America must be removed from the "Islamic World."

[Coito ergo sum]

Does 'Gaza Aid Flotilla' ring any bells?

How am I supposed to know he's talking about Israel? He makes shit up all the time.

The "Gaza aid flotilla" incident wasn't piracy. To call it that is to pretend that words don't have meanings.

Umm, they stormed a civilian boat in international waters.

They boarded a boat after announcing a blockade, which the boat proceeded to run.

The blockade was illegal.

Do they have law schools where you live? Or, are you just swallowing what "alternet" sells you whole? I love how you mock "fox news" as being biased, but then go right for "alternet" as one of your main sources. Joke and a half, that.

Israel's blockade of Gaza is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10306193

A blockade is only legal in times of war. Israel was/is not at war with Gaza, for a number of obvious reasons which you alone apparently don't know: 1. Gaza isn't an independent country/state. It is occupied territory.; and 2. Israel and Gaza were under a signed cease-fire at the time.

Israel doesn't occupy Gaza. It's not an occupied territory. They pulled out 5 years ago, and dismantled all settlements there. Or, hadn't you heard?

A blockade is not "only legal in times of war." Example - Cuban missile crisis. Many nations have enacted blockades in similar situations. It is not international law that blockades are "only legal in times of war." You're dead wrong.

But it was illegal,

What law?

Geneva Convention on collective punishment and punitive action.

This isn't "collective punishment."

First - there is no "Geneva Convention on Collective Punishment and Punitive Action." What you're referring to is Article 33 of Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. And, that provision doesn't prohibit blockades. Read it.

Moreover, collective punishment is specifically barred under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that the objective of the blockade is to weaken the Gaza economy and undermine support for Hamas. That is a political, not a military, objective, and it is impermissible under international law to target innocent civilians to achieve nonmilitary goals.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1FAnc19lj

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0puW6Bdk9

This is simply a misreading of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nothing in it prohibits a blockade, nor was Israel's reason for the blockade to "weaken the Gaza economy." Political objectives are not prohibited by Article 33, and innocent civilians were not targeted. Nobody was "targeted" except those trying to run the blockade.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon has asked Israel to end the blockade in Gaza, stop the construction of the wall in West Bank, and cease violating human rights of Palestinian children in detention.

Did he say the blockade was "illegal?" Lots of UN chiefs have asked a lot of things of countries - doesn't mean that what the countries are doing is "illegal."

In his latest report on human rights of the Palestinians, Ban stressed that the blockade of Gaza, which is in its third year amounts to "collective punishment", and is violation of right to food, water, health, work and adequate standard of living of the Palestinian people.

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_un ... on_1312842

Note, first of all that Egypt participated in the blockade - i.e. Egypt had its own blockade of Gaza.

The reason for Israel's blockade was "self defense." After it left Gaza, naturally, the Palestinians allowed Hamas to seize control and they proceeded to fire hundreds of rockets into southern Israel. These rockets got into Gaza mainly by boats like the "Gaza aid flotilla" full of "innocent activists" (who have no qualms about brandishing pipes and swords and attacking soldiers...). In order for the crime of collective punishment to be constituted, the alleged perpetrator must have the intent to punish innocent people for actions they themselves have not committed, and in Gaza's case, the pain and misery caused to the civilian population is not the objective of the blockade. And, Israel is at war with Hamas which was operating from inside of Gaza.

The UN Human Rights Council bases its opinion on the claim that Israel still occupies Gaza. Israel, however, left Gaza 5 years ago, and has no soldiers there, and has no settlements there. The area is under the control of Hamas. Under the Geneva Conventions, an occupation regime needs the exertion of "effective control" in order for an occupation to be established. Israel simply hasn't had control of Gaza since 2005.

and there's been plenty of professional legal opinion to back that up.

What's the flaw in the following?

Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.

First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed, it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area.

Instead, Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians were permitted into Gaza.

Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerence against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other Western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

Third, were those onboard the ship simply innocent noncombatants? The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act. And let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla; it was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather to break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla, who publicly announced: "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians."

