Red Cross: Israel's Gaza blockade breaks international law

[WIP]

If you want me to respond to your replies, make them worth replying to, because this one doesn't cut it. In the meantime, I'll continue to pick and choose which of your posts I comment on.

And in that light, once again, the living conditions in Gaza are not "Israel's fault," as you have claimed.

Now, if you can refute anything I've said, and can actually engage in an intelligent discussion, I'll consider actually responding to your post.

In the meantime, I supplied my link stating that Hamas has, up until now, refused to let the UN deliver the aid from the flotilla into Gaza in protest of the blockade. You don't like it, take it up with them. In the meantime, my sources are just as accurate as yours.

I have read enough evidence that the Israeli Government is restricting the amounts and types of foods allowed through the blockade to deliberately cause physical harm in Gaza. That qualifies as collective punishment of a civilian population, and is about as clear a violation of human rights as you can get. And who do you think is going to be most affected: Hamas or women and children? That should be self-evident, and since Israel is the controlling power conducting a blockade, they ultimately have the responsibility to ensure that their policies do not harm the civilian population. Whatever evidence you have about Hamas is a moot point, because they are not the ones who are controlling the blockade.

[Guest American Woman]

I have read enough evidence that the Israeli Government is restricting the amounts and types of foods allowed through the blockade to deliberately cause physical harm in Gaza. That qualifies as collective punishment of a civilian population, and is about as clear a violation of human rights as you can get. And who do you think is going to be most affected: Hamas or women and children? That should be self-evident, and since Israel is the controlling power conducting a blockade, they ultimately have the responsibility to ensure that their policies do not harm the civilian population. Whatever evidence you have about Hamas is a moot point, because they are not the ones who are controlling the blockade.

The evidence I have about Hamas shows that their actions are also keeping supplies/aid from reaching the civilians you refer to. Why you dismiss their actions is difficult to understand. It doesn't matter whether they are the ones controlling the blockade or not, their actions hurt them just the same. As do those in charge of the tunnels, who don't want the blockade to end as they would no longer make millions.

You also overlook the fact that shooting rockets into Israel affects Israeli citizens. That should be self-evident. Hamas has also clearly violated Israeli human rights, as killing women and children with suicide bombs is as clear a violation of human rights as you can get. As long as Israel is being thus threatened, it's a two-way street, and Israel is not the blame for conditions in Gaza. But for Hamas being elected into power, but for the actions of Hamas, the blockade would not have been put into existence. And but for the rockets being fired into Israel whenever there's talk of lifting the blockade, the blockade may have already been lifted. But if rockets are fired into Israel in response to the possibility of lifting the blockade, who do you blame for the blockade staying in place?

The UN sanctions, of course, also hurt the Iraqi population. They didn't hurt Saddam. So it's rather ironic that the same people who were in charge of that now criticize Israel for basically doing the same thing. I guess it's ultimately not the action that's wrong, but who's carrying it out.

Edited June 15, 2010 by American Woman

[Bob]

I have read enough evidence that the Israeli Government is restricting the amounts and types of foods allowed through the blockade to deliberately cause physical harm in Gaza. That qualifies as collective punishment of a civilian population, and is about as clear a violation of human rights as you can get. And who do you think is going to be most affected: Hamas or women and children? That should be self-evident, and since Israel is the controlling power conducting a blockade, they ultimately have the responsibility to ensure that their policies do not harm the civilian population. Whatever evidence you have about Hamas is a moot point, because they are not the ones who are controlling the blockade.

Israel has no legal or moral obligation to ensure that chocolate and jam and delivered to a territory ruled by an organization (with popular support from the public) that is openly hostile to Israel with words and actions. Not only is Hamas open about its desire for the destruction of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel, they act upon with acts of murder via rockets and other terrorist acts.

Hamas itself wants nothing to do with Israel with respect to commerece (effectively shutting out ~30% of the Gazan economy pre-blockade). If there was no blockade on Gaza via its borders with Israel, Hamas would not permit any crossing of goods or people into Israel, but would try to do things via the sea border and Egypt, which would still harm Gazans and lead to shortages of non-essentials.

There is no international law being broken. Israel has a legal and moral obligation to protect itself from its enemies, hence the blockade. There has never been a blockade this soft in human history, with Israel still taking upon itself the burden of allowing necessities into Gaza. When has this ever happened in the history of war (outside of American and coalition humanitarian aid to its enemies of the past in some ways).

Lastly, Israel is not in a position where it can always differentiate Hamas and its affiliates from the "civilian" population. The longer the list of permitted goods and the more flexible the rules for the transferring of people, the greater the material burden and security risk to Israel. If Gaza can demonstrate itself to NOT be openly hostile (i.e. constant statements AND acts of murder against Israel), then we can talk. Israel's pre-condition for desiring recognition prior to serious negotiations isn't too much to ask. Stop killing us and inciting others to kill us, and we can talk. What a thought!

