Israeli 'intervention'

[pongo]

My6 husband has told me not to waste any more time just casting pearls. He's right. Ive got better things to do than waste time and apart from that when someone argues with a fool the world sees two fools arguing.

 

OK. But you're definitely not the same person ? Like Norman and Bates and his mother. Are you sure ?

 

 

well at least not in the late 50's just a damm sight better than any other school on the Island and more than

 

Ah Rog, despite many, many tutorials, you still cannot spell this little word correctly.

[P.K.]

Questions for Bellyup and Pandre; why does Israel ban chocolate, soccer balls, crayons, wheelchairs, tinned fruit, stationary, ambulances, and musical instruments, basic building supplies (to the extent that the UN relief ansd Works Agency has to be housed in a mud hut), TVs and computer equipment from entering Gaza? Are they crucial weapons for Jihad?

 

... blah-di-blah-di-blah ...

 

What does Israel want to happen in Gaza? I am not anti-Jewish, far from it. I am, however, against religious bigots of whatever faith, and I am not going to argue about, ignore, or belittle, the evil of Hamas firing rockets into Israel, or other acts of terrorism by the Jihadists.

 

It is the decision to punish and marginalize all

 

It's like UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The idea is to bring about regime change.

 

I'm sure that Israel would much prefer those occupying neighbouring Egyptian territory to renounce violence against Israel and stop firing rockets trying to kill Israeli citizens.

 

Now those rockets come from somewhere, so let's all think very hard about where they come from, how they get into Gaza and what could Israel possibly do to stop Hamas getting hold of them? After all, it's hardly rocket science difficult is it so let me see here, how to stop naughty stuff getting into Gaza...

[Yoshke Pandre]

My6 husband has told me not to waste any more time just casting pearls. He's right. Ive got better things to do than waste time and apart from that when someone argues with a fool the world sees two fools arguing.

 

OK. But you're definitely not the same person ? Like Norman and Bates and his mother. Are you sure ?

 

 

well at least not in the late 50's just a damm sight better than any other school on the Island and more than

 

Ah Rog, despite many, many tutorials, you still cannot spell this little word correctly.

 

Fof your information and to expand your limited knowledge about Judaism we never use the name of G-d or even spell out the word. Even in prayer we use the word Adonai which is Hebrew for Lord so referring to Him as what he is to us rather than what he is. From that when we wish to use a mildly rude word to emphasise a thing we even avoid any word with any connotations with or to The Lord. Do you know where the word profanity comes from? Maybe even that knowledge would be of some help to your stulted intellect in following this. You see to spell damm in what you think is the correct way is to use an abbreviated form of an expression embodying a construct that includes the full form of the word G-d. For that reason we do not spell the words in the same manner as Goyim as we do not want to relate what we are saying to any relationship with G-d. We prefer to keep such things in the real meaning of profanity. My husband isn’t anywhere near as frum as I am but even he observes the niceties out of respect if nothing else.

 

Maybe if you knew a little more about what you kvetch about so much you might kvetch a little less.

[Yoshke Pandre]

Questions for Bellyup and Pandre; why does Israel ban chocolate, soccer balls, crayons, wheelchairs, tinned fruit, stationary, ambulances, and musical instruments, basic building supplies (to the extent that the UN relief ansd Works Agency has to be housed in a mud hut), TVs and computer equipment from entering Gaza? Are they crucial weapons for Jihad?

 

Very few things are banned, even building materials are not banned but instead strictly controlled to prevent, or at least minimise the construction of hardened bunkers and storage facilities for the making and storing of armaments. Wheelchairs are also not banned but are as with all metallic tubular goods, controlled and for the very same reason. If a person in Gaza is crippled and needs a wheelchair there are perfectly reasonable means of them getting one though a replacement for one that is worn out must be that, a replacement. Same with some musical instruments. It’s the metal tubing. The rest can be and is shipped in via the Israeli Gaza border crossing. But consider this. How many countries allow goods and services including utilities into another country or territory that has declared war on them?

