to kill me once. I suppose some Israeli PM might let some in, but it will never be enough to satisfy the Palestinians, so why bother?
You know, I wasn't sure whether they were or not until I read the Geneva Conventions a few minutes ago. Now I know they are legal since the laws that would make them illegal apply only if the other side obeys the laws as well. Unlike state laws, the rules for occupied territories only protect those who obey them.
No, they apply to everyone. The various UN resolutions have also confirmed their illegality. "On 15 July 1999 a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention met at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva. It ruled that the Convention did apply in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem."
Please read my previous post
No, post WWII, there has been a consensus that no state is allowed to annexe territory as a result of war. They can occupy it, but are bound by the Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions, but they can not annexe it. You asked for a moral argument – the fact that the 1967 war was an act of Israeli aggression is more than a reason
No, you've misunderstood international law. They aren't bilateral, but instead are multilateral, governed by institutions such as the ICJ. Just because one side breaks International Law (which you accuse the Palestinians of but don't bother attempting to prove it) doesn't mean the other side is allowed to.
Consensus by whom? Plenty of territory has changed hands since WWII. Since the 1967 war was started by Egypt, that is not the case. Or do you deny that before Israel attacked Egypt that Egypt blockaded an Israeli port?
Read it. It matters about as much as if 435 Congressmen voted that someone was guilty of murder. I.e., not at all.
Err…yes it does. Or does it only matter when it favours Israel? Your posts are getting more and more pathetic by the day
Consensus by all states. And no, territory hasn't changed hands much since WWII And the 1967 war was started by Israel – it attacked Egypt first. And no Egypt did not block an Israeli port, it denied Israeli access to its waters
The contract has many parties, however, the obligations to a group in a war depend on whether that group is obeying them. Palestinians attack Israeli civilian hospitals, they take hostages, they murder people under their control. All of which are against the 4th GC. And, again, you mistake the deals made in treaties for laws imposed from above. In the case of the 4th GC, just because one side doesn't accept the 4th GC _does_ mean that the other side isn't bound by it either. They aren't breaking the law, the law just doesn't apply to that situation. The 4th GC even says so directly "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it." This limitation applies to the section on occupied territory. So all you idiots who think the Palestinians should be able to do whatever they want to just because they are weaker, here is a reason not to. This isn't like the laws of a nation, where you can break them one minute and then beg their protection the next. You do terrorism, and the other side is legally entitled to take the gloves off.
Actually though, you are partly right. There are provisions (section II) that apply more generally. Section III, with the limits on taking land in occupied territory only apply to parties that accept and obey the 4th GCs.
A conference that lasted 12 minutes, heard no evidence, debated no facts or points of law. That was strictly a political statement with no force of law. What's more every country voting in it knew that, so even the ones that did have qualms about voting to bind Israel to obey rules that no other country had to obey (e.g., unilateral adherence to the 4th GC) knew that it was purely symbolic and that they could go ahead and appease the Arabs just like they do with their General Assembly votes.
Nope, but thank you for playing. The Israeli port of Eilat was blockaded by Egypt. Not only was that an act of war in and of itself, but the Egyptians had previously been warned that Israel would take it as an act of war. Oh, and the cherry on top is that Egypt itself had previously agreed that the Straits of Tiran were an international waterway and had signed a treaty to that effect to end the Suez War. Of course, the blockade of Eilat was just one overt act of war. The mobilizing of almost half a million Arab troops and the declaration of not just war, but genocide: "As of today, there no longer exists and international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall nto complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall aply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence." – Nasser So with the full armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq massing on the borders, a blockade, and a declaration of war with genocidal intent from Egypt, you think Israel started it? Anyone who ever wondered why the Israelis think the Palestinians can't be trusted, there's your answer.
No, sorry. It really doesn't matter. In the U.S. we call that a "bill of attainder". Congress gets to make the laws, they don't get to judge the facts and decide whether someone is breaking them. You could have a unanimous Congress, the Senate, and the President all say that someone is guilty of murder and if the jury says "not guilty" then the person is not guilty in the eyes of the law. The rest is just politics, not law. Similarly, this "conference" was a 12 minute long political hit job, not a legal finding. The 4th GC defines the circumstances under with the 4th GC applies and does not delegate that determination to a conference of just over half of the signatories. Back in 1989 the Executive committee of the PLO sent a letter declaring their decision to adhere to the GCs, but the Swiss said that they (the Swiss) weren't in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession. And since they have ignored the Geneva conventions since then (where are Gilad Shalit's Red Cross visits), it is a moot point.
