It isn’t all that surprising that Hamas does a better job of social welfare that the Palestinain Authority - my impression is that this is exactly why they won the election: that the PA was hopelessly incompetent and corrupt, and Hamas actually established a grass-roots social-welfare system.
Unfortunately for Gazans, Hamas (unlike the PA) is also devoted to endless religious warfare with Israel.
As to the figures - the impressive part is how the blockade has not physically harmed the civilian population (though admittedly annoying them with arbitrary restrictions on coreander etc.)
No. No. A fucking million times no. You clearly stated that starvation requires death - hence you demanding statistics of death due to starvation. I’ll put this on a separate lien for you, so you can’t miss it:
Starvation does not automatically require or imply death.
I’m on a Mac right now. OSX’s built-in dictionary uses this as the very first definition for the verb “starve”:
Note two things:
OR die from hunger.
The usage of a qualifier in starved TO DEATH.
Chocolate is calorie-rich. Milk chocolate is also a source of calcium. It is also a treat, keeping the spirits up of those that are being bombed to fuck.
As pointed out to you earlier, cigarettes aren’t part of field rations anywhere in the world. On the Wiki page regarding field rations only one mentioned the possibility - Greece. Chocolate, however, is in all of them. To quote Wiki again, this is why:
Actually, sod this. If you can’t see that a country that has been bombed to fuck, has a water system so fucked up now that people are suffering from stuff like “acute bloody diarrhea” and malnutrition is widespread isn’t in a crisis then I’m just speechless.
“No danger at all of starvation”. I really am fucking speechless.
The reasons are in your cite, especially if you read between the lines. Israel’s strategy seems to be to cause maximum inconvenience both the ordinary Gaza citizens and to groups trying to provide aid, without actually causing them physical harm. They seem to shift what is or isn’t allowed based not on items cast in concrete, but on continually updated lists of shortages and surpluses, and also on what goods and services ordinary citizens seem to be demanding (which would then go on the denied lists), and what they aren’t.
I don’t think many people in this thread (or several people who were quoted in your cite) are grasping WHY Israel is blockading Gaza, or what they are trying to achieve. They aren’t doing this solely to hurt Hamas, or strictly based on military goods only. It’s similar to the embargoes that the US and the EU put in place against Iraq and North Korea (or Iran for that matter). They are designed to cause the populace discomfort and dissatisfaction in the long term, and (in theory) to turn them against those who have brought about those embargoes onto the populace by making them increasingly unpopular. Whether this works or not is a separate issue, but that’s the idea here.
So, while it might not seem logical to block the importation of chocolate but allow tea, it actually makes sense when you consider what Israel is actually trying to achieve with the blockade, and when you consider that they deliberately shift around the items that are or aren’t being banned at any given time (plus don’t officially publish exactly what those luxury good items are).
Who the fuck is talking about the West fucking Bank? I have mentioned that place for the VERY FIRST TIME in a post about 2 minutes ago, where I pointed out that the statistics included the “safer” West Bank.
What the hell are you on about?
My God, despite being given a cite from the Supreme Court of Israel stating that the Gaza Strip was not an Occupied Territory and him accepting that he was wrong and that he was not aware of that ruling you are now claiming that the “first half” of this “is incorrect”:
Let me repeat that:
Dspite being given a cite from the Supreme Court of Israel stating that the Gaza Strip was not an Occupied Territory and him accepting that he was wrong and that he was not aware of that ruling you are now claiming that “Israel does not see itself as an occupying power” is incorrect.
I give up. Seriously. Do you actually read posts or just randomly type shit out? You are aware that we can read previous posts?
I have to stop there. The levels of pure stupidity and ignorance being shown by you are going to get me into some serious trouble with the moderators.
So, it looks like the blockade has had no adverse effect on the continuing improvement in these two statistics. IMO, this means that teh blockade is causing hardship for the local population, but is not in any way creating a Humanitarian Crisis, at least not judging by these two stats.