 

... blah-di-blah-di-blah ...

 

What does Israel want to happen in Gaza? I am not anti-Jewish, far from it. I am, however, against religious bigots of whatever faith, and I am not going to argue about, ignore, or belittle, the evil of Hamas firing rockets into Israel, or other acts of terrorism by the Jihadists.

 

I think what Israel wants is to see an end to the war that Hammas is waging from Gaza and because Hammas can not do other than wage war the removal of Hammas at least as the governing body. I also think that the vast majority of Israeli people want to see life return to normal for the people of Gaza who just want to live their lives as neighbours with Israel.

 

It is the decision to punish and marginalize all

 

That is nonsense. Where is the profit in that? What would it buy us?

[Chinahand]

The Israeli legal expert's opinion is not a judgement, it is an opinion. A blockade is usually only considered lawful when a state of war or armed conflict exists between two sovereign independent statee, and in such a situation force may be used to enforce a blockade. Gaza is not a sovereign independent state. Some would say that it is an autonomous refugee ghetto, and both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International say that in Gaza, by the standards of international law, Israel is an occupying power. But whatever interpretation you favour, Gaza is certainly not recognized as an independent state by israel. Israel therefore has no legal right to interfere with shipping outside its 12 mile limit.

 

The nature of armed conflict has changed over the years. Private military contractors and terrorist groups are now as likely to engage in armed conflict as are nation states. Perhaps that is Israel's argument. So legal, and moral, judgement seems to rest on your opinion of the nature of the peace flotilla.

 

Freggyragh, I do not think you are correct that blockades are only lawful if they involve a state of war between two soverign independent states.

 

A lot of international maritime law developed around dealing with piracy - Pirates do not hold soverignty, but do control territory (whether ports in Somalia nowadays, or the Caribean or Northern Africa historically). Pirates undertake armed agression against the citizens and commerce of soverign nations and so these have a right to intervene to protect their interests. The Royal Navy would often blockade certain "pirate ports", often with bombardment, those actions were nothing to do with a state of war between two states, but an armed conflict between a state and a belligerent party.

 

States do not have to be belligerent only with other states - in actual fact that is in many ways the minority of conflicts. With the extention of national soverignty to all parts of the world it does seem a bit odd to think of a state being belligerent with non-state actors, but it is reasonably common.

 

I agree with you that the International Commuity AND the Israeli Supreme Court acknowledge that Israel has siezed the soverignty of the Occupied Territories, but that has not stopped it attempting to allow Palestinian self government of that territory. The fact that Hamas has used that opportunity to sieze Gaza as a base area of its armed belligerency against Israel is a very sad result. But in doing so there is no doubt that a state of belligerency exists between Israel and those holding power in Gaza.

 

In that context Israel declaring a blockade is not an unusual situation at all.

[Yoshke Pandre]

 

 

I agree with you that the International Commuity AND the Israeli Supreme Court acknowledge that Israel has siezed the soverignty of the Occupied Territories, but that has not stopped it attempting to allow Palestinian self government of that territory. The fact that Hamas has used that opportunity to sieze Gaza as a base area of its armed belligerency against Israel is a very sad result. But in doing so there is no doubt that a state of belligerency exists between Israel and those holding power in Gaza.

 

In that context Israel declaring a blockade is not an unusual situation at all.

 

Arabic is more than a language, it is a way of thinking. Take the words “”occupied territories for example. Where are they? What are their projected borders? Ask an Arab and he will say that because Israel is not recognised as being a legitimate soverign state by him all of the Palestinian Mandate territories other than Jordan are “”occupied yet the non Arab will not realise this is the case and so be more inclined to be sympathetic to the Arabs claim thinking it those lands beyond the 1948 borders. Look also to the conventions of warfare and how land taken in conflict can be distributed in such a way that the nation that previously claimed them as their own looses them and they become territories in their own right, that is how Poland as we know it today was expanded and the same with Belgium and Czechoslovakia, later to split along ethnic divide, to name but a few. Are those nations occupying territories? Germany thought so in the case of the Sudetenland, maybe if people think a bit they’ll see that it’s not us who should be being labeled Nazis.