It is a close question whether "civilians" who agree to participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different from pure innocents, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants.

Finally, we come to the issue of the right of self-defense engaged in by Israeli soldiers who were attacked by activists on the boat. There can be little doubt that the moment any person on the boat picked up a weapon and began to attack Israeli soldiers, they lost their status as innocent civilians.

Even if that were not the case, under ordinary civilian rules of self-defense, every Israeli soldier had the right to protect himself and his colleagues from attack by knife- and pipe-wielding assailants. Lest there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack, simply view the online video and watch the so-called peaceful activists pummel Israeli soldiers with metal rods.

Every individual has the right to repel such attacks by the use of lethal force. That was especially true in this case, when the soldiers were so outnumbered on the deck of the ship. Recall that Israel's rules of engagement required its soldiers to fire only paintballs unless their lives were in danger.

Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of self-defense under comparable circumstances?

Israel's critics fail to pinpoint precisely what Israel did that allegedly violates international law. Some have wrongly focused on the blockade itself. Others have erroneously pointed to the location of the boarding in international waters. Most have simply pointed to the deaths of so-called peace activists, though these deaths appear to be the result of lawful acts of self-defense.

There can be little doubt that the mission was a failure, as judged by its results. It is important, however, to distinguish between faulty policies and alleged violations of international law. Only the latter would warrant international intervention, and the case has simply not been made that Israel violated international law.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/201 ... z1FAMD5ine

All of the flaws I've just pointed out above. [/quote]

Which do not refute Dershowitz's argument. Like - your silly assertion that blockades are "only" legal in times of war. That's complete rubbish.

Israel wasn't at war with Gaza

But, it was with Hamas, and it doesn't matter either way. It is allowed to defend itself from Hamas lobbing rockets into Southern Israel and the right of self defense under international law allows Israel to set up the blockade even if "war" is not presently underway. The Gaza flotilla (I'll not call it Gaza "aid" flotilla, because that presumes it was purely a humanitarian venture - we have no reason to presume that).

and in fact can't be at war as Gaza isn't an independent state but in fact is under occupation by Israel.

Israel does not occupy it. Israel does not claim to occupy it. Israel didn't have soldiers in it, not since 2005, and dismantled all the settlements. It has no effective control, which is why Hamas was firing rockets from there with impunity.

Because Israel isn't at war with Gaza, it has no right enact a blockade of Gaza.

False - it has the right of self defense, and may enact a blockade even when not in times of war. Example: American blockade of Cuba under the John F. Kennedy administration.

Even if it did, the blockade is punitive and collective punishment and therefore contravenes the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. What Israel did was either an act of war against Turkey or murder of Turkish citizens.

It's not the "murder" of Turkish citizens because the folks on board the boat attacked the soldiers with pipes and whatnot. The soldiers had the right to defend themselves. The blockade was legal, and the flotilla received ample notice that they would be boarded. They were not taken by surprise. Had they honored the blockade and had they been purely a humanitarian effort bringing food and medical supplies only, then they would have been allowed to proceed through.

[pErvinalia]

This is so retarded I don't even know where to begin. Let's just address a couple of random points:

It WAS an aid flotilla, as that was all that was found on there. Israel has admitted there were no weapons on there. The cargo was also checked by an independent party at Cyprus I believe it was.

Israeli's attacked the boats. The people on board defended themselves. To claim that Israel couldn't have murdered anyone is retardedness of the highest order. If a burglar breaks into your house and you hit him with a stick and he then shoots you dead, are you seriously claiming that what he did wasn't murder?!?

The Israeli's chose to descend from helicopters in the dark of night in a military style raid. They could have simply disabled the prop and towed the ship back to Cyprus. They escalated the situation, and any attempt to blame the passengers on board for that escalation is patently ridiculous.

