-
-
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges … 7
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel 8
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 11
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island 1
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to … 12
- Demonizing Mandy Patinkin is a tough sell 24
- ‘If I had to choose between the wealth of the … 14
- Rightwing Israeli group gets tax-deductible funds from US foundation 7
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 668
- ‘The policy of the present Israeli government is likely to … 485
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 310
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 202
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 148
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 119
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
-
- US Jews are so ‘polarized’ over Israel they can’t talk … 160
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- Israeli right-wing flys off the deep end following Hawking boycott 78
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 75
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the … 62
-
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged http://t.co/FCgbAw9vEO, 2 hours ago
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island http://t.co/vnbRO0AgjV, 8 hours ago
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be http://t.co/j9GvEIOYqI, 8 hours ago
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel http://t.co/oJT9HsoQcD, 8 hours ago
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack http://t.co/G5N0uJqOwT, 8 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara (75)
- Hostage: So basically your argument is that the borders of the state of Palestine are defined by drawing a line...
- Demonizing Mandy Patinkin is a tough sell (24)
- piotr: Jewish Press proudly features Moshe Feiglin as their regular contributor. Not that he writes for them often,...
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged (7)
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel (8)
- riyadh: You are considerably understating the support Israel gave to Rios Montt. He once told ABC News that the...
- seafoid: Israel will sell arms and expertise essentially anywhere there is money. Most controversies coming out of...
- Daniel Rich: @ Ecru, How to spot a ‘liberal zionist’ in a car. Blinker to the left, when time to move,...
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel (52)
- irmep: That cited 43 megabyte SPSS dataset only lists Israel survey data for a single year: 2001 (column S020, rows...
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be (12)
- DICKERSON3870: P.S.(#2) RE: “I would be remiss were I not to mention that the CIA supported the Muslim...
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara (75)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Jack Ross
- Anees of Jerusalem
- Ilene Cohen
- Felson
- David Bromwich
- Muhammad Idrees Ahmad
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Ah yes, the explanation of why the Germans were the good guys in WWII, and the U.S. were the bad guys "because the U.S. killed more German children than the Germans killed U.S. children". The ratio there is probably more like 10,000 to one rather than 12 to one.
Your point is relevant, but does not disprove my statement that Israel does more than any other nation would do to prevent civilian casualties.
I said Israel does their best, not that they are Gods. If the U.S. were fighting under similar circumstances the number of children killed would be in the 10s of thousands, if not the 100s of thousands. Same for any other nation. Civilian deaths, even children civilian deaths are inevitable in any conflict, particularly when the enemy uses child soldiers, hides among civilians, fires from next to schools, and doesn't wear uniforms when attacking. Collateral damage (missed the enemy soldier, hit a bystander) happens and mistaken identity happens (the 17 year old dressed just like a terrorist, i.e., in civilian clothes doesn't stop approaching when ordered to).
As I have asked before, please would someone on the Palestinian side filter this list of victims on both sides so we can determine how many of the under-18s on each side (I don't think 17 year old terrorists should properly be called "children" and there are a fair number of them on the list of "children killed by Israel") were killed in non-military circumstances and how many in military circumstances? Then we can compare apples to apples instead of lumping 17 year old terrorists shot while planting bombs in with kids blown up in a Pizza Parlor.
link to rememberthesechildren.org
It goes through 11 years (links to other years at the top of the page)
So filter the list down, and let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
You are kidding right? The news media almost never uses the terms "terrorism" or "terrorist. Some of them didn't even use it when talking about the 9/11 attacks.
link to cbc.ca
"Militant Islamic group" is the term the article uses for al-qaeda, in an article written in October 2001. The term "terrorist" appears only in quotes of government officials.
The original article was tarring all Zionists with the same brush (despite a tiny "not to tar all Zionists with the same brush" disclaimer at the end). But the bigger problem is that the people posting comments here are blaming any action by any Israeli supporter on Israel (see Charon's comment about the Mosad). Which is no more fair than blaming any action by any Muslim on Muslims in general.
That's because you are prejudiced against Israel. Just like a white supremacist would decide that any sincere (etc.) person would support his side.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am sincere, moral, and not a religious fundamentalist. You may or may not have noticed, but I never cite God or the bible in my arguments. I naturally support Israel. I support Israel because it does more to reduce the number of civilian casualties on both sides than any other country would in similar circumstances. I do not support the Palestinians because they try very hard to maximize the number of civilian casualties on both sides.
Of course, since your particular definition of "immoral" undoubtedly includes anyone who supports Israel as being "immoral", I'm sure merely by my support for Israel you classify me as "immoral". If so, that is circular reasoning.
You know, my first thought when I read about the attacks was "they shouldn't be assuming it was Muslims, this could be like Oklahoma City". There are all kinds of home grown loonies around. Heck, even if someone attacks a Jewish target, it could be white supremacists rather than Muslims. It's extremely irresponsible to speculate in advance of the facts.
Moderate blanks support cause X. Terrorist supports cause X. Therefore moderate blanks are responsible for terrorist.
Now, I bet a lot of you will agree with that statement if blanks=Zionists and cause X=Israel's right to self defense. I bet a lot of you will disagree with that statement if blanks=Muslims and cause X=an independent Palestinian state.
The fun part is, how many of you will agree with one and disagree with the other without even seeing the contradiction, even after it has just been pointed out to you.
True. Whether he was a settler or not, he would have been called one. If he was a settler, he would be called that because it was true. If he wasn't a settler he would have been called that because it makes good anti-Israel propaganda.
You don't have it on film. You have collateral damage on film, not murder.
Had portable cameras been as widespread in 1941-1945 you could easily have produced such a heartrending film about the children of Germany or the children of England. Since both the bad guys and the good guys could easily make such a film, with real people, real deaths, and real tragedies, a film like this doesn't prove anything about the side you are propagandizing against.
What it does prove is that the people who are holding this up as showing "the true face of Israel" are either very naive about how war and propaganda films work or are deliberately trying to fool people who are very naive about how war and propaganda films work. After all, are dead and traumatized photogenic German kids circa WWII "the true face of Churchill's UK"?
None of the nutjobs are particularly mainstream. Bachman is going to lose the presidential race as is Huckabee. Is Hagee even running? None of them will be in a position to launch nukes, even if they were that nuts. Meanwhile Iran is a theocracy now.
BTW, gotta know what laws "mandate bigotry".
The fact that it would be mutually assured destruction would be very comforting, if it weren't for a few scenarios:
1) Iran, if it gets nukes won't fire them, just use them to blackmail anyone who tries to retaliate against them when they arm and send terrorists to attack other countries. Think the U.S. would have gone after the Taliban if they had nukes? Or OBL in Pakistan if Pakistan was openly shielding him instead of covertly shielding him?
2) Iran's leaders may give a nuke to terrorists to smuggle into Israel.
3) They may come to mistakenly believe that if they hit Israel hard enough, Israel won't be able to retaliate (the 2nd strike capability problem).
4) A present or future Iranian leader may think that Allah will protect Iran from Israel's nukes.
LOL at the description of the least killing country in the Middle East being described as "rabid, murderous".
And now they are working with North Korea to develop long range missiles. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
Wow, 5000 soldiers made a sacrifice for my lies? I am awesome. Wait, what lies would those be? I don't remember telling any lies that got anyone sacrificed, much less 5000.
Or do you mean Bush's lies? Now I'm really insulted that you think I am Bush. Which brings us back to "the boy who cried wolf" and "in the end, there was a wolf".
No, it's a term that I use because I find the situation laughable. I'm not aware that other people who support Israel use it that often. I'd take your word for it if I trusted you.
"Suspicious" and "Disturbing" would work, if I were talking about the fact that they are apparently developing nukes. I'm not. I'm talking about their cover story. Which is about as convincing as the Jon Lovitz bit where he talks about his "wife, uhhh, Morgan Fairchild, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket". Or OJ, when he said he was going to look for the "real killers". Sorry if it gets your goat, but a bald-faced, blatant lie is often just really funny, regardless of the underlying horror of the situation.
Canada's reserves are mostly in oil sands. Nowhere near as accessible as Iran's. Canada doesn't so much have a lot of oil as a lot of tar mixed with dirt, clay, and water that can be converted to oil with a lot of hassle. Which makes it much less attractive. Iran can just pump it out of the ground.
Israel allegedly has had nukes for about 44 years now (2/3 as long as the U.S.). They had them since before the Yom Kippur war. If they didn't use them then, when the country was in serious danger of being destroyed, they aren't going to use them now other than to retaliate against a nuclear strike or the destruction of Israel by other means.
@mig
Still, you have to admit it is hilarious that a country with some of the largest oil reserves on the planet is pretending they are building nuclear power plants for the power.
The thing about "the Boy who cried 'wolf'", is that in the end, there was a wolf. I'm not looking forward to when the Iranians nuke Tel Aviv and start WWIII.
