Time magazine's website (partnered with CNN) recently released a photo by Mohammed Salem from Reuters. The photo has the following caption:
Blackout The Israeli embargo has left the Gaza Strip without electricity. The Palestinian Parliament was forced to meet by candlelight on Tuesday night.
The idea is that the mean and evil Israelis have cut the power to the Gaza Strip because they hate the peacful Palestinians, and just want to be generally oppressive and mean.
Before reading the rest of this post, look at the picture of the oppressed Palestinian Parliament having to 'meet by candlelight' Tuesday night, and see if you can figure out why this is propaganda, rather than a real story on what is happening.
...... look and think about it. Do you see it?
.... look at the window on the left.... the door in the back..... see?
Daylight! This wasn't a picture taken 'at night' as the photographer suggests. This picture was taken during the day. They shut the curtains and door and lit the candles for a photo op, so as to play a victim card.
Here is the truth: Palestinian terrorists launch rockets against Israel almost every day, not caring who they hit. The Palestinian Parliment has done nothing to stop this and, in fact, many have been elected TO the Parliment. If Israel was HALF as evil as the Palestinians suggest, they would have wiped out all of Gaza and taken all of that land back. If the Palestinians were HALF as peaceful as the Palestinians suggest, they'd crack down on those terrorists and stop the attacks.
Don't believe the propaganda about an evil Israel oppressing the peaceful Palestinians. For how long would we let Canadians launch rocket attacks against us and call for us to be pushed into the sea?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
When rockets from Gaza into Israel stopped for 24 hours, Israel announced it's easing the blockade. The message is simple stop shooting rockets at us and we'll live in peace. Personally i think Israel is too lenient.
some days I agree. As I mentioned, can you imagine the reaction here if Canada started lauching rockets against us?
Yet Israel is supposed to just take it, according to the international community.
People even BLAME Israel for the palestinian attacks.
After all.. israel exists, so it is ok to bomb it, I guess.... seems rather anti-jew to me.
Coupled with the fact that everything that damned place called Gaza is sustained on has to pass through Israel. Even if a thank you is too much for them to say, one would think at least they'll show some sort of appreciation.
Hard to do when you have propagana working hard against Israel.
Not too long ago I had a post up about a media clip from Al-jazeera (sp?) talking about how the Jews have a secret earthquake machine and are wanting to destroy mosques and muslims with it.
...
and people are blind enough to believe it.
I don't think that Israel is blameless in the situation (for the record, apart from being an Atheist, I'm also Jewish), but I definitely think that the media very often downplays the, at least, lax attitude of the Palestinian government toward terrorist factions.
As for the Israeli side, I think that they severely mishandled the acquisition of Palestinian lands and, in the treatment of Palestinians, they can be a little arrogant. For instance, the Israeli Day Parade marches right through the Palestinian area of Jerusalem.
"Alliance - in international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third."
Ambrose Bierce
As I said, however, would we want America to be as lax if canada started randomly launching rockets into our populated areas and called for Americans to be pushed into the sea? (I.e. . .. dead)
Given blatant propaganda like the picture I linked to and the video I linked to a couple weeks ago, I really don't trust anything that I hear from their sources (as they won't recant the obvious frauds, nor will they even attempt to silence such people)
all sorts of lies like Israelis using palestinian children's blood in their bread, or stealing body parts from palestinian children, etc. etc. etc.
I was understating when I said lax. It's just what I do.
And I think that Israel is in one of those situations where they're between a rock and a hard place. I do think, though, that there was, and is, a lot of mismanagement of the issue on the Israeli side.
"Alliance - in international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third."
Ambrose Bierce
any mismanagement has nothing to do with the blatant propaganda from the Palestinians, such as this photo.
Propaganda that is, without a vetting process, instantly repeated by Reuters, as well as (in this case) Time and CNN.
It is like a year or so ago when there were all sorts of pictures from Lebenon showing the horrible attacks by the Israelis.......
