How many Israelis are in Gaza at present?
From wikipedia:
FinnAgain, I don’t know why you’re making such heavy weather of this. The border between Egypt and Gaza is walled off, with the only official crossing being the Rafah Crossing, which Israel closes whenever it wants. How do they do it? Like this:
“Israel capacity to close down the crossing stems from it ability to prevent the EU monitors from reaching it. According to the AMA [Agreement on Movement and Access], the Rafah Crossing is open only when the EU monitors are present. When Israel issues a security warning, according to which the crossing is not to be opened, the EU monitors do not take up their post at the crossing, and it remains closed. This occurs, firstly, because the EU monitors believe that the AMA does not permit them to open the crossing when one of the parties to the agreement is opposed to doing so. According to the EU monitors’ representative, they are only allowed to open the crossing when Israeli security personnel staff the situation room from which they are supposed to monitor the activity at the crossing. Secondly, the EU monitors, who are reside in Israel, cannot physically reach the crossing when Israel does not wish for them to do so, because in order to do so they first need to pass through the Israeli controlled Kerem Shalom crossing, which Israel closes when there are ‘security alerts’.”
Cited from here.
I’ll look for something, but this is based more on my middling understanding of the politics of the region. And **FinnAgain ** hasn’t denied my premise that Israel wouldn’t allow an unfettered border.
ETA–I see that **Sal Ammoniac ** has done the research for me.
Pardon my ignorance, but how exactly is Israel in a position to retaliate against Egypt? Serious question. They’ve had a peace treaty in place since Camp David, military action is scarcely to be thought of, and I don’t see how a trade embargo would hurt Israel any less than Egypt.
Ayieee! I too hope that not even that dastardly Finn would dare defend the Geneva Convention.
Just like your belief that Iran has a vibrant ‘civil society’, your belief that enforcing the Geneva Convention is somehow wrong beggars the imagination. You’d do better to stick to accusing me of being an evil zionist traitor, glutton.
I’m sure in your ideological view, blockading a nation that’s announced a genocidal war of extermination against you and fires rockets at you almost daily is a grave sin. Luckily, those who wrote the Fourth Geneva Convention were a bit more rational.
Etc, etc, etc.
Honestly, is it that hard to read up on a topic before you post on it?
Well, I think it is much more likely that Israel would use its military to close down any border crossings set up and operated by Egypt. As I said above, Israel has a strong incentive to preserve its peace treaty with Egypt. But it’s not going to tolerate an open border between Gaza and Egypt. Israel has a hard enough time keeping contraband out of Gaza; there’s no way they would trust the Egyptians to do a thorough job of it.
ETA–But anyway, Egypt knows all of this, and so wouldn’t try to set up such crossings even if it wanted to (which, as I said above, it doesn’t).
OK. I honestly have no dog in this fight, but am not at all knowledgeable of the intricacies of the Gaza Strip/Egypt border. I suspect that Israel would throw a fit if Egypt declared full and open borders, but what if they did something much less than that, but more than what they do now?
Like I said, I am making inferences based on what I know about Israel. Israel is very keen on keeping contraband out of Gaza, and has only limited success (as is demonstrated by the frequent rocket attacks originating in Gaza). There has been a lot of trouble with tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, which have been used to smuggle contraband into Gaza. If Egypt were to allow freer access between Egypt and Gaza, I think the Israelis would see this as a grave security threat which offered a huge potential for the smuggling of weapons, etc. Thus, I think they would expend every effort to close these down, starting with diplomatic efforts. But if these efforts failed, I don’t think Israel would hesitate to deploy their military to the border crossings and either monitor all traffic or simply close the crossings altogether.
- Lynn Pascoe, the UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, who presumably knows a great deal more about international law than you do, does not appear to agree with your interpretation.
-
It should be fairly obvious at this point that the “humanitarian emergency” is already ongoing.
-
Your phrasing, "enforcing the Geneva Convention," makes it sound as if a blockade in these circumstances is not only permissible but mandatory. You cannot seriously believe that.