The Israel blockade IS collective punishment. There is a long list of luxury things banned, including ice-cream and chocolate. WHY would they ban that if it was only military in nature? UN Secretary General has called it collective punishment, and I put it to you him and his legal advisors know far more about it than you or I or dickowitz does. And are you seriously trying to argue that Gaza isn't in a state of massive disrepair and social breakdown due to the blockade by Israel? Do you not know how to do a simple google search?

And article 33 4th Geneva Convention does prohibit collective punishment (whether it is a blockade or not):

ARTICLE 33Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View 'CONVART'. -- INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY --

COLLECTIVE PENALTIES -- PILLAGE -- REPRISALS


[p.225] Article 33 is derived from Article 50 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article' of the Hague Regulations: "No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible".
The text adopted unanimously in Geneva in 1949 reproduces, with only slight changes, the original draft of the International Committee of the Red Cross (1).

PARAGRAPH 1. -- PRINCIPLE OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. ' Prohibition of collective penalties '

The first paragraph embodies in international law one of the general principles of domestic law, i.e. that penal liability is personal in character.
This paragraph then lays a prohibition on collective penalties. This does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons, in defiance of the most elementary principles of humanity, for acts that these persons have not committed.
This provision is very clear. If it is compared with Article 50 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article' of the Hague Regulations, it will be noted that that Article could be interpreted as not expressly ruling out the idea that the community might bear at least a passive responsibility (2).
Thus, a great step forward has been taken. Responsibility is personal and it will no longer be possible to inflict penalties on persons Who have themselves not committed the acts complained of.
Obviously, the belligerents will retain the right to punish individuals who have committed hostile acts, in accordance with Article 64 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article' et sqq. concerning penal legislation and procedure, when it is a matter of safegarding their legitimate interests and security.

2. ' Measures of intimidation or of terrorism '

During past conflicts, the infliction of collective penalties has been intended to forestall breaches of the law rather than to repress [p.226] them; in resorting to intimidatory measures to terrorise the population, the belligerents hoped to prevent hostile acts. Far from achieving the desired effect, however, such practices, by reason of their excessive severity and cruelty, kept alive and strengthened the spirit of resistance. They strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice and it is for that reason that the prohibition of collective penalties is followed formally by the prohibition of all measures of intimidation or terrorism with regard to protected persons, wherever they may be (3).

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/com/380-600038?opendocument

By the way, did you notice that ICRC drafted this article of the convention? I think that makes them experts of an order far higher than anything you've produced so far.

The alternet article was merely the container for the former british ambassadors statements and the statements of the legal academic from UC Hastings. It doesn't matter where they were reported, they are still the same. They are both available as original texts written by the authors themselves. Nice try.

On the issue of "occupation" did you miss this legal opinion?

In fact, under customary international law that Israel accepts as binding, Israel continues to occupy the Gaza Strip, despite the withdrawal of its ground troops and settlers from that region in 2005. A territory is "occupied" when foreign forces exercise "effective control" over it, whether accomplished through the continuous presence of ground troops or not.

Israel patrols the territorial waters and airspace of the Gaza Strip, regulates Gaza's land borders, restricts internal movements by excluding Gazans from a "buffer zone" that includes 46 percent of the strip's agricultural land, and controls the Gaza Strip's supplies of electricity, heating oil, and petrol. Together these factors amount to remote but "effective control." Thus, the Gaza Strip remains occupied, as the United Nations, the U.S. government and the International Committee of the Red Cross have all recognized.

Israel has authority to halt arms imports into the Gaza Strip. But it also owes a general duty of protection to civilians under its control, and has specific duties to allow them access to adequate food and medical supplies, and to maintain public health standards - duties it has deliberately violated in imposing the siege on Gaza. Currently 77.2 percent of Gaza Palestinians either face or are vulnerable to hunger; of these, 65 percent are children younger than 18. According to UNICEF, 10 percent of Gaza children show signs of stunting, while the World Health Organization maintains that another 10 percent face chronic malnutrition.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1FGlKCUEr

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0puW6Bdk9

I can't be arsed addressing anymore of your shite.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm going to try to ignore your juvenile insults, which have become tiresome.