 

A Palestiunian state was created by Britain when it illegally granted independence to Trans-Jordan and so created Jordan. That illegal divison of the Palestine Mandate lands should have seen all of the remainder becoming the Jewish Homeland State even though it was the poorest part of the whole area. We have a very good claim based on what Britain did to claim that ALL of the land now inhabited by the present “”Palestinians is occupied but occupied by them and we are only claiming back what rightfully and legally is ours in the first place. It would have been ours if we as a nation had stood our ground in May of 1948 but we did not, we chose to surrender what rightfully was ours in order to avhieve peace. Even that was not enough for the Arabs partly because Britain had played using both sides of the deck by promising the Arabs all of the Palestine Mandated lands in return for help in the first world war in bringing down the Ottoman Empire and at the same time Britain also promised the delivery of the same land to become the Jewish Homeland to get the American Jews, many of whom were German or supportive of Germany, to support American involvement in both wars. Britain has a great deal to answer for, there are many unanswered questions about how much Bletchly Park knew about the attack on Pearl Harbour before the event and over the validity of the Zimmerman Telegram.

 

There is so very much that is behind our actions, so many attempts to reach peace, so much that people simply don’t know and so much inbuit hatred of even the word Jew that causes so much prejudice and blind bigotry that stops people asking why ARE these people doing what they do, what is their claim, and are they really the opressors. There’s even the fools who think it’s all about religion. It isn’t. It’s about nationality. You don’t need to be religious to be a Jew and you don’t need to be a Jew to be an Israeli.

[Freggyragh]

Yoshke - thats a Hebrew name, but Pandre - that looks like a Slavic variant on 'Pantera' / 'Panther'. Were your parents or grandparents Polish?

[Chinahand]

Bellyup, just interested but do you believe that a Palestinian sovereign nation should be established that will unite the territories, e.g. the West Bank and Gaza, that does not involve some paltry offer of a dislocated set-up that you call the "93% of everything..."?

This is what this is all over but you endlessly rant on about peace.

LDV - it is interesting wondering about what ifs.

 

Gaza has a smaller population and is less densely populated than both Hong Kong and Singapore.

 

It's population density is basically the same as Gibraltar's.

 

It's area is bigger than Malta or the Maldives.

 

The idea that it could not exist in Union with the West Bank - which has a lower population density than South Korea, a bigger population than Latvia etc seems odd.

 

Zanziba and Tanzania are in a basically successful Union, as are Kalingrad and Russia, as are the Western Isles with Scotland.

 

My opinion is that two states were created in 1948 - the Israeli one has prospered, the Palestinian state failed. Israel has prospered despite the belligerency that exists over its existence, the Palestinian state failed because of it.

 

My feeling is that Israelies generally have thought that the failure of the Palestinian state was in their interests - Greater Israel Zionists dreamed of controlling all the area, while nearly all Israelis have seen it as a base area for aggression against them - with the support of the other Arab states surrounding them.

 

I think that has been a serious error and has contributed to the violence existing today and the failed state the Occuppied Territories is. No matter how much Israel wants the 4 million Palestinians to disappear and become Jordanian or Egyptian by far the majority of them aspire to be Palestinians.

 

The West Bank is doing far better than Gaza - why, because it isn't in a state of overt belligerency against Israel - it isn't under such a blockade etc - I think those who are so aggressive in their opinons against Israel should take note of that - a large part of Gaza's fate IS the responsibility of Hamas' actions.

 

But the middle ground is very very precarious. With Israel feeling that its offers have been met with violence.

 

There have been offers of Land swaps with Israel giving up territory in exchange for its settlements in the West Bank.

 

Obviously it will be an incredibly complex job to get the leaders to compromise and for their supporters to accept these, but I don't agree that a perfectly viable Palestinian state could exist along side Israel.

 

No doubt there will be serious arguments over water, Jerusalem etc and the actual land areas carved out.

