Gaza Strip - why do news reports ignore the border with Egypt?

Great Debates
41

Of course it’s not just an Israeli matter.

However, nobody in this thread, at all, has provided a single shred of proof that Israel somehow controls Egypt’s ability to open or close the border. That Israel can seal off its side of the border has nothing to do with a claim that Egypt isn’t able to make its own judgments about its side of the border. If the US put troops on our side of the border with Mexico, that wouldn’t mean that we were controlling Mexico’s ability to open its borders or not. Claims like that are, simply, factually, wrong.

And as the EU forces didn’t want to deal with Hamas, that too is their call and not Israel’s.

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
Or in other words, their views are “lies” because you don’t happen to like them.
[/quote]

Yet again, I know the post is terribly far back in the multiple pages of this exceedingly long thread. I can understand how you’d forget. Let me clear up your ignorance:

Calling someone who is armed and engaged in trying to kill people, a “civilian” is a lie. Especially as B’tselem has used such lies in support of their political agenda. They have defined people as "civilians"who were killed after opening fire on a Bat Mitzvah, blowing up a grocery store, shooting soldiers, shooting civilians, and stabbing a security officer. They have used these claims of “civilian” deaths to support their political agenda by claiming that Israel has killed an inordinate number of civilians.

B’Tselem are a pack of liars who tell lies in order to support a political agenda. They are often self-contradictory, including, in their own words, claims that people “not engaged in violence” were busy throwing rocks.

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]

But let me ask, by way of clarification: is it really your contention that Israel has not, since 2005, closed the Rafah Crossing?
[/QUOTE]

Yet again: the fact of the matter is that when Egypt has chosen, they have been able to open the border crossing when they saw fit.

42

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
B’Tselem are a pack of liars who tell lies in order to support a political agenda.
[/QUOTE]

Comparing the “Criticism” and “Response” sections of the Wiki article, I’d say B’Tselem has far and away the better side of this argument.

43

As for B’Tselem’s chief U.S. critic, CAMERA – I wouldn’t necessarily go so far as to say “pack of liars,” but definitely not a credible or unbiased source.

44

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
B’Tselem are a pack of liars who tell lies in order to support a political agenda.
[/quote]

Thanks, but not knowing you from a hole in the ground, I’ll still take their word over yours.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Yet again: the fact of the matter is that when Egypt has chosen, they have been able to open the border crossing when they saw fit.
[/QUOTE]

So in other words, when the Rafah Crossing was closed a total of 300 days from November 05 to July 07, it was the Egyptians’ fault for failing to force it open?

Wow, talk about cognitive dissonance.

45

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
If the US put troops on our side of the border with Mexico, that wouldn’t mean that we were controlling Mexico’s ability to open its borders or not.
[/QUOTE]

Errmm . . . Yes, it would, Finn.

46

[QUOTE=DSeid]

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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, we have to go back to the text. Blockades of goods are legal if there is good reason to think that when removing them:
“(b) That the control may not be effective”

That’s obviously the case.

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
Thanks, but not knowing you from a hole in the ground, I’ll still take their word over yours.
[/quote]

Fallacies of appeal to authority and ad hominem. Now that takes skill.
I must admit that it’s rare, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, to find somehow who will gladly admit that they don’t give a fuck about the facts, but they’re going with what someone says despite a massive credibility gap and their claims being contradicted by, ya know, reality.

“I’ll believe what I want to believe and I don’t fucking need facts to get in the way!” Yep. That’s cognitive dissonance.

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]

So in other words, when the Rafah Crossing was closed a total of 300 days from November 05 to July 07, it was the Egyptians’ fault for failing to force it open?
[/quote]

No. And reading comprehension would serve you well.

The Egyptians are free to open their side whenever they feel like it. The topic of this thread is why only Israel is mentioned in many MSM reports on Gaza’s borders. People claimed, with a touch of high fiction, that Egypt cannot open the border without Israel’s say so. As history and current events show, this is pure fiction.