Israeli's attacked the boats.

Didn't. They announced that the boat would be boarded pursuant to the blockade and the boat proceeded without stopping. In accordance with the announced blockade the Israelis boarded and were attacked by the "activists" on the boat.

The people on board defended themselves.

If throwing the first punch is "defending oneself" then I guess so.

To claim that Israel couldn't have murdered anyone is retardedness of the highest order.

I never said Israel "couldn't" have murdered anyone. I said they didn't.

If a burglar breaks into your house and you hit him with a stick and he then shoots you dead, are you seriously claiming that what he did wasn't murder?!?

No, but of course if a dog attacks you on a Tuesday and your mother tells you to finish your dinner there isn't an orange to be cut in half sideways, either.

The Israeli's chose to descend from helicopters in the dark of night in a military style raid.

After announcing what they would do.

They could have simply disabled the prop and towed the ship back to Cyprus. They escalated the situation, and any attempt to blame the passengers on board for that escalation is patently ridiculous.

You think they should have fired on the vessel to disable the props?

Look - I'm not going to address your points that contain insults. Shove them and your head up your ass for all I care.

I specifically discussed Article 33 - so it's obvious you don't fucking bother to read what anyone else writes. You proceed to say "you can't even do a google search" and then quote Article 33 of the IV Geneva Convention which is exactly what I discussed. Look - I don't claim that collective punishment isn't prohibited - I'm stating that Israel's actions did not amount to collective punishment and they acted in self-defense against Hamas' hundreds of rockets from Gaza into Israel after the Israelis left the place.

Now, you'll either speak in a civil tongue, or fuck off. Beyond that, I'm finished with your silliness.

[Warren Dew]

Israeli's attacked the boats. The people on board defended themselves. To claim that Israel couldn't have murdered anyone is retardedness of the highest order. If a burglar breaks into your house and you hit him with a stick and he then shoots you dead, are you seriously claiming that what he did wasn't murder?!?

Interesting question. In the U.S., sadly, the burglar would have a strong self defense claim in many states, though I'm not sure Coito would agree with that.

[Warren Dew]

What would do the Palestinians good would be to publicly acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, and accept post 1967 borders as the borders of Palestine and ask the UN for statehood recognition. If they were to say "we just want a state side-by-side with Israel" and they take a reasonable apportionment, then they can move on with life and get a real country together. Right now, they aren't a nation - they are stateless territories.

To the contrary, it would do them no good at all. Israel would continue to expand the de facto borders into the west bank; they don't pay any attention to UN rhetoric. In other words, they'd be right where they are right now - minus their biggest bargaining chip.

They shouldn't press for statehood in the west bank anyway. They should press for annexation into Israel and recognition of citizenship.

[Coito ergo sum]

Israeli's attacked the boats. The people on board defended themselves. To claim that Israel couldn't have murdered anyone is retardedness of the highest order. If a burglar breaks into your house and you hit him with a stick and he then shoots you dead, are you seriously claiming that what he did wasn't murder?!?

Interesting question. In the U.S., sadly, the burglar would have a strong self defense claim in many states, though I'm not sure Coito would agree with that.

In most states, if not all, if those facts are established the burglar will have committed murder. Even if he did not intend to kill, he killed someone during the course of a burglary, which constitutes felony murder in every state, or almost every state. That would get him life in prison, most likely. In most states, if a burglar enters a home and someone else, even a cop, shoots someone in the process of responding to the crime (while it is going on), the burglar is on the hook for felony murder.

[Coito ergo sum]

What would do the Palestinians good would be to publicly acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, and accept post 1967 borders as the borders of Palestine and ask the UN for statehood recognition. If they were to say "we just want a state side-by-side with Israel" and they take a reasonable apportionment, then they can move on with life and get a real country together. Right now, they aren't a nation - they are stateless territories.