We'd better hope that they are just planning to use the nukes they are building to prevent people from retaliating against their terrorist attacks, not to actually nuke anyone.
Found it. James North. Constantly lying about what Richard Witty said.
link to mondoweiss.net
"Covering foreign policy in the Middle East". Exactly.
Thank you for proving my point. The stated objective of this site is covering the Middle East, not general trashing of Jews. Regardless of whose perspective this is supposed to be about, the subject is supposedly the Middle East, so why put up an article with exactly no relationship to the Middle East, that just happens to make Jews look bad by describing a non-Israeli Jew who is accused of a terrible crime (rape) that of course no gentile has ever committed.
Would Willie Horton be an appropriate topic of a blog about Kenya from an African-American perspective?
You were doing so well right up until the last paragraph. I guess anti-"Zionism" just spills out from the posters here like Tourette's syndrome.
I was much more impressed with when he said "this figment of their sick imagination looks like coming true" (direct quote this time, hope you like it).
He knew he couldn't get away with saying they were true then, but he wanted to bash Jews with a slander that most people would be familiar with, this was his solution. Since, he knew no one would take him seriously if he said this well known hoax was true when it was written, he put that in to bolster his credibility when he said they were true now. It was nothing but a pre-emptive defense against people who would inevitably point out that the protocols are a hoax, plagiarized from a book about Napoleon's government.
Since when? There have been innumerable posts on this site from one poster "quoting" Richard Witty that not only aren't what he said, but aren't paraphrases or any relation to anything he said. Including "quotes" that are posted in threads that Witty hasn't even posted in.
Posts that actually say "Richard Witty said", before the quote rather than being unattributed and posted in a way that makes it clear that it is a paraphrase rather than an actual quote. Essentially putting words in his mouth. I don't remember which poster does this, but he does it constantly. I see another of them, I'll reply to this post the let you know which one I am talking about.
Oh, wait you said "don't usually". Got it.
Unattributed quotes (without "X said") are a way to demonstrate that you are paraphrasing what was said, rather than making an independent statement.
It says that this site is really about Jews, not about Israel.
Wow, "the protocols are real".
Your posting of this article just speaks for itself.
There are several responses to my post expressing horror and disgust that anyone could think that these weren't settlers. What I don't see in any of the responses so far is any evidence that this group on this film are settlers.
The statement "everybody knows that some group does some crime" is not the same as evidence that a particular filmed instance of that crime was perpetrated by members of that group.
When someone breaks into your house, do you automatically assume it was a member of some group you dislike?
There have been incidents of settlers attacking Palestinians. All I am asking is for any evidence that this is one such incident and not something staged, perhaps with the justification that it's ok to fake evidence of a real phenomenon. Like when Barbara Lubin made up that "Sophie's Choice" atrocity a few years back. She and other Palestinian supporters justified the lie after the fact by saying that even though that atrocity story was a lie, it was ok to lie about it because stuff like it happens. One way to put it is that otherwise moral people are willing to fake evidence to "frame a guilty man".
LOL. That's what you're objecting to? That the Mavi Marmara guys didn't have rocks so they weren't armed? So, by you, if you have rocks you are armed, but not if you just have knives and clubs? Seriously, if you have a reasonable objection, make it, but don't play gotcha games.
Is there anything in that video (or any other evidence) that proves that the men were settlers and not Palestinians faking a settler attack for the cameras and the internationals?
Also, these were "unarmed" attackers. Remember that if you only have clubs, rocks, and knives you are "unarmed", just like the "unarmed" attackers on the Mavi Marmara.
In case anyone's sarcasm meter is busted, that was sarcasm. Armed with clubs and rocks is not "unarmed" whether it is settlers or Palestinians who are armed with the clubs and rocks. Please remember that the next time you want to describe the Mavi Marmara passengers as "unarmed".
Too many pronouns, not enough nouns in that post. Who is "we", who are "you nuts"?
Not everyone on here is a native speaker of English. Even those who are may not know what "ellipsis" are. This is particularly clear after Chaos4700 hilarious "gotcha" in which he called me out for misspelling "inept" when I had been correctly spelling "inapt". Then he didn't even have the good manners to apologize, just provided a personal insult.
I must admit, I could have left it at "dot-dot-dot" which everyone would understand, but I didn't want you to think that I didn't know what "ellipsis" meant.
No condescension meant, in that post.
I notice that there has been no substantive reply. So, since Mr. Slater isn't providing the original article, does anyone else here have a scan or a link so I can determine whether the quote is accurate and what is hiding under the ellipsis?
I went to your blog. The Abu Iyad quote is very encouraging. However, when I searched for phrases from the quote (to see what was hidden beneath the dot-dot-dot aka ellipsis), the only copies of those phrases on the net are from your article.
Please post on your blog a scan of the page in which the article appeared, so we can see it in context.
I consider your contention that (from your blog):
"Instead of recognizing such a “right,” the Accord stated that the refugee issue would be solved in accordance with a number of UN resolutions, the language of which is complicated, but which was understood by both the Israelis and the Palestinians to make any Palestinian return to Israel conditional upon Israeli consent."
...to be specious. I'm sure that's how it was understood by the Israelis. However, it is clear from reading the statements of Palestinian officials, and for that matter the posts of their supporters, that the Palestinian side considers the U.N. resolutions to demand an immediate, full, unconditional right of return, regardless of Israel's permission or the consequence to Israel of that return. That's the only way to get an accord. Say something that the Palestinians think gives them the ROR and that the Israelis think doesn't give them the ROR. Works really well, until implemenation time comes and both sides feel betrayed.
As for the wikileaks documents. Even if they were accurate descriptions of the negotiations, the Palestinian leaders didn't agree to anything. A transient term of a deal that was never made isn't an agreement, it's a negotiating point. They could easily have had that idea in the working file because Israel put it in and they were going to insist on removing it before the end of negotiations.
Tell you what. Here's what it would take to convince me. A (1) Palestinian leader (not his deputy), (2) up for election (3) announces to the Palestinian people, (4) publicly, (5) in Arabic that (6) he plans to negotiate a peace deal that will give up the right of return. The leader is then (7) elected and (8) not assassinated.
Anything less than that is too muddied by the pile of self-contradicting, self-serving lies like the ones you yourself described in your blog (from Arafat and others). They say "we'll give it up" to the West in English while saying "we'll never give it up" in Arabic to their people. Which is the lie? Unfortunately, they have said it so often to the people that the people internalized it. If they were lying to their own people, that lie has become the truth. They won't give it up.
Huh? I haven't posted in this thread before. If you think I am posting under multiple names, you are mistaken. Even if that is allowed here (which I doubt), I wouldn't bother.
BTW, love the further demonstration that the phrase "as a Jew" is 99.9% of the time followed or preceded by bashing Jews or Israel. It's like they want to establish their bona fides before the attack to make it that much more damaging to their people (whom they reject).
No, I don't think "The Jews control the world press" because I'm not a paranoid anti-Semite.
BTW, thanks for the link to the ICRC "official" explanation. Which is actually the Red Cross's explanatory commentary, and doesn't claim to be a legally binding "official" explanation. It makes exactly the point I made in other posts. 102a isn't violated and 102b is based on military necessity and amount of damage done to the civilians.
If the ICRC has legally binding authority, then why can't they get in to see Gilad Shalit, as required by the Geneva Conventions relating to prisoners of war?
BTW LOL at the UN HRC, with a majority being some of the worst human rights violators on the planet having authority to do anything beyond complaining.
Which might actually matter, if Israel were a signatory to the 1st additional protocol. Which it isn't. So it doesn't matter.
Wait, even if Israel were a signatory, it's not offers of "relief consignments" that would be the hostile act, it would be fighting the soldiers. Even in the section you cite goes against you: Parties (e.g., blockaders) "a) shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted;"
Which is lifted, almost word for word from San Remo paragraph 103(a):
"the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and"
Remember, if you are going to allow blockades at all (ever), which International law does, then you aren't going to require that any blockader just take someone's word that they aren't smuggling weapons or other contraband. It would make the whole blockade pointless if anyone could just waltz across with a smile and a "I'm a humanitarian ship".
This is a very good test of whether you are correctly interpreting an exception to a law. If the exception would nullify the entire reason for having the original rule, then you have probably misunderstood the exception.
It really isn't the end of the matter since neither the U.N. HRC, nor the ICRC has the authority to "declare" a blockade illegal. If by "declare" you mean "issue a legally binding determination". They have the authority to _say_ that they think it's illegal, but so do you. Just like I have the authority to _say_ that I think it is legal, but not the authority to "declare" it legal.
Whether it is actually legal boils down to whether "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade". (San Remo 102b).
Israel thinks it isn't, the Palestinians think it is, and there is no objective body to decide which is true.