Except the photos were wholly doctored in order to make things look bad.
or the multiple photos of dead Palestinians, especially kids, as a result of israeli strikes.... though pictures from multiple places will have the same vehicle, and often even the same dead bodies.
Some have even been taken and pushed as the result of an Israeli air strike when there has been no Israeli air strike.
With all of that, why even bring up mishandling by israel?
I am totally with you on the propaganda thing here. I wasn't really talking about that. It was a sort of bigger picture kind of thing. The point about the mismanagement is that it really caused the problem. The Israeli government, or the people, weren't able to integrate the previous population into their country, and this caused a lot of the problems. Now, I'm not saying that this is not due to, in part, resistance from Palestinian factions, but I still think that Israel could have handled it better.
"Alliance - in international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third."
Ambrose Bierce
This is one topic that I actually want Mike's input on. So... Mike! Get in here and respond!
That being said, the anti-Israeli propaganda is horrible, especially when looking at history and seeing that they've gotten most of their land because someone else attacked them, and they just responded, and gave back large portions of land they rightfully took during the course of the wars.
I'm curious, though, why that man has a red beard in the picture.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Lol, wow I didn't notice the red beard. Fashion statement maybe?
There's some religious significance to having a beard dyed red.
That is totally awesome. I should die my beard red, except that I'd have to grow one first.
"Alliance - in international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third."
Ambrose Bierce
Yes, propaganda justifies collective punishment. Well argued.
Collective punishment?
you get that the photo is a fraud, right?
you also see my more recent post in which the caption is changed to cover that up, right?
You want to see collective punishment, ask Hamas why they indiscriminately launch rockets into Israel for the sake of killing anyone they can.
As for the power outage itself.... Isreal is not to blame:
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=19219707&BRD=2737&PAG=461...
Hamas blames Israel for not giving it the diesel fuel it needs for its power plant, but 70% of Gaza's power is supplied BY Israel and they haven't turned it off.
...since the simple fact is that foreign nationals are violating Israeli territory and sovereignty with these ongoing rocket attacks. However, I do have to say that the Israeli response to this latest attack does seem to be more than a little arbitrary, and they certainly aren't winning themselves any international sympathy by imposing a unilateral embargo of all goods and services into and out of the Gaza area. Doing so simply plays into the hands of Hamas, and makes it easy to paint Israel as the "bad guy." The average citizen in Gaza only knows that they are starving, that they don't have power, and that their hospitals are shut down...and the perception that Israel is behind these problems is an easy argument to advance when that country applies military force against the entire population of the Strip, instead of just focusing on the military assets of Hamas.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
And, again I ask, what would you suggest we do if Canada started randomly launching rockets at our populated areas, ranting about how they want us pushed into the sea?
As far as the military assets of Hamas, they look, dress and act like the uninvolved civilians 95% of the time.... The only way to tell them apart is during that other 5% of the time when they pull out some rockets, fire them off, then run away.
the IDF has a GREAT intel program to weed out which people are indeed the terrorists and which are not, and they take great caution to only strike at the terrorists. Sometimes there are non-hamas people killed, which is mostly due to Hamas hiding behind them.
Rarely in history have we seen a country care enough for the enemy in a war so as to hold back on retaliation for attacks out of fear of shooting people who aren't involved.
How much of canada would be (or should be) left if they started doing to us what Hamas is doing to Israel?
I would suggest that we respond by targetting Canada's military assets, possibly up to and including their government's infrastructure. I would not, however, suggest a unilateral attack on the Canadian civilian population.
That certainly makes it more difficult, but it does not in my opinion justify not at least trying to pick out the good guys from the bad. Responses like this don't give the message that Israel is trying to protect itself from Hamas. What it does seem to say is that Israel wants to punish the civilian population of Gaza for the things that Hamas does.