There actually isn't a good reason to support abolishing Israel without the same for North America. However, what you write here is an overt call for genocide, because the native Americans were not only "kicked out," they were exterminated through measures such as disease and hard labor. Israel can not keep the status quo indefinitely and the logical conclusion is too horrifying to think about. You switch from legal to moral in a single paragraph. Which one do you want? And it's utterly ridiculous to claim Israel won the legal and moral battle, especially if international law means anything to you.
The US should offer a bounty for killing Israelis.
I'm sure a brilliant man like Ali Abunimah was just crushed that some dumb, worthless twat like you walked out on his lecture.
You're giving me a headache. The UNSC has affirmed again and again Israel is bound by the 4GC. In fact, UNSC 465 called Israel out as transferring its civilian population to occupied territory. They're not supposed to be there at all. Incidentally, there are cases of Israel forcing its citizens to move there through economic coercion. Especially Ethiopian olim.
Correction, it's UNSC 446 "3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;" http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/historicald...
You might want to crystalize your world view a bit instead of throwing pasta and waiting it to stick. After 6 decades of trying to exterminate them, including the 1967 war launched from the West Bank, Israel is allowing Jews to move from abroad into the settlements. They're moving in with the ex-wife after divorce, to poke fun at your analogy.
There's a precedent for that and no, we don't want genocide of any one.
Thom – First, quote from the HAMAS charter what you refer to, so we can see that it says what you say it says. Be prepared to defend the various statements made by Israel's visionaries, leaders and officials, included in charter documents, that Israel can exist only if the indigenous inhabitants are eliminated to provide space for immigrants.
Thom – Your suspicions can be met with the fact of Israel's actions; continued as in the past, they would result in genocide.
lii -Target individuals for execution on the basis of nationality? No.
The example I gave is only one of many. The US State Department agrees with this viewpoint, as does every other state in the world except Israel. And no, the countries have no reason to 'appease' the Arabs, it was strictly about legal interpretation.
Again, high-contracting parties include the Palestinian territories. As there is no state in place to ratify these treaties, they are bound by them by default
No, the port was not blockaded. Israel was simply denied access to the Straits of Tiran, which was perfectly legal and NOT an act of war. The fact that the port of Eilat has not been used for the two years preceding to June 1967 tells you a lot, and the fact that Israel had been denied access for much of the 1950s with nothing happening.
No
No. The US should merely honor its own often declared values. If it did, many Israelis would soon wake up. A spoiled brat bully needs tough love parental control. That does not include murdering wayward enablers.
If it wasn't clear, that was about the bounties on native Americans.
Nope, nice try. You don't have a conference about legal interpretation that lasts a grand total of 12 minutes. You have to argue facts and points of law to have a legal interpretation. This was strictly a political hatchet job. Every country has a reason to appease the Arabs its called "oil". Look it up if you haven't heard of it. The Arab countries have lots of it and the other countries want it. The U.S. State department is well known for trying to appease the Arabs. They want to keep the oil flowing and having an ally that pisses off the Arabs is inconvenient for them, regardless of the merits of the situation. If you just went by the State Department, they would be happy to see Israel destroyed so they don't have to deal with the situation any more.
Nope. High contracting parties means the states that have signed and ratified the treaty. So lets test whether the Palestinians are high contracting parties. Did the Palestinians sign and ratify the treaty? Nope. Therefore they are not high contracting parties. What is it about straightforward Aristotelian logic that is so far beyond the Palestinians and their supporters? We are talking about law. Words have meaning. Definitions have meaning and affect how the laws are applied. No one is bound by the 4th GC by default. They have to choose to abide by it. Now, even countries that are not high contracting parties _can_ be protected by the 4th Geneva Convention. In fact, there are some provisions (section II) that apply to populations even if those populations don't abide by the 4th GC. However, there are also provisions that apply only to populations that abide by the Geneva Conventions. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Why is it giving you so much trouble? Are you mentally handicapped or a young child?