[naomiglover]

:lol:

Yeah, my "misinformation:"

Up to now, the Hamas rulers of Gaza have refused to accept the aid as a protest against Israel's three-year blockade of the territory. link

Now yap some more about my "damaged credibility" and how "smart" you are. I always appreciate comedy.

There you go.

So let us look at the situation. What are the reasons and what are the motives?

As you have said, is Hamas purposely wanting to prevent the selected fortilla aid to get into Gaza because they want to starve their own people and then blame Israel, or as Hamas have said, are they doing it because they want to protest Israel's illegal blockade?

My personal opinion is that Hamas wants to put further focus and international pressure on Israel, while the news is hot, by saying they will not accept the aid as long as the activists are being held and the illegal blockade is continuing. This political move by Hamas will damage them more than help the situation.

[Guest American Woman]

There you go.

So let us look at the situation. What are the reasons and what are the motives?

Yes, by all means, when it involves Hamas, let's look at the reasons and the motives.

As you have said, is Hamas purposely wanting to prevent the selected fortilla aid to get into Gaza because they want to starve their own people and then blame Israel, or as Hamas have said, are they doing it because they want to protest Israel's illegal blockade?

As I said, great way to protest the blockade. Keep out the aid that the blockade would have prevented from getting in themselves (if indeed it would have been prevented from getting in but for the actions of the 'activists') to protest the blockade. Hurt the very people who are being hurt by the blockade further to protest the blockade. Really impressive way of protesting, hurting people other than themselves.

But let's turn your words back on you. Let's look at Israel's reasons and motives for the blockade.

Is Israel purposely wanting to prevent aid from getting into Gaza because they want to starve the Palestinians, or, as Israel has said, to protest Hamas being in power and keep weapons from getting in their hands? Hamas, who is responsible for rocket attacks and purposely killing innocent civilians, including women, children, and babies? And is Israel keeping the blockade on in spite of talks to lift it, talks that result in rocket attacks, just to punish the Palestinians, or to protect Israelis? And if the UN thought sanctions against Iraq was a good, peaceful way to keep Saddam in check, why shouldn't Israel think the blockade is a good, peaceful way to keep Hamas in check?

My personal opinion is that Hamas wants to put further focus and international pressure on Israel, while the news is hot, by saying they will not accept the aid as long as the activists are being held and the illegal blockade is continuing.

And my personal opinion is the people who could have been helped by the aid getting in are just as bad off as when Israel keeps the aid out, and I find it odd that your concern for their wellbeing has suddenly been toned down considerably. (On second thought, I don't find it odd at all.)

This political move by Hamas will damage them more than help the situation.

Oh my. Such harsh criticism! Keep criticizing both side this way. It's quite commendable. I just don't understand how people can keep insisting you're one-sided in light of this condemnation and outpouring of concern over the Palestinians who have suffered by Hamas' "protest" when your outrage is so obvious. Your response and outrage over those operating the tunnels and those shooting rockets into Israel whenever Israel speaks of lifting the blockade is equally damning.

[naomiglover]

Yes, by all means, when it involves Hamas, let's look at the reasons and the motives.

As I said, great way to protest the blockade. Keep out the aid that the blockade would have prevented from getting in themselves (if indeed it would have been prevented from getting in but for the actions of the 'activists') to protest the blockade. Hurt the very people who are being hurt by the blockade further to protest the blockade. Really impressive way of protesting, hurting people other than themselves.

But let's turn your words back on you. Let's look at Israel's reasons and motives for the blockade.

Is Israel purposely wanting to prevent aid from getting into Gaza because they want to starve the Palestinians, or, as Israel has said, to protest Hamas being in power and keep weapons from getting in their hands? Hamas, who is responsible for rocket attacks and purposely killing innocent civilians, including women, children, and babies? And is Israel keeping the blockade on in spite of talks to lift it, talks that result in rocket attacks, just to punish the Palestinians, or to protect Israelis? And if the UN thought sanctions against Iraq was a good, peaceful way to keep Saddam in check, why shouldn't Israel think the blockade is a good, peaceful way to keep Hamas in check?

And my personal opinion is the people who could have been helped by the aid getting in are just as bad off as when Israel keeps the aid out, and I find it odd that your concern for their wellbeing has suddenly been toned down considerably. (On second thought, I don't find it odd at all.)

Oh my. Such harsh criticism! Keep criticizing both side this way. It's quite commendable. I just don't understand how people can keep insisting you're one-sided in light of this condemnation and outpouring of concern over the Palestinians who have suffered by Hamas' "protest" when your outrage is so obvious. Your response and outrage over those operating the tunnels and those shooting rockets into Israel whenever Israel speaks of lifting the blockade is equally damning.