Pointing to Israel closing its side of the border is a nifty bait and switch tactic, but it’s pure obfuscative bull. Or if you’d prefer, a red herring fallacy. Even while Israel had its side of the border closed, Egypt could have its side open.

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]

Wow, talk about cognitive dissonance.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I have been. Fascinating subject. Egypt controls its side of the border. Israel controls its. Israel does not control Egypt’s side. But despite the blatantly obvious facts of the matter, people persist in claiming that Israel control’s Egypt’s choice to open their side or not.

The logical backflips some of y’all have to engage in certainly speak to the unpleasant effects of cognitive dissonance. It’d be like complaining that the US’ border policy means that we control Mexico and they can’t set their own border policy unless we say so.

So besides the fact that it’s irrational, illogical, contradicted by all the facts and requires logical fallacies to support it, it’s a great piece of ideology you’ve got there.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Errmm . . . Yes, it would, Finn.
[/QUOTE]

Here’s a rather basis exercise for you, it’s a pretty simple thought experiment:

First, figure out which side of the border Mexico controls. Is it the Mexico side, or the US side?
Next, figure out which side the US controls. Is it the US side, or the Mexican side?
Then, ask yourself if a country’s ability to open and close its borders means it can order another country to open and close it’s borders, too.
Then ask yourself, if America closed its borders, would Mexico’s ability to open and close its borders be effected? Would Mexico no longer be sovereign, and able to decide if it wanted to keep its side of the border open?
Or would these things be decisions that involve two separate nations, and one country can have their border be open while another has it closed?

I know that you believe in some strange internationalist dogma, but countries have actual borders which they actually control. In your strange ideology, the phrase “controlling its borders” becomes meaningless unless the very concept of borders is eliminated and any decisions about international movement are made cooperatively.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Comparing the “Criticism” and “Response” sections of the Wiki article, I’d say B’Tselem has far and away the better side of this argument.
[/QUOTE]

As the hacks themselves admit: “B’Tselem no longer classifies Palestinians into civilians and security forces simply because all Palestinians are civilians.” And yet, they release alarmist press releases talking about an increase in “civilian deaths”

If civilian is a meaningless adjective, why use it to make the situation seem more dire? I’m sure this doesn’t seem like ideologically motivated bullshit to you. Go figure, eh?

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
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).
[/QUOTE]

For once, you’re almost right.
Jimmy Carter is a compulsive liar on the subject of Israel.
And has given very good reason for believing that his opposition to Israel is faith based.
You’re probably not much more ideologically driven than he is.
Then again, you freely admit that you support eliminating a sovereign nation, disallowing the Jews to have self determination and initiating a policy that would definitely result in mass murder and quite probably genocide as well. That your ideology supports such a position is rather clear.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
How is it even possible for an international organization under an assembly representing almost every national government on Earth to be “fanatically biased”?
[/QUOTE]

Can’t say too much about knowing a subject before you post on it. Read up on the UN human rights commission. Take note of its members. Take note of what the commission has seen fit to notice, and what it routinely lets slide. Or take note of UN actions, hugely supported, which classify Zionism as “racism” but which give a pass to literally every single other group on the entire planet to have desires for self determination without being “racist”.

That’d be a good place to start.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
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.
[/quote]

Really? You didn’t say that I was adopting a “belligerent” stance towards Iran (which it was claimed, did not deserve such a “belligerent” stance), because “To FinnAgain, the interests of Israel trump all other considerations”?

Although, to be fair, such slanderous bits of imagination probably are hard to keep track of. You could just keep a little index card file labeled “Evil quisling Zionists Israel-Firsters who have dual loyalty to Israel and put it ahead of all other considerations.”