And when that happens, Hamas is responsible for the civilian deaths. But, that isn't really what happened here. In this case, Israel acted against the civilian population as a whole. Again, I understand the frustration that Israel faces in trying to deal with Hamas, but telling the average citizen in Gaza that you're going to cut off their food and fuel supplies isn't going to do anything except futher alienate those citizens. Actions like this play right into Hamas' hands.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that past inhumanities can be used to justify inhumane responses in the present. At least since the passage of the Geneva Conventions, the opinion of the civilized world is that even when war is inevitable, civilized countries have an obligation to behave in a certain way. The Geneva Conventions (for which Israel is a signatory) state that countries in conflict have an obligation to ensure food and medical supplies for and specifically forbids the collective punishment of the enemy's population. Its difficult to remain sympathetic to Israel's position when they fail to live up to their own obligations when they respond to acts against them.
How much "would" be left? Who can say? How much "should" be left? Most of it, including all (or as close to all as we can manage) of the civilian population and infrastructure. At the very least, I would hope that we would respond to such aggression decisively, but humanely.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
And Israel specifically targets those who are lauching the rockets, and those who support them. Often they do NOT attack when there are civilians present. Hamas has, in the past, been found guilty of carting dead bodies around from one attack point to another, to look like women and children have been killed.
The Palestinian people voted Hamas into government. As Israel is condemned every time its military takes a leak, that leaves non-military means... like an embargo on diesel fuel. However, note that Israel did not shut off electricity to Gaza, which would have been MUCH easier.
Some have suggested that Hamas pulled the plug on the Gaza power plant to play the victim card. Given their history of taking action to appear to be a victim, I don't disbelieve this, but find no specific proof.
Not to sound could, but they elected Hamas to run the Palestinian government. embargos have been used for centuries to get the people to demand change from their government.
They withheld diesel and oil from Gaza. That's about it. Though, really, these blogs aren't about anything other than the fradulent picture by Reuters and Time/Cnn, and I've noticed that most of the responses have been why Isreal is still bad. As though the propaganda by Hamas is to be overlooked....
That kind of bothers me.
Embargos on oil and diesel isn't 'inhumane' . .. if you would like to see inhumane, reference what Hamas has done to the captured Israeli soldiers.
Food and medical supplies do get through. However, as those attacking Israel do not wear a uniform, do target civilians, and torture and kill captured Israeli soldiers, Hamas doesn't qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention (something that is often overlooked).
Yes... that is why the world hates Israel... they're just too mean . . .
War isn't humane. Wars fought humanely fail for that reason. War is only useful if it inspires such fear that people will fear engaging in it.. . .
All of that is irrelevant in THIS situation, because in THIS situation Israel DID respond unilaterally against the entire population of Gaza. Now, don't get me wrong. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and its tactics are deplorable, but two wrongs don't make a right and your finger-pointing at the wrongs of Hamas doesn't change the fact that in THIS case, Israel violated the Geneva Conventions.
While Hamas did receive a majority in their elective process, that doesn't mean that every single citizen of Gaza voted the same way. And, just because a majority of a population voted for someone that neither you nor I like or respect isn't an excuse to target those citizens in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Doing so makes it very difficult to maintain the sympathy for Israel that normally characterizes my position.
Maybe they did just that...who can say? But if they did, then Israel stepped neatly into their trap with their response.
It is true that embargos are a perfectly valid tactic in the game of international politics, but the Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit unilateral embargoes of the type that Israel instituted in this case. Convention IV (Article 23), Protocol I (Article 70), and Protocol II (Article 18) are all pretty plain, and Israel really should have known better than to have acted as they did.
Actually, that wasn't "about it" at all. The initial blockade of Gaza prevented ALL manner of goods and services--including food and medical supplies--from entering Gaza. It was only in repsonse to international outrage that Israel relaxed their embargo and began to allow some food, medicine and humanitarian aid to cross the border.
I can't speak for anyone else's comments. The only reason I chose to enter this discussion was in response to the suggestion that Israel's response to collectively punish the citizens of Gaza this incident was appropriate. I am not in the "Israel is bad" camp. But, I do think that in this case Israel acted inappriately, inhumanely, and illegally.