It's not prosecutable in Israel. Just because it is legal to fight and capture an enemy soldier, does not mean you can prosecute him (unless he has committed war crimes). POWs aren't prosecuted, they are locked up until traded back or until hostilities have ended.
In the case of blockades, you can only make them POWs if they have committed certain specified acts. For passengers, that is that they personally committed acts of hostility against the captor (San Remo 166a). That would be the passengers who actually fight. For crew it is that and also those who commit a list of other acts, including breaching a blockade (San Remo 166c) if they are "breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;" (San Remo 67a).
I don't know whether "breaching a blockade" includes heading toward the blockaded port, passing into the declared enforcement area of the blockade, or just entering the specific waters of the blockaded place.
The countries from which they hail may have laws against their citizens committing an act of war against a neutral country. So it is theoretically possible they could be prosecuted in their home countries.
Your first paragraph has a better argument than previous posts here. To the extent that there is discrimination against Israeli-Arabs, it should be opposed. I note you said "historically" JNF land has been for Jews only. That matches what I read about Israeli Supreme Court banning that practice. Also, Israel's legislature rejected (did not pass) a law a few years ago that would have allowed villages or neighborhoods to prevent Arabs from moving in.
As to your second paragraph, you are mistaken. Israeli-Arabs are allowed to join the Israeli army. The only difference is that they are not drafted into the army (required to join). The Jews and the Druze are drafted. As far as I am aware, the benefits available to Israeli-Arab veterans are the same as the benefits available to Israeli-Jewish veterans.
"In this article, Gazit is referring to the West Bank when he speaks of an “apartheid regime.” All the foreigners living there are Jewish."
Still not Apartheid. Occupation, maybe. De facto annexation, maybe. Not apartheid since that requires that both groups be citizens, subject to different rules based on race. Not the case in the West Bank.
Want to call it a land-grab, I'm right there with you. Want to call it "theft", not so much, since I consider it spoils of war. Want to call it Israeli idiocy, lunacy, massive blunder? Heck, yes. Just because I think Israel has the right to keep taking land until the Palestinians agree to peace doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. Even if they are going to do it, for the love of Christ, what idiot thought that scattering them like sprinkled parmesan was a good idea. The Israelis should start evacuating the outlying settlements now. But I digress.
They are not citizens of Israel. Therefore they are foreign to the country of Israel. Hostility I think you'll grant me.
If a Russian citizen switches citizenship to the U.S., he becomes part of a foreign population relative to Russia.
It hasn't escaped my attention. It just isn't Apartheid. Apartheid is about what you do to your own citizens based on their race. Israel in the West Bank is reacting to people who aren't citizens of Israel. It isn't acting based on race (many if not most Israeli-Jews and all Israeli-Arabs are the same race as the Palestinians), but on the fact that the Palestinians are at war with Israel. Occupation isn't pretty, but it isn't Apartheid.
Very odd. There is no equal treatment because the Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. The Israeli-Arabs, about 20% of the Israeli population have equal legal rights with any other Israeli citizens. Calling the unequal treatment of citizens and a hostile foreign population "apartheid" renders the word meaningless. Is America practicing Apartheid because we don't give Iraqis and Afghans equal rights to American citizens?
Case in point, since IIRC I responded to this at the time, and you censored it.
The individuals who fight soldiers trying to capture a blockade runner have effectively joined the armed forces of the blockaded people. That's how the law works. Read the San Remo manual. It talks about citizens of neutral states being held as POWs.
When American citizens joined the Canadian army before the U.S. entered WWII, the Axis powers didn't have to let them go (when they were captured) just because they were American citizens. You join the enemy army, you are subject to the same POW rights as the enemy is, regardless of your citizenship.
ROFLMAO. OK, two problems with that. First, even if it were misspelled, it wouldn't be irony, since I wasn't criticizing anyone's spelling.
Second, if you are going to be smug, try to be right. "Inept" means unskilled or incompetent. "Inapt" means "not suitable ".
link to merriam-webster.com
Israel is one country, the West Bank and Gaza are not part of it. In Israel, citizens who are Jews, Israeli-Arabs, Druze, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Blacks, Whites, every citizen, has equal rights under the law.
Non-citizens in the West Bank and Gaza, do not have the same rights as Israelis for the same reason that Iraqis don't have the same rights in America as Americans.
The customary rules do not prohibit it. They explicitly allow it. See the San Remo Manual. No treaty to which Israel is a party prohibits it either.
A vessel is attempting to breach a blockade from the moment it leaves port with intent to enter the blockaded area. You aren't allowed to stop them until they are no longer in the waters of a neutral state. However, if you reasonably believe they intend to enter the blockaded area, you can stop them anywhere in the world other than the waters of a neutral state. You may not like it, but that's the law. Israel didn't have to wait until the ships approached Gaza, once they left Greek waters with a declared intent to breach the blockade, they were subject to capture.
Interesting. However, the 4th GC, section 59 itself says (in part):
"an adverse Party to the conflict shall, however, have the right to search the consignments, to regulate their passage according to prescribed times and routes, and to be reasonably satisfied through the Protecting Power that these consignments are to be used for the relief of the needy population"
Also, any parts of the 4th GC relating to occupied territory are inapplicable to Gaza, since Gaza is not occupied territory. Israel controls the borders, not the interior. The West Bank may be occupied territory, but Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.
Since there is no mass starvation in Gaza, the supplies are obviously getting through in a timely manner.
I put to you this question: If ships have the right to get through unsearched, just by claiming to be humanitarian aid, why even have any rules for a blockade? Why not just say "no blockades"?
To the moderator. If you are going to ban some of my posts, could you at least put up a "response posted but banned" or something. It is really dishonest of you to make it look like I don't have a response to the points made by other posters, just because you don't like the responses.
fred :
+fred+“OK paragraph 102(a), doesn’t even raise a speedbump since the purpose of the blockade is to keep out weapons. ”
+mig+ And same time has a affect to restrict food, construction etc materials to enter gaza strip. But im pretty confident that you find some explanation to that, how weapons flow restriction affects to other materials flow to gaza.
New-fred: which is irrelevant to 102(a), which says “sole purpose of starving or denying essentials”. 102(a) is really, really narrow. If you have any other purpose at all, then you don’t violate 102(a), even if _one_ of your purposes was starving the people (which it isn’t in this case).
+fred+ “102(b): getting closer. However, the damage to the civilian population _from the blockade_ is minimal since the ships that aren’t allowed through the blockade can go to Ashdod and send any humanitarian aid through there.”
+mig+ While same time Israel itself restricts humanitarian materials flow to gaza. But i guess you can easily find some explanation how Israel would allow some ( flotilla material ), to enter gaza while blocking material delivered by UN organs.
New-fred: As far as I know, Israel doesn’t stop shipments without a legitimate reason. Like a shipment of “sugar” to Gaza, labeled as being European union aid, that turned out to be chemicals (potassium nitrate) used in making explosives and rocket fuel. link to americanthinker.com
“Paragraph 103: Israel does provide for free passage of food and other objects essential for survival, subject to search and distribution by an impartial humanitarian organization. There is plenty of food in Gaza.”
++++ 54% of Gazans are food insecure and over 75% are aid dependent. So you read IDF spokesperson stories instead ?
New-fred: “Food insecure” is pretty meaningless. Basically, if you don’t have a job or money in the bank you are “food insecure” because the food aid that you get all the time theoretically could be cut off and you don’t have money to buy it yourself. It’s like calling an 18 year old who lives with his rich parents “food insecure” because they could throw him out and he has no job. The term is a shock tactic to imply a crisis where none exists.
The meaningful statistics are malnutrition (and starvation) rates compared to malnutrition rates of Egypt or other Middle Eastern Arab countries. Got any numbers on that?
+mig+ WHO has a little bit different view than IDF spokesperson/you.
New-fred: LOL. I wish I were an IDF spokesperson. Then I could get paid for this. As for your link to WHO, please don’t waste my time with links that don’t make your point. Nothing on that page said that Israel was keeping out shipments of medicine. They vaguely listed shortages of medicine among problems caused by the blockade _and the political divide between the West Bank and Gaza_. They are short because the Palestinians and their allies aren’t trying to ship in enough medicine, not because Israel blocks medicine.
+mig+ What they should “surrender” about ?
And what has hamas said lately about that charter ? IDF didnt pass that memo to you i see….
New-fred: They should agree to stop trying to destroy and/or take over Israel in exchange for the West Bank (with adjustments and trades to minimize disruption) and Gaza. So far, they are willing agree to a Palestinian State, just not to stop attacking the Jewish State. I don’t think they quite get that having a peace treaty means you have to stop attacking, not just that the Israelis have to stop attacking.