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

The rest does not come out of my imagination.
[/quote]

Sorry, but no. You see, that’s the place where things you make up come from.
Although to be fair, I can drop this. I know that your paranoid conspiracy theory about my treachery and loyalty to a foreign power is bonkers. You don’t have to know that too.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

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 [url=Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos]Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949)
[/quote]

The GC specifically says that collective punishment is not allowed. It specifically says that hitting targets of military necessity regardless of civilian damage, blockading a region and not allowing good in or people out are allowed if military necessity justifies such actions.
Is something that is allowed probably the same thing as something else that is not allowed? Shouldn’t that be a hint that they are different things?

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

Or to Article 75 of the 1977 Protocol (presumably trumping any previous formulations):
[/quote]

Whatever exactly you think that trumps, it does not revoke a single article I quoted. Not one. Is states that collective punishment is not allowed. But as already pointed out, collective punishment already wasn’t allowed. Blockades, not allowing people to leave a territory and hitting military targets even if they cause civilian damage was allowed.
As such, the stuff that was allowed isn’t the same as the stuff that wasn’t allowed.
As such, doing the allowed things is not “collective punishment”.
QED.

47

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
So why do journalists make it sound as if Israel has sole control over access to Gaza?
[/QUOTE]

Reporters report change.

Israel blocking out Palestinians is a change, so it gets reported.

Egypt blocking Palestinians out is not a change, so it does not get reported.

Egypt letting in Palestinians is a change so it gets reported.

48

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Oh, I have been. Fascinating subject. Egypt controls its side of the border. Israel controls its. Israel does not control Egypt’s side. But despite the blatantly obvious facts of the matter, people persist in claiming that Israel control’s Egypt’s choice to open their side or not.
[/QUOTE]

Oh. You think that one side of the border is Egyptian, and the other side is Israeli. That explains a lot.

49

[QUOTE=Muffin]
Reporters report change.
Israel blocking out Palestinians is a change, so it gets reported.
Egypt blocking Palestinians out is not a change, so it does not get reported.
Egypt letting in Palestinians is a change so it gets reported.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks Muffin, that’s actually an alternative explanation to my hypothesis of the media’s preferred narrative. I’m not sure which is correct, as I’m no mind reader, but I suspect that you’re correct in at least some cases. The nature of the beast, and a dash of journalistic laziness, seems quite plausible as a factor sometimes.

50

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Pointing to Israel closing its side of the border is a nifty bait and switch tactic, but it’s pure obfuscative bull. Or if you’d prefer, a red herring fallacy. Even while Israel had its side of the border closed, Egypt could have its side open.
[/QUOTE]

Good Lord, what on earth are you talking about? We were talking about Rafah, and you’re talking about an Israeli border? Why, I thought Israel had given Gaza up, and didn’t even have a border there any longer? Are you now claiming that Israel does in fact control that border?

And as to your continuing claim that B’Tselem is a pack of liars, again I’ll tell you that where it’s only you saying so, I’m going to take that at a fairly stiff discount. Why should I not, after all?

51

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
First, figure out which side of the border Mexico controls. Is it the Mexico side, or the US side?
[/quote]

Neither, really. If the U.S. wants an open border, there will be an open border no matter what Mexico wants. The disparity in power between Israel and Egypt is not that overwhelming, of course; just putting it in perspective.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Then, ask yourself if a country’s ability to open and close its borders means it can order another country to open and close it’s borders, too.
[/quote

Yes, it does. There is no open border unless both sides allow it. Just as neither Congress nor the POTUS is supreme in the legislative sphere if both have to agree on a bill.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Then ask yourself, if America closed its borders, would Mexico’s ability to open and close its borders be effected?
[/quote]

Only WRT its northern border, but there, yes.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Or would these things be decisions that involve two separate nations, and one country can have their border be open while another has it closed?
[/quote]

A locked door is locked, no matter which side the keyhole is on.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
As the hacks themselves admit: “B’Tselem no longer classifies Palestinians into civilians and security forces simply because all Palestinians are civilians.” And yet, they release alarmist press releases talking about an increase in “civilian deaths”

If civilian is a meaningless adjective, why use it to make the situation seem more dire? I’m sure this doesn’t seem like ideologically motivated bullshit to you. Go figure, eh?
[/quote]

It’s a bit more nuanced than that (you’ve heard of that concept, right? nuances, shades of grey?). Let’s look at the whole quote.