To address the whole issue from the POV of another Israeli citizen:
In the grand scheme of things, I think that the blockade is necessary, because of the insistence of Hamas on manufacturing/obtaining the ability to bomb the Israeli civilian population beyond perhaps all other goals. The government of Israel has a higher duty to the children of Sderot and Ashkelon than to the children of Gaza. That’s just the way it is (yes, “monkey-spheres.”)
As the factbook figures seem to suggest, and despite claims to the contrary, apparently enough food staples are getting into the Gaza Strip to keep the population, including newborns, as healthy or healthier than they were before the beginning of the blockade; there is a constant improvement in the key statistics of Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality, continuing unabated since the year 2000, with no dip at all even in the rate of improvement since the blockade has been in place.
I agree that the exclusion of many types of food from the list of allowed articles is a mistake, for both humanitarian and real-politik reasons. I mean, chocolate? Corriander? Let them eat chocolate and corriander…
I also agree that the tactical execution of the blockade was, in this instance, to put it very mildly, a “monumental clusterfuck” :o :smack:
Both of which points bring me to the penultimate point, which is, that in terms of both overall leadership ability, as well as in terms of tactical crisis management, I wouldn’t want Ehud Barak nor Benjamin Netanyahu in charge of supervising my gold-fish bowl, let alone my country and military. Unfortunately, last election cycle, more than 51% disagreed with me. I believe many Americans who lived through 2000-2008 can sympathize with me on that…
And, ultimately, while I completely agree that the treatment of the flotilla was very badly botched – and this is going to cost us hugely in the future in terms of our ability to block arms from reaching Hamas – I still think that philosophically/strategically the blockade is justifiable both morally and in terms of international law. Which is not to say that I don’t feel horrible about the loss of life on the Marmara, nor that I don’t feel sympathy for Jamal Average in Gaza who rightfully won’t take to the streets against Hamas, but secretly wishes this war would be over and he could just make a living.
As a side note to the whole debate – Finn, you are a very good source of factual information, but I have to say that your debating tactics tend, in my mind, to alienate the middle-of-the-roaders trying to interact with you. If we (you and I and other Israel backers) define “success” in this thread as “succeeding in making the average participant in this thread leave it slightly more sympathetic to Israel than when then came in,” I’m afraid that at the end of the day you may be winning all the battles, but losing the war. Sometimes, it’s worthwhile just to let go and not micro-debate every last point, even if you are factually right… Not attacking you, obviously I think your heart is in the right place
This poston a legal blog has some interesting discussion on applicability of the international law of blockades and it makes a convincing case that it applies to international armed conflicts (IAC) between states and not non-state conflict. Of course even if the San Remo manual is applicable it asserts principles like proportionality and international humanitarian law which IMO are clearly violated by Israel’s blockade.
Yes, it does. If you keep on starving you die. If you can maintain a level of food intake that will allow you to live out your entire life until you die of old age, you are not starving. At the point where you define starvation as something other than the lack of nutrients needed for life, then it’s lost any operational definition. One can of course arrest the progress of starvation by eating food, but starvation that goes unchecked results in death.
If you’re claiming that a state of “starvation” exists which can exist indefinitely then you’re talking about something quite different from starvation.
Then again, as your argument is at the point where you’re claiming that chocolate is an essential food as proven by the fact that the US army includes it in rations, but cigarettes are not a necessary item as proven despite the fact that the US army included them, well…
Your argument is proceeding backwards from a conclusion to find facts. It is now at the level of: ‘Starvation is going on and can go on forever as children grow up, have children and die of old age. And essential foods are not being provided, we know this because chocolate is not in supply.’
Yes, actually, that’s exactly the situation. And its one that you’re cherrypicking the facts about, to boot. I already provided the cite, I’ll quote some more from it.
This is the problem, when the normal seasonal variations of a disease are a humanitarian crisis, we’re no longer using terms with any meaning besides political impact.