What Hamas has said about its charter is absolutely nothing that changes what’s in it. Let them amend their charter, or repudiate it in full and apologize for the whole “we will exterminate the Jews” bit. Oh, in Arabic, to their people. They tell different stories to different groups. Call me paranoid, but I’m going to assume they mean the one that they tell their people in Arabic, not the one they tell Western dupes in English.
That's an inapt analogy. The civil rights marches were about citizens who were denied the rights granted to other citizens in the same country based upon their race alone. Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus, she didn't blow it up.
The blockade of Gaza is about non-citizens (of Israel) in a quasi-state (Gaza) who elected a party that ran on a platform of war with Israel, being denied the rights granted to Israeli citizens, specifically the right to freely import non-essential goods.
I would be fascinated if you could come up with a case in history where two peoples were at war with each other, and members of one of them were granted equal rights by members of the other, during the war.
Oh, shoot. I forgot to mention. None of those paragraphs have anything to do with whether "international waters" make a difference legally speaking.
Excellent. Now you’re cooking. You’re wrong, but you’re thinking. I like that.
OK paragraph 102(a), doesn’t even raise a speedbump since the purpose of the blockade is to keep out weapons. Remember that it’s not the stopping of any individual ship that has to have “the sole purpose…” it’s the blockade itself. 102(b): getting closer. However, the damage to the civilian population _from the blockade_ is minimal since the ships that aren’t allowed through the blockade can go to Ashdod and send any humanitarian aid through there. And the military advantage to Israel is keeping huge shipments of heavy weapons that could hit half of Israel from Gaza out of the hands of people who have fired over 10,000 missiles at Israeli civilians since 2005.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Still, at least you are in the ballpark and we can contend over subjective issues of fact, rather than your side just getting the law wrong.
Paragraph 103: Israel does provide for free passage of food and other objects essential for survival, subject to search and distribution by an impartial humanitarian organization. There is plenty of food in Gaza. The only starvation (if any) is the result of inequitable distribution of food. Which is a problem in any Arab country, and for that matter, pretty much every non-Arab country. Gaza and the West Bank (considered as a though they were a country) have the 8th highest rate of obesity in men and the 3rd highest rate of obesity in women of any country in the world. Their men are obese at a rate almost as great as American men. Their women are obese at a rate greater than that of American women. Their life expectancy at birth (72) is about the same as that of Egypt (closest Arab country). Their literacy rates are higher than Egypt. Their infant mortality rate is lower. Their population growth rate (3.4%) is higher than Egypt’s (2.0%). The population of Gaza is better off than the population of Egypt, so it’s clear that nothing “essential for survival” is being kept out.
P.104: “subject to search”. Again. Sorry, but all these rights are contingent on Israel’s right to prescribe how it gets done. You can send any medical or humanitarian aid you want to Gaza, through Ashdod, after it has been searched. One of the flotilla's main characteristics is a refusal to be searched.
There is nothing in any of those paragraphs relating to exports. Only humanitarian goods brought in.
The rest of your stuff is a litany of cut and paste complaints about how life sucks for the Gazans. I’ll answer a couple specifically, but I’m not playing John Henry here, so a sum up at the end will have to do for the rest.
“Gazan businesses cannot access their traditional markets of Israel…” –above post
“German businesses cannot access their traditional markets of England…”-circa early 1940s
“Gazans remain isolated and cut off from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory. Movement via the Israeli Erez crossing is prohibited for almost all Gazans, despite promises to ease restrictions. The Egyptian Rafah Crossing remains limited to 500 people per day, with hundreds of Palestinians denied passage each week.”
To sum up your complaints, life sucks for the Gazans. Well, that’s what happens when you fire 10,000 missiles at someone that is vastly stronger than you militarily. Life is going to suck for you until you surrender. None of which makes the blockade illegal. What I find mindblowing: that Palestinian supporters think that Israel is obligated to make life rosy for people who are firing missiles at them and elected a group with a charter to exterminate all the Jews. The law says Israel can’t starve them to death, or otherwise exterminate them. It doesn’t say that Israel has to make life roses and rainbows for them.
BTW, legally speaking, Israel has an obligation to release the passengers (the video doesn't show the passengers attacking, so I'm assuming they surrendered peacefully). Israel can legally hold the crew as POWs for the duration of hostilities if they refused to stop after prior warning.
"166. Nationals of a neutral State ... (c) who are members of the crew of enemy or neutral merchant vessels or civil aircraft are to be released and may not be made prisoners of war unless the vessel or aircraft has committed an act covered by paragraphs 60, 63, 67 or 70, or the member of the crew has personally committed an act of hostility against the captor."
"67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;"
The fact that Israel is enforcing the blockade in international waters doesn't affect the legality of the blockade. That is a true statement whether this is a legal blockade or not. "International waters" doesn't matter under the law.
link to icrc.org
"146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they... (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade. Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication."
They were attempting to breach the blockade. That means Israel gets to capture them anywhere "outside of neutral waters". Keep reading before you respond.
Under the law, "neutral waters" has a specific meaning:
"14. Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States."
So if the blockade is legal (it is), it's legal to enforce in international waters. If it's illegal for other reasons (it isn't) then it is illegal to enforce anywhere. Either way, "international waters" is a non-issue, legally.
So making a fuss about "international waters" makes as much sense as making a fuss about the fact that the ship was painted a particular color when the Israelis stopped it, or that the crew and passengers were wearing hats when the Israelis stopped the ship.
Funny thing is that Israel doesn't have _an_ agenda. Like any democracy it has many competing agendas. Most people want peace, but when peace seems unlikely, it is hard for them to muster the political strength to stop the people that want to take the land.
They can make the argument "there will never be peace anyway, since they won't settle for less than all of our land, so why not take their land".
It's one reason why the peace process is something the Palestinians should participate in. The illusion that they might someday give up on trying to take all of Israel away from the Jews strengthens the factions in Israel who think that the settlements which didn't exist in 1967 are the reason for the lack of peace that has existed since at least the early 1900s. The retroactive causality theory.
Kidding aside, people whose first choice is unattainable often defer to someone else's first choice.
(Parable) in my family, three of us want to go to the steak place. The fourth wants seafood. The steak place is closed so we let the fourth person drag us along to seafood.
Actually, before the Israelis launched their air attack on Israel, Egypt blockaded the port of Eilat. Quite apart from their massing troops on the border, ordering the U.N. buffer troops out of the way, and declaring their intentions to destroy Israel. Blockading Eilat is an act of war (aka causus belli). Therefore, Egypt started the 6-day war.
If Mr Tutu has observed racially segregated roads, then he was imagining things. The closest that Israel comes to that are citizenship segregated roads. Roads that are open to Israeli citizens of all races and creeds, but closed to non-citizens (Palestinians) in response to the unfortunately common occurrence of Palestinians attacking Israelis on previously existing roads that were open to both Israelis and Palestinians.
I suppose that when you've spent your whole adult life fighting Apartheid, and you win, you are left with nothing to fight against. At that point, some people start trying to build a better society. Others go elsewhere to fight something that they mistake for apartheid. Like an immune system that beats a disease then goes on to attack healthy tissues once the disease is gone.
Lucky for the U.S. that Israel is there. Otherwise he'd be over here complaining about our anti-Mexican Apartheid.
Israeli-Arabs make up 20% of the population of Israel. Most Israelis probably have some contact with Israeli-Arabs. Palestinians OTOH, are not Israeli citizens, and are not allowed into Israel except with special permission. Most Israelis probably don't have contact with them. In a similar way that during the cold way, most Americans didn't have contact with Russian nationals, but at least a much larger fraction of Americans had contact with Americans of Russian ancestry.
The IDF should put in more patrols around the Palestinian areas adjacent to the settlements. Of course, that assumes that the Palestinians will let them patrol, and not attack the patrols. Settlers who attack Palestinians should be arrested.
Sorry, no. Humanitarian shipments are subject to search, just like everybody else (paragraph 47 and 48 San Remo, cited in detail in other posts here). Blockaders can stop ships in international waters (paras 146(f) and 14).
link to icrc.org
I mean seriously, how many people here can sit down, think about how a blockade works and honestly believe that you have to let anyone through, without searching, just because he says he's a humanitarian ship?
I agree with you in part about the reprisals. The problem with casual reprisals is that it is too easy to slide down a slope to massacres and slaughter. Suppose both sides initially follow the rules. No targeting civilians. Then someone on one side accidentally misses a military target and kills civilians. So the other side kills civilians in reprisal for what they think was a deliberate attack, then the first side (which considers the "reprisal" to have been unjustified since they never targeted civilians) reprises back, etc.
Of course, if you never have reprisals under any circumstance, then there is no incentive for the enemy to play by the rules. Which gives an advantage to immoral factions. The best solution I can think of is the "tit for tat" solution in game theory. You operate under the "no reprisals" rule until it is clear that the enemy is violating the "no targeting civilians" rule. Then after repeated warnings to the other side that the gloves are coming off, you switch to reprisals until they say they will stop targeting civilians if you will. Then you switch back to "no reprisals" for long enough to see if they are keeping their word. Then repeat, warnings for a while then reprisals.