 

Both states will be profoundly unnatural carved out without logic of geography and population, but that isn't so odd if you look around the world.

 

If there were no border changes the West Bank and Gaza would have on average have a population density twice that of Israel's - its about the same as Taiwan's or Mauritius.

 

There will have to be compromises before a settlement can be reached, but basically Israel is far further down the path of compromise than Hamas or even the PLO is - the Clinton plans were accepted by Israel, but rejected by the PLO.

 

I agree broadly with Freggyragh that Israel is a flawed democracy with explicitly racist land ownership policies and religiously controlled ideas of right of settlement, marriage, etc.

 

But it's civil society is strong and its legal system based on strong humanitarian principles independent of government politics.

 

No doubt Israel is in a bind and many of its policies are not helping its position, but I think the Palestinians have been far far worse served by their leaders.

 

What was available in 1948 was different from what Clinton tried to offer and that will be different from what Obama or whoever will bring to the table, but basically the Palestinians will not be worse off than many other micro states around the world. They should not be driven into the sea, neither should Israel - both could be viable with compromise.

[Yoshke Pandre]

Yoshke - thats a Hebrew name, but Pandre - that looks like a Slavic variant on 'Pantera' / 'Panther'. Were your parents or grandparents Polish?

 

Grandparents one Polish, one German, one Russian, and one pre 1948 Israeli. but Pandre is Yiddish. Because so much of Yiddish is derived from Polish it's no surprise its so close. In ay case my message board name is my nick-name and its origin is as explained earlier.

 

My given name is Chaya.

[Freggyragh]

Nice to see Yiddish is use. Whilst the revival of Hebrew is a great success story, the near loss of Yiddish has been a tragedy.

[bellyup]

Bellyup, just interested but do you believe that a Palestinian sovereign nation should be established that will unite the territories, e.g. the West Bank and Gaza, that does not involve some paltry offer of a dislocated set-up that you call the "93% of everything..."?

This is what this is all over but you endlessly rant on about peace.

LDV - it is interesting wondering about what ifs.

 

Gaza has a smaller population and is less densely populated than both Hong Kong and Singapore.

 

It's population density is basically the same as Gibraltar's.

 

It's area is bigger than Malta or the Maldives.

 

The idea that it could not exist in Union with the West Bank - which has a lower population density than South Korea, a bigger population than Latvia etc seems odd.

 

 

No matter how much Israel wants the 4 million Palestinians to disappear and become Jordanian or Egyptian by far the majority of them aspire to be Palestinians.

 

I am still unclear as to why the inhabitants of Gaza have become Isreals responsibility having been occupied by Egpyt for some years- why did Egypt refuse citizenship to its brother Arabs and annex the land as Egypt? Jordan is the only Arab country that has given citizenship to all its Palestinian refugees. Many have prospered in Jordan and are among its foremost and wealthiest citizens.

 

 

The West Bank is doing far better than Gaza - why, because it isn't in a state of overt belligerency against Israel - it isn't under such a blockade etc - I think those who are so aggressive in their opinions against Israel should take note of that - a large part of Gaza's fate IS the responsibility of Hamas' actions.

 

A very good point

 

But the middle ground is very very precarious. With Israel feeling that its offers have been met with violence.

There have been offers of Land swaps with Israel giving up territory in exchange for its settlements in the West Bank.

Obviously it will be an incredibly complex job to get the leaders to compromise and for their supporters to accept these, but I don't agree that a perfectly viable Palestinian state could exist along side Israel.

No doubt there will be serious arguments over water, Jerusalem etc and the actual land areas carved out.

Both states will be profoundly unnatural carved out without logic of geography and population, but that isn't so odd if you look around the world.

 

If there were no border changes the West Bank and Gaza would have on average have a population density twice that of Israel's - its about the same as Taiwan's or Mauritius.

 

There will have to be compromises before a settlement can be reached, but basically Israel is far further down the path of compromise than Hamas or even the PLO is - the Clinton plans were accepted by Israel, but rejected by the PLO.