Hard to find fault with any of that as stated, though doubtless you’ll try.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Then again, you freely admit that you support eliminating a sovereign nation, disallowing the Jews to have self determination and initiating a policy that would definitely result in mass murder and quite probably genocide as well. That your ideology supports such a position is rather clear.
[/quote]

:confused: Neither a one-state solution nor a two-state solution would do any of that. And Jews (as distinct from Israelis, including Muslim Arab Israelis) are not a nation in a political sense. My only “ideology” is moderate democratic socialism, and yeah I’d like to see a world government along those lines very very eventually, but that’s got nothing to do with this. (On the whole, BTW, I like Jews of my personal acquaintance better than I like Muslims or Arabs of my personal acquaintance; but not by much.)

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Can’t say too much about knowing a subject before you post on it. Read up on the UN human rights commission. Take note of its members. Take note of what the commission has seen fit to notice, and what it routinely lets slide.
[/quote]

No, you don’t get it. This is the part where you provide the cites.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Really? You didn’t say that I was adopting a “belligerent” stance towards Iran (which it was claimed, did not deserve such a “belligerent” stance), because “To FinnAgain, the interests of Israel trump all other considerations”?

Although, to be fair, such slanderous bits of imagination probably are hard to keep track of. You could just keep a little index card file labeled “Evil quisling Zionists Israel-Firsters who have dual loyalty to Israel and put it ahead of all other considerations.”
[/quote]

Why do you protest so much? To you, defense of Israel trumps all other considerations, and every Doper knows it who knows your username. I cannot recall a single post of yours which might be cited in contradiction of that. I have challenged you to name even a hypothetical situation where you would take a position contrary to Israel’s strategic interest as you understand it, and you never have. That does not make you a “quisling” (a term which would be applicable only if Israel were to invade and occupy the U.S.), nor a “traitor” (a term applicable to American Jews convicted of spying for Israel, as some have been, but not otherwise); it just means you view the whole matter the same way many (I hope not most) American Jews view it. They’re very nice, rational people otherwise, but too many have a blind spot there. Much of what I know about the Israel-Palestine conflict, I learned from an acquaintance (now deceased) I met in Baltimore while I (not he) was attending law school. He was a Jewish activist for Palestinian rights, and received death threats on a regular basis – had to route all his calls through an anonymous voicemail. I’m sure you would never make a death threat, I’m just pointing out that that’s how high feelings seem to run, even on this side of the ocean.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Whatever exactly you think that trumps, it does not revoke a single article I quoted. Not one.
[/quote]

Any later legislation or treaty trumps any prior language to the extent of any conflict. Basic legal principle. Whether there is any conflict is for the courts to determine.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Is states that collective punishment is not allowed. But as already pointed out, collective punishment already wasn’t allowed. Blockades, not allowing people to leave a territory and hitting military targets even if they cause civilian damage was allowed.
As such, the stuff that was allowed isn’t the same as the stuff that wasn’t allowed.
As such, doing the allowed things is not “collective punishment”.
QED.
[/QUOTE]

Cutting off a whole region’s supplies of food and fuel sure would sound like “collective punishment” to any reasonable person, including Pascoe. Treaties and legal codes often contain provisions which may appear contradictory when applied to a specific given situation. For the courts to determine, etc. You still don’t seem to understand that (as with most legal disputes) there are two arguable sides to this argument, not one.

52

FinnAgain, what do you think would happen if Egypt completely opened, i.e. freight and citizen traffic, its border with Gaza?