Under the international law of the sea, a country could not legitimately block access between the territorial waters of another country and the high seas. The only access to the port of Eilat was through the straights of Tiran. Making blocking it, wait for it… an act of war under international law. Actually Israel was denied access to it for the first half of the 50s with the result being Israel's participation in the Suez War. Quite aside from being an act of War under international law, Egypt was on notice that blockading Eilat would be treated as a declaration of war against Israel. Not just because it had caused the previous war, but because Israel had told them so. And you still haven't dealt with the troops massing on the border, the expulsion of the U.N. peacekeeping force (in violation of a treaty with Israel) or the explicit declaration of war by Egypt against Israel. Or for that matter, the Syrian attacks on Israel in the months leading up to the war. Nice try, but any way you slice it, the Arabs started the war. Seriously are you that dishonest that you are going to claim that when surrounding countries mass on the border of Country A, declare war and their intent to exterminate Country A that Country A started it just because they got in the first major hit (not even the first actual hit since Syria had already attacked Israel months before).
So long as Israel practices the provisions of the 4th GC that apply to populations that do not obey the 4th GC, they ae abiding scrupulously by the 1949 4th Geneva Convention. The rules for section III (occupied territories section) says "if A, then don't do B". They don't just say "don't do B". To give a mundane example, there are laws that say "if the traffic light is red, don't drive through the intersection". I am abiding by those laws if I drive through when the light is green. The specific prohibition "don't drive through the intersection" applies only when the light is red, even though the law as a whole still applies when the light is green. Likewise, by its own terms the 4th GC contains prohibitions that only apply under certain circumstances. A country which does not follow those prohibitions when the circumstances that trigger the prohibition are present, is in violation of the 4th GC. A country which does not follow those prohibitions when the required circumstance are not present is not in violation of it.
I also notice that they "call on Israel" to: 1) Scrupulously bide by the 4th GC. Check. 2) Rescind its previous measures. Nope. 3) desist, etc. Again, nope. 4) Don't transfer parts of its civilian pop. Israel didn't transfer them, they moved on their own, but in any case, nope. So the resolution says they ask Israel to "abide by the 4th Geneva convention" and do a bunch of other stuff that is not required by the 4th GC. Israel does the first and ignored their request for the other three. Given the blatant discrimination against Israel by the U.N. (literally the only U.N. member that was not allowed on the U.S. Security Council, theoretically that has changed, but even if it has, they won't be on until 2018), the Israelis can hardly be expected to go along with U.N. requests. Oh, and lest you say "it was an order, not a request", or "it was meant as an order". The language of these drafts is often phrased in a particular way to avoid a U.S. (or other national) veto. You can't make a resolution a request so as to get it passed and then turn around and act as if it was an order.
Margaret, in the existence of Israel, it has killed fewer than 30,000 Palestinians. I suspect more of them have been killed in car accidents than by Israelis. The Palestinian population increases 4% per year. One of the fastest of any population in the world. Over the 27 days of the biggest attack against the Palestinians in decades, the Gaza war last December and January, the Palestinian population increased. My question to you is, are you ignorant of the facts, or are you lying?
Ever see "War of the Roses"? Great film. I think the Israelis have a right to build the settlements and take the land. I also think it is stupid to keep building right now, bad P.R.. Although, the Palestinians provide a good argument for just taking the land. They refuse to make peace unless they get Israel too, so stopping, or even evacuating the settlements won't bring peace. Same as what happened in Gaza. Pull out and the Palestinians just move up their missile launchers.
Wow, LI, even Citizen, who is a holocaust denier, thinks you went too far. What does that tell you?
"…Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)." Hamas Charter, article 7. Hamas not only plans to exterminate the Jews, they are looking forward to it. If you have a quote from Israel's founding documents that says Israel is going to exterminate the Palestinians, cite it. What I expect you will cite (if anything) is various things that don't call for killing, a few lunatic fringe things which do call for killing. A few things that call for killing people in self defense if necessary, and (going by the type of people on this site) a few outright lies about what the Talmud says, gleaned from white supremacist web sites.
