-
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 5
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West … 13
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 15
- Exile and the prophetic: The Jewish Identity Network 7
- Trauma begins at home 7
- CNN’s Tapper lends himself to claustrophobic discussion of unicorn– Israel’s … 7
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges … 21
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel 17
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 676
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 312
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 203
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 120
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 101
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
-
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 82
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 63
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the … 62
- More on the Church of Scotland’s controversial report on occupation 60
-
- RT @MhamdG: Two friends (@WalaaGh & @MahaIghbaria ) meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem http://t.co/226bwrY48g via @Mondoweiss, 46 mins ago
- Story behind a photo - Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem http://t.co/0UZkQMevP1, 54 mins ago
- Exile and the prophetic: The Jewish Identity Network http://t.co/UPuEQQgkjI, 5 hours ago
- Trauma begins at home http://t.co/on36d4DzxP, 5 hours ago
- CNN’s Tapper lends himself to claustrophobic discussion of unicorn– Israel’s survival as ‘a Jewish democracy’ http://t.co/GAK5ZiP9jt, 5 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be (23)
- subconscious: In situations of political or military conflict, demonization of the official enemy is the norm. It...
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West Bank settlement (13)
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem (5)
- Daniel Rich: Q: … because I have a limited permit. R: But you have unlimited love. Use that force to beat the...
- just: So this is “modern day” Zionism/Apartheid/and cruel and inhuman treatment. (such beautiful humans...
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ forum on Nakba (15)
- German Lefty: Ecru, that happens all the time in Germany. Besides, that one Jew is usually a German, too. Therefore,...
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “Here is the Al Jazeera show as it ran. . . [I]t featured four Israelis and one...
- just: I totally agree, Taxi. CNN has done their own “purging” when a reporter dared to question the...
- CNN’s Tapper lends himself to claustrophobic discussion of unicorn– Israel’s survival as ‘a Jewish democracy’ (7)
- Citizen: Well good, we agree we both hope Tapper is brave towards objective truth, chips fall where they may. The...
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be (23)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Annie Robbins
- Pamela Olson
- Chris Keeler
- Matthew Taylor
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
So in what way are the Arabs different now? They still want to eliminate Israel.
There are more anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. than Islamophobic.
Report based on 2010 FBI statistics:
"Of the 1,409 hate crimes offenses motivated by religious bias, 65.4% were anti-Jewish; 13.2% were anti-Islamic; 4.3% were anti-Catholic; 3.8% were anti-multiple; 3.3% were anti-Protestant; 0.5% were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.; and 9.5% involved various other religions."
link to religionclause.blogspot.com
re: zero
That would be the Indians, not the Arabs as the inventor of the zero, that is if you don't count the close, but not quite there concept of the Babylonians.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Remind me how old Aisha was when Mohammed married her, and when he started sleeping with her? Nothing to see here, no pedophilia there, nope. And of course Christian fear of Muslims in the 11th century couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the then 3 centuries old occupation of Spain by Muslim forces, could it?
There are Muslims who are just ordinary folk, particularly in America, but let's not whitewash the negative history of the Muslims and pretend that there is nothing to fear from the militant ones of them.
Neither. You forgot the real reason. Citing such a poll is cynical propaganda making. Also, you might want to include that Ninet is an Israeli pop-singer.
@Woodrow
I know that's what you think, Woodrow. As I said, we disagree.
Not a serious problem? Thousands of Israelis murdered, tens of thousands maimed. The equivalent (adjusted for population size) of a 9/11 attack every month or two during some of those years.
Israel won't make a deal because the Palestinians aren't interested in any deal that doesn't give them full right of return. That would be the end of Israel and is of course unacceptable to the Israelis. Also, the Palestinians want to control the Jewish holy sites in East Jerusalem and given their history of desecrating Jewish holy sites, that is unacceptable to Israel too.
It is not occupied. It belongs to the Israelis. Spain isn't "occupied" just because the Spaniards kicked the Muslims out in 1492. America isn't "occupied" just because the Americans took it from the Native Americans.
I don't forget, I just disagree.
A secondary difference is that the blacks in South Africa weren't launching thousands of missiles and mortars at white majority cities. Also that they didn't elect for themselves a government dedicated to exterminating the whites.
The main difference is that Israeli citizens can vote regardless of race. Unlike South Africa where only white citizens could vote.