53

You have no idea what Israel’s borders will eventually be, do you? You really don’t know that its armistice lines aren’t borders?

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]

We were talking about Rafah, and you’re talking about an Israeli border?
[/quote]

There’s so much concentrated ignorance there, I’m not even sure where to begin. First off, Israel’s borders have not been determined as there have been no Final Status negotiations yet. Under the GC, Israel is the occupying power in Gaza. That makes the control of movement in and out of Gaza, part of Israel’s job as the occupying power.

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]

Why, I thought Israel had given Gaza up, and didn’t even have a border there any longer?
[/quote]

It just keeps getting better.
Honestly, is it too damn much trouble to read up on an issue before posting on it? Really? Do you require help to google for information or something, or do you just not care?

Israel “gave Gaza up” via its Disengagement Plan, which was overly and specifically not a Final Status agreement. As Hamas repudiated its treaties with Israel and launched a war, agreements like the AMA become null and void.

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]

And as to your continuing claim that B’Tselem is a pack of liars, again I’ll tell you that where it’s only you saying so,
[/quote]

Nope, sorry, facts again.
You could, for instance, take note of how they admit how they believe that the word “civilian” applies to all Palestinians, and yet, they issue press releases that describe an “deterioration in the human rights situation” due in part to “the increase in civilians killed”. But using a nonsense word to describe a “deterioration in the human rights situation” when you refuse to acknowledge that some of the people you’re calling civilians were killed while shooting at people. The massive dishonesty required to call the death of armed gunmen engaged in attempted or actual murder a, “deterioration in the human rights situation”, should give pause to someone even with your dedication to an ideology.

And as already pointed out, they’ve changed how they report casualties and no longer explicitly break them up into “civilian” and non civilians. But you can still find old copies of their lies.

Let’s look at some of the folks that B’Tselem said were civilians (as opposed to non-civilians, while they were still differentiating).

Etc, etc, etc.
Quite an impressive list of civilians. And it was some years before Israel’s High Court made its ruling, so they don’t even have that as an excuse.

54

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
First, figure out which side of the border Mexico controls. Is it the Mexico side, or the US side?
[/quote]

Neither, really. If the U.S. wants an open border, there will be an open border no matter what Mexico wants. The disparity in power between Israel and Egypt is not that overwhelming, of course; just putting it in perspective.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Then, ask yourself if a country’s ability to open and close its borders means it can order another country to open and close it’s borders, too.
[/quote

Yes, it does. There is no open border unless both sides allow it. Just as neither Congress nor the POTUS is supreme in the legislative sphere if both have to agree on a bill.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Then ask yourself, if America closed its borders, would Mexico’s ability to open and close its borders be effected?
[/quote]

Only WRT its northern border, but there, yes.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Or would these things be decisions that involve two separate nations, and one country can have their border be open while another has it closed?
[/quote]

A locked door is locked, no matter which side the keyhole is on.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
As the hacks themselves admit: “B’Tselem no longer classifies Palestinians into civilians and security forces simply because all Palestinians are civilians.” And yet, they release alarmist press releases talking about an increase in “civilian deaths”

If civilian is a meaningless adjective, why use it to make the situation seem more dire? I’m sure this doesn’t seem like ideologically motivated bullshit to you. Go figure, eh?
[/quote]

It’s a bit more nuanced than that (you’ve heard of that concept, right? nuances, shades of grey as opposed to B&W?). Let’s look at the whole quote.

Hard to find fault with any of that as stated, though doubtless you’ll try, and embarrass yourself still further in the process.

55

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Then again, you freely admit that you support eliminating a sovereign nation, disallowing the Jews to have self determination and initiating a policy that would definitely result in mass murder and quite probably genocide as well. That your ideology supports such a position is rather clear.
[/quote]

:confused: Neither a one-state solution nor a two-state solution would do any of that.

And Jews (as distinct from Israelis, including Muslim Arab Israelis) are not a nation in a political sense.