Your right...an embargo on oil and diesel isn't "inhumane," but an embargo on food and medical supplies is, and for the first ten days of this blockcade, those items were also being denied.
Sure...NOW...after then international community stepped up and reminded Israel of its international agreements. But you are rather conveniently ignoring the fact that it was only under extreme international pressure that Israel capitulated to allow humanitarian supplies into the Strip.
That simply isn't true. Groups like Hamas that don't abide by the Conventions are specifically excepted from certain Articles, but the general humanitarian provisions of the Conventions are binding on all signatories, in all circumstances, regardless of whether or not their enemies also comply with the Conventions.
Yes... that is why the world hates Israel... they're just too mean . . .
I don't think the world "hates" Israel. I certainly don't. But, just because I am generally sympathetic to their desire to protect themselves doesn't mean that I approve of a response that violates the ethics of international law.
War isn't humane, but there are degrees of inhumanity which are (in my opinion) never justifiable. If Israel believes as you do, then they should remove their name for the Geneva Conventions. Until they do, however, they should expect to be held to their international agreements.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
once again, one side is sending over rockets to randomly blow up civilians, and the complaint is that Israel set up a blockade.
But Israel's existance seems sufficient cause for the palestinian government to continue to allow Hamas to randomly launch rockets into Israel, killing civilians.
Israel's high courts deemed that the blockade is legal: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians
Yes, and that is basically the same tone the others take as well.
I, apparently, am the only one who is bothering to talk about the propaganda... and when I bring it up all I get is posts about how Israel is really the bad guy.
Even concessions about how Hamas is bad are done as a stepping stone to explain how Israel is actually the one doing bad things.
Half of the UN's resolutions were to condemn some action by Israel. Most (if not all) of the middle east wants to get rid of Israel, some leaders even call for them to be 'pushed into the sea' . .. . when they defend themselves, they are met by worldwide condemnation.... yet those who randomly kill Israelis are not.
Yes. The world hates Israel. Of that I have no doubt.
One side sets up a blocade.... the other side has a long history of capture, HORRIBLE torture, killing, slaughter, suicide bombings, rocket launches into civilian areas.......
and you're going to come down on Israel because of the blockade.
are you sure?
And those are two different things. Both are wrong, and both are a violation of international law.
If that is the case, then the proper legal response would be for Israel to take action against the Palestinian Government, and not to apply a collective punishment to all of the citizens of Gaza.
Perhaps you should read your sources more closely. The article you cited said that, "The Israeli Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the government's decision to slash fuel and electricity supplies to the Gaza Strip."
As I have pointed out more than once in this discussion, the blockade has not been confined sole to the transport of fuel and electricity, but also included a total denial of food and medical supplies for a period of at least ten days. THAT was illegal, according to international law, and plainly violates the Conventions which I specifically cited to you.
I think that you are intentionally choosing to intpret my comments that way in order to avoid having to provide us with a substantial rebuttal to the facts which have been presented to you, but oh well...
That's because for the most part, I agree that the picture and caption that you originally commented on was misleading. That does not, however, justify or support some of the comments that you made later, and to which I have specifically noted that my comments applied.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. We expect them to do horrible things, and they rarely disappoint us. It is far more troubling to me to see Israel expressing a willingness to drop down to the level of Hamas in its response to that groups aggression. If Israel is willing to target non-combative citizens in its responses, then why should we consider it to be "better" than the terrorists that they are fighting against?
Can you be more specific? I agree with some of the U.N.'s condemnations of Israel's actions, and disagree with others. In THIS case, I agree that Israel has not acted properly or legally.
Even here in the U.S., there are legal limits to what you can do in order to "defend" yourself. In the U.S., if someone hits you with a flyswatter, it is illegal to hit them back with a hammer. Israel has a right to defend itself, its citizens and its borders...but it doesn't have the right to enact unilateral blockades that prevent food and medical supplies from reaching non-combative citizens.