The real question is "how are they the same". The answer to that is only in the fact that they both rule populations who don't get a vote in their elections. However, the South Africans ruled South African citizens who were forbidden to vote based on race, while the Israelis rule non-citizen enemies who are forbidden to vote in Israeli elections on the basis that they aren't citizens.
How many New Yorkers have been gunned down on the roads by New Jersey Jews? How many New Jersey Jews are trying to smuggle bombs into New York to commit acts of terrorism there? The checkpoints are there because the Palestinians made them necessary.
@Roya
They are trying to fool naive Westerners into thinking they made a legitimate peace offer, which they haven't done.
Is a Muslim state a nasty idea too RoHa?
@Ellen
In exchange for being able to get on with their lives in a country of their own, they give up a "right" that they will never be able to exercise anyway. Saying they want to keep their "right" to return is like the man in Monty Python's the Life of Brian who wanted the right to have babies (i.e., the right to get pregnant). Regardless of demands, it just isn't going to happen.
As for why Israel doesn't give in. It would be the end of Israel (they know the Palestinians would take over and expel the Jews).
As for where I went to school. In America. As for the books, it's more from paying attention to the news than specific books, though the books I've read on the subject don't disagree with my observations from reading the news.
@Woodrow
I got it exactly right. They know that the Palestinians will never agree to anything less than full ROR for all however many millions of them there are worldwide. Therefore, their "agree to resolve" is just another way of saying "full ROR", which is just another way of saying "Arabs get Israel". It wouldn't be much of a Trojan Horse if they came right out and said it.
I said "acceptance" not "demand that Israel become yet another Arab country". Which is the Arab "peace" plan's little Trojan Horse. The Arab "peace" plan includes the right of return, so it is a rejection of the idea of a Jewish State, not an acceptance of it. It exists to fool naive Westerners, not as a legitimate attempt at peace.
Not at all. What justifies the continuing oppression of the Palestinians is that they continue to be dangerous. They try to justify their claims to Israel by falsely claiming to have been there longer than they have, but even if their claims were true, which they aren't, they would still be dangerous.
Also you forgot the 5th means of resolution: acceptance. The Palestinians and the other Arabs could accept that there is going to be one Jewish State in the Middle East, and get over it.
The point was that Herod the Great, scumbag though he was, was a Jew, not an Arab.
The Palestinians like to pretend that they are the descendants of the natives, which they mostly aren't. They are mostly descended from Arab invaders who came in after Islam was invented. They also like to try to take credit for stuff done by ancient Jews. Analogous to Checkov from Star Trek who would claim that anything and everything was "inwented in Russia".
I dunno, Mr. Checkov says it was invented in Russia.
I'd be happier if they would quit wasting their efforts and obey the law.
You'd think they'd go build somewhere else after the 20th time or so.
It will probably go something like this:
"Israel is America's close ally. Therefore what helps Israel helps America. Now if you don't mind, other people would like a chance to ask their questions."
Because there are no "Israel firsters", just people who realize that hurting Israel hurts the U.S. and helping Israel helps the U.S.
@Cliff
Born and raised here. Believe in Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Vote in every election. I like your "no true Scotsman" fallacy though "to be a true American you must hate Jews". I think not. Hate to burst your bubble, but there are a lot more Americans like me who support Israel than there are like you who oppose it.
@Woodrow
My country is America.
@Woodrow
You mean like in the U.S., where felons can't vote in a lot of states and where D.C. has no congressmen or Senators?
Or in U.S. territories where they can't even vote for President?
Or in places under U.S. control like parts of Afghanistan?
Or maybe you mean like in Saudi Arabia, and heck, just about every Arab country where almost no one gets a say.
A democracy is a government where the citizens vote. There is no requirement that non-citizens be allowed to vote.
Also Americans used to talk about the permanence of American rule over the southern States. That seems to have happened. Some countries break up, others don't. I suspect the status quo will continue for at least another generation or two. Then maybe the Palestinians will realize that they can't win militarily and surrender. After that the Israelis will give them whatever is left of the West Bank and Gaza as a country of their own.
Oh, and putting shackles on someone who has been arrested isn't a "crime against humanity".
@Hostage
Yeah, that's what the "Sovereign citizens" of the militia movement in the U.S. think. That's why they declare themselves their own countries. It doesn't go over big with the U.S.
A declaration of independence is what the South did in the U.S. Civil war. That didn't go over so well either. Same as when the U.S. declared independence from the British Empire. That didn't go over well either, difference is that time the declarers won.