To the contrary, it would do them no good at all. Israel would continue to expand the de facto borders into the west bank; they don't pay any attention to UN rhetoric. In other words, they'd be right where they are right now - minus their biggest bargaining chip.

They shouldn't press for statehood in the west bank anyway. They should press for annexation into Israel and recognition of citizenship.

No no - the West Bank would be part of Palestine, and once that receives recognition as a nation, then it has the legal status of a nation. The reason the UN is impotent to keep Israeli settlements out of the West Bank is because there is no clear law that says Israel can't build a settlement there. It's not a country now. If they became a nation, then Israel's settlements would be an act of war by one state upon another state, an incursion on territorial integrity - the Palestinians claim that now, but even the Palestinians aren't clear on what their borders are, and the arguments they make wind up suggesting that Tel Aviv is occupied Palestinian territory and a "settlement" which needs to be "dismantled" because it was "stolen." Until they have borders recognized under international law, they play into Israel's hands.

As for the second point you make about pressing for annexation into Israel and recognition of citizenship, I think that would be a preferred alternative as well, but I find it so unlikely that any Palestinians in sufficient numbers would agree to that - it hardly bears discussion. I would think they would be part of Jordan, actually. But, if they could be annexed into Israel and live side by side with "the joos" then that would be great.

[Warren Dew]

No no - the West Bank would be part of Palestine, and once that receives recognition as a nation, then it has the legal status of a nation. The reason the UN is impotent to keep Israeli settlements out of the West Bank is because there is no clear law that says Israel can't build a settlement there. It's not a country now. If they became a nation, then Israel's settlements would be an act of war by one state upon another state, an incursion on territorial integrity - the Palestinians claim that now, but even the Palestinians aren't clear on what their borders are, and the arguments they make wind up suggesting that Tel Aviv is occupied Palestinian territory and a "settlement" which needs to be "dismantled" because it was "stolen." Until they have borders recognized under international law, they play into Israel's hands.

Wait - are you seriously saying that under those circumstances, the UN would send in troops, tanks, and planes to fight Israel? And not have it vetoed by the U.S.? And that the UN would actually win?

Sorry, but I think it's easy to see why the palestinians are unwilling to bank on that possibility.

As for the second point you make about pressing for annexation into Israel and recognition of citizenship, I think that would be a preferred alternative as well, but I find it so unlikely that any Palestinians in sufficient numbers would agree to that - it hardly bears discussion. I would think they would be part of Jordan, actually. But, if they could be annexed into Israel and live side by side with "the joos" then that would be great.

While Fatah opposes it because they would lose governmental status, most actual palestinian people would generally be more than happy to have citizenship in a greater Israel. They're not stupid - they recognize that the Israeli government is more competent and less corrupt than Fatah.

[Seth]

sandinista wrote:

Would would be going on if nothing happened. By nothing, I mean, no suicide attacks, no missile strikes, no physical violence by either side. What would be the situation? Israel would continue slowly taking away Palestinian land and building settlements and before you would even realize it Israel would swallow up the west bank and gaza. That is the initial problem, Israel is expansionist and the Palestinians are getting run off their land.

I agree that they are, via the settlement program, slowly takng away land that has been used by the palestinians for a long time. Legal quibbles about actual ownership, or the history of the ottoman empire does not change the fact that the settlement program is annexation by stealth, and it seems to be run by strongly fundamentalist Jews who want all of ancient Israel to be a purely Jewish state, with palestinians either expelled or second class citizens.

However, I doubt very much that rocket attacks or any terrorist attacks by Hamas or others will affect this program at all. The long term solution will come from international pressure on Israel to stop the settlement program; however, any further terrorist attacks plays into the hand of the Israelis, and greatly reduce international pressure against them.

It's not "settlement by stealth," it's quite open and notorious. Israel won the West Bank and Gaza, and the Sinai in the 1967 war. It's theirs, they can settle it if they so desire. That's how the right of conquest works, even in the Middle East, and has been working for some thousands of years.