Some of the world does, that's certain. It still doesn't justify what Israel did in THIS case.
The basic flaw in this comparison is the fallacy that every man, woman and child in Gaza is not on the "side" of Hamas. Hamas is an organization that took control of Gaza by force. And, even IF every single citizen of Gaze DID support Hamas, international law clearly prohbits the use of collective punishments on the civilian population of an occupied territory.
Yes, I am...because it is wrong. What Hamas does is also wrong, and I even agree that what Hamas does is far worse than what Israel has done in response. The problem is that Israel isn't just punishing Hamas. They are collectively punishing an entire population, without any regard for whether or not the people being hurt are actually a part of Hamas.
are you sure?
Yes, I am. I'm also not surprised that you would resort to this kind of ad hominem. Just because someone is your friend and ally doesn't mean that you should support them when they do something illegal and wrong. This is just such a case.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
It seems that Israel is STILL restricting the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, "only 13 trucks carrying humanitarian food items were able to cross into Gaza at Kerem Shalom, which is significantly less than the daily authorized quota of 50 trucks." (LINK)
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The ICRC has a history of being anti-Israel and anti-Jew in general.
For a long while, they didn't allow Israel to help them. Refused their help.
Then, finally, they let Israel help, but demanded that they remove the Star of David as it was a 'religious symbol that might offend.' (Of course, the Cross of the Red Cross and the Crescent of the Red Crescent were allowed to stay)
Of course, they also have a mixed history in general, having presented Nazi Aldolf Eichmann with a Passport with a false name:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180450952434&pagename=JPost%...
Also note that many terrorists have escaped capture by using Red Cross trucks.
You'll forgive me if I don't instantly believe what they put forth.
So, the Red Cross is "anti-Jew." LOL. Dude, you really are a trip, sometimes.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
So the rest of what I put in that comment just didn't happen?
Or you just don't want to address it?
I thought it was obvious that I considered your assertions too absurd to merit any futher response. Since you insist, however, I must point out that in fact the International Committee of the Red Cross does in fact have an Israeli member organization, Magen David Adom* (which translates as the "Red Star of David"), that does in fact use the Star of David on its emblems with the full support of the ICRC.
According to the ICRC website...
"The Protocol enables the Israeli Society to continue to use its red shield of David as its sole emblem inside Israel. When working outside Israel the Society would need to work according to the requirements of the host country. Normally this would mean that it could display the red shield of David incorporated within the red crystal, or use the red crystal alone." (">LINK)
So your assertion that the ICRC is "anti-Jew" appears to be essentially baseless.
percivale
* Currently, the main Magen David Adom website appears to be down (probably because of the damaged cable in the Mediterranean), but here is the Wiki for the MDA.
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
how kind of them. Perhaps they should be thanked. *smirk*
Again... the point was that they had to make up the red diamond because their previous symbol, the star of david, was not allowed. The original standing, for years, was that the Israeli group could not take part, under the guise that the star of david was too offensive and that is what lead to the creation of the red diamond to begin with.
Of course, you skip over that in order to whitewash the ICRC.
Of course, in this whole thread, you've done little more than demonize Israel, in a thread about propaganda by the palestinians.
...the fact remains that your argument was factually flawed.
As usual, your accusation is more invective than factual. During the period in which MDM was refused a new symbol, the ICRC similarly rejected ALL new symbols from petitioning members, and there were quite a few. The symbols used by the ICRC are defined, very specifically, in the Geneva Conventions, and in order for the ICRC to recognize a NEW symbol requires a conference of the signatory nations, who then have to VOTE to allow the new symbol. That conference took place in 2005, and the new Red Crystal symbol was announced in 2006. MDA then entered the ICRC in 2007.
None of that seems particularly "anti-jew" to me. To suggest that it is sounds like just more hysterical finger-pointing...a favorite pastime of some, to be sure. The easy answer to your concerns should be obvious...Magen David Adom was satisfied enough with the ICRC's actions to consent to join the organization. I hardly think that MDA would join a group that they felt was "anti-jewish," and if they're satisfied with the situation, then why aren't you?