Are the Falklands part of Argentina or Great Britain? War was the only way to decide.
The only difference historically between declarations of independence that resulted in a new country and those that resulted in a metaphorical spanking for the declarers (and generally charges of treason) is how strongly the parent country could and was willing to fight it.
I'm not going to put in the effort only to have them censor my response.
LOL. Never be blindfolded or hooded. Why not? What's the harm?
Not be shackled. So dangerous 17 year old terrorists shouldn't be put in shackles? Again, why not, what's the harm? Especially compared to what the Israelis would do if their unshackled prisoner attacks someone.
So a kid is gunning down people on the street, but we can't arrest him because the sun is down?
Or a suspect's location during the day is not known, but he is home at night, but we can't arrest him because the sun is down?
All of those are incredibly silly restrictions. The only one that makes any sense is that solitary confinement should not be used as a standard mode of detention or imprisonment. It should be reserved for those who can't behave themselves, even in prison.
It's not a non-sequitur. He asked "who said Israel has a right to exist". I answered. The truth is that all countries exist because the people in them think they have the right to exist and no one who disagrees is strong enough to destroy them. That's how it works. Southern Sudan exists now, where it didn't before because the people in it wanted it that way and so far the military of Sudan has been unable to destroy them.
The Israelis do. And like any country, that matters as long as they have the military might to back it up. Just like the U.S. has a right to exist as long as we have the military might to back it up.
Well, do war criminals, POWs, and child soldiers count as "civilian population" for the purposes of the GCs? Those are three separate questions, BTW.
Isn't part of the MSCI criterion for the area that Caterpillar was delisted from that the companies don't sell military equipment?
Very good point Shingo. The metadata on the pictures could very well just be the default date for the camera plus the time since batteries were last put in. About the only way they would prove anything would be if it had GPS data or a very recent date but before the supposed events.
So you allow someone to all but openly advocate war and terrorism on your site, but censor responses that call for peace while pointing out the disadvantages of attempting war? Nice.
Intifadas, like all Palestinian violence, are helpful to the people in Israel who oppose peace, the ones who want to take more land in the West Bank, and the ones that support the blockade. They justify every security measure and crackdown Israel imposes, both in the Israeli elections and world wide. They get to say "see, this is why we have checkpoints". So if you don't mind, please knock off the violence. You can't win by force, you can only win by being universally non-violent.
The Palestinians fire missiles and mortar shells into Israel every few days. What lull?
Yes, I hear Justice Goldstone is such an expert that he can judge cases in his sleep. Which is good because he slept through the presentation on the bombing of Sderot.
Jilani, no anti-Israel bias from a high official of a Muslim country that almost openly supports the Taliban while pretending to support the U.S., not to mention the country whose officials hid Osama bin Ladin.
Chinkin made up her mind and made pronouncements about it before hearing any evidence. She was pre-prejudiced against Israel.
link to unwatch.org
Thank you for clarifying that was in area C and not in Jerusalem or pre 1967 Israel. Now what percent of the applied for permits were to build on public land, or land that the permit seeker couldn't prove was his?
94 permits granted where, 1663 homes demolished where and under what circumstances? Cite?
The Palestinians keep trying to smuggle bombs in from the West Bank to Israel, they murder children in their beds, if that's your idea of quiescent, I'd hate to see your idea of violent.
BTW, I'm not pretending to oppose them. While I think Israel is perfectly fine on moral and legal grounds (despite what prejudiced courts would say) I still think it is a bad idea.
Also. Palestinians get permits. About half as many granted as applied for in E. Jerusalem. It's a myth that they can't get permits.
The land confiscation is the downside of losing a war that the Palestinians refuse to end. I think the Israelis shouldn't be doing it, but that's war. Home demolitions in East Jerusalem and area C are generally for the same reasons that home demolitions take place in other countries. Building without a permit often on land that doesn't belong to the builder. Indefinite detention is rare. About 1% of 1% of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are currently detained without charges. They are held without charges because revealing the specific crimes that Israel knows they did would give away enough information for them to kill informants. The charges against them do go through judicial review though, so it's not arbitrary. As for torture, what torture are you talking about? I hear claims from imprisoned terrorists, but AFAIK there is no physical evidence of any torture by Israel.
Probably should have thought of that before launching 150 missiles at Israel. They fired on the 15th, the 18th, the 19th, and the 20th (and probably the 21-23rd also, it just hasn't shown on wikipedia yet).