 

I agree broadly with Freggyragh that Israel is a flawed democracy with explicitly racist land ownership policies and religiously controlled ideas of right of settlement, marriage, etc.

 

But it's civil society is strong and its legal system based on strong humanitarian principles independent of government politics.

 

No doubt Israel is in a bind and many of its policies are not helping its position, but I think the Palestinians have been far far worse served by their leaders.

 

What was available in 1948 was different from what Clinton tried to offer and that will be different from what Obama or whoever will bring to the table, but basically the Palestinians will not be worse off than many other micro states around the world. They should not be driven into the sea, neither should Israel - both could be viable with compromise.

Isreal is is a worse position than it has been for many years.

What never ceases to amaze me is how many people in the west seem delighted at the prospect of its downfall.

A country that has given so much to the world .

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Gaza has a smaller population and is less densely populated than both Hong Kong and Singapore.

 

It's population density is basically the same as Gibraltar's.

 

It's area is bigger than Malta or the Maldives.

 

The idea that it could not exist in Union with the West Bank - which has a lower population density than South Korea, a bigger population than Latvia etc seems odd.

 

Zanziba and Tanzania are in a basically successful Union, as are Kalingrad and Russia, as are the Western Isles with Scotland.

I am not saying that it could not exist. What I am saying is that any future nation state that is disconnected will be heavily dependent on a potentially hostile Israeli infrastructure for communication and contact between the two states. It would be extremely vulnerable militarily and would be very resource poor.

 

The West Bank is doing far better than Gaza - why, because it isn't in a state of overt belligerency against Israel - it isn't under such a blockade etc - I think those who are so aggressive in their opinons against Israel should take note of that - a large part of Gaza's fate IS the responsibility of Hamas' actions.

Yes, the West Bank is doing better and I'd certainly agree that if the Palestinians were not belligerent towards Israel then their economic situation would be better.

But should they stop this belligerency? No, not at all. Not whilst Israel continues to offer only limited concessions.

 

But the middle ground is very very precarious. With Israel feeling that its offers have been met with violence.

Do you really believe that what has been offered by the Israeli government is something that the Palestinians should have accepted and been content with?

 

Bellyup -

Isreal is is a worse position than it has been for many years.

What never ceases to amaze me is how many people in the west seem delighted at the prospect of its downfall.

A country that has given so much to the world .

Who in the West is calling for its downfall?

[jimbms]

Isreal is is a worse position than it has been for many years.

What never ceases to amaze me is how many people in the west seem delighted at the prospect of its downfall.

A country that has given so much to the world .

 

Well don't just leave it at that, at least give some examples.

[Chinahand]

@LDV - topologically given the distribution of the populations in the area either Israel or Palestine will have to have an enclave - if you go all the way back to 1948 and the original maps of the Jewish and Palestinian states it was the Palestine state which consisted of two separate enclaves, separated by Israeli territory.

 

I do not find this unacceptable, as long as free movement is allowed, and I am reasonably indifferent as to why the situation should be reversed. You can play what-if games for as long as you like and they aren't particularly worthwhile, but my belief is that Israel has basically accepted the international rulings on borders - it has annexed some contentious areas, but it has offerred to return the great majority of the land it controls but does not have soverignty over as part of a peace plan.

 

I realize you have a tendency to go all anarchist at times like this, but the fact is the land is contested, the parties are not going to compromise to such an extent that a single unified state will emerge and so a messy two state solution will have to be negotiated.

 

I do agree that if I had a magic wand I'd like to create a single, secular state with strong institutions which is blind to the religion/ethnic background of its citizens which allows free immigration of both Palestinian and Jewish diaspora and is at peace both internally and externally - but such a dream is just that.

 

LDV you think the Palestinians should continue to be belligerent - I cannot see how that is in their interests. I pretty firmly believe they are more likely to improve their situation through cooperation with the international community than through violence.