[Seth]

[The other point is a little like the chicken and the egg problem; I am contending that the continuation of terrorism is what prevents Israel from being regarded as an international pariah, and therefore it helps to maintain the status quo...

Israel used to be regarded as an international pariah. The only thing saving it from that status right now is the unpopularity of muslim minorities throughout Europe.

Even if I am wrong in that respect, I cannot see armed struggle by the palestinians of having any realistic effect on Israel's actions, particularly since they have the totally romantic and unrealistic view that they can abolish Israel as a state...

It won't be so unrealistic once Iran gets nukes. Shiite palestinian groups like Hezbollah will be quite a threat at that point - not that they aren't already.

Thing is, if Iran uses nukes on Israel, they are destroying an Arab holy site: Jerusalem. And Israel will not hesitate to turn Tehran into a radioactive pool of glass on the launch of an Israel-capable nuclear missile. Not for one instant will they hesitate.

[Seth]

The blockade was illegal.

Israel's blockade of Gaza is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10306193

A blockade is only legal in times of war. Israel was/is not at war with Gaza, for a number of obvious reasons which you alone apparently don't know

Me and Alan Dershowitz. Did you read his analysis, or just skip that part. With all due respect to the "ICRC" - they're not lawyers, they're a humanitarian organization. The blockade wasn't illegal.

I notice how you skipped all the other evidence and argumentation I provided in that post. Somehow I just knew you would focus on the Red Cross. If nothing else, you are predictable (in fact that's pretty much all you are). And as i predicted, evidence and reasonable argumentation have no effect on your blinkered view of the Israel/Palestinian situation. It's pointless debating with someone like you. I'm off to bed, and I hope i the meantime Gawd takes up the fight, as I really don't see the point in continuing in the face of such ignorance.

I'm done with your fucking bullshit. You and your ilk ALWAYS have to make it a personal sniping challenge.

Welcome to my world. Now you know what I faced at Ratskep every day.

[Coito ergo sum]

No no - the West Bank would be part of Palestine, and once that receives recognition as a nation, then it has the legal status of a nation. The reason the UN is impotent to keep Israeli settlements out of the West Bank is because there is no clear law that says Israel can't build a settlement there. It's not a country now. If they became a nation, then Israel's settlements would be an act of war by one state upon another state, an incursion on territorial integrity - the Palestinians claim that now, but even the Palestinians aren't clear on what their borders are, and the arguments they make wind up suggesting that Tel Aviv is occupied Palestinian territory and a "settlement" which needs to be "dismantled" because it was "stolen." Until they have borders recognized under international law, they play into Israel's hands.

Wait - are you seriously saying that under those circumstances, the UN would send in troops, tanks, and planes to fight Israel? And not have it vetoed by the U.S.? And that the UN would actually win?

Sorry, but I think it's easy to see why the palestinians are unwilling to bank on that possibility.

I'm saying that it would make the Palestinian case stronger. It would be able to form alliances and have statehood that it doesn't now have - and that matters under international law. Israel would have a hard time arguing with borders of Palestine ONCE THERE ARE BORDERS. That's vital. Right now, it's a no-man's-land and in kind of legal loophole that causes countries and the UN security council to make pronouncements as to what they think "should" happen, and venture opinions about this action or that action, but not much more. When you have a national border, and a state that is recognized under international law as a state, then you have a clear, centuries-old jus cogens principle that Israel simply can't escape.

The problem is, that it cuts both ways. The Palestinians would not be able to claim bits of Israel or all of Israel as their own. They would have to settle for the recognized borders. It is THAT which the Palestinians will not do. It is for THAT reason that the Palestinians won't sue for recognition of specific, defined borders, and it is for THAT reason that they are always cagey about what borders they actually claim. In reality, they claim all of "greater Palestine" encompassing at least present day Israel and the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights, and probably more.

And, I think if the UN recognized the borders between the two STATES, the US would lend its weight to enforcing those borders.