No, as long as there is organized terrorism, there will be a need for security to prevent it. People around here have this idea that any time something inconvenient happens to a population, that it is a "collective punishment". It's not. People in the U.S. are not being "punished" for the 9/11 attacks (or the shoe bomber) by having to take off our shoes at the airport. It is an incidental effect of security measures. The occupation is the same. It isn't to punish them for being violent in the past, it is to reduce their ability to be effective in their future violence.
OOC, in the last 40 years, what is the longest time that the Palestinians have gone without a single attempted attack on Israel. No missiles, no mortars, no bombs, no attempts to bomb, no Molotov cocktails, no rocks, nothing. And when was it? Cite from someone who has investigated, please, not just a guess or a "well wikipedia says an attack on day x and an attack on day Y, so whatever time is between those days". Wikipedia does not contain a comprehensive list of attacks and attempted attacks.
Unlikely. More likely is that the Palestinians will continue to refuse any terms acceptable to Israel and the Israelis won't have a strong enough reason to reign in the settlers from slowly taking the whole of the West Bank except for a tiny slice the density of Gaza left for the Palestinians.
Any time Israel shows any mercy or compassion, the Palestinians think it is because Israel is weak. Whether it is ending the Lebanon War or pulling out of Gaza. There's always some Palestinians (or in Lebanon's case Lebanese) being violent somewhere, so they always credit the violence for any little act of mercy or attempt to unilaterally withdraw. Is it any wonder Israel is no longer willing to withdraw without a deal in place so the Palestinians won't just see withdrawal as more weakness?
Without the actual numbers, there's no way of telling. We don't know whether the actual calculations would put them above a CCC if nothing changed except they stopped selling to Israel. To put it is seafoids terms, what if Israel is 3 points and they are missing by 5.
As for TIAA-CREF I love that you are basing your victory dance on someone who doesn't even know who Caterpillar is selling to.
I was quoting mondoweiss, not you personally.
I was paraphrasing you, not directly quoting:
Direct quotes below:
"The Israeli missile that fragmented the clock of the night into two halves took the life of Hadeel for no reason but being Palestinian. Or more accurately, a 2-year-old, young, terrorist Palestinian child. "
Very evocative.
"Israel has been eradicating the Palestinian people, no matter how old they are, ever since it was declared an independent state. Being a Palestinian is more than enough to be slaughtered like a sheep."
One of your commenters
"This is one of the saddest stories I’ve read in a while. The IDF is the most inhumane army on the planet."
And after it turns out it was Hamas that did it, are they "the most inhumane army". Are they "slaughtering" children like sheep? Nope. You're just on to the next thing.
This would be the one you were excoriating Israel for and saying what monsters the Israelis were for killing the girl, and now have almost nothing negative to say about the actual killers?
This guy wasn't imprisoned indefinitely. He was convicted in 2004, sentenced to 9 years in prison. He'll be out in a year if he doesn't starve himself to death. The reason your source mentions 2/3 is that that is the time you have to serve before being eligible for parole in cases like his. I guess the Israeli equivalent of a parole board didn't think he should get out early.
Ah, have you got a link showing that they actually sold $72 million worth of shares on the market rather than just transferring it to their general holdings?
So are you going to update the article, or just leave it in its current form?
link to tiaa-cref.org
Never mind, I found the answer myself. They didn't divest, they just moved it from one pocket to another.
They currently have $371 million worth of shares.
Did they divest, or just move the stock from one category into another?
@Colin
I don't know you read it. I think you made it up. A search of Ha'aretz shows no sign of it.
@Hostage
Cut and paste job skimmed.
I didn't see an 8 year old called "a terrorist with a long resume" in your long post either.
@Colin
So basically, you are admitting that you have no source.
ROFL. Since my "version" of events is that I don't believe that the IDF called an 8 year old a terrorist with a long resume, and he claims that they did, and I provided the real quote, which was about terrorists, not eight year olds, the burden is on Colin to show that one of the 13 dead referred to in that quote was an eight year old, when no google search turns up any source for his claim, other than him.
@Hostage
Well exactly, the "middle eastern studies" departments examine only those carefully cherry picked (and in some cases faked) documents that appear to support your side's propaganda. That's why we need an Israel studies department to counter your slanted presentation.