My only “ideology” is moderate democratic socialism, and yeah I’d like to see a world government along those lines very very eventually, but that’s got nothing to do with this. I prefer a one-state solution mainly because that is the only solution that would not require anyone, Jew or Arab, to pull up stakes and move. (On the whole, BTW, I like Jews of my personal acquaintance better than I like Muslims or Arabs of my personal acquaintance; but not by much.)

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Can’t say too much about knowing a subject before you post on it. Read up on the UN human rights commission. Take note of its members. Take note of what the commission has seen fit to notice, and what it routinely lets slide.
[/quote]

No, you don’t get it. This is the part where you provide the cites.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Really? You didn’t say that I was adopting a “belligerent” stance towards Iran (which it was claimed, did not deserve such a “belligerent” stance), because “To FinnAgain, the interests of Israel trump all other considerations”?

Although, to be fair, such slanderous bits of imagination probably are hard to keep track of. You could just keep a little index card file labeled “Evil quisling Zionists Israel-Firsters who have dual loyalty to Israel and put it ahead of all other considerations.”
[/quote]

Why do you protest so much? To you, defense of Israel trumps all other considerations, and every Doper knows it who knows your username. I cannot recall a single post of yours which might be cited in contradiction of that. I have challenged you to name even a hypothetical situation where you would take a position contrary to Israel’s strategic interest as you understand it, and you never have. That does not make you a “quisling” (a term which would be applicable only if Israel were to invade and occupy the U.S.), nor a “traitor” (a term applicable to American Jews convicted of spying for Israel, as some have been, but not otherwise); it just means you view the whole matter the same way many (I hope not most) American Jews view it. They’re very nice, loveable, rational people otherwise, but too many have a “Poor us! Poor us!” blind spot there. Much of what I know about the Israel-Palestine conflict, I learned from an acquaintance (now deceased) I met in Baltimore while I (not he) was attending law school. He was a Jewish activist for Palestinian rights, and received death threats on a regular basis – had to route all his calls through an anonymous voicemail. I’m sure you would never make a death threat, I’m just pointing out that that’s how high feelings on these issues seem to run, even on this side of the ocean.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Whatever exactly you think that trumps, it does not revoke a single article I quoted. Not one.
[/quote]

Any later legislation or treaty trumps any prior language to the extent of any conflict. Basic legal principle. Whether there is any conflict is for the courts to determine.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Is states that collective punishment is not allowed. But as already pointed out, collective punishment already wasn’t allowed. Blockades, not allowing people to leave a territory and hitting military targets even if they cause civilian damage was allowed.
As such, the stuff that was allowed isn’t the same as the stuff that wasn’t allowed.
As such, doing the allowed things is not “collective punishment”.
QED.
[/QUOTE]

Cutting off a whole region’s supplies of food and fuel sure would sound like “collective punishment” to any reasonable person, including Pascoe. Treaties and legal codes often contain provisions which may appear contradictory when applied to a specific given situation. For the courts to determine, etc.

You are not simply arguing your side here; you still just don’t seem to understand that (as with most legal disputes) there are two arguable sides to this argument, not one.

56

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
You have no idea what Israel’s borders will eventually be, do you? You really don’t know that its armistice lines aren’t borders?
[/QUOTE]

Wait, so now you’re claiming the Gaza-Egypt border is – possibly – an Israeli border after all? Because it may end up an Israeli border in some bizarro parallel universe? So after your having argued that Israel doesn’t close the border, now you’re saying that yes, they sometimes close the border, but it’s okay because it’s not not their border – I mean, hypothetically?

Honestly, reading your posts is like a trip through Alice’s Wonderland.

57

[QUOTE=treis]
FinnAgain, what do you think would happen if Egypt completely opened, i.e. freight and citizen traffic, its border with Gaza?
[/QUOTE]

I already cited today’s news. Why don’t we wait to see what happens rather than playing Nostradamus?