I have no problem with the tunnels. It's a way to survive the illegal blockade.

The rockets, as I have pointed out repeatedly, are wrong and illegal. Even though they've only killed a handful of Israelis in the past few years, it is still wrong and I strongly condemn the act. But don't let that fact stop you from you continuously accusing me of supporting Hamas' illegal acts.

Remind me when your objective view point condemns Israel's illegal actions, like the blockade which has been described by the Red Cross as a a violation of international law. Israel's blockade is not legal. Usually, violating humanitarian law should end discussions and people don't try to justify it. But in your case, you prefer to justify it, despite strong criticism from many different expert organizations such as Red Cross, Amnesty International, HRW, UNCHR, Richard Goldstone and numerous organizations.

[Bonam]

Usually, violating humanitarian law should end discussions and people don't try to justify it.

Hahaha what? You just want people to bow to this "international law" (interpreted and created by an organization where, among other ridiculous things, Iran sits on the women's rights council) and stfu? Sorry, not gonna happen.

For many people, the debate is about right or wrong, not about following the letter of the law as defined by an organization stacked with third world idiocy.

[Guest American Woman]

I have no problem with the tunnels. It's a way to survive the illegal blockade.

Those running them, making millions, have no problems with them either; which is why they shoot rockets at Israel to keep the blockade going. Good to know you have "no problems with the tunnels," though, even if that wasn't what I brought up. I brought up those in charge of the tunnels. Odd how you seemed to have missed that.

The rockets, as I have pointed out repeatedly, are wrong and illegal. Even though they've only killed a handful of Israelis in the past few years, it is still wrong and I strongly condemn the act.

Yes, quite strongly. So strongly that I seemed to have largely missed them in your barrage of anti-Israel threads and posts. Oh, sure. There's the occasional "bad Hamas!" post, hardly what most people would call "strongly condemning" them by any means, but remind me. How many threads have you started condemning the rocket attacks?

Oh. And good for you including your "even though they've only killed a handful of people in the past few years" observation. That really made your condemnation all the more forceful. Can't get much stronger than that!

But don't let that fact stop you from you continuously accusing me of supporting Hamas' illegal acts.

Since I haven't accused you of supporting Hamas' illegal acts, much less "continually," it would be pretty difficult for me to not stop something I haven't started. But don't let the fact that I never accused you of such a thing stop you from accusing me of having "continually" done so.

Remind me when your objective view point condemns Israel's illegal actions, like the blockade which has been described by the Red Cross as a a violation of international law.

Right after you remind me of how many anti-Palestine threads I've started and how many anti-Palestine posts I've made.

Israel's blockade is not legal.

So if it were legal, you would be ok with it. Is that it? And of course by "legal," you mean backed by the UN. So if the UN is responsible for sanctions or a blockade, to hell with the people it hurts. They'd just have to suck it up. It's legal, after all. Morals, ethics, harm to citizens be damned. If it's legal, then it's ok.

By your constant reference to the "legality" of things, I have to assume that you're ok with anything that's "legal." Real impressive critical thought process there. Me, I care more about the outcome than the "legality." If it were illegal for me to fight back if neighbors were trying to shoot at my family, I'd still fight back. I'm funny that way.

Usually, violating humanitarian law should end discussions and people don't try to justify it. But in your case, you prefer to justify it, despite strong criticism from many different expert organizations such as Red Cross, Amnesty International, HRW, UNCHR, Richard Goldstone and numerous organizations.

So when you look at Hamas' reasons and motives for their actions, that's not trying to justify violating humanitarian law. When you 'explain' why the Palestinians voted for Hamas, that's not trying to justify voting in an organization responsible for purposely targeting and killing civilians. But when I look at Israel's reasons and motives, I'm trying to justify violating humanitarian law. Got'cha.

Edited June 15, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

naomiglover, on 15 June 2010 - 04:15 PM, said: Usually, violating humanitarian law should end discussions and people don't try to justify it.

Hahaha what? You just want people to bow to this "international law" (interpreted and created by an organization where, among other ridiculous things, Iran sits on the women's rights council) and stfu? Sorry, not gonna happen.

And thank God it doesn't happen, considering some of the laws that have been on the books; laws that people fought rather than blindly accepted. Good example regarding Iran being on the women's rights council. Sure makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that Iran has a say in my rights as a woman. And of course I'd just accept whatever "international law" might decide about those rights, too.

For many people, the debate is about right or wrong, not about following the letter of the law as defined by an organization stacked with third world idiocy.

For anyone whose view is worthwhile, it's about right or wrong. It's scary to think what could become 'international law' if only enough nations backed it.

[naomiglover]

Those running them, making millions, have no problems with them either; which is why they shoot rockets at Israel to keep the blockade going. Good to know you have "no problems with the tunnels," though, even if that wasn't what I brought up. I brought up those in charge of the tunnels. Odd how you seemed to have missed that.