 

This isn't a two way battle, but a three way one with the US and UN definitely having a role in any final peace settlement - any settlement will involve real politique in its most brutal form.

 

Should the Palestinians get more or less land than was offered in 1948? How are we to say?

 

I'd love to see how your anarchist principles answer that question. It is a null sum game between the two parties.

 

I'm far more pragmatic - there is the situation that exists now, and would continue to develop if fighting and lack of compromise continued and there is the situation if a settlement is reached - which is better?

 

Obviously free movement between the enclaves must be guaranteed, but so must security. If trust exists and peace brings about normalization I do not believe the Palestinians will be so badly treated that they should resort to violence to improve their lot.

 

They'd be no worse off than the Taiwanese, Maltese, Mauritians, Singaporians or Latvians - I do not feel any of these countries have a right to be violent towards their nieghbours for Lebensraum.

 

Of course the argument is symetrical and you can say why should Israel expand beyond its original borders.

 

I do believe that a large part of the Israeli political class weren't content to be within the borders defined in the original state - they did want to expand, and some still do. The wars that wracked the Middle East has allowed that expansion to occur. The trouble is that I doubt that Israel would have declared war and expanded if the surrounding Arab states had not declared war on it in the first place.

 

I'm not really so interested in who started which particular outbreak of fighting in 1967 or 1973 or whenever - the root cause is that in 1948 as soon as it was created Israel's neighbours declared war on it and attacked it. The consequence of those wars, and the refusal to recognize Israel, are still basically ongoing (Egypt and Jordan accepted) with uneasy armistice and proxy battles being a very poor substitute for a real peace.

 

Israel has gained from those wars, but my feeling is that it didn't start it all, and my real politique mind isn't so troubled by them using those gains in the negotiations for a settlement.

 

Israel has tried to be pragmatic - I really respected Sharon for withdrawing from Gaza and trying to make a break from occupation - but self rule has not lead to normalization and negotiation, but zealotry and violence.

 

My feeling is that this was a terrible miscalcuation by the Palestinian's leaders, and one which was driven by religious zealotry making compromise impossible.

 

That zealotry is creating a human rights situation in Gaza which is not so different than the worst abuses of Muslim zealotry in Afghanistan, Saudi or Iran.

 

The Palestinian leadership has lived by the sword, that is to the detriment of the palestinian people, I pretty firmly believe a settlement not so disimilar to that which is being currently negotiated is in the Palestinian people's interests.

 

The trouble is their leaders are so blinded by religious zealotry they too often seem to prefer eternal war.

 

LDV - you say the Palestinians should continue to be belligerent - what will be gained by that other than more deaths?

[Yoshke Pandre]

Isreal is is a worse position than it has been for many years.

What never ceases to amaze me is how many people in the west seem delighted at the prospect of its downfall.

A country that has given so much to the world .

 

Well don't just leave it at that, at least give some examples.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/31/highereducation.israel

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554374/Anti-Semitism-at-worst-level-since-1936.html

 

http://www.crethiplethi.com/militant-anti-israeli-campaign-being-waged-on-british-campuses/israel/gaza-and-westbank/2010/

 

http://www.aish.com/jw/mo/48941931.html

 

Then how about the Roman Catholic church and it’s readmission of that os Richard Williamson who rants on about the proven rubbish Protocols of the Elders of Zion is actually genuine. Reason enough for him to be committed and more than reason enough for him to be kicked out of the RC again except that so many of the RC priesthood hate us with a passion.

 

Even this sort of thing that people want to believe.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRYm5YtaCQo&feature=player_embedded#!

 

If this is genuine then it would explain a great deal about many things

 

 

There is so very very much. Not only the obvious right wing neo-Nazi groups and their sites but the History Revisionists and the nonsense they push but also the BBC with their dreadfully anti-Israeli reporting shown up in the Balen report that was so monumentally critical of the BBC that it has been kept from public view even though the bBC spent £200,000 of licence payers money to do so.

 

Once again that you even need to ask for examples clearly shows how very little you know about the thing you condemn so repeatedly.