-
I have accused you of being willing to defend Israel under any and all circumstances however outrageous (a charge to which you have never responded or provided a single counterexample, even a hypothetical one, and which I see no reason to modify). I have never called you a traitor even in the Pit. Nor can I recall calling you a Zionist, but in any case the label “Zionist” is not ipso facto disparaging, and one I have never known you to deny.
What does a Zionist say after sex?
“Was it good for the Jews?”
Nope, you’re just fantasizing.
You’ve already ignored (twice now) giving any specifics on what exactly Israel did to Egypt when Egypt opened the border crossing, or making any firm predictions, based on actual proof, on what Israel will do in light of today’s developments.
Positing draconian and military responses does not mean that there actually will be any. Even if there were, we’re still left at the level of understanding of choice, cause and effect, and free will that most children have.
“But I can’t stop brushing my teeth, because then my parents will punish me.”
“But I have to hand in my homework, I have no choice. Otherwise, I get a bad grade!”
Etc, etc, etc.
Consequences do not invalidate choice. Pretending that there is no possibility of choice, rather than a choice that carries consequences, is fundamentally deceptive.
Fantasy is in full swing, I see. If Mexico decided, tomorrow, that if the US didn’t put troops on our southern border, they’d establish trade sanctions, only the most insane politician would say that was a casus belli.
If tomorrow, Canada said that the US had to tighten up the northern border or they’d put troops on their side of the border, only an insane politician would call that a casus belli.
Which has nothing at all to do with Israel treating it as an act of war, or doing anything, at all, to Egypt. Putting troops on the non-Egyptian side of the border is, obviously, not interfering with Egypt’s ability to control its side of the border.
I know, can’t I just let things that aren’t true go unremarked because they sound good to those with a certain dogmatic political ideology that don’t need no facts?
More pure fiction. And telling that you cited the same group that has claimed that Palestinians who were armed, and using their weapons to attack Israel, should properly be classified as “civilians”. You’ve got a huge credibility gap there.
Citing known liars’ claims is hardly convincing. Nor does that address how, now, with rockets falling all the time into Israel, Egypt just allowed the border to be opened for thousands of Palestinians.
Yet again, the actual facts prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that despite what Israel wants, Egypt can act on its own.
I fear our little friend has an axe to grind.
Well, he will have to grind it in my absence. I have class, then a meeting, then going home, and won’t be back until tomorrow, at which point it will be interesting to see the direction in which this thread has (d)evolved.
So FinnAgain, your basic defense is that B’Tselem is a pack of liars? Sorry, but I’ll take their version of things over yours any day of the week. They’re there on the ground and you’re not.
Mmm hmmm. Because in a forum labeled Great Debates, on a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance, only someone with a axe to grind could possibly think that facts mattered more than political ideology.
Hmmm… let’s check my post. Being so very far back in the thread, I see how you could’ve lost track of what it said.
Hey, you are certainly free to believe known and admitted liars’ version of events that is gainsaid by the actual facts of the situation. It, of course, says a lot about cognitive dissonance and your desire to believe something that obviously isn’t true, but that’s your call.
As for glutton… it’s sad but not surprising that you get your information from Democratic Underground or a mouthpiece of the UN, instead of actually reading the primary source.
Your appeal to authority fallacy is spectacularly useless.
The text of the GC is quiet clear, and military necessity is often the clear guiding principle. That some UN official feels otherwise matters exactly zero in the face of the actual document. Nor should I really be surprised that you would actually cite a member of such a thoroughly corrupt and fanatically, blindly biased organization as the UN.
Yet again, as should be obvious to anybody willing to read the GC, blockades are allowed and are certainly not illegal, military necessity is often the defining characteristic of justification, and “collective punishment” cannot be accurately claimed if a State is engaging in GC sanctioned conduct due to military necessity.