You haven't pointed to any information confirming that those who are running the tunnels are also firing rockets so they could continue to make 'millions' on these tunnels.

Show some reference to these millionaire tunnel owners who shoot rockets to keep their tunnel business going.

Yes, quite strongly. So strongly that I seemed to have largely missed them in your barrage of anti-Israel threads and posts. Oh, sure. There's the occasional "bad Hamas!" post, hardly what most people would call "strongly condemning" them by any means, but remind me. How many threads have you started condemning the rocket attacks?

Oh. And good for you including your "even though they've only killed a handful of people in the past few years" observation. That really made your condemnation all the more forceful. Can't get much stronger than that!

Right after you remind me of how many anti-Palestine threads I've started and how many anti-Palestine posts I've made.

The situation, despite your suggestion, is not 50/50. Furthermore, I do not see anyone here defending Hamas' illegal actions, like rocket attacks or suicide attacks. Do you see it? Because if you do, point me to it and I will make a comment about it.

The reason why I point to Israel's illegal actions is because there are people here, like yourself, who try to defend it.

Also, because our governments here in the West defend Israel, even though their actions are illegal.

This is why Israel's disproportionate acts and violations of international law are debate worthy.

So if it were legal, you would be ok with it. Is that it?

I think international law sets a pretty good precedent on what is right and what is wrong.

For example, it is wrong to collectively punish people, which is Israel is doing.

And of course by "legal," you mean backed by the UN.

Hold it right there.

Of course backed by UN? You're babbling and making things up again.

Not sure how many times this needs to be repeated that the following have deemed Israel to be violating international law. Some of these organizations are independent of the UN:

The Red Cross

Amnesty International

HRW

Richard Goldstone (backed by UN)

And numerous other professional organizations

So if the UN is responsible for sanctions or a blockade, to hell with the people it hurts. They'd just have to suck it up. It's legal, after all. Morals, ethics, harm to citizens be damned. If it's legal, then it's ok.

By your constant reference to the "legality" of things, I have to assume that you're ok with anything that's "legal." Real impressive critical thought process there.

Wrong. You are babbling again and creating a story in your head. I look at the report and investigations made by experts in this field and come to my own conclusion. I happen to trust the neutrality and professionalism of organizations such as the Red Cross and Amnesty International and also a person like Richard Goldstone.

Me, I care more about the outcome than the "legality." If it were illegal for me to fight back if neighbors were trying to shoot at my family, I'd still fight back. I'm funny that way.

No one has said you can't fight back and defend yourself. That's not what international law is about. If you knew anything about international law, you wouldn't make such an ignorant comment.

Fighting back against these neighbours, if the police in your neighbourhood is unable to help, does not mean that you can go and blow up a whole block and kill everyone on that block.

So when you look at Hamas' reasons and motives for their actions, that's not trying to justify violating humanitarian law. When you 'explain' why the Palestinians voted for Hamas, that's not trying to justify voting in an organization responsible for purposely targeting and killing civilians. But when I look at Israel's reasons and motives, I'm trying to justify violating humanitarian law. Got'cha.

You're babbling nonsense again.

Here is a simple fact:

- We all call Hamas' violation of law, a violation of law.

- You don't call Israel's violation of law, a violation of law and instead you try to justify it.

Edited June 16, 2010 by naomiglover

[M.Dancer]

You haven't pointed to any information confirming that those who are running the tunnels are also firing rockets so they could continue to make 'millions' on these tunnels.

I am not surprised you are cheering on those who smuggle in the materials to make the rockets...whats the worse that can happen...a few dozen rockets are lobbed at Israel and maybe some kid will be killed....whats the upside? Israel responds, targets a weapons factory and kills 5 kids and you and the world condemn israel...and for this equation to work...you need the tunnels...

children are the canon fodder of the terrorist apologist.

[Guest American Woman]

You're babbling nonsense again.

And I'm done wasting time with you again.

[naomiglover]

And I'm done wasting time with you again.

You said the same thing the last few times when you couldn't respond to facts.

[Bob]

You said the same thing the last few times when you couldn't respond to facts.

In all seriousness, you're a laughing stock of this forum. You're in no position to crticize American Woman's conduct or posts on any matter. She's honest and thoughtful in her posts, you most certainly are not.

I'm not sure what's happened to you that warped your perspective of these matter so much, especially considering that you have some form of Jewish heritage (right?) - although I'll presume that you've thrown away most or all of your Jewish identity. Tell me, do you identify yourself as Jewish? You've said you were born and spent your early years in Israel, but you've never identified yourself as Jewish. I'm certain that it is not by accident that you've omitted this detail. Am I correct? Either a) you've thrown away your Jewish identity thinking its modernizes you and is the path of liberal enlightenment, or you're not Jewish at all (you're and Arab or something else).