I am comfortable to stand on my positions, which I have stated VERY clearly. You incessant attempts to poison the discussion with your irrational accusations leads me to conclude that you are just as prone to propagandize this issue as the very people that you criticized in the original blog, above.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
And yet, in a thread about palestinian propaganda, you chose to ignore the topic and talk about the Israeli blockade.
Funny, when they do that, they get worldwide international condemnation.
And when their courts ruled that they shouldn't do that, they stopped and limited it to fuel. Then the decision I linked to was made. However, it is important to note that they have not yet cut power to Gaza, despite providing 70% of it.
However, for the umpteenth time, none of it has to do with the propaganda photo that was published and pushed by Reuters, CNN and Time, and then covered up with a quick caption change.
nice choice of words... 'target non-combative citizens' . . . Kind of like Hamas does. . . right?
Are you friggen serious? You're suggesting that a blocade is more foreceful and inhumane than rocket attacks?
To make it an 'even' field, does this mean that Israel should randomly launch rockets back into gaza?
or is that only 'ok' to do when Hamas does it?
Still trying to keep this all about how Israel is wrong....
Ahh... so in other words "Yes, Lance, Israel is worse than Hamas, because at least hamas isn't violating the Geneva Convention by blockading Israel!"
sick. Come down on Israel for a blockade, on a thread about propaganda pictures pushed by Hamas... which were proven to be propaganda....
The balance of your text between condeming Israel for a blockade and condeming Hamas for its actions proves otherwise.
But it seems sufficient reason to condemn them to death for the sake of 'playing nice'...
You must not be reading very closely, since I have (more than once, now) agreed with you that the picture cited in the original blog was an obvious attempt at manipulation. If anyone is trying to avoid something here, it's you. You keep dancing around the fact that Israel has not behaved consistently with international law.
Take that up with the "world." I have only condemned Israel for violating international law. When they respond in accordance with those laws, they will once again enjoy my suport (irrelevant though it may be).
It is troubling to me that the Courts had to step in to begin with. The denial of food and medical supplies to an entire population is just about as blatant and gross a violation of the Geneva Conventions as one could imagine. To have done so AT ALL is worthy of condemnation. And, the reports of the Red Cross would seem to indicate that Israel is STILL refusing to fully comply with their agreements.
You're right. But it DOES have to do with a subject that YOU commented on above, when you dismssed the idea that Israel's response was a form of collective punishment that violated international law. If you don't want to defend questionable statements, then you shouldn't make them.
Thank you for yet another straw man rebuttal. Perhaps you are confused on this point, but the Conventions are quite specific in their protection of civilians who take no active part in hostilities.
Please refrain from projecting your imaginary motivations onto my statements. I have been very plain in my position, and your attempts to inflame the converstation with these combative comments is unnecessary (though not unexpected). A rocket attack is certainly inhumane and worthy of condemnation. But so is a response that involves an illegal embargo on food and medical supplies. The former is certainly more violent, but latter's intent to create starvation and disease on a civilian population seems equally abhorrent to me.
Israel needs to comply with international law, per its agreements. That means holding themselves to a higher standard than the animals of Hamas. If they're going to act like a lawless state, then why should we treat them any differently than any other lawless state?
If you ever decide to discuss something that I have actually said, please let me know.
In this case, they ARE wrong. International humanitarian laws exist for a very good reason, and they rightly and very specifically apply to BOTH sides of any conflict, regardless of who "started it."
Your arguments would probably be more effective if you disengaged from the imaginary boogey man with whom you are attempting to spar. I have repeatedly condemned Hamas, but that doesn't change the fact that in this case, Israel is ALSO in the wrong.
I am coming down on Israel for violating the Geneva Conventions, and on YOU because you specifcally commented on the subject of collective punishments. Your attempts to push the conversation away from a statement that you made but could now support when pressed is transparent.