Oh, you mean the one where 14 people died, not 20 or 30. The one where the IDF spokesman said that of the 14 _dead_ people, 13 were wanted terrorists with long resumes and the other one was an innocent elderly woman (the mother of one of the dead terrorists). The one where he didn't say anything of the kind about any of the injured?
"Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said that all but one of the 14 Palestinians killed in an assault on a Hamas stronghold in the Gaza Strip were armed. "They [the 14 dead people] were all terrorists with long resumes," he said, "except for one innocent elderly woman.""
link to propheticround-up.com
"In commenting on the IDF operation in Khan Unis, Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said that only one of those killed was not a wanted terrorist. Ben-Eliezer said he would release details of the terrorist activity of the 13. "They were all terrorists with long resumes," he said, "except for one innocent elderly woman.""
link to chareidi.org
Got a cite for your version of events? Because the only source in Ha'Aretz is you, in the comment section.
Except that a university isn't a democracy. If the student government says "divest" and the board of trusties says "no". Guess who wins? Israel.
Hey, Colin. Still waiting on your cite for the IDF calling an 8 year old a "terrorist with a long resume".
Well at least this post makes you better than Dickinson456 or whater the guy's name is. You may be a cut-and-paste-bot like him, but at least you sometimes have your own opinions. BTW, I didn't read any of your 50 page cut and paste-athon up there. Why don't you make your own arguments, and link to support instead of just stealing wholesale?
To the contrary. There is no reason not to talk about 1948. The Arabs tried to destroy Israel, they lost, Israel expelled the civilian population because they had no way of telling those who were helping the attacking Arab armies from those who were not. Current policy in Gaza is to let food and humanitarian supplies in while keeping weapons out. Torture is banned in Israel. The security state is necessary to protect against terrorists. These things are the plain truth that the Israeli studies departments are designed to get across. The departments are countering the propaganda that makes you believe the opposite.
Interesting. When have they executed someone for firing on Israel? Got a cite? Let me guess, there was a misunderstanding between terrorists and the Islamic Jihadis fired on Hamasniks who shot back? Not killed for firing on Israel, killed for firing on Hamas, am I right? If they had been smart enough to surrender, they would have been back on the street the next day.
If it's from Gaza it's either from Hamas or with their consent. They want to pretend to have a cease fire, so they use proxies. Every once in a while they pretend to do something about it by pretending to lock up the people launching the missiles, then let them go the next day. But you don't get 6 foot long 200 pound missiles through the Hamas run smuggling tunnels and sneak them across Hamas run Gaza in your shirt pocket. Every attack from Gaza is the fault of the Palestinians elected government. A ceasefire that doesn't include all the Palestinians in Gaza is not a ceasefire at all.
Wikipedia said 1255 rockets at Israel. They apparently included the 854 mortar shells (page 8) in that total along with the 401 rocket attacks. Feel free to update the wikipedia entry to read "rocket attacks and mortar attacks", if you like. It doesn't actually help your point though, since a mortar shell fired into Israel is also a violation of the supposed "ceasefire".
LOL. I just went to your link. The headline is "Gaza deaths end Hamas 'truce'" (Their quotes not mine). Whoever wrote that headline knew the "ceasefire" was nothing of the kind.
"The terrorist cease-fire was never absolute, and various Palestinian groups broke it when it suited them, citing a variety of grievances. "
A 16 month ceasefire would take it back to February of 2005
1,255 rockets were fired at Israel in 2005.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Rockets were fired at Israel in June, 2005, July, August, September, December. Also February and March of 2006. The Palestinians idea of a "ceasefire" is apparently the Israelis cease and the Palestinians fire.
@straightline
Sorry, outside the echo chamber of Israel haters, almost no one believes it was deliberate. Almost all the people who do, believe it either because they are Israel haters, or because they got one side of the story with the paranoid rantings of anti-Semites portrayed as gospel.
And the BBC is notoriously anti-Israel.
Or at least to call it "anti-zionism".
" For example, the IDF has claimed victims as young as eight years old were ‘terrorists with long resumes.’"
Cite? The only source I can find with "terrorists with long resumes" and "eight" is a post you made on another site. Wait, I mean a bunch of posts you made on other sites.
The only other source for "terrorists with long resumes" is about 14 specific deaths, 13 Hamas terrorists, described as "terrorists with long resumes" and one person described as an innocent elderly woman, the mother of one of the terrorists. So, you got any evidence that one of those 13 people was 8?
