Let us, again, take this borders-of-Israel issue to a separate thread.
Egypt didn’t open their border to full pedestrian and freight traffic. Why don’t you just answer the question?
So in other words, you’re asserting that the Gaza-Egypt border is Israel’s border – else why would you say “its side of the border” in the above? Say… that would make Gazans citizens of Israel, wouldn’t it? There’s an idea with traction!
And who are these people who live between the Egyptian border and the “Israeli” border, such that Israel can close “its” side without closing the border?
The border between Gaza and Egypt isn’t Israel’s border, but Gaza (and the West Bank) is occupied by Israel, and Israel has defacto control over the border of Gaza (and the West Bank) as the occupying power.
Thanks for fielding that one Amazing, even I get tired of dealing with willful ignorance after a while, and it’s good for someone else to be providing the lesson from time to time. 
(Although to quibble, Israel has both de facto and de jure control over the territories)
If there’s a two-state solution – a real one, with the Palestinians in total control of their territory and borders and no IDF presence tolerated – then the Israeli settlers on the WB will have to pull up stakes and move, just like those in the Gaza did; no other acommodation is conceivable. If there is a one-state solution, various Palestinian radical (and moderate) parties will be represented in the Knesset, counterbalancing the radical Israeli nationalists (and thereby strengthening the center ); but nobody will have to move. In neither case will there be a genocide. “Ethnic cleansing” of WB settlers under a two-state solution, perhaps, but that’s not quite the same thing; genocide requires the target population be killed, and in this case the removal could be carried out bloodlessly (unless the settlers, not their Palestinian neighbors, chose to resist it).
You rage, you protest, but you notably fail to contradict me.
I don’t even know whether you are Jewish. I know only that you are (like way too many American Jews) rabidly pro-Israel in any and all circumstances, and so does everybody else in this forum. If that’s a false inference, show me how.
How de jure?
Ah, so now we’re admitting the Israel is an occupying power and has defacto control over the border. So why the insistence ( post 7) that “Israel neither controls Egypt’s border nor can Egypt not open it without consent”? It makes me think you’ve never experienced a border. Is there such a thing as a border anywhere where if one side closes it, it remains open?
And I’ve not finished with the B’Tselem question, either. You’re going to have to come up with a better cite than CAMERA, which, for all I know, made up the accusation whole cloth. They are, after all, an organization which has no other purpose than to provide a slanted view on things. I find it striking that I can find no evidence elsewhere to substantiate their claims.
And anway, even if you don’t like B’Tselem, what is about the passage I quoted from their website that is factually inaccurate?
:rolleyes: Boy, you wouldn’t last long in a courtroom, would you?
Double :rolleyes: :rolleyes: . Let’s try not to Godwinize, shall we?
Oh, you’re finished all right, and not worth responding to on this subject again, either.
I’ve already citied and quoted B’Tselem in their own words defining people engaged in shooting, stabbing, and blowing up a supermarket, as “civilians”. Obviously, when you get to the point where you disregard a cite by B’Tselem, on B’Teselem, by babbling about CAMERA, you should probably join glutton in eating your modem.
But that’s okay, keep on keeping on, and don’t let those pesky facts get in the way of believing.
And hey, maybe you shouldn’t eat your modem yet after all. Maybe glutton will spout some more racism and then complain when his racist ideas are pointed out. That’ll be good for a few more laughs. Eh? Eh?
You are out of line with this one. Regardless of any inferences you may choose to make, unless the poster has explicitly announced an association with that author, you are not to make “fellow traveler” claims.
If you think that your inferences and conclusions are sufficiently cherent, open up a Pit thread to express them. Do not drag that stuff into GD.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, obviously, in any border, both sides need to want it open in order for it to be open. But the statement “Israel neither controls Egypt’s border nor can Egypt not open it without consent” is also true. Egypt could say, hypotheticall “We’re removing all border guards, and as far as we’re concerned, Gazans can come across if they want.” At this point, generally, though, both countries seek to keep the border closed.
Part of the confusion here is ultimately about semantics, and part of the confusion was due to Northern Piper’s incorrect assumption in the OP that Israel doesn’t have any say over the opening and closing of the Gaza-Egyptian border.
TWEEEEEEEET!!
Enough! Everyone back off and cool down.
[ /Moderating ]
You didn’t read your own cite, the heading of which was “Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories.” “Civilian” in this context doesn’t mean “noncombatant,” it just means someone out of uniform – Israeli as well as Palestinian.
And again, what about the B’Tselem paragraph I quoted is incorrect?
This is a MENA thread. Don’t demand the impossible! 
