My facts were wrong because I failed to doublecheck my vague memory against wikipedia (or some other reputable source). If I cited an online article from a major publisher I suppose that would be fine, but then it would have 10x more chance of being inaccurate. But hey at least a college professor would accept it in the bibliography!
What does any of that have do with Hamas scoring electoral victories in the Occupied territories?
You do realize that Lebanon is not in the Occupied territories don’t you?
BTW, the last question isn’t meant to be an insult, it’s just not terribly clear what you’re referring to and your arguments don’t inspire confidence in your understanding of even the most basic fact regarding the region or the conflict.
Also, what do you mean by “I’m obviously not at my best”?
nothing because I mis-wrote badly, yes, sorry, obviously my first posts were crap and I try not to have them be crap.
So for you the deciding factor is that Israel’s poor treatment of the Palestinians is much better than how you THINK the Palestinians would treat the Israelis if the roles were reversed?
You think a post WWII world would sit idly world would have stand idly by as Palestinians committed genocide?
I dont really ken to the notion that anyone can lay such a claim to a land based on religion that they can expel the current occupants into refugee camps for decades out of fear that adherents of their religion will no longer be in the majority.
And are you saying that in exactly the same circumstances we would let a hindu nation fall where we would not let a Jewish nation fall?
Still the point remains that the sanctions were not the result of anything that happened other than Palestinians voting for Hamas. While almost anyone could understand a blockade of things like metal tubes, many of the sanctions seemed to be geared towards creating poverty, inconvenience and suffering rather than preventing Hamas from attacking or harming Israel.
Yes. Quite a few such things have happened in Eastern Europe and Africa quite recently. And if I was a Jew living in Israel, I wouldn’t trust anyone but my own people to look after me.
You seem to be referring to the Gaza blockade which was in response to attacks, not an election and was also, according to the UN, perfectly legal.
In other words, they’re legal according to international law.
[
](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5)
And? “It’s legal” isn’t a justification for bad behavior.
“It’s how occupations may be conducted under the international laws of war” does, however, tend to indicate whether or not someone is using an idiosyncratic definition of “bad behavior”.
This, from the guy who gets the vapors at the idea of nations bordering Israel not being completely disarmed.
Hardly. The idea that something can be legal but not moral isn’t “idiosyncratic”, or even unusual. Some person or organization doing something awful and then defending themselves with “It’s legal!” is in fact an outright cliche of scummy behavior.
“Behaving in accordance with the international laws of armed conflict is the very height of scummy behavior, to the point it’s cliche!”
Certainly, not an idiosyncratic view at all.
Ah yes, my well known opposition to nations around Israel being armed. I believe I famously voiced that position in my magnum opus on how much fun it is to ride gryphons.
Your point is as compelling, and on-topic, as it is factually accurate.
That is a tired excuse for jsutifying whatever you happen to want to justify at the moment.
Yeah blockades are legal. You seem to be equating legal to justified. An invasion of Israel would also be legal as long as noone was committing war crimes, neh?
Therefore invading Israel would not be bad haviour because it would be “legal”?
Legal has very little to do with it. You can certainly criticize plenty of legal behaviour. It was legal for Paulson to tip off hedge fund managers about the Fannie mae bailout but I can certainly criticize it. It is legal for congressmen to trade based on information about pending legislation. I can certainly criticize it. Most of the shit that went down on wall street was legal. I can still criticize it.
The fact that Israel is conducting a legal blockade does not immunize the blockade from criticism.
There are indeed two issues when analysing any conflict.
(1) Justice in participating in the conflict - or to use the Latin tag, Jus ad bellum.
This relates to whether it is “just” for the conflict to exist at all. Does the combatant have a just cause for conflict? Is the response proportionate to the justice of the cause?
(2) Justice in the manner in which the conflict is conducted - again, in Latin: Jus in bello.
This relates to the measures taken in the course of the conflict itself. A country could have the best most just cause in the world, but still behave abominably in carrying out the conflict. Armed response should be proportinate to the objectives the combatant seeks to obtain.
Then, turn to the conflict in Gaza. Is your critique that Israel lacks a just cause for conflict with the Gazans, or that it is behaving badly in carrying out that conflict?
I was trying to point out that the fact that the UN thinks something is legal doesn’t immunize it from criticism.
What do you think is the “just cause” for Israel’s occupation of Gaza? I assume we all now agree that Gaza is occupied.
And yes I think much of my criticism is aimed at how Israel is managing the occupation.
I also have a base criticism for how Israel is handling the refugee situation.
But, of course, the prime absurdity remains at the core: “Those bastards, they’re following the international laws of war, one of the best attempts to civilize and sanitize the brutal and hellish processes of war. What assholes!”
How many Israeli soldiers are in Gaza?
“Behaving in accordance with the international laws of armed conflict is the very height of scummy behavior, to the point it’s cliche!”
Certainly, not an idiosyncratic view at all.
[/QUOTE]
What I actually said was:
Your selective quote borders on misquotation. No doubt your defense is that it’s [del]legal[/del] within the board rules.
Exactly what I said. That the behavior in question, following the most refined set of rules put in place to reduce the horrors of war, is something you view as scummy behavior in this circumstance. Not sure why you quoted it again as it as pretty clear that was the attitude I was mocking.
Being that it wasn’t in a quote box at all, and that it followed right after your actual in the actual quote box, and that it was obvious mockery of your quote in the quote box, I’m not quite sure how you believe it’s either a “selective” “quote” let alone a “misquotation”.