So you really have no idea what the situation is, what the borders are, or what the legal situation is. You’re making it up as you go along? You’re also trying to change the subject from whether or not Israel controls Egypt’s abilities to open or close their side of the border, to whether or not Israel controls its side of the border. You aint that great a magician.
Sorry, not going to play that game with you either.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Neither, really. If the U.S. wants an open border, there will be an open border no matter what Mexico wants.
[/quote]

Nope, sorry, wrong answer. Mexico controls its side of the border. But this at least explains why you seem to be absolutely baffled by what “international borders” refers to. Bonus points for the tinfoil hattism that no matter what Mexico wants, the US controls it.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Yes, it does. There is no open border unless both sides allow it.
[/quote]

This is just a dumb thing to say. So if Mexico said that anybody could walk in or out of Mexico with no passport, but the US checked on its side, Mexico wouldn’t have an open border policy?
Your ideology is getting in the way of reality.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

It’s a bit more nuanced than that
[/quote]

Um… no. It isn’t. What the heck point do you even think you’re making? You cite something that says exactly what I say it did, that does nothing to contradict the fact that while saying that “civilian” is an all inclusive category including both terrorists and babies, B’Tselem still points to increasing “civilian” casualties as a sign of a human rights problem.

And yet again, your consummate ignorance of this topic is showing. But… you’ve got a Wikipedia link!
If you’d bothered to do a bit of research, you’d have noticed that B’Tselem’s bullshit bit of obfuscation is designed to obscure meaning, not reveal it. Not only did the Court not just say that every Palestinian was a “civilian”, and that Israel’s “responsibility” was to arrest and bring them to judgment. The Court specifically said that based on military necessity, Israel could kill them, specifically saying that targeted killings were to be considered on their own merits.

It doesn’t really bother me that you view stating the facts as “embarrassing”. It’s kinda this board’s mission statement.
Perhaps you’d be happier on an Anime-themed board, perhaps?

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Neither a one-state solution nor a two-state solution would do any of that.
[/quote]

…
Well, at least your imagination is getting a healthy workout. When much of the government of one state is explicitly dedicated to genocide, giving them power over the entire area will lead to blood. That you don’t understand what would happen if Hamas got put in charge of looking over Israeli citizens says a whole hell of a lot about your understanding of the situation.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

And Jews (as distinct from Israelis, including Muslim Arab Israelis) are not a nation in a political sense.
[/quote]

You never met a dictionary you didn’t dislike, eh?

[

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

No, you don’t get it. This is the part where you provide the cites.
[/quote]

Awww, just so you can ignore them and change the subject? Geee, can I?
And no, sorry, although I know you believe that for some strange reason, your completely uninformed opinion is worth an unlit fart, it aint.
If you don’t know jack shit about the UN’s verdict that Zionism was racism, who makes up the UN human rights commission or what that does, you’re not qualified to participate in a discussion about the UN.
I shouldn’t be surprised, either, that you took an obnoxiously strident position on the UN when you knew nothing about it, and then complained that I have to educate you so that you can continue to annoy me.

You know shit about the topic, I’m afraid. And if you don’t know about the topic before taking up a position on it, I’m not going to take your bait. Learn what the fuck you’re posting about or be quiet. But after this post I’m done taking your bait.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

Why do you protest so much?
[/quote]

That may be the stupidest thing you’ve ever posted. No joke.
If you honestly can’t figure out why your slanderous flight of fancy that just happens to echo a millennia old racist slur, might be somehow offensive, I suggest that you disconnect your modem, smash it up with a hammer, and eat it.

As for you attempting to read my mind and tell me what values I hold, have fun flexing that imagination.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

it just means you view the whole matter the same way many (I hope not most) American Jews view it.
[/quote]

Yeah! Those American Jews. Dual loyalty all over the place!
Here’s a similar belief that I’m sure you could enjoy .
“Why, for what purpose is the blood flowing?
Behind the scenes, the Jew grins.
That makes the answer clear:
They bleed for the Jews.”