It only seems that way to you because you selective ignore a substantial part of what is said to you.
There is nothing "nice" about denying food and medical supplies to civilians. And, I have said (repeatedly) that Israel does have a right to protect itself. But, like all players on the international stage, it must do so legally or face the consequences, especially if it wants to keep the sympathy of its allies.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
your displeasure with Israel's blockade isn't the purpose or topic of this blog.
You introduced it in such a way as to say "Yes, what they did is wrong... but.. BUT.... Let's talk about what ISRAEL has done!"
and then you say that I'm trying to avoid things.
That's just what the world says too. odd.
Yet no Red Cross condemnation of the random rocket attacks by Hamas.
the topic YOU tried to interject into this thread. Now you're trying to further hijack the thread by appearing to have ALWAYS been about this...
Yet another shifting to the topic to make Israel look like the Oppressive Bad Guys against the poor and oppressed Hamas and Palestinians. Perhaps Hamas should spend more money on food for its people and less on rockets and suicide bomb belt kits.
I put the disturbing part in italics**. This is what I was referring to. You're putting a blockade on the same level as random rocket attacks, then attack me when I point it out to you.
So Israel's soverign status is dependent upon them following the Geneva Convention in light of an enemy that specifically does not?
Every time you've condemned Hamas, it has been in a 'but' mode. "Yes, Hamas is bad... BUT." type condemnation is NOT condemnation.
And again, more venom for Israel than Hamas.
No, I openly quote most of what you put in. Again, paragraphs about why Israel is bad and wrong... then a little 6 word sentence as to why hamas is bad.. (But quickly followed up with another example of why Israel is wrong)
once again... "Oh, isreal can protect itself..... BUT..." Just like "Hamas is bad.... BUT"
I see no 'sympathy' from you for Israel. Only condemnation. Which you admit.
**Note: I changed the italics to bold, because italics don't show up in blockquotes, since the entire quote is italicized. mvenus929
I disagree. That topic became relevant when YOU addressed the subject in your comments. I think that it is disingenuous of you to comment directly on the (in your opinion) appropriateness of the blockade and then declare that a rebuttal of that position is out of bounds.
No, I responded to the topic that was ALREADY in play in the discussion, after YOU asserted that Israel's the collective punishment of the citizens of Gaza was justified.
I think that is obvious.
It's only "odd" if you attempt (as you have) to exaggerate what is actually being said into something more exteme and sinister than was intended.
It is troubling to me that the Courts had to step in to begin with. The denial of food and medical supplies to an entire population is just about as blatant and gross a violation of the Geneva Conventions as one could imagine. To have done so AT ALL is worthy of condemnation. And, the reports of the Red Cross would seem to indicate that Israel is STILL refusing to fully comply with their agreements.
Factually incorrect. From the ICRC website...
Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. It referred to the latest suicide bombing in Tel Aviv as a “natural result” of the occupation. What should Israel do?
"Acts of terror intentionally target civilians or at least take no account of civilian deaths. That is explicitly prohibited under international humanitarian law. The ICRC condemns such attacks. Israel clearly has a right and a duty to defend its population against such attacks. It can prosecute the presumed perpetrator, but must act within the framework of its obligations under international law. It may not simply execute suspected accomplices through so-called targeted killings." (LINK)
"The ICRC is dismayed by the ongoing rocket attacks on the town of Sderot and neighbouring areas in Israel. It stresses once again that both indiscriminate attacks – i.e. those not directed against specific military objectives – and the deliberate targeting of civilians are serious violations of international law that cannot be justified in any circumstance." (LINK)
Dude...do you even TRY to look these things up before you comment?
Factually incorrect. I did not comment in this thread until AFTER you engaged the subject be defending Israel's decision to use illegal collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza.
If a country violates internation humanitarian laws, then they ARE a "bad guy." The fact that Hamas is a "bad guy" too, doesn't make what Israel did any less illegal or inhumane.