Your bizarre belief that enforcing the Geneva Convention somehow determines military necessity is wonkier than your normal arguments. You engaged in some pretty selective quoting there, and ignored the entire context of that phrase. The US blocked defining Israel’s GC sanctioned actions as “illegal”. Obviously, something sanctioned by international law isn’t against international law. Enforcing the GC means putting into force what is legal, and what isn’t. Glad to clear up your confusion.
As for your conspiracy mongering, bonkers claim that I would defend Israel no matter what, or how you’ve accused me of being a quisling by saying that when I talk about things that are good for the US, I’m really lying and trying to use the US for Israel’s sake?
I don’t have to defend myself against the strange fruits of your imagination. You don’t deserve a response.
Interestingly enough, you close with an ever-so-funny joke about how someone who supports Israel’s right to exist would be concerned, even about sex, as to whether or not it was “good for the Jews”.
It’s a nifty update of the dual-loyalty slander.
You know those shifty Zionists, always concerned first and foremost with “the Jews”.
In any case, as you can’t actually address the GC, I don’t see any point in responding to you again until you can actually discuss it.
If you want to hear from people who are “there on the ground”–why do you only look at the people one side of the border? Why not look at who else is there on the ground?— the thousands of Israeli civilians who are being bombed every day by terrorists shooting rockets from Gaza.
Israel’s decision last week to cut fuel (and thus electric power) supplies to Gaza was a direct result of the terrorists in Gaza raining bombs on Israeli cities. The attacks are pure terrorism—explosive rockets aimed directly at urban centers.
Because he only wants to listen to certain people on the ground, even when they’ve been caught lying in the past, even when their current claims are gainsaid by actual events that are true beyond a shadow of a doubt… as long as they support his claims. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch to deal with.
People on the ground who cite that military necessity allows them to blockade Gaza, and have the GC and facts on their side… their views aren’t attractive to sal.
Or in other words, their views are “lies” because you don’t happen to like them.
But let me ask, by way of clarification: is it really your contention that Israel has not, since 2005, closed the Rafah Crossing?
From the wikipedia article on Rafah:
Seems to me this is more than just the Israelis, although I’m sure they play a major role.
How is it even possible for an international organization under an assembly representing almost every national government on Earth to be “fanatically biased”?
We’ve been hearing this bullshit ever since the Reagan years, when Pubs were calling the UN a Soviet puppet, which it never was.
I have never accused you (I would accuse AIPAC, but that’s another matter) of trying to use the U.S. for Israel’s sake. The rest does not come out of my imagination.
The article does not state the basis of Pascoe’s judgment, which might well be based on some provisions of international law other than the GC (there are others, you know). Or, she might have been referring to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949):
Or to Article 75 of the 1977 Protocol (presumably trumping any previous formulations):
Which does not mean that the articles you quoted cannot be read as authorizing the blockade, only that the issue is not nearly as cut-and-dried as you seem to assume. It’s the sort of question over which international lawyers can legitimately and honestly dicker. In such a situation an “appeal to authority” is not necessarily preposterous, and I have no doubt whatsoever Pascoe does know a great deal more about international law than you do (or I, and I’m a lawyer).
My own take on this whole sorry mess, BTW, is no more “ideological” than Jimmy Carter’s (with whom I differ chiefly in preferring a one-state to a two-state solution).
Egypt generally cooperates with securing that border becuase it is their own best interest to do so. Israel has little to threaten them with and little power to enforce that border without Egypt’s cooperation, the US only slightly more. But the prospect of poor Gazans flooding Egypt is unappealing. It is of note that little of consequence is happening to Egypt as they do nothing to quickly seal the border back up. No legs broken for leaving the house.
Now the blockade itself is another question. Does a blockade of basic supplies and energy to an entire population meet the standards cited in the GC, absolutely neccesary as an effective means to prevent delivery of supplies used in military actions? Or is it group punishment intended to foment discontent with the local rulers (Hamas) which would not be allowed under the cited codes? I would agree that it is the latter not the former and is ineffective in doing so at that.