Isn’t that also the Israeli view of the right of return? The right fo return looks (to many in Israel) like an offer that the current Jewish majority in Israel give up that majority and subject themselves to the democratic mercies of a Palestinian majority.
Of course, it doesn’t. But it has been misrepresented as such. A document that talks about the economic aspect of the blockade, one that’s explicitly authorized by the 4th Geneva Convention, is presented as something that gainsays any other possible dynamics to the blockade. It’s a rather transparent dodge.
And you’re welcome to read the thread whenever is convenient for you and comment about the faux transcript that Red posted and then didn’t deign to mention once it was shown to be a forgery.
No, the basis for declaring the blockade legal is that starvation of the population is not its “sole intent”, and that the harm to civilians caused by the blockade is outweighed by the “military” objectives. Those are the critera as established in the relevant document - the Manual codification of international law.
Thus, even taking as a given that one purpose of the blockade is to put pressure on the general population (and I think that this is indeed one purpose), this in itself does not make the blockade “illegal” under international law.
Whether or not the blockade is moral or sensible is of course a matter of opinion. In mine, some form of blockade - to keep out heavy weaponry - would be both; I dislike the current Israeli version as being excessively arbitrary.
Nonetheless, no matter what my personal opinion is, it remains legal.
BOLDING MINE
Needle on my irony meter just snapped off.
I think the point is that Palestine should not have the capability to attack Israel. I would counter that israel could handle any attack that palestinians could muster, their real existential threat comes from larger more developed arab countries that were once willing to recognize Israel (but it is not clear that they still are).
As Finn has displayed, a single state solution is simply not acceptable because it will destroy Israel (as a jewish state) and leave us with a state that is majority Palestinian (and the palestinians will undoubetedly establish concentration camps).
Why would he answer something that undermines his argument. He doesn’t necessarily want a demilitarized Palestine so that palestine will be at his mercy, it is just a happy side effect of wanting a demilitarized Palestine so that Palestine will not be able to attack Israel (and no Israel will not simply trust that the folks that they have kept in refugee camps for the last 60 years will simply forgive israel for generations of abuse and injustice).
But they are not demilitarized in the sense that Finn means (which is wierd because he has in the past said that he would be OK with a palestinian state having military power (at least enough to keep terrosists in check, and considering how much military force the IDF has to use to suppress terrorism…).
Please respond to what I’ve actually posted rather than… .whatever it is you’re responding to. The fact is that Netanyahu agreed to a Palestinian state if it was demilitarized. It is your fiction that I was the one who advocated such a thing, i was simply responding to the fiction that Netanyahu did not really support a Palestinian state.
That you are now repeating this nonsense about a demilitarized state in the way in which “I” mean it is nonsense. I’ve never endorsed any such thing.
And how would you guarantee the rights and safety of jews in a Palestine with a minority jewish population?
I think people who think a majority Palestinian Israel will become a muslim theocracy fail to recognize taht there are plenty of muslim arab states that are not theocracies, but are the Palestinians simply going to forgive the Jews for 60 years of injustice? really?
To be fair, I don’t think the USa really cares about the demographics of Israel so much as it cares about the Pro-American stance of Israel and as israel joins the rest of the world in criticizing the USA, the USA starts to wonder if we should be supporting Israel with money and political capital as much as we do.
I don’t think Netenyahu is insisting on any sort of solution. I think that the widow of Yitzhak Rabin is genuine in her advocacy of a a two state solution as the only practical solution that has a chance of achieving peace. I think the one state solution is nice to think about but Palestinians can either have half a state now (and in all likelihood the other half when Israeli demographics makes the jews in israel a large minority) or they can wait until Israeli Jews are on the verge of losing their majority and risk the Knesset passing a law that strips citizenship from Palestinians. I say take your bird in the hand now and get the other one later.
Still don’t know what to do about Kerusalem (since noone seems to take my idea of giving it to the Buddhists seriously, Those tibetans might be able to teach the arabs and Jews a thing or two about peace).
Japan is indeed anything other than demilitarized. Japan’s military, the Jieitai, has the seventh largest budget in the world. It has nearly a quarter million personnel and another 60k in reserve. Japanese contingents have been involved in UN peacekeeping operations, and some were deployed in Iraq until 2006.
This is obviously not central to the Palestinian issue, but since enough people keep repeating this canard about the Japanese military, I figure it bears mention.
The Japanese have formally renounced war and belligerency; nevertheless, I would not want to fuck with their self-defence forces.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e112.htm
See also
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/07/muslim-lies-and-videotape/
http://article.nationalreview.com/435916/beyond-bigotry/clifford-d-may
Perhaps Erdogan really does want to establish a new Ottoman empire:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/10/the_new_wannabe_ottomans_105913.html
I would propose that Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law - Wikipedia combined with Law of Return - Wikipedia is skewing the result
I think the unapologetic position is that it this is a valid objective in war.
For those of you who ask when will there be peace? The answer: when the hate indoctrination of children stops, allowing them to live in peace. The horrendous indoctrination of children in Gaza by Hamas should concern human rights activists at least as much as whether they have jam for their toast. Below,a video from Itamar Marcus’ Palestinian Media Watch showing "how Hamas promotes hatred, violence, martyrdom, for children all from their own TV, with an intro by Hillary Clinton. The name is “Bombs are more precious than children”
How does the ban on coriander promote this prospect?
Seems to me that petty shit like that encourages folks to tell their children that Israelis are hateful bastards who want them to suffer. Is it Israel’s master plan to lead the Palestinians clear through hatred, and out the other side to where love conquers all, or what? If so, I suspect that they’ve been reading far too much Pratchett to get along with anyone in the real world.
The way Israel has implemented the blockade effectively eliminates any possibility of there ever being peace, without the utter destruction of one side or the other.
If you click on some of those other links, you’ll see that some of those who have been in Gaza (including journalists) say there is not the shortage Hamas claims. “Petty shit” indeed. What’s petty about indoctrinating children to hate Israelis, who are depicted as animals? Israel does not have a master plan. All she wants is to be recognized as a state by the Palestinians and other Arabs. And to be left in peace. All Palestine wants is the destruction of Israel and the end of a Jewish state.
The main purpose of the flotilla, as noted many times over, was to break the blockade, so that future shipments will not be inspected, and those future shipments will quite probably contain arms for the Hamas. Check my recent links. The flotilla expected and invited a confrontation.
So pick an example that you’ll allow is real. Or do you prefer to claim there are NO petty shortages imposed by the blockade?
Whatever that shortage may be, it promotes the teaching of hatred.
Barring some sort of quantum leap in Palestinian conciousness, you’ll never achieve peace by pissing them off with petty bullshit.
If Palestinians must give up their hatred for peace to happen, mustn’t the Israelis also give up their hatred? Why not?
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
Rather grandiose name for a site that seems to have opened two days ago and has but that one “article” on it. :rolleyes:
Funny though, as I picture thousands of dedicated Israelis furiously sitting at their 'puters thinking of ways to spin this colossal fuck-up.
This one in particular, sucks.
Must. Do. Better.
Democracy and tolerance in action. Israel style:
Arab lawmaker on flotilla sparks outrage in Israel
– underscore mine.
What a country!
You have been asked for a definition as to your meaning of “demilitarized” several times, to my personal knowledge. All you appear to be willing to say is that you are woefully misunderstood, but won’t actually clarify your meaning, in particular how that differs from a state of practical helplessness. Which is to say, at Israel’s mercy.
Rather than ask us to play twenty questions, wouldn’t it be simpler just to tell us exactly what you mean, rather than deny misinterpretations?