In practice, if the enemy is the type to target civilians in the first place, you never have to pick a civilian target for reprisals because the enemy doesn't care about their own civilians either, so you can just bomb the military targets they put in civilian areas. Ratchet up the rheostat on what constitutes "acceptable civilian casualties" to kill a high-level terrorist, that sort of thing.
Also, show me one instance where the U.S. knowingly targeted a civilian wedding in the last 10 years of warfare. There have been a few mistaken attacks, but none deliberately targeting civilians.
I'll take a bet that among the announced "reprisals" by the IDF you "lost track of", you can't find many (if any) reprisals against civilians. You will find plenty against Hamas targets and other terror group targets. You will undoubtedly find some that killed civilians, but either few or none that went after purely civilian targets.
Lets find out; see if you can find any. Checklist. 1) Announced as a "reprisal" by IDS. 2) No military target (military targets include identified terrorists and identified members of terrorist organizations). Let's limit it to the last 25 years, that is, in this generation. That covers the first intifada, also Oslo and all the time since.
Let's make it interesting. For every one you find that matches those, I'll try to find 5 attacks by Palestinians purely targeted at civilians.
Actually it doesn't. It says that certain vessels aren't subject to "attack". However, "attack" doesn't mean boarding, it means firing on the ship itself. Also ships transporting humanitarian supplies are only exempt when they have been granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties.
link to icrc.org
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including: ...(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
Now passenger vessels that are carrying civilian passengers only are exempt from attack (but not capture), even without such an agreement. Even then any of the ships exempt from attack lose that exemption unless they "48....(b) submit to identification and inspection when required".
No vessel is allowed to go through a blockade based on the unverified word of the people on the vessel.
Which makes perfect sense if you think about it for a minute. As explained by Gilbert and Sullivan:
"You make a point of never [attacking] an orphan"
"Of course, we are orphans ourselves and know what it is [to be an orphan]."
"Yes, but it has got about and what is the consequence? Everyone we capture _says_ he's an orphan, and so we have to let them go. One would think that Great Britain's mercantile navy was recruited solely from her orphan asylums – which we know is not the case" - The Pirates of Penzance.
No system that relied on taking the unverified word of a possible enemy would work. Funny how people never think about whether their interpretation of the system they think Israel is violating is unworkable. I guess it's because they want to interpret it so that Israel has broken some arbitrary rule of a game, rather than interpret it in a way that actually functions, since they don't expect to ever hold anybody other than Israel to the standards they want to hold Israel to. Try this exercise: if the exception you are thinking of defeats the whole purpose of having a rule (e.g., the purpose of having rules for a blockade), your exception probably doesn't actually exist in the law.
If the rockets were aimed at military targets in Israel, rather than civilian targets, they would be legitimate acts of war, even if they sometimes missed their targets and hit civilians. So long as the military advantage to the Palestinians outweighed the risk to civilians.
Israel as a matter of policy does not target civilians. Civilians are sometimes killed, as in any war, when an attack on a military target misses, or when the civilian is unavoidably close to the military target.
On the rare occasions that an Israeli soldier disregards that policy, and targets someone he believes to be a civilian, that is a war crime. Just as all the rockets Hamas targets at Israeli civilian areas are war crimes.
"Acts of defense" in a war is a vague and not very useful term.
Iraq isn't landlocked. A bit of it snakes around Kuwait and reaches a body of water that connects to the Arabian Sea.
Oh, as to that second link. Very impressive. Except that as the passenger speaking on the video says, it's paint, not blood.
Couple of problems with that. He didn't write the law. He was part of a committee that wrote the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea. A treaty which neither Israel, nor Turkey are party to (and neither are bound by).
He also made an unwarranted definitional change. Basically, he's playing semantic games. The San Remo Manual, the applicable law here, is the law for armed conflicts, which this is. No formal declaration of war from either party is required. Even if actual "war" was required, 10,000 missiles fired at Israel by Hamas qualifies. Oh, and if you want to quibble over "at sea", attempts to bring in weapons by sea count (see Cuban Missile crisis). Mr. Murray isn't actually analyzing the law, just trying to twist it against Israel.
link to icrc.org
As for the status of the attacking passengers those:
"(a) who are passengers on board enemy or neutral vessels or aireraft are to be released and may not be made prisoners of war unless they are members of the enemy's armed forces or have personally committed acts of hostility against the captor;"
Note the "personally committed acts of hostility against the captor". So, if you fight, you're a POW when captured.
"146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:... (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade."
I'm afraid that the idea that "international waters" is a bar to enforcing a blockade is just a misunderstanding about what is meant in the law by "neutral waters".
Paragraph 14 describes that "neutral waters" are the territorial waters of a neutral state. International waters aren't "neutral waters".
As for the straw man argument about pleasure craft. The craft would have to be reasonably believed to be breaching or attempting to breach a blockade, _and_ refuse to divert, _and_ refuse to be searched, _and_ the passengers would have to attack (or pull a gun) the Israelis before they could be shot at. The dead men on the Mavi Marmara did all of that. The ship was reasonably believed to be attempting to breach a blockade (their stated goal). Israel asked them to divert, they refused. Israel asked them to submit to search, they refused. They then stabbed and bludgeoned the Israelis who boarded (resisted capture).
Interesting point. If the buses contained primarily active members of the IDF, then the military advantage to the Palestinians might outweigh the civilian damage to Israel. However, the Palestinians typically go for maximum civilian casualties, while eschewing military targets.
Blow up a soldier in a barracks, that's military (Lebanon marine barracks was a legitimate military target). Capture a soldier on active duty, that's legitimate military target (Gilad Shalit was captured, not kidnapped) Blow up a reservist in a pizza parlor, that's civilian.
Of course, the way they are holding him without letting the Red Cross visit is a war crime. As is the sending of people who are not identifiable as soldiers to attack military targets.
Unfortunately for your argument about the ships: Under international law any civilian ship that attempts to run a blockade (refuses to be searched) can legitimately be boarded and captured, in an act of war against the blockaded party. Declaring an intention to visit the blockaded port, or otherwise demonstrating that intention makes the demand to divert or be searched legitimate. Also, enforcing the blockade in international waters is entirely within the law. The only place you can't enforce it is in the territorial waters of a neutral country. Without violating international law, they could have stopped the Mavi Marmara as soon as it left the territorial waters of Turkey. Of course, that's unusual, since most blockade runners are identified by the fact they are headed for the blockade, not by them saying they are going to run it. Also it's a hassle to patrol the whole world (outside other countries' territorial waters) when they are coming to a known location.
That's nice. Please turn yourself in to the police. Oh, and if you picked them up first or moved them, remember that you are turning yourself in for _larceny_ not vandalism.
Thank you for being honest about your intentions. I wish more anti-Israelis were that honest. Most of them pretend (or mistakenly believe) that the "occupation" the Palestinians are trying to end is the occupation of the West Bank and the "occupation" of Gaza. Very few admit that by "occupation" they mean the existence of Israel.
Why does America hate democracy? We don't let Mexicans or Canadians vote in our elections. Or Iraqis, or Afghans.
Democracy means citizens vote. It doesn't mean you don't get to pick who gets to be citizens.
If the Arab citizens outnumbered the Jewish ones, it would be Israel in name only. Rapidly followed by a name change, and another holocaust. You can't have a viable democracy when 51% of the country wants to exterminate the other 49%.
I don't think you understand the right of return. It isn't a right of return to a Palestinian state. It means a Palestinian State for the Palestinians, and the Palestinians also get Israel. Redrawing the borders does not good because the RoR means they get to move into whatever borders are left to "Israel".
Aside: I find the idea of giving chunks of Israel to Palestine in order to "de-citizenize" Arabs living there to be disturbing. They are citizens of Israel, you can't just dump them into another country without their permission. I don't think they want to go, but I could be wrong. If there were a referendum and a majority of people in those areas endorsed the plan, and those who wanted to stay Israelis could move into what is still Israel, that would be OK.
As to the stickers. The stickers damage the packaging. You can't see the labels with the stickers in the way. Also, look closely, they have a shot with an entire row of cheese packages on the shelf with stickers on them. See about 55 seconds into the Trader Joe's video.
They didn't buy any of them. What would be the point of that? That's the opposite of what they want. If you buy a shopping cart full of the item you are trying to boycott, you are doing it wrong. They want to have no one buy them. That works out poorly when they just protest outside (Montreal liquor store sold out of Israeli products in about 2 hours when BDS advocates picketed it). I don't know what happened to the defaced items in the Trader Joe's.