Regardless, perhaps you're just young and naive. You've stated yourself that your position on these issues (virulently anti-Israel) was developed in school in Canada. I also took some political science electives in university (many of my university friends were into politics, most of them heavily leaning left) and have a reasonable sense of the leftist, warped perspectives that are prevalent among university communities. Something must have happened there and some light-switch went off in your mind, "Ah ha! I now know everything I'll ever need to know about the conflict!" And so you go on shaping every single development in the Middle East into your anti-Israel and pro-terrorist perspective. Maybe in time you'll have another awakening bringing you somewhere closer to reality.

[naomiglover]

In all seriousness, you're a laughing stock of this forum. You're in no position to crticize American Woman's conduct or posts on any matter. She's honest and thoughtful in her posts, you most certainly are not.

I'm not sure what's happened to you that warped your perspective of these matter so much, especially considering that you have some form of Jewish heritage (right?) - although I'll presume that you've thrown away most or all of your Jewish identity. Tell me, do you identify yourself as Jewish? You've said you were born and spent your early years in Israel, but you've never identified yourself as Jewish. I'm certain that it is not by accident that you've omitted this detail. Am I correct? Either a) you've thrown away your Jewish identity thinking its modernizes you and is the path of liberal enlightenment, or you're not Jewish at all (you're and Arab or something else).

Regardless, perhaps you're just young and naive. You've stated yourself that your position on these issues (virulently anti-Israel) was developed in school in Canada. I also took some political science electives in university (many of my university friends were into politics, most of them heavily leaning left) and have a reasonable sense of the leftist, warped perspectives that are prevalent among university communities. Something must have happened there and some light-switch went off in your mind, "Ah ha! I now know everything I'll ever need to know about the conflict!" And so you go on shaping every single development in the Middle East into your anti-Israel and pro-terrorist perspective. Maybe in time you'll have another awakening bringing you somewhere closer to reality.

Ah. Right doc.

Maybe you want to reply to the following which American Woman is unable to do:

Those running them, making millions, have no problems with them either; which is why they shoot rockets at Israel to keep the blockade going. Good to know you have "no problems with the tunnels," though, even if that wasn't what I brought up. I brought up those in charge of the tunnels. Odd how you seemed to have missed that.

You haven't pointed to any information confirming that those who are running the tunnels are also firing rockets so they could continue to make 'millions' on these tunnels.

Show some reference to these millionaire tunnel owners who shoot rockets to keep their tunnel business going.

Yes, quite strongly. So strongly that I seemed to have largely missed them in your barrage of anti-Israel threads and posts. Oh, sure. There's the occasional "bad Hamas!" post, hardly what most people would call "strongly condemning" them by any means, but remind me. How many threads have you started condemning the rocket attacks?

Oh. And good for you including your "even though they've only killed a handful of people in the past few years" observation. That really made your condemnation all the more forceful. Can't get much stronger than that!

Right after you remind me of how many anti-Palestine threads I've started and how many anti-Palestine posts I've made.

The situation, despite your suggestion, is not 50/50. Furthermore, I do not see anyone here defending Hamas' illegal actions, like rocket attacks or suicide attacks. Do you see it? Because if you do, point me to it and I will make a comment about it.

The reason why I point to Israel's illegal actions is because there are people here, like yourself, who try to defend it.

Also, because our governments here in the West defend Israel, even though their actions are illegal.

This is why Israel's disproportionate acts and violations of international law are debate worthy.

So if it were legal, you would be ok with it. Is that it?

I think international law sets a pretty good precedent on what is right and what is wrong.

For example, it is wrong to collectively punish people, which is Israel is doing.

And of course by "legal," you mean backed by the UN.

Hold it right there.

Of course backed by UN? You're babbling and making things up again.

Not sure how many times this needs to be repeated that the following have deemed Israel to be violating international law. Some of these organizations are independent of the UN:

The Red Cross

Amnesty International

HRW

Richard Goldstone (backed by UN)

And numerous other professional organizations

So if the UN is responsible for sanctions or a blockade, to hell with the people it hurts. They'd just have to suck it up. It's legal, after all. Morals, ethics, harm to citizens be damned. If it's legal, then it's ok.

By your constant reference to the "legality" of things, I have to assume that you're ok with anything that's "legal." Real impressive critical thought process there.

Wrong. You are babbling again and creating a story in your head. I look at the report and investigations made by experts in this field and come to my own conclusion. I happen to trust the neutrality and professionalism of organizations such as the Red Cross and Amnesty International and also a person like Richard Goldstone.

Me, I care more about the outcome than the "legality." If it were illegal for me to fight back if neighbors were trying to shoot at my family, I'd still fight back. I'm funny that way.

No one has said you can't fight back and defend yourself. That's not what international law is about. If you knew anything about international law, you wouldn't make such an ignorant comment.