The US position on Israel is born of international law. Israel is a STATE and a member of the United Nations. It has borders. It is being attacked by the Palestinians. It has the right of self defense as any STATE does. The law of settlements is not as clear as those who claim them to be "illegal" would like it to be. There have been pronouncements, but there is plenty of international law to support the idea of countries moving in to stateless territory. Customary international law permits it. That's what the West Bank is - stateless territory.

As for the second point you make about pressing for annexation into Israel and recognition of citizenship, I think that would be a preferred alternative as well, but I find it so unlikely that any Palestinians in sufficient numbers would agree to that - it hardly bears discussion. I would think they would be part of Jordan, actually. But, if they could be annexed into Israel and live side by side with "the joos" then that would be great.

While Fatah opposes it because they would lose governmental status, most actual palestinian people would generally be more than happy to have citizenship in a greater Israel. They're not stupid - they recognize that the Israeli government is more competent and less corrupt than Fatah.

I have my doubts, but I hope your correct. And, this article supports your position: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylon ... nship.html

Having a separate country consisting of the West Bank and Gaza is stupid.

The problem for Israel in annexing it would be to squelch the mad ravings of Hamas and Fateh. Those groups would start ululating about what a tragedy it is for Israel to be around, etc.....

[Seth]

This is so retarded I don't even know where to begin.

"This," being your tripe, is indeed retarded.

It WAS an aid flotilla, as that was all that was found on there. Israel has admitted there were no weapons on there. The cargo was also checked by an independent party at Cyprus I believe it was.

Irrelevant. Israel had good reason to believe there was contraband aboard (and there was) and it had every right to board the vessel for inspection.

Israeli's attacked the boats.

Liar. Israeli soldiers notified the captain of the vessel that they were going to be boarded for lawful inspection. The boarding party was attacked by the occupants of the ship. No shots were fired by the Israelis until AFTER their boarding party was attacked with pipes and steel bars and knives.

The people on board defended themselves.

The people on board attacked a boarding party that had a legal right to be there, and had offered no violence. The boarding party had NOT EVEN SET FOOT on the vessel, but was fast-roping down to the deck, when they were attacked, while still IN THE AIR, by the passengers. They defended themselves.

To claim that Israel couldn't have murdered anyone is retardedness of the highest order. If a burglar breaks into your house and you hit him with a stick and he then shoots you dead, are you seriously claiming that what he did wasn't murder?!?

It wasn't their "house," it was a vessel at sea being lawfully boarded for inspection by the Israeli military to search for contraband, and therefore the occupants of the vessel were obligated by international law to submit peacefully to the inspection. They didn't. They attacked the boarding party, which acted in self defense and with remarkable restraint in the face of an attacking mob that was beating and throwing members of the boarding party overboard. They used deadly force appropriately, and with great care, against those who were attacking them, and they refrained from doing so to the extent that several members of the boarding party were severely injured by their attackers.

Completely justifiable and lawful self-defense. There is no authority under international law to violently resist a lawful boarding party seeking to inspect the vessel for contraband when the vessel is bound for that nation's waters and was attempting to run a lawful military blockade.

The Israeli's chose to descend from helicopters in the dark of night in a military style raid. They could have simply disabled the prop and towed the ship back to Cyprus. They escalated the situation, and any attempt to blame the passengers on board for that escalation is patently ridiculous.

The Israel blockade IS collective punishment.

Nah, it's just a blockade, and since Israel is not at war with Gaza, the Geneva Convention does not apply.

And article 33 4th Geneva Convention does prohibit collective punishment (whether it is a blockade or not):

ARTICLE 33Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View 'CONVART'. -- INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY --

COLLECTIVE PENALTIES -- PILLAGE -- REPRISALS

No war, no Geneva Convention.

[Seth]

Israeli's attacked the boats. The people on board defended themselves. To claim that Israel couldn't have murdered anyone is retardedness of the highest order. If a burglar breaks into your house and you hit him with a stick and he then shoots you dead, are you seriously claiming that what he did wasn't murder?!?