Here’s another fellow traveler of yours, concerned about how very clannish and disloyal Jews can be. "The German judges did not understand that Jews have no scruples when it’s a question of saving one of their compatriots. "

It’s a good thing you were so wise and able to discover the nefarious scheming and dual loyalty of many American Jews. One might even say that you have stumbled upon the Jewish Problem.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

Any later legislation or treaty trumps any prior language to the extent of any conflict. Basic legal principle.
[/quote]

And as already pointed out, there is no conflict between language in any incarnation. You’re just spouting words. And deliberately ignoring what I actually said. I am shocked. Shocked!

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

Cutting off a whole region’s supplies of food and fuel sure would sound like “collective punishment” to any reasonable person, including Pascoe.
[/quote]

Riiiiiiight.
As you dodged the fact that your silly little cite of the 1977 protocol, in no way, shape, or form actually contradicted anything that went before (you just bolded the bit about collective punishment, I guess you thought it looked nice in bold)… I don’t expect you to actually engage on this topic.

Not that you’ll care much about the facts, but Hamas has been stealing fuel for use in its own vehicles. Likewise, a PA official has confirmed that there are about two months worth of flour. And Israel has a history of allowing in relief workers. If you’ll recall, they knocked out power during the Gilad Shalit incident, and have kept the border under tight security on and off since then. And yet Gaza hasn’t starved to death yet. Odd… that.

58

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
You have no idea what Israel’s borders will eventually be, do you? You really don’t know that its armistice lines aren’t borders?
[/quote]

Except WRT East Jerusalem, the borders of Israel are internationally recognized and not at all controversial. The Green Line is it – an international border, not an “armistice line.” Israel has never formally annexed, and therefore claims no sovereignty over, any of the Territories except for EJ. Israelis and others alike rightly characterize the Territories as “Occupied.”

59

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Except WRT East Jerusalem, the borders of Israel are internationally recognized and not at all controversial. The Green Line is it – an international border, not an “armistice line.” Israel has never formally annexed, and therefore claims no sovereignty over, any of the Territories except for EJ. Israelis and others alike rightly characterize the Territories as “Occupied.”
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, no, you’re making shit up. Again.
The Green Line is the 1949 armistice line. Jordan also switfly violated the armistice line, and remained in violation until 1967.
[

](palestinefacts.org)
If you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be posting on it.

You are also making shit up when you claim that Israel’s borders are internationally recognized and not controversial. UNSC 242 clearly states that the final borders will only be determined through negotiation.

Further, just to point out some more of your ignorance, Israel annexed the Golan, and is indeed the sovereign power over it.

Honestly, read something before you post.

60

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Sorry, no, you’re making shit up. Again.
The Green Line is the 1949 armistice line. Jordan also switfly violated the armistice line, and remained in violation until 1967.
[
If you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be posting on it.

You are also making shit up when you claim that Israel’s borders are internationally recognized and not controversial. UNSC 242 clearly states that the final borders will only be determined through negotiation.
[/quote]

There are various conflicting interpretations of [url=United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia]UNSC 242](palestinefacts.org), as you should know. My point stands: Except for EJ, Israel does not even claim anything east of the Green Line as Israeli territory. Some Israelis might, especially those who live there, but Israel does not. Every country that recognizes Israel at all recognizes it as existing only within the Green-Line boundaries, EJ being the sole international point of contention.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Further, just to point out some more of your ignorance, Israel annexed the Golan, and is indeed the sovereign power over it.
[/QUOTE]

I know that (and that Syria has never recognized the annexation), but since the phrase “Occupied Territories” is not generally used to include the Golan (not in any sense Palestinian and irrelevant to the Israel-Palestine controversy), I omitted it from consideration.