Apparently not. And you just cited something that debunks the hyperbolic nonsense about a “humanitarian crisis due to starvation!” Yes, there are Iron deficiencies, yes, there are vitamin deficiencies. No, one is not “starving” if they don’t get enough vitamin C in their diet. Otherwise America’s got a whole lot of starving fat people. :rolleyes:
You’re also cherrypicking data there. I already cited UNICEF’s findings. Underweight children were roughly 1.5 percent of the population group. The percentage who evinced stunting are actually the lowest in the middle east (with Israel excluded, we would imagine). On the other hand, overweight children make up about 16% of the population group.
You. You claimed that Israel was not an occupying power, at least according to its supreme court. That was false, as the SC’s verdict you cited only applied to Gaza. I asked you to provide a cite that it applied that verdict to the West Bank. I’m pretty sure the repeated use of “fuck” is not a cite.
Yep, because it is incorrect.
It would be correct if you stated that, instead of a blanket situation, Israel didn’t view its control over Gaza as constituting belligerent occupation.
It would be even better if you stated that Israel doesn’t view its control over Gaza as constituting a belligerent occupation, but it does view itself as having responsibilities that are in accord with many of the requirements of occupying powers.
Ironically, you yourself provided a cite that discusses the fact that Israel views itself as having more responsibilities than a non-occupying power. You cherrpicked the quotes you wanted and didn’t quote the rest, right around them.
That’s an interesting case which dealt with the humanitarian obligations that Israel had towards Gaza as balanced by security considerations. There’s also the fact that even though a state of belligerent occupation may have been rescinded in 2008, the decision in 2007 in fact reinforced the conclusion that Israel was bound by international law in the treatment of the population of Gaza. The relevant laws would be “Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.”
The 1994 Gaza-Jericho agreement served as the basis for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. In it, Israel was given authority to act precisely as it did on Monday. The relevant sentence states: “As part of Israel’s responsibilities for safety and security within the three Maritime Activity Zones, Israel Navy vessels may sail throughout these zones, as necessary and without limitations, and may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities, or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity…”
It’s not a very convincing argument; it seems to me an example of question-begging.
Here’s the relevant part:
[Emphasis added]
It seems what the author of the article does is to say that the San Remo Manual does not expressly state you can “blocade” a non-state entity, and then leap to the conclusion that if the Manual does not expressly state you can do it, them you can’t; and that because several articles expressly use the term “beligerent states”, this means that “states” are meant throughout.
However, the authour should be aware that this is not how interpretation works. The authors are presumed to be using the term “states” when the mean “states” and where they deliberately avoid using the term “states”, they mean something more inclusive.
Let’s examine the provisions that the author of the article is basing his or her analysis on. The author claims that the Manual uses “states” in article 10, and thus only states must be included where interpreting who can be blockaded. Article 10 states as follows:
The author appears to be claiming that this means only “beligerent States” may be blockaded. Yet there is nothing to support that contention. Indeed, the exact opposite appears to be true. In the relevant article concerning “blockade”, the authors are careful not to use the term “belligerent States”:
[Emphasis added]
Please note the lack of qualifier “States” after the term 'belligerent[s]"
The natural reading of this is that there can exist “belligerents” who are not “belligerent States”, and who may be notified (and thus subject) to blockade. That exactly fits Gaza.
In short, I do not think that the author has reasoned well.
Its claim rests around the fact that blockades are explicitly justified in a situation of war, and Sam Remo doesn’t specificy anything at all about international versus non-international blockades, but a declaration in the early 20th century in London
The idea that the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas wasn’t the Israel-Hamas war but the Israel Hamas, I don’t know, police action? It’s a bit odd.
Sam Remo was not some archaic document either. It dates from 1994.