@mig
Which is what I said, if you'd bothered to read it instead of just quoting me out of context. I said I wasn't surprised, I didn't say they were right.
@Hophmi
Don't hold your breath Hophmi, it takes intellectual honesty and integrity to admit when you are wrong.
@Woody
I've been paying attention and I've never heard anyone except the fringe, the Israeli equivalent of, well, you. Say that all Arabs or all Palestinians are terrorists. And even they are just saying it as an exaggeration.
After they attacked the soldiers, I'm not surprised they were called that. Though strictly speaking they were "fighters" or "jihadis" rather than terrorists, since their targets were soldiers and not civilians. I suppose not everyone makes the fine distinction that even if you are attacking while dressed as civilians, that doesn't make you a terrorists unless you target civilians.
OOC did they describe the passengers of the ships where everyone came along peacefully as "terrorists"?
Not all Palestinians are terrorists and not all terrorists are Palestinians. That's why there are different words for them. It's a handy way to besmirch someone's reputation though, deliberately mistranslating their statements about terrorists as statements about Palestinians.
מחבל Paste it into Google translate. About 20 meanings, including "rope". Know what meaning it doesn't have? "Palestinian".
It's like cops and robbers. Though I can see why you'd rather compare it to cowboys and Indians. Nothing wrong with shooting terrorists or pretending to shoot terrorists. Now, if they were actually having a "shoot a Palestinian" event, that would be different.
BTW, who says that "Mechabel" is a synonym for Palestinians? No wonder you are so anti-Israel if you've been translating the Hebrew for "we must kill the terrorists" as "we must kill the Palestinians".
So is the "Ministry of Local Government" the relevant authority for housing permits, or did he get his "permit" from a governmental body that doesn't have the authority to issue them? A google search reveals that "Construction in Area C requires permits from the Israeli civil Administration." Was the house and farm in Area C, area A or Area B?
We went to war with Afghanistan because they wouldn't hand over Osama bin Ladin. Somalia for humanitarian reasons. We aren't at war with Pakistan, though we did send in troops to get bin Ladin. Not because of Israel, but because of a terrorist attack against the U.S. you may not have heard about. Google "the 9/11 attacks". Yemen we go after anti-U.S. terrorists there. Iraq we got into because it would make Cheney's cronies at Halliburton rich, not because of Israel. Syria we are thinking of intervening for humanitarian reasons. Israel doesn't have a dog in that fight. From what I've heard they may prefer the devil they know (Assad) to whatever random dictator will emerge from the chaos if he falls.
@Hostage
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. You stick with the idea that a treaty that isn't signed by either Israel, or Turkey, or for that matter the U.S. overrides the San Remo manual. Which every relevant authority cites for the rules concerning blockades. I'll stick with the fact that it doesn't.
You've cited a very specific part of UNCLOS which is an entirely irrelevant treaty since Israel is not a signatory and for that matter neither is Turkey. Rule number one of law is cite the relevant law, not just some law lying around that doesn't have jurisdiction. Further cites to that irrelevant treaty will be ignored. Got anything relevant? Or is the inapplicable treaty your whole case? As to your citations of inapplicable parts of San Remo, vague citations about responsibilities to neutral states do not override the specific and clear authorization in 166c and section 67 that allow crew members _on_ neutral ships who _are_ citizens of _neutral_ countries to be made POWs if they attempt to breach a blockade.
The specific parts of an applicable law override the more general parts of the law.
San Remo 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
"Subject to Capture outside neutral waters". "Neutral waters" are the territorial waters of a neutral country (San Remo 14). International waters are therefore "outside neutral waters". So neutral ships attempting to breach a blockade are subject to capture in international waters. Q.E.D.
Except that they are only territory for some purposes, which don't include breaching a blockade. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a legal blockade. Sorry, but when your assumption about the legal status of something results in a conclusion that would wipe out an entire body of law, if you were right, then your assumption is wrong. Oh, and the San Remo manual allows blockades to stop ships in International Waters.
166 doesn't say to release the passengers and crew unconditionally, they lay out the conditions under which they can be held as POWs. Which conditions exist here. Israel just magnanimously chooses not to hold the crews as POWs even though under the clearly laid out rules, they can.
The UNHRC can find that black is white, that doesn't make it so. There is audio footage of the radio room of an Israeli ship that proves that the flotilla ships clearly and deliberately refused to stop after clear warnings.
link to youtube.com
As for UNCLOS, Sorry, Neither Israel, nor Turkey is a signatory to that treaty.