Interesting question. In the U.S., sadly, the burglar would have a strong self defense claim in many states, though I'm not sure Coito would agree with that.

Fewer and fewer states all the time. I think the count is something like 41 for the states having a "castle doctrine" law that allows the use of deadly physical force against an intruder into one's home. Hopefully it will be universal soon.

[Seth]

No no - the West Bank would be part of Palestine, and once that receives recognition as a nation, then it has the legal status of a nation. The reason the UN is impotent to keep Israeli settlements out of the West Bank is because there is no clear law that says Israel can't build a settlement there. It's not a country now. If they became a nation, then Israel's settlements would be an act of war by one state upon another state, an incursion on territorial integrity - the Palestinians claim that now, but even the Palestinians aren't clear on what their borders are, and the arguments they make wind up suggesting that Tel Aviv is occupied Palestinian territory and a "settlement" which needs to be "dismantled" because it was "stolen." Until they have borders recognized under international law, they play into Israel's hands.

Wait - are you seriously saying that under those circumstances, the UN would send in troops, tanks, and planes to fight Israel? And not have it vetoed by the U.S.? And that the UN would actually win?

Sorry, but I think it's easy to see why the palestinians are unwilling to bank on that possibility.

I'm saying that it would make the Palestinian case stronger. It would be able to form alliances and have statehood that it doesn't now have - and that matters under international law. Israel would have a hard time arguing with borders of Palestine ONCE THERE ARE BORDERS. That's vital. Right now, it's a no-man's-land and in kind of legal loophole that causes countries and the UN security council to make pronouncements as to what they think "should" happen, and venture opinions about this action or that action, but not much more. When you have a national border, and a state that is recognized under international law as a state, then you have a clear, centuries-old jus cogens principle that Israel simply can't escape.

The problem is, that it cuts both ways. The Palestinians would not be able to claim bits of Israel or all of Israel as their own. They would have to settle for the recognized borders. It is THAT which the Palestinians will not do. It is for THAT reason that the Palestinians won't sue for recognition of specific, defined borders, and it is for THAT reason that they are always cagey about what borders they actually claim. In reality, they claim all of "greater Palestine" encompassing at least present day Israel and the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights, and probably more.

And, I think if the UN recognized the borders between the two STATES, the US would lend its weight to enforcing those borders.

The US position on Israel is born of international law. Israel is a STATE and a member of the United Nations. It has borders. It is being attacked by the Palestinians. It has the right of self defense as any STATE does. The law of settlements is not as clear as those who claim them to be "illegal" would like it to be. There have been pronouncements, but there is plenty of international law to support the idea of countries moving in to stateless territory. Customary international law permits it. That's what the West Bank is - stateless territory.

As for the second point you make about pressing for annexation into Israel and recognition of citizenship, I think that would be a preferred alternative as well, but I find it so unlikely that any Palestinians in sufficient numbers would agree to that - it hardly bears discussion. I would think they would be part of Jordan, actually. But, if they could be annexed into Israel and live side by side with "the joos" then that would be great.

While Fatah opposes it because they would lose governmental status, most actual palestinian people would generally be more than happy to have citizenship in a greater Israel. They're not stupid - they recognize that the Israeli government is more competent and less corrupt than Fatah.

I have my doubts, but I hope your correct. And, this article supports your position: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylon ... nship.html

Having a separate country consisting of the West Bank and Gaza is stupid.

The problem for Israel in annexing it would be to squelch the mad ravings of Hamas and Fateh. Those groups would start ululating about what a tragedy it is for Israel to be around, etc.....

The problem with Gaza and the Palestinians is that they insist on having Jerusalem too. Israel is NEVER going to allow Arabs to control Jerusalem. Ever. Therefore, Gaza will remain in limbo, and a Palestinian state will never exist until they give up their demand for partition of Jerusalem.

That's an intractable conflict that will never, ever be resolved because the two religious beliefs are polar opposites. Muslims cannot abide Jewish possession of Jerusalem, and Jews cannot abide Muslim possession of Jerusalem.