Surely if they meant that only IAC’s were recognized, they’d have put that in somewhere. In fact, they do recognize the status of IAC’s in regards to specific instances (like a UNSC Chapter VII resolution). It does discuss conflict between a “state” and an “enemy”, not “two states”.
It states nothing about an armed attack “by another state.” Simply “an armed attack”. Likewise, the UNSC has not taken steps to maintain peace and security were Hamas able to import freely.
I think you are reading too much into this. The manual uses the terms “belligerent” and “belligerent states” interchangeably. For example"
Clearly the belligerent State referred to in the first line is the same as the "belligerent" referred to later. Nowhere in the document is there any reference to a belligerent being a non-state actor. As the post argues the history of international law of blockades has clearly been about international conflicts. If the San Remo manual wanted to extend that to blockades against non-state actors it presumably would have been specific about that.
I’m not saying the blockade is illegitimate. Unlike some people I am willing to acknowledge possiblities other than the ones were floating around inside my head when the dabate started. The blockade may be legal and if so then maintaining that blockade in international waters was also legal.
Yeah I think its elastic as well and I just saw the blocakde as one of many indignities heaped on teh Palestinians to punish hamas.
If I were Israel I would want to prevent those rockets too but they went too far. They should have limited their blockade to actual weapons but now they won’t be able to keep a Turkish warship out of the Gaza harbor.
Isn’t there some way to keep the good part of hamas while getting rid of the bad part? I mean didn’t Golda Meir do seomthing like that with the Israeli terrorists that did bad stuff when Israel was created? Can’t some leader denounce terrorism and praise the aprt of hamas that runs schools and hospitals?
You are simply wrong. The dictionary disagrees with you. I’m not saying that starving cannot result in death, it is simply that death is not a requirement.
You’re American aren’t you? Is Merriam Webster ok?
I’m not getting involved in the rest. i find it too depressing. Look up malnutrition in a dictionary. One can be malnourished and still obese. Hell, one could argue that obesity may be caused by malnutrition.
That’s the last I’ll say on the matter.
We were talking ABOUT GAZA. The flotilla was heading TO GAZA. The West Bank never came into it.
Again, the discussion was about Gaza as that is where the Flotilla was heading. The West bank is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
One can only view this as a quite embarrassing attempt to wriggle out of a situation where you have shown to be really quite wrong and ignorant of the very basics of the situation in Gaza.
Actually, the Supreme Court Ruling clearly states that Israel believes that it no-longer is required to fulfill certain duties and that those in Gaza could now be considered an “unlawful combatant”:
But enough about that. The fact remains, you repeatedly claimed that Israel considered itself an occupying power with respect to Gaza (you know, the place that the flotilla was heading to and that we were discussing).
You have been shown to be really quite wrong.
FinnAgain, consider your ignorance fought and beaten.
I’m not exactly sure, which is why I asked. I suspect it has something to do with the presence of Jews on one side and not the other. Seriously though, if Egypt also had a blockade going, where was all the condemnation for that?
You’re right, so it’s unfortunate you didn’t go back and review the post to remove the stuff that was going to get you into trouble. “The levels of pure stupidity and ignorance being shown by you” is an insult, not an allowable attack on an argument. Suggesting another poster “just randomly type[s] shit out” isn’t allowed either. This is a formal warning: don’t do it again.
Up until last friday I might have been convinced that you are right. Today its a lot tougher.
while you can’t sacrifice your children so Jamal can pursue his dreams a lot of the stuff that israel does seems to be directed at Jamal Average (or at least impacts him more than it impacts Hamas).
Nowhere in the document does it state that a belligerent must be a state actor.
And as it’s based on the UN Charter Article 51, which also only references self defense and not only self defense in the context of an IAC,there’s no reason to think that Sam Remo simply failed to indicate that part of 51 no longer applied. Especially since it specifically and explicitly says that 51 is “subject to the conditions and limitations laid down in the Charter” and yet nowhere states that a condition and limitation of that self defense is that both of the parties be states.