How so? If it’s a fenced border, if one side closes it, it’s closed. To say, “Just because we closed our side doesn’t mean we closed the border” is nonsensical in this context – or any context involving a border, really.
I think what Finnagain is objecting to is that the term “civilian” in English often carries the connotation of “non-combatant”, so B’Tselem’s use of the term, while correct under their definition of the word, nevertheless shows bias, because of the common connotation of the word in the English language.
But B’Tselem also declares, “Palestinian civilians who engage in hostilities do so illegally and it is Israel’s responsibility to arrest and bring them to justice.” Their basic position seems to be that that in and of itself does not let the Israeli government off the hook when it acts illegally. We accept that here, don’t we? Criminal suspects must be arrested, but police officers have to follow all the rules.
Absolutely. And calling Palestinian terrorists “civilians” in the same breath as the Israelis they attack are also referred to as civilians, is an instance of fallacious moral relativism, in the context that the report was made (years before the Court ruled on questions of terminology). Especially since as of at least 2007, B’Tselem still uses adjectives like "militants to describe people, instead of civilians. They’re not fools, they’re aware that different adjectives exist. It’s elucidative that when Palestinians kills Israeli civilians and are killed in turn, that it’s cast as “civilian on civilian” violence. But when Palestinian thugs kill other Palestinians, it’s “militants” doing the killing.
The members of B’Tselem are fluent in English. They know exactly what impression calling terrorists “civilians” gives. They know exactly what the impact of labeling something “Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli civilians” is, which is the same reason they use words like “triggerhappy” when describing IDF soldiers who shoot at people throwing rocks at them with intent to do harm. They know that western media sources will report the figures as “thus and such number of Palestinian civilians were killed by Israelis”, which is a hell of a lot different in the public’s view than “thus and such number of Palestinians gunmen/bombers were killed when trying to murder Israeli non-military targets or soldiers.”
And more to the point, their justification of the Court’s ruling on civilian status is anachronistic. As of the early years in the 21st century, they were referring to gunmen and bombers, engaged in murderous behavior, as “civilians”. The Court’s verdict didn’t come for years later, and causality doesn’t work backwards in time. And even after the Court’s ruling, they refer to some but not all Palestinians engaged in violence as “militants”. Obviously the “they’re all to be referred to as civilians” is a load.
Of course, B’Tselem’s use of the Court’s verdict is a rationalization and opportunistic obfuscation. When the Court specifically and explicitly says that Palestinians who are engaged in violence may be legally dealt with by killing them, depending on individual circumstances… B’Tselem claims that they’re supposed to be arrested. They use the Court’s verdict in an opportunistic, anachronistic form when it suits them, and then deliberately disregard what the Court actually said in order to pretend that the very same verdict that classified all Palestinians as “civilians”, didn’t also say it was perfectly legal for the IDF to deliberately seek out and kill some who were engaged in violence.
All of that speaks to specific dishonesty, deception, bias and a desire to distort the political discourse.
Well, obviously, Glutton wasn’t an actual associate of the Nazis. Equally obvious, his racist beliefs about disloyal Jews who have a “blind spot”, and a traitorous dual loyalty that makes them end up putting Israeli-Jewish interests first, before their own home nation’s welfare?
Those are classic tropes of antisemitism tom. You can see, in the link I’ve broken, that David Duke himself bemoans how innocent ol’ him is accused of antisemitism for pointing out “Jewish Dual Loyalty”
http://www.strmfrnt.org - This website is for sale! - nt Resources and Information.
Why you think that I dragged anything into GD, rather than the guy repeating classic racist comments, is beyond me. As is why you think my pointing out the similarities to Nazi racist paranoia is beyond the pale, but glutton posting racist comments is fine. It sure would be nice if, in the future, the guy making the racist claims was the one who was modded instead of the guy who pointed out the racist claims.
Just as a clarification, am I to refrain from pointing out the fact that his ideas are classic antisemitism, or merely pointing out any of the racists in history of current times who shared the same ideas? I assume that I am still able to attack the post not the poster, and as long as I don’t call him a racist, I am free to point out that the things he says are racist claims? If this is a prohibition for this thread, am I also prohibited from pointing out, in other threads, that anybody else who accused Jews of dual loyalty (especially without so much as a single statistical study) is making racist claims? If I am unable to point out that racist claims are racist, can I follow your recently set example wrt cherrypicked claims about the religious roots of “the Muslims” being violent, and say that a poster was “spreading hate” if they made equally fallacious claims about Jews and say that they were, likewise, “spreading hate.”
Or shall we continue this via PM or something of the sort? I’m not always good at teasing out your meaning and tend to take your injunctions as you write them. If you feel that I need further explanation, I’ll be happy to read whatever PM’s you feel like sending.