Fighting back against these neighbours, if the police in your neighbourhood is unable to help, does not mean that you can go and blow up a whole block and kill everyone on that block.

So when you look at Hamas' reasons and motives for their actions, that's not trying to justify violating humanitarian law. When you 'explain' why the Palestinians voted for Hamas, that's not trying to justify voting in an organization responsible for purposely targeting and killing civilians. But when I look at Israel's reasons and motives, I'm trying to justify violating humanitarian law. Got'cha.

You're babbling nonsense again.

Here is a simple fact:

- We all call Hamas' violation of law, a violation of law.

- You don't call Israel's violation of law, a violation of law and instead you try to justify it.

[Bob]

naomiglover - What do you propose Israel do to defend itself from rockets? You always add a token reference stating that Israel has a right to defend itself, always alongside a condemnation of everything Israel does. So what should it do in the face of rockets and others acts of terrorism (suicide bombings, shooting and stabbing murders of its citizens, etc)? If not the blockade and Cast Lead, what is Israel to do?

Let me ask you a fundamental question (I'm quite sure I know your answer):

1) Does Israel have a right to exist as Jewish state - in other words, do you accept Jewish nationalism?

Edited June 16, 2010 by Bob

[naomiglover]

naomiglover - What do you propose Israel do to defend itself from rockets? You always add a token reference stating that Israel has a right to defend itself, always alongside a condemnation of everything Israel does. So what should it do in the face of rockets and others acts of terrorism (suicide bombings, shooting and stabbing murders of its citizens, etc)? If not the blockade and Cast Lead, what is Israel to do?

Okay. I only have a few minutes because I really need my beauty sleep.

How does Israel defend itself?

Follow international law and work with the 1967 border. It's not like the PLO rejects it. Hamas has already said they would be willing to consider the Arab League proposal (which supports the 1967 border).

In the meantime, they should freeze all the illegal settlement activities while an agreement is reached. An agreement that could involve land swap and compensation to the refugees, instead of a right of return.

During the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Hamas did not fire any rockets into Israel. Not to say that during the ceasefire no rockets were fired. There were a few militant/terrorist groups in the Gaza strip who did fire a few rockets, but they should be looked at the same way as extremist settlers who commit violent acts towards Palestinians. They should not be the cause of war.

As you probably remember, it was Israel who attacked Hamas and killed something like 6 of their members, which ended the successful ceasefire. In retaliation, Hamas fired rockets and well, we know what happened next.

Let me ask you a fundamental question (I'm quite sure I know your answer):

1) Does Israel have a right to exist as Jewish state - in other words, do you accept Jewish nationalism?

Yes. Absolutely. The land that has been lawfully allocated to Israel should never be taken from her.

Let me ask you a fundamental question - I'm afraid I know the answer, based on the Caroline Glick video you posted:

Do you think the Palestinians have a right to have their own state?

[bloodyminded]

del

Edited June 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

In all seriousness, you're a laughing stock of this forum.

Among the servile-to-power sycophants, certainly. If i were Naomiglover, I would wear such criticism as evidence I was on the right track.

I'm not sure what's happened to you that warped your perspective of these matter so much, especially considering that you have some form of Jewish heritage (right?) - although I'll presume that you've thrown away most or all of your Jewish identity. Tell me, do you identify yourself as Jewish? You've said you were born and spent your early years in Israel, but you've never identified yourself as Jewish. I'm certain that it is not by accident that you've omitted this detail. Am I correct? Either a) you've thrown away your Jewish identity thinking its modernizes you and is the path of liberal enlightenment, or you're not Jewish at all (you're and Arab or something else).

As you well know, Jewish people are among the harshest critics of Israel's and the United States' policies, so I don't see why you'd find Naomi's Jewishness so incredible.

Regardless, perhaps you're just young and naive. You've stated yourself that your position on these issues (virulently anti-Israel) was developed in school in Canada. I also took some political science electives in university (many of my university friends were into politics, most of them heavily leaning left) and have a reasonable sense of the leftist, warped perspectives that are prevalent among university communities. Something must have happened there and some light-switch went off in your mind, "Ah ha! I now know everything I'll ever need to know about the conflict!" And so you go on shaping every single development in the Middle East into your anti-Israel and pro-terrorist perspective. Maybe in time you'll have another awakening bringing you somewhere closer to reality.

She doesn't have a "pro-terrorist perspective."

Which reminds me: to my knowledge, you still haven't answered my query on Western support for terrorism--both massive state terrorism and subnational terrorist groups. I ask because I'm trying to decipher whether or not you are "pro-terrorist."

[Bob]

Among the servile-to-power sycophants, certainly. If i were Naomiglover, I would wear such criticism as evidence I was on the right track.

As you well know, Jewish people are among the harshest critics of Israel's and the United States' policies, so I don't see why you'd find Naomi's Jewishness so incredible.