As to the British one, the reason you didn't see them pay for the goods is that they didn't pay for the goods. The video doesn't explicitly say so, but the news reports of the incident make it clear. They took the goods without paying, dumped them on the ground outside the store, and poured ketchup on them. They were arrested for theft (let off by a judge who didn't understand that taking something that doesn't belong to you with plans to destroy it is theft. Nothing in the definition of larceny says you have to plan to keep it, just to permanently deprive the owner of it).
Actually, according to the law as it now stands, the dead men from the Mavi Marmara had a legal status about the same as soldiers. When passengers on a blockade runner attack soldiers trying to capture the ship, they (the passengers) are treated as combatants (e.g., potentially lethal force can be met with lethal force) until they surrender or are subdued, then they become POWs. The crew get POW status whether they attack or not.
Their killers are "soldiers on the other side of the war".
I'm sorry if your upbringing didn't teach you this, but there is a world of difference between refusing to obey an unjust law and throwing all laws out the window. Rev. MLK, Jr. broke laws against demonstrations. He didn't use those laws as an excuse to destroy property, commit sabotage, or murder people, as you advocate (breaking all Israeli laws includes the laws against murder).
War is not an end in itself. The point of it is to get a better peace. That can't happen if you behave so vilely and untrustworthy (blowing up schoolbuses, sending people with medical passes to suicide bomb the hospitals whose doctors previously saved their lives, etc.) that peace can't take hold, or can't last because of memories of the last round of atrocities (looking at you Serbia and Bosnia).
Yes, and people regularly called the WTC terrorists "terrorists" as well. Just because some people use the term wrong, doesn't mean that everyone uses it wrong.
Attacking an enemy military target makes you a freedom fighter. Attacking civilian targets makes you a terrorist.
BTW nmi, I love that you just compared French resistance fighters in occupied France, who would be shot if they got caught, with self-righteous vandals putting stickers on Israeli products in Trader Joe's in California.
Thank you for your honesty. If not your math skills.
Excuse me, I said the founders of the BDS movement were out to destroy Israel. Or at any rate want to keep the boycott going until Israel is destroyed. Many of the proponents of BDS do not realize that this is the goal.
However, note:
link to bdsmovement.net
"3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194."
By which of course, the Palestinians mean that every descendant of the Arabs who left Israel (voluntarily or involuntarily) in the 1948 war, and subsequently, gets to move back to Israel, take the property away from the people who now own it, and vote Israel out of existence.
The Israelis are never going to agree to that. It would be suicide, nationally and individually.
Boycotts are supposed to be about getting someone to change their behavior. If the behavior of theirs that you are trying to get them to change is "continuing to exist", then the boycott isn't about bringing about a peaceful resolution, it is just about economically damaging a country for the rest of its existence. Which is fine. Nothing wrong with that, but at least realize that that is what you are doing. You're not trying to get Israel to change, just to hurt it until it dies (though not necessarily trying to cause it to die).
If you want to debate the ethics of a particular boycott, you have to say which boycott, because there isn't one boycott here, there are many overlapping ones. The one that wants Israel to stop building in the WB. The one that wants them to evacuate the WB, the one that wants them to evacuate the WB, unblockade Gaza, and give the Palestinians the RoR. Compounded with what you are boycotting, all of Israel, stuff made in the settlements. Stuff made in Israel or elsewhere outside the WB and the settlements, stuff made by companies that make some stuff in the settlements, stuff made by companies that support the settlements, etc.
So you tell me which one of those boycotts you support, (what you are boycotting and what you want Israel to do to get rid of the boycott) and then we can talk about the ethics of it. Although actually, as long as you are honest about which one you are trying to get people to support, don't make unrealistic statements about the effect it might have, such as "this can convince Israel to give the RoR", and stick to talking, rather than "deshelving" or other euphemisms for theft and vandalism, I don't have any moral problem with any of them.
If Israeli goods were pure shit, then there would be no need for a boycott. A boycott is a statement that "we won't buy these goods that we otherwise would buy". You can't boycott something that you wouldn't have bought anyway.
Jews also died in many parts of the world during the Holocaust. Even America sent Jewish refugees back to Europe to be murdered by the Nazis. After the Arabs failed to destroy Israel in 1948. They turned on their local Jews, who fled to Israel.
Also it is inaccurate to say that the Arabs owned a majority of the land. Most of the land was state land, not privately owned. It passed to the government of Israel when Israel was founded. The maps that you are citing simply assume that all land that wasn't privately owned by Jews was owned by Arabs. Which was not the case.
How so? By the influx of Palestinians in numbers exceeding the Jewish margin of majority in Israel.
This one from America, damaging the packaging then putting them back on the shelves:
link to youtube.com
Found this one from England, stealing goods, dumping them on the ground outside the store, then pouring what looks to be ketchup on them.
link to youtube.com
I couldn't find the French one I was thinking of. I amounted to a riot in a grocery store. All that comes up when I search is one with a horde of greenshirts taking stuff off of shelves. But it didn't show whether they stole the items or just left them to rot all over the store.
I think this law is a vast overreaction to at most a minor threat.
I can see why they consider it a threat though. Since at least the Palestinian originators of the BDS movement intend it to continue unless Israel gives them the Right of Return. Which would mean the end of Israel as a haven for Jews and its replacement with another majority Arab country. In general, Jews have not done well in majority Arab countries in the last century or so. So even if you disagree with them, you should understand why they are afraid of it.
So from their point of view, the message of BDS is "boycott Israel until it is destroyed".
Some of them see the idea of letting people in Israel call for BDS as akin to this:
link to theonion.com
BTW, how do people here feel about the vandalism in France and America where BDS proponents went into stores and damaged or destroyed Israeli products? Do you guys consider that a legitimate tactic, or something to be condemned?
Not even the actions of "their country". The actions of a country with about an 80% Jewish population that isn't the country of the Jews being attacked in Europe, Turkey, the U.S., etc. It would be like attacking Americans of Iranian ancestry for what Iran does or Americans of Afghanistan origin for what Afghanistan did. Attacks on Arabs (and Sikhs mistaken for Arabs, etc.) have happened in the U.S.. But no one other than a few raving lunatic white supremacists try to justify the attacks on Arab-Americans based on "what the Arabs did". That justification is insane. Heck, we just executed someone for that kind of attack.
Is it more, less, or equally insane to blame all Arabs/Muslims in America for what a few Muslim-Arabs did in America (9/11 attacks, etc.) or to blame all Jews in America (Europe, etc.) for what Jews in Israel do in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza (not in America, that is).
Unfortunately, the modern Antisemitism movement does try to justify attacks on Jews based on "what the Jews (in Israel) did". See "American's" post above.
"The notion that a European nation is going to kill it’s Jewish citizens is idiotic", said the German in 1911.
It seems somewhat unlikely now. It seemed even more unlikely in 1911. So what were they doing in 1941-1945? What will they be doing in 2041-2045?
link to state.gov
"Anti-Semitism in Europe increased significantly in recent years. ...Beginning in 2000, verbal attacks directed against Jews increased while incidents of vandalism (e.g. graffiti, fire bombings of Jewish schools, desecration of synagogues and cemeteries) surged. Physical assaults including beatings, stabbings and other violence against Jews in Europe increased markedly, in a number of cases resulting in serious injury and even death. Also troubling is a bias that spills over into anti-Semitism in some of the left-of-center press and among some intellectuals."
As for Islamophobia. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are far more anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. than anti-Islamic incidents.
link to www2.fbi.gov
"Religious bias
Law enforcement agencies reported 1,376 hate crimes motivated by religious bias. A breakdown of biases for these offenses showed:
70.1 percent were anti-Jewish.
9.3 percent were anti-Islamic.
8.6 percent were anti-other religion.
4.4 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
4.0 percent were anti-Catholic.
2.9 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.7 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. (Based on Table 1.)"
If you have reputable statistics on hate-crimes in Europe, broken out by religion, post them.
If Mr. Blumenthal, or anyone else, thinks that another Holocaust is "far-fetched". I can only conclude that he hasn't been paying attention. There have been multiple genocides since the end of WWII and the world either ignores them or uses weasel words to call them "acts of genocide" instead of "genocide" because we (the U.S.) have a legal obligation to prevent "genocide" but not "acts of genocide".
It is particularly hilarious for him to be saying it in Turkey. Home of "what Armenian genocide? I didn't see no Armenian genocide?". Given the rising anti-Semitism in Europe, it wouldn't surprise me if there were another Holocaust of the remaining Jews there in 30 years or so. Remember that 30 years before the first Holocaust started in earnest, there were no mass murders of Jews, and few incidents of attacks in Europe. There was only vast underlying hatred waiting for bad economic times and a leadership willing to blame the economy on the Jews to focus it into mass murder.
Sounds good. If that is the complete passenger list then this will probably happen relatively peacefully. You get to make your message and for years you can show people photos of you being carted off in handcuffs, Israel gets to maintain its security, and any humanitarian goods go to the people of Gaza, adding a small percent to the amount that Israel already sends in on its own every week. It's win-win-win.