As to blockade of Eilat, it was an act of war against Israel, not illegal. Presidents and prime ministers are often loose and inflammatory with their terminology.
Back to San Remo. International waters don't matter. You can stop and search anywhere other than the territorial water of a neutral state. Says so right in the manual. Technically, once they declared their intentions, they were subject to being stopped the minute they left their previous port country's territorial waters.
Also, as I said, the Israelis allow food through after search. Therefore, the blockade can't be starving anyone. Has there been even one death from starvation in Gaza since the blockade started?
We all answer the San Remo Manual for the same reason that if you ask 10 people what 2+2 equals, then 8 or 9 of them will say "4". It's the right answer. There are no parts of the San Remo manual banning "a general blockade on an entire population". There are parts that ban blockades for the sole purpose of starving people (this one is for the purpose of keeping out weapons) or if the damage to the civilian population is excessive compared to the military gain. Which is a matter of opinion and not exactly a tough hurdle as long as the Palestinians continue to fire weapons at Israel and the Iranians are prepared to give them better weapons. It especially isn't the case because Israel lets in any food or humanitarian shipments after inspection.
The manual relates to armed conflicts, that's actually right in the title. There is nothing in it that requires a full scale or even a declared war to be going on before a blockade can be put in place, just an armed conflict. Which this is.
Oh, and I'm sorry, but next time you cut and paste your entire argument, I'm just going to ignore it. I consider that cheating.
Happy to oblige. San Remo Manual. crew are POWs from the get go. 166c neutral vessels crew, committing offense under paragraph 67. specifically 67a, breaching a blockade and after prior warning refuse to stop. Passengers only if they fight.166a
As for your cites, Israel doesn't confiscate the cargo, they either send it on to its destination or send it back with the ship.
I think you're right for once, Hostage. It is unlikely that a court will grant standing to a private individual under this law. Also, for political reasons, the U.S. government is unlikely to prosecute people who have committed violations of this law in a non-violent manner (or even a violent manner such as on the Mavi Marmara), even if "hostilities" does mean "all acts of war" rather than "violent acts of war".
It doesn't actually matter. The law in question are about countries that the U.S. is not at war with, not about allies.
"or people with whom the United States is at peace"
link to law.cornell.edu
The questions here are whether a private individual has standing to bring the case (I'd think probably not) and whether "hostilities" includes all acts of war or only violent acts of war.
Sorry if it makes you feel bad, but running a blockade is an act of war. Whether you like the blockading country or not. It is a fact that it is an act of war. It is also a fact that the U.S. has laws against financing acts of war against countries that the U.S. is not at war with.
If nothing else, the suit will probably be kicked on political question grounds.
He is right that the fundraisers could be prosecuted for financing an act of war against a country with which the U.S. is not at war, but that is the government's call, not his.
This guy no more gets to set foreign policy for the U.S. than the flotilla people do.
If the prosecutor didn't know then the judge didn't know. The judge knows what the prosecutor tells him. I don't buy into the idea that he is a hero in Israel. I doubt most people even know who he is. The Israeli government wants him out for the same reason that the U.S. would want one of our spies in Israel out if the Israelis caught him. Because countries don't like having their own spies in prison, even though they like having foreign spies in prison.
Except that it had nothing to do with spies in Russia. Pollard's clearance level wasn't that high. The only person listed on wikipedia as a proponent of that theory also thinks the U.S. government was behind 9/11
Preaching to the choir on Pollard. I think he belongs in jail.
I do think he should remain in jail for life, for what he did, not for what some lunatic conspiracy theorist thinks he did. I also think the terrorists getting hero's welcomes in Arab/Muslim countries should have been in jail for life. I also think worse leakers like Bradley Manning should be imprisoned for life, or executed.
I don't think he meant half a mil now. I think he was saying that was what he got offered for spying in the first place.
I think the problem with the Pollard case is that other people should get that much time, not that Pollard shouldn't.
Worse people have gotten heroes' welcomes in Arab countries for deeds that were not only worse, but monstrous. Like the Lockerbie bomber in Libya and multiple mass murdering terrorists in Lebanon and Palestinian controlled areas.
He's in enough trouble. Nominating him for a Nobel prize for leaking would just increase the U.S. government's determination to get him. They haven't taken the death penalty off the table yet AFAIK.