She doesn't have a "pro-terrorist perspective."

Perhaps, but most Jews have a solidarity with Israel from the gut. The perspectives of naomiglover are extreme and on the far edge of the fringe, and are wholly unrepresentative of the broader Jewish collective. Look, there are some things you just don't understand about us if you're not Jewish. It goes the other way around, I am completely unfamiliar with the endless nuances of many other cultures and religions. All I'm curious about is whether it's accidental of intentional that naomiglover's own self-descriptions in these forums never mention anything about her Jewishness. If you're Jewish, you'll say so. So, unsurprisingly, she's thrown away her Jewish identity as she's developed her political/social opinions.

Which reminds me: to my knowledge, you still haven't answered my query on Western support for terrorism--both massive state terrorism and subnational terrorist groups. I ask because I'm trying to decipher whether or not you are "pro-terrorist."

It's irrelevant to my point that the USA is the highest authority in the world with respect to human rights, and countries like Iran, NK, and Russia don't have a leg to stand on with respect to these issues. I also don't feel like getting into a pointless discussion about American adventures around the world throughout history.

[bloodyminded]

Perhaps, but most Jews have a solidarity with Israel from the gut. The perspectives of naomiglover are extreme and on the far edge of the fringe, and are wholly unrepresentative of the broader Jewish collective. Look, there are some things you just don't understand about us if you're not Jewish. It goes the other way around, I am completely unfamiliar with the endless nuances of many other cultures and religions. All I'm curious about is whether it's accidental of intentional that naomiglover's own self-descriptions in these forums never mention anything about her Jewishness. If you're Jewish, you'll say so. So, unsurprisingly, she's thrown away her Jewish identity as she's developed her political/social opinions.

To be fair to you, I'm not in any position to argue any point about Jewish identity.

It's irrelevant to my point that the USA is the highest authority in the world with respect to human rights, and countries like Iran, NK, and Russia don't have a leg to stand on with respect to these issues. I also don't feel like getting into a pointless discussion about American adventures around the world throughout history.

The pointless discussion you don't want to get into is exactly that which contradicts your first clause here.

If you talk domestically, the US is a good example of human rights.

Internationally, they are worse than Hamas or Hezbollah...because they have knowingly and intentionally funded and armed far worse regimes, and far worse terrorists. (So has many of the US's allies, by the way, a point that often gets lost.)

If Iran funding Hezbollah is bad, then the US and its allies funding worse groups is, well, worse.

Edited June 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Okay. I only have a few minutes because I really need my beauty sleep.

How does Israel defend itself?

Follow international law and work with the 1967 border. It's not like the PLO rejects it. Hamas has already said they would be willing to consider the Arab League proposal (which supports the 1967 border).

In the meantime, they should freeze all the illegal settlement activities while an agreement is reached. An agreement that could involve land swap and compensation to the refugees, instead of a right of return.

During the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Hamas did not fire any rockets into Israel. Not to say that during the ceasefire no rockets were fired. There were a few militant/terrorist groups in the Gaza strip who did fire a few rockets, but they should be looked at the same way as extremist settlers who commit violent acts towards Palestinians. They should not be the cause of war.

As you probably remember, it was Israel who attacked Hamas and killed something like 6 of their members, which ended the successful ceasefire. In retaliation, Hamas fired rockets and well, we know what happened next.

All of this is based on the flawed supposition that the settlement enterprise is the cause of hostility (i.e terrorism and murder) from the Palestinians and the Arabs and Muslims against Israel Jews, and our allies abroad. Go read the statements from Hamas and Hezbollah and the PA. Their own positions are not grounded in '67 borders. They want all of Israel. They want Jews out. It is amazing how elaborate you are with the motivations for the violence against Israel from its enemies, while completely ignoring the very words of these enemies. Hamas doesn't issue statements with details about which settlements are on their legal territory, and the blockade, or this occupational component, or the status of Arabs in Israel, their beef is with Israel in its entirety. It is shocking to me that someone like yourself who considers herself knowledgeable about the fundamental components of this conflict won't simply read the resolutions of the Islamic parties in power of Palestinians territories.

I don't follow Palestinian closely at all and even I know that "moderates" like Mahmoud Abbas refuse to recognize Israel's Jewish character and support terrorism (i.e. "noble resistance"). Your whole post is making up positions for a particular party with respect to their motivations - read their own words, read their public statements, read the resolutions they pass at their conventions and congresses.

Now, I won't even get into the specific falsehoods in your post, claiming that Israel is responsible for the escalation of violence in Cast Lead. When "extremist" Israeli settlers murder Palestinians, or launch rockets into Palestinian tows, then you'll have a point. Furthermore, unjust acts of violence against anyone by an Israeli is punished by the Israeli system. In Gaza, they are celebrated. You`re using what Aaron Miller calls `the power of the weak` to defend Palestinian violence - by implying that they can't be held responsible because of their own ineptitude (obviously a result of the occupation).