Even better, if you don't fight, they _have to_ let you go (after brief detention and deportation proceedings) rather than imprisoning you as POWs. Well, they have to let the passengers go, they don't have to let the crew go, though they probably will let the crew go anyway, like last time.
Heck, Israel will probably even give you your ship back, rather than confiscating it as blockaders have the right to do with blockade runners' ships.
Of course, if that list left off passengers from IHH or other groups planning to attack Israeli soldiers when they come to capture the ship, then it will probably not end well. So please, for everyone's sakes, surrender peacefully.
The statistics are interesting, but not terribly helpful. They don't tell us whether the high conviction rate is because they don't bother charging when they don't have solid evidence, or because the judges will convict without solid evidence.
Most prosecutor in America have conviction rates in the 90% or higher range, because they are the ones who have the option to no bring a case when they don't think they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Israel really out to re-think that "under 14 no prison" law (assuming that was an accurate description). Over here we have a juvie justice system and can lock up criminal kids. What do they do when someone commits murder the day before his 14th birthday? Say: "bad boy, now go and play"?
Never try to argue against a conspiracy theorist with mere facts. The reason they believe in the conspiracy theory in the first place is that the non-conspiracy explanation is "impossible" to them. So they follow the Sherlock Holmes logic "when you rule out the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the solution."
Since it is "impossible" for a plane to just blow up and crash unless it was deliberately attacked, obviously this sub must have been specially fitted with a prototype surface to air missile that accidentally brought the plane down. See how easy it is to dispose of ugly facts?
Also, since it is "impossible" (read, unacceptable) to think that 10 guys with boxcutters could commit destruction on the scale of the WTC attacks on 9/11, it must be a giant conspiracy. Facts be damned. The human mind can always rationalize around any inconvenient facts.
Conspiracy theories aren't about stupidity, they are about absolute stark terror of living in a world where that can happen (whatever "that" is). The JFK conspiracy theorists can't face living in a world where one nutjob can kill the President of the U.S. The birthers can't face living in a world where a black man and/or a liberal(ish) democrat is president. The USS Liberty conspiracy theorists come in two flavors, the ones who can't stand the thought of living in a world where they aren't safe from an ally accidentally fragging them, and the ones who can't stand the thought that Jews (and/or Israelis) aren't evil. The Liberty conspiracy theorists are a hopped up version of the guy that absolutely can't believe that you accidentally bumped into him in a crowded bar. That's why no amount of evidence can convince a conspiracy theorist that he is wrong. The theory is built to get around a mental roadblock that would otherwise prevent the world from making any sense. Any evidence you provide them just means a more elaborate detour around the roadblock.
Two points. Not sure about this, but I read that it was other settlers rather than the actual soldiers who rushed the car (could be wrong on that).
Second, sorry, you missed out the "roll reversal" part. The question is, if an Israeli stabbed a Palestinian woman in the throat, was shot by a Palestinian security guard, then attacked Hamas soldiers, got shot in the leg by the Hamas soldiers, then her Palestinian husband started to repeatedly run him over, what would armed Hamas soldiers have done?
I think they probably would have either let the Palestinian husband keep running over the Israeli terrorist, or finished him off themselves. Then thrown a parade for the husband rather than indicting him for attempted murder (plea bargained down to ag assault).
The measure of one's humanity isn't "what do you do when one of theirs is attacking a (at that point) non-threatening one of yours". Because whether you are civilized or barbarians you shoot him.
It's "what do you do when one of yours is attacking a (at that point) non-threatening one of theirs". If the answer is "help the attacker", you failed (not counting state sanctioned executions after fair trials, like when they executed Eichman). If the answer is "stop the attacker" you passed.
Also what do you do with the guy after the attack is over? Has Hamas ever prosecuted a Palestinian for trying to kill an Israeli? Has Fatah? Not rhetorical, I don't know the answer. Anyone here know it?
So, it is U.S. policy that black men should murder their wives and waiters? Not just can, but should. Or is it just black professional athletes? Black professional athletes who later took up acting? Or could it be that the fact that murderers (like OJ Simpson) are sometimes found not guilty reflects an imperfect system of courts rather than actual government policy?
Or maybe they were prepared to give this $#@& the benefit of the doubt (which they shouldn't have) because Palestinians have used children that young to carry bombs in their backpacks. Or because they believed that he believed her to be a threat. I don't believe that he believed that, but they might have.
Also, if anything, the "policy" here would be "assume anyone in the 'no man's' zone is there to plant bombs or otherwise attack". One of the hazards of using child soldiers in civilian clothing is that the other side is liable to mistake your child non-soldiers in civilian clothing for your child soldiers in civilian clothing, particularly in places where everyone is forbidden to go.
In any case, best example I've seen here. First one I would describe as a clear case of murder.
Ok, that's it. Too many ridiculous comparisons of Israel to rapists. I'm not bothering with you anymore. You are too far from reality to be worth my time to read your posts. Back in the oldendays of usenet, we had these nifty things called "killfiles" that would let us automatically block posts from trolls and other people who weren't worth bothering with. I'm going to have to ignore you the hard way, by just skipping your posts. Pity.
Uh, no. He stabbed her in the throat. And stabbed the store owner in the back of the head. He was armed with an axe as well as the knife.
link to vosizneias.com
If you are stabbing someone in the throat. You are trying to murder them. There is no such thing as "just a friendly stabbing in the throat" or "just a harmless little throat stabbing".
If the wounds are light, after you stab someone in the throat, that is because you were unsuccessful at trying to murder them, not for lack of trying. After getting shot by the gas station security guard, the terrorist ran down the road, then tried to attack some soldiers with the knife, yelling "Allahu Akbar". I really wish these terrorists would stop blaming God for their actions.
Christ, I'm not surprised the Israeli lost it. Apparently in the last two years he lost 2 of his 3 children. One killed in a truck accident, the other to suicide. Then this murderous terrorist tries to kill his wife.
link to translate.google.com
Still, one of the things I admire about Israel is that they indicted the driver for attempted murder rather than throwing him a parade or naming a school after him. Come to think of it, there is no such crime as attempted manslaughter (in the US at least, not sure about Israel).
I was wrong about one thing though, it wasn't right in front of the guy. He got there after the attack.
The video may be "rather infamous", but I never saw it before you posted it.
There were at least two pathologists involved at the autopsy. The one conducting it, who ruled out a rubber bullet because the size of the injury was too big to be caused by a rubber bullet (too big a radius I guess, rather than too much damage), but did not rule out a stun grenade blast or a thrown rock. And a pathologist paid by the girl's family, who observed the autopsy and said that a rubber bullet was more likely, but that a thrown stone was possible.
link to independent.co.uk
BTW, counterpunch? Wouldn't David Duke, or a KKK website be a more objective source of news about Israel?
No, she had a wound that did not penetrate her head. Nothing tore the back of her head off. The autopsy ruled out rubber bullets. Though it didn't rule out a blast from a stun-grenade or a thrown rock as the cause of her injuries.
What I find fascinating about your citation is that the line "bullet tore the back of her head off" links to an article on the same website (don't know if it was by the same author) and that article says it was a stun grenade, and doesn't say anything about anything tearing the back of her head off. How reliable is a reporter who puts links in his articles to other articles that contradict the text used for the link itself?
Impressive prose, though, "murdered by the vile Israeli border police". I'm not sure I could come up with a more loaded phrase if I tried.
I'm not sure how to put it more clearly. When I say the ones who died while attacking Israel, I mean the ones who were, at the time of the injuries that caused their deaths, performing an attack on Israel. Planting bombs, shooting at Israelis, trying to get past a checkpoint while carrying a bomb. That sort of thing.
I think 500 lb and 1000 lb bombs are more building size than city block size actually.
The Palestinians who died because Israel wouldn't let them in for treatment (unless Israel was the cause of their needing treatment) died from their ailments, they were not killed by Israel. If a hospital refuses to perform a transplant on you for free, that's not murder, even if you die as a result. Israel is under no obligation to let Palestinians into Israel for medical treatment. Should we count every Israeli child who died from disease or injury unrelated to Palestinians as having been killed by Palestinians because the Palestinians don't provide them with medical care? Your rape analogy is not even a straw man, it is a complete non-sequitur.
I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to claim 500 as actual numbers. It was a hypothetical example. I thought that was clear from context.
As for why you shouldn't try to deceive by using misleading descriptions. I am concerned that ignorant people will think that your deceptive descriptions are real. Contrariwise, you should be concerned about what people will think when they find out that you have mislead them. I say "mislead" rather than "lied to" because the statistics you quote are technically true, but deliberately create a false impression in the listener.