Err…yes you do if there is only one interpretation. And do you really expect me to believe that the states at the conference thought the Arab world might stop the flow of oil if they voted no? You're getting more and more ridiculous by the day. And now you accuse the State Department of wanting to destroy Israel.
You're attempting to deny the Palestinians their fundamental rights by taking advantage of the legal limbo they're put in through not being a state. It's a shame that UN Security Council disagrees with you about the Palestinians being protected under the Geneva conventions but nice try anyway.
No, International Law has been deliberately vague on the issue, leaving it to interpretation. Some states have argued it is a declaration of war, namely Israel but others such as India argue that Egypt was fully within her rights close the Straights of Tiran. And there was no declaration of war- there was a declaration of intent to fight back if Israel attacked first. And no, the expulsion of the UN peacekeepers was not a declaration of war either. You really do need to brush up on the Rules of War.
Where did you get that from? And by your (false) logic, the breaking of the Geneva Conventions by Israel (which came first) legitimised Palestinian violations.
You're clasping at straws here. Your attempts at denying International opinion are getting pathetic. Please move on.
In the recent war on Gaza, 1,300 people were killed. It seems I have to spell it out to you, that's the equivalent of killing 260,000 people in the US, 60,000 of whom would be women and children. Now who's ignorant of the facts again?
The only reasonable interpretation is the opposite of the one they came to. The Palestinians don't abide by the GCs, therefore by the explicit terms of the GCs themselves, the Palestinians are entitled to only very limited protection of the GCs. This wasn't a trial, it was a political hatchet job. Try having a trial in 12 minutes, even if the facts are not in dispute, the interpretations and law need to be argued. The only trial you have in 12 minutes is a kangaroo court or an episode of Judge Judy. Even then they edit it down. re: Embargo. They have done it before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis I didn't say the State Department wanted to destroy Israel. I said they would be happy to see it destroyed. Not the same thing at all. To be fair, not all of them would be happy about it, just most of them. In the category of "he wouldn't kill the guy, but he'd be happy to watch the guy die".
It has nothing to do with their legal limbo, or with not being a state. It has to do with their non-compliance with the Geneva Conventions. For those that argue that the Palestinians, as the weaker party should be allowed to use terrorism because they are too weak for a fair fight, this is why (morality aside) it is a bad idea. The U.N. Security Council would get more respect in Israel if it weren't openly and officially prejudiced against Israel. Talk to me in 2018, if Israel has finally got a seat on the UNSC. So far the only UNSC resolution I have seen posted here about it was a request that Israel abide by the GCs, which it does (abide by the GCs doesn't mean you have to pretend that conditional statements are absolute), and do other stuff. The other stuff is not required by the GCs.
5.The system of straight baselines may not be applied by a State in such a manner as to cut off from the high seas the territorial sea of another State – Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 1958. No, there was nothing in their statements about fighting back if Israel attacked first. They violated the treaty, kicked the U.N. "Peacekeepers" out of the way (well, really just told them to leave and they left like little pussies). They made a straightforward declaration of war. What part of "The sole method we shall aply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence." didn't you understand?
I got that from the Geneva Conventions. You should try reading them some time. Carefully though, so many people skim laws and contracts rather than reading them carefully. Actually, that is a bit tricky. The GCs apply the HCPs whether the HCP breaks them or not. The full rules about occupied territories, and other conditional sections apply to Lebanon because Lebanon is a HCP, even though Lebanon doesn't abide by the GCs. I'm not sure what remedy the GCs have when an HCP doesn't abide by the rules. Oh, and the breaking of the GCs was by the Palestinians and other Arabs whenever they tried to exterminate the Jews, rather than simply trying to occupy their territory in expectation of giving it back later. After 1949 of course, since that is when the GCs were written.
No, I am applying legal analysis. "International opinion" is worthless since "International Opinion" is that the Israelis should let the Palestinians kill them.