Yes. Absolutely. The land that has been lawfully allocated to Israel should never be taken from her.

Do you support the Law of Return and public funding for reinforcing Jewish culture and Jewish social programs?

Let me ask you a fundamental question - I'm afraid I know the answer, based on the Caroline Glick video you posted:

Do you think the Palestinians have a right to have their own state?

I used to be on the fence about this issue, I actually leaned heavily in favour of a Palestinian state. As I learn more and more about this conflict, however, I've realized that Palestinians simply cannot be given their own state. First of all, they don't want a two-state solution, they want a one-state - an Islamic state, with the liquidation of Jews. More specifically, though, a Palestinian state would simply become a larger version of the terror state that is Gaza. When Palestinian assume normal social values, then it's something to be considered. As they are now, however, a Palestinian state would simply be a disaster for Israeli security.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Bob

[naomiglover]

All of this is based on the flawed supposition that the settlement enterprise is the cause of hostility (i.e terrorism and murder) from the Palestinians and the Arabs and Muslims against Israel Jews, and our allies abroad. Go read the statements from Hamas and Hezbollah and the PA.

Their own positions are not grounded in '67 borders. They want all of Israel. They want Jews out.

It's amazing that you would make this comment. Reality seems to disagree with you.

Arafat signed an official statement, accepting Israel and resolution 242, way back in the late 80's. It was reconfirmed during the Oslo agreements. It sounds like you either don't know this basic information or you pretend that you don't know, which would make you a dishonest person.

Hamas' leaders Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, Ismail Haniyeh and Khalid Mashaal have also stated several times that their willingness to make peace and recognize Israel based on the 1967 borders.

I am amazed that you don't know this, based on the education and knowledge you claim to have.

Meanwhile, Likud has repeatedly and officially voted to never allow a Palestinian State, despite what Bibi keeps saying.

I would sit here and respond to the rest of your misinformation, but I think you need to learn and accept the simple facts above, before we can move forward.

I used to be on the fence about this issue, I actually leaned heavily in favour of a Palestinian state. As I learn more and more about this conflict, however, I've realized that Palestinians simply cannot be given their own state.

I think it's safe to say that you're advocating fascism.

[Bob]

It's amazing that you would make this comment. Reality seems to disagree with you.

Arafat signed an official statement, accepting Israel and resolution 242, way back in the late 80's. It was reconfirmed during the Oslo agreements. It sounds like you either don't know this basic information or you pretend that you don't know, which would make you a dishonest person.

You don't even know what 242 was about.... 242 was never implemented. It was a proposal to give Israel recognition by the Palestinians in exchange for some subjective requirements, generally known as "land for peace". It never came to fruition, so it's a lie to state that any Palestinian authority has EVER recognized Israel. Recognition is always offered contingent on unacceptable requirements as far as the Palestinian interpretation of 242 is concerned (i.e. right of return for Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem as the capital of the potential Palestinian state, dismantling of Jewish communities, etc). So no, Arafat NEVER recognized Israel - his recognition was contingent on an impossible Palestinian interpretation of 242.

Hamas' leaders Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, Ismail Haniyeh and Khalid Mashaal have also stated several times that their willingness to make peace and recognize Israel based on the 1967 borders.

Hamas has NEVER offered recognition of Israel. This is an absolute lie, good luck backing that up. Hamas has offered "peace", provided Israel withdraw to 1967 boundaries (an impossible request given Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria, something like half-a million Israelis) and give Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state. Even on those impossible conditions, Hamas didn't offer recognition of Israel, rather some form of "peace". As usual, you are ignorant and avoid relevant context.

I am amazed that you don't know this, based on the education and knowledge you claim to have.

Spare me, your knowledge of these matters is subpar and you clearly don't do the upkeep necessary to stay abreast of important details.

Meanwhile, Likud has repeatedly and officially voted to never allow a Palestinian State, despite what Bibi keeps saying.

I would sit here and respond to the rest of your misinformation, but I think you need to learn and accept the simple facts above, before we can move forward.

You're the one lying and spreading misinformation.

I think it's safe to say that you're advocating fascism.

More safe would be to say you're advocating acquiescence to those who wish to destroy Israel and the Jewish people.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Bob

[naomiglover]

You don't even know what 242 was about.... 242 was never implemented. It was a proposal to give Israel recognition by the Palestinians in exchange for some subjective requirements, generally known as "land for peace". It never came to fruition, so it's a lie to state that any Palestinian authority has EVER recognized Israel.

You need to realize that Israel, or any other country cannot acquire title to territory by conquest. It's a fundamental rule of international law which Israel and almost all other countries are signatory to.

Resolution 242 clears any misconception on whether or not Israel has a right to acquire land by war.