I didn't say Israel, or rather individual Israelis, have never murdered any Palestinians. Quite the contrary. I will positively state that some Israelis have murdered Palestinians. I merely contend that Israel doesn't have a policy of murdering Palestinians. Whereas Hamas, and other Palestinian terrorist groups do have a policy of murdering Israelis. Not merely killing them in military actions, but murder.
As I said, I would like to know how many of the cited 1463 deaths of "children" can be fairly classified as murder, as opposed to crossfire casualties in fighting, child soldiers killed while attacking, etc.
Here's a handy test for whether it is murder. If Palestinians killed Israelis under the same circumstances, would you call that murder? I would call an Israeli suicide bombing of a Palestinian civilian target murder (assuming people died, of course, not counting the suicide bomber).
I'd also like to know how many of the cited 124 Israeli "children" killed were not murdered. Same test. If it was a Palestinian killed under those circumstances, would you call it murder?
Roll reversal when deciding these things is a great way to try to eliminate bias in your own intellectual positions. Of course, it only works if you can set aside the knowledge that it is your favored side you are judging, not your disfavored side.
When did what last happen? An Israeli pulled out of his vehicle and beaten by a Palestinian mob?
About 3 weeks ago, assuming there hasn't been another incident like that since.
link to jpost.com
That was just for being a Jew driving in Issawiya (in East Jerusalem).
Being pulled out of a vehicle and beaten happens in bad neighborhoods in America (carjackings, Reginald Denny beating). It can certainly happen in Israel. I don't keep records of specific incidents though.
Jew murdered in a riot after a gentile was accidentally killed by a car driven by a Jew? It has happened in America:
link to en.wikipedia.org
And in London, a Jew pulled out of car and beaten:
link to antisemitism.org.il
As for Israelis murdered by Palestinian mobs.
link to en.wikipedia.org
That's in about 5 minutes googling.
Are you that intellectually dishonest that you can't admit that a Jew who is attacked by multiple Palestinian assailants immediately upon rounding a corner in his car has a legitimate fear for his life and the life of his passenger (son) if he places himself at the mercy of those same assailants after hitting one with his car (albeit accidentally)?
Also, we're talking about two different videos. The "surrounded by a mob" video he didn't reverse over the kid. He just drove away from the mob.
In the video where an Israeli reversed over a Palestinian, it was because the Palestinian had just stabbed/tried to kill the Israeli's wife. If the Palestinian from that one died, I would say voluntary manslaughter charges would be appropriate (well, under American law, I don't know the equivalent Israeli law).
As for the settlements. That's an appropriate subject for peace talks to deal with, not for attacks on civilians.
Assuming they are Israelis, and that the ones who are throwing unidentified objects at unidentified targets are throwing hard heavy objects at people, I would call them members of an attacking mob of Israelis. If an adult Palestinian accidentally hit one of the attackers and was in danger of being pulled out of the car and beaten to death if he stopped I certainly would say it disqualified the video as an example of Palestinian aggression. As I said, much of the outrage here would not be generated if anyone were willing to give an Israeli the benefit of the doubt. Israelis are human, and humans are fallible, quite capable of swerving to avoid hitting one person and accidentally hitting another. I don't automatically assume that every injury caused by a human was intended.
There are real examples of aggression from both sides, neither side needs to play up incidents which only look like aggression (by the side they are trying to depict as aggressive) if you don't look at the context. If I was trying to show aggression by the Palestinians, I would point to any number of suicide bombings against civilian targets and other terrorist attacks against civilian targets. If I was trying to show aggression by Israelis, I would show the video you just showed, or point to the Hebron massacre (the one by the settler in 1994, not the one by the Arabs against the Jews in 1929).
I am speaking of people who are neutral or who are biased in favor of Israel.
I am not sure what you mean by "deflect from the pain".
Your video is a much more cogent example in that innocent people were killed and injured. However, there are still mitigating factors in the video you posted. The deaths were probably caused by previously fired (before the family got there) unexploded ordinance in the sand. Which were fired at Palestinians who (unlike the family in the video) use the area as a location from which to fire at Israelis, not as a recreation area. The shelling from Israel near the time of the explosion was aimed at Qassam rocket launchers 250 yards away.
When innocents are caught in a crossfire it is a tragedy. It is also typical of armed conflict. Not a single war in history has been fought without civilian deaths on both sides. If "no civilians can be killed in the crossfire" were the standard for judging a society, then the American Civil War couldn't have been fought and England would have had to surrender to the Germans in WWII, or be evil killers of German civilians.
To me, the important point is whether a people at war try to minimize civilian casualties, or to target civilians. Which seems to be a pretty common factor in the way people process deaths and injuries when they happen to people other than themselves and their friends and families. We feel outrage for the murder of innocent people. Less outrage, but still some, over the reckless deaths of innocent people. Still less over negligent deaths. Still less over purely accidental deaths. Still less over the accidental deaths or injuries of people we perceive as being responsible for their own injuries. More people would be outraged by a lawsuit by a burglar who falls through a skylight and ends up paralyzed than by the burglar ending up paralyzed.
One thing guaranteed to outrage people is being told that a death was murder, then finding out they were deceived.
Interesting chart. Also interesting to read the list of actual names and circumstances of deaths. I read all the Israeli deaths from 2000-2002, looking for a single one that wasn't flat our deliberate murder. Didn't find one. Too depressing to read 2003-2011.
I read a lot of the Palestinian death notices for the same period. Take out the ones who were killed while attacking Israelis, or accidentally killed in a military action that didn't target them specifically (missed the target or they were too close to the target), and I am not sure the remainder is more than the number of Israeli children deliberately murdered by Palestinians.
Also, "died because Israel wouldn't let her in for medical treatment" shouldn't count. Israel can choose to let people into the country for medical treatment, but it isn't obligated to do so, anymore than Canada or the U.S. is. Look up Wafa Biss if you want to know why Israel is wary of Palestinians seeking medical treatment in Israel.
The problem is that the charts are sort of using two different definitions of "children". One, in the sense of "anyone under 18", when you are counting deaths. The other in the sense of "innocent non-combatants", when you are trying to build outrage against Israel. A 17 year old Hamas attempted suicide bomber fits under the "under 18" definition, but if Israel killed 500 of them how much outrage would you get saying "Israel killed 500 17-year old attempted suicide bombers"? OTOH, how much outrage would you get (same circumstances) saying "Israel killed 500 Palestinian children".
In short, please don't inflate the number of children (innocent non-combatants) killed by mixing in terrorists who happened to be under 18.
You really need to find more pure examples. Two copies of a video in which a member of an attacking mob of Palestinians was hit, and Eva's video in which a driver was running over a guy who had just stabbed the driver's wife right in front of him. Surely you can find unambiguous videos, where there was no fault on the part of the Palestinians. Where they weren't trying to breech a military barrier, or attack someone when or just before they were hit, or shot, etc. by the Israeli.
These videos generate outrage here, where most people are inclined to believe the worst of Israelis (no benefit of the doubt) and forgive anything the Palestinians did. They don't generate much outrage among people who are informed of the facts and not pre-disposed against Israel.
Would you under those circumstances? A mob out for your blood that had already attacked you and could easily overpower and kill you if you stopped?
A man comes around a blind corner down a hill, gets attacked by a mob throwing stones. He swerves to avoid hitting one (carefully edited out of the beginning of the swerve, but you can see the shirtless boy standing in the road on the left when the camera pans that way a second later), and runs right into another one, who is in the middle of the road, trying to throw rocks through his windshield. When you see a person (or even a cat or dog) in front of you, you instinctively swerve to avoid him. Lots of people get into accidents because of that. To avoid hitting what is in front of you you react without having time to look to see what is on the side of you.
Then, rather than stopping, and being pulled out of the car and beaten to death along with his son, he does what any sane person would do, he drives off without hitting anyone he can avoid. If you had a mob throwing rocks at your car and had accidentally hit one, would you stick around? I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd get to safety then let the cops know what had happened. Especially since there were plenty of people around who could take care of the kid and get him medical help.
Face it, if this were an Arab driver in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood being attacked with rocks, accidentally hitting one of the mob, then driving off, none of you would have the slightest objection.
I'm not sure whether you realize it, but that video is not a good example for what you are trying to show. The man who is being run over had just stabbed the wife of the man in the car, in an attempt to murder her.
Now, revenge is not a valid reason for running someone over, so if the threat was gone then the man in the car should probably be criminally charged, but do you really want to say that a man attacking his wife's attempted murderer is a legitimate example of "Israel oppressing the Palestinians"? Sorry, but this kind of thing can happen anywhere. Most men would want to kill you if you stabbed their wives right in front of them. Some men would actually try to do so. That doesn't say "bad Israeli" that says "within the range of normal human (though criminal) behavior".
Also note that despite the circumstances, other Israelis charged the car and pulled the keys.
LOL. Yeah, I know, you censor every post complaining about censorship too. So how about e-mailing me the reason if you don't want to say it here?