Equivalent to about 100,000. Including about 7000 children under the age of 16, and about 4000 women, but whose counting? BTW, did you forget that there are Palestinians in the West Bank too? The question was whether it was genocide, not how many people were killed. 1300 (actually less than 1200 were killed) represents 3.4 hundredths of a percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza. To put it in perspective, that's about the difference between $29.99 and $30.00 during a time that you earn 9 cents interest. Sucks for the individuals involved. They can take up their complaints with Hamas. Among the other ways in which Hamas does not abide by the GCs, they store weapons and place other valid military targets among civilians. The attacks were in response to over 1180 Israelis killed in the last nine years by Palestinian attacks. That's equivalent to about 48,000 people in the U.S. What do you think the U.S. would do to you if you unleashed sixteen attacks equivalent to 9/11 against us? Do you think we would wait 8 years to kick the crap out of you? Or that we would be so careful of your lives that in urban warfare only about 25-40% of the casualties were civilians? The weirdest part about all this is that a country with a terrific kill ratio of terrorists to civilians is being attacked for the relatively few civilian deaths. Fun fact of the day. Israel has a special bomb designed to scare people into getting off a rooftop of a military target before they bomb it.
A ban on the hunting of wolves and the legalization of hunting Israelis would be an enormous step forward for civilization.
Thom, your "legal analysis" sounds impressive until closer scrutiny. First, why was Israel called upon to abide art. 49 in that particular resolution? Could it be transferring its own civilian population into the territories was an issue? Also, the art. states "shall not deport or transfer," since deport is clearly an involuntary measure, the second word must indicate voluntary movement is not allowed, either. No one can argue int'l law is applied fairly across the board. However, these resolutions provide abundant evidence Israel is disobeying int'l law. While Israel may get the bulk of resolutions, keep in mind it has occupied territory of no less than 4 countries (technically 5 counting Jordan) and an international zone.
Where does it talk about "populations that do not obey the 4GC"? The beginning of section III says: "Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory" Given that, I can't imagine it would be easy for a protected person to lose that status by, say, sharing a house with a Fateh guerilla. And art. 33 forbids collective penalties. The lack of specifics in your argument tells me you're talking out the patoo.
You know Thom, I'm about as educated on history as the next guy, and I can't think of any conflict where people who attempted extermination became refugees from their own country. So the Palestinians converged on the helpless Jews with machettes and a big magnet blew them away to the refugee camps, is that how it happened?
Yeah, pretty much. The ALA and the Palestinian militias dominated the conflict and took Kfar Etzion, cut off Jerusalem, destroyed several convoys, and were basically winning until the evacuation of the British enabled the Haganah to escalate from a rifle-based horse-and-infantry war to a more modern, mobile approach, with the Egyptian and Jordanian advantage in heavy weaponry cancelling out the Haganah's later advantage until July 1948, and precluding any decisive Israeli advantage in the north until Oct '48, preventing the gaining or retention of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem by Israel, and leaving the Gaza Jewish settlements in Egyptian hands. In the shuffle, hundreds of thousands fled.
I'm impressed; to an English reader, there no longer is access to the more inflammatory statements of Israel's leaders. One does find links that don't work, and areas to which one needs special access privilges but for the most part the message has been massaged quite thoroughly – what one finds instead, are documents and information suited to the western mentality. The best I could come up with is Ben Gurion: "We must expel Arabs and take their places." (David Ben Gurion), 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." (David Ben-Gurion), May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978. In speech to the Jewish Agency on June 12, 1948, Ben-Gurion stated: "I am for compulsory transfer; I don't see anything immoral in it."
lovelyisraelis, I wonder if you are a zionist provocateur who hopes to get mondoweiss shut down for incitement. Perhaps you are so traumatized by your own experiences that you are unable to empathize with human beings – but regardless of the reason, your words are disturbing. They repeat the Israeli tropes – this most recent comment that of hunting down 'war criminals', with assassination the preferred result. Continuing those patterns of behavior won't take us further from the current situation in the I-P; they hold the promise of continuing repetition of the same problems.
This was not a trial, it was matter of interpretation, which had been discussed before and the conference was only convened to make a decision. So yes, 12 minutes is more than enough. And the oil embargo was a disaster for the Middle Eastern Countries. Everyone knew at the time of the conference that they would not attempt such a thing again. You did play the victim card, which is getting a bit tiring.
Now the UNSC is anti-Semitic United Nations Security Council Resolution 465: 5.Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 6.Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; Resolution 446, 484 and others all reach the same conclusion. Who are you trying to kid?