Dude, you perceive EVERTHING as an attack. But, just to make sure I am being clear here, I do in fact believe that the decision by Israel to issue an illegal collective punishment against the entire civilian population of Gaza (specifically regarding the denial of food and medical supplies) to be just as illegal, and just as abhorrent, as the rocket attacks against Israel. As I have said before, two wrongs do not make a right, and your arguments remind me of nothing so much as two first graders arguing over who hit whom first.
No, but their status in the international community IS dependant on them following the Conventions. If they aren't going to abide by international law, then how exactly are they different from Hamas?
I disagree. What YOU seem to want is "Hamas is bad and Israel is good," end of story. Well, its time to grow up, my friend...international politics is just more complicated than that.
Only an utter lack of objectivity in this matter would lead you to that conclusion. Hamas is a brutal, terrorist organization. But (and this is the part that you keep avoiding), the entire civlian population of Gaza are not members of Hamas. If a bully hit you, I would understand if you decided to hit him back. But, if a bully hit you, and you hit not only him, but his sister, his mother, and all of the kids who live on the same street as him, I would say that you are just as bad if not worse than the bully.
That's funny, because I don't remeber ever saying most of the things that you attribute to me. And, it doesn't take more than a short sentence to comment on your opinion of Hamas, because for the most part I agree with it. It is the points on which we disagree that requires a more robust commentary.
If you're waiting for a unilateral "Israel can do whatever it wants to defend itself," you'll be waiting a very long time. International humanitarian law exists specifically for the purpose of limiting the ability of States to just do whatever they want to acheive their goals. I really don't understand why that concept seems so arcane to you.
That's because you only see what you WANT to see. If you were a little less hysterical, you might be able to approach the issue with a bit more objectivity.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
After a whole post of little more than eqivocation, we get to this:
Yes.. I'm hysterical... that's why I think that Israel is getting the short end of the stick when worldwide opinion, the UN, and people like yourself spend more time complaining about Israel than Hamas.
"Oh.. Hamas is bad.. but let's spend a few hundred words on why Israel is really the one at fault."
How long would we allow canada to randomly launch rockets into new york before we acted?
It shows the patience, dedication and will for a peaceful existance that Israel hasn't just said "screw it. we're taking back Gaza and kicking them out. by force."
No, not every palastinian is a terorrist or a hamas supporter, but the VAST majority are openly supportive of Hamas and openly hostile to Israel. You treat Hamas like a tiny minority faction of radicals.
Not a group of people elected to lead the palestinians... Which they are.
If a bully attacks me, I fight the bully. If a bully fights me and the bully's friends lie about it all in order to make ME look bad, I view them as akin to the bully himself.
And your concern is that Israel is just being too mean to those people. They only give up land.... send them electricity and fuel.... bend over backwards every time the terrorists running the palestinians get cranky over anything they perceive as an 'injustice' (which basically boils down to Israel existing.)
And you want to come down on Israel.
typical.
Your highly interpretive "quotation" is, as usual, quite far from the truth. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and despite your many denials both I and the ICRC have continued to criticize their actions. However, the criticisms of Hamas are relatively simple, and it really doesn't take a lot of consideration to reach the conclusion that what they are doing is wrong. And I will ask you again...why would we expend a great effort to debate a point on which we essentially agree?
Not long, I think. But when we reacted, I hope at least that we would do so in accordance with international law, and target our actual enemies rather than issuing a blanket response that targets civilians instead.
I'm sorry, but international law doesn't end just because a country gets too pissed off to follow it.
It would not matter if every single man, woman and child in Gaza supported Hamas...the fact remains that the vast majority of these people are civilians, and they aren't engaged in direct conflict with Israel. The Conventions are very specific on matters like this, and Israel clearly violated its agreements when it made this response.
The Conventions differentiate between civilians and their government. Israels agreed to do likewise when they signed the Conventions, and there really is no excuse that can justify what was done. To target a civilian population in response to a military attack is against international law, and against Israel's own agreement with those laws. Period.
And, if you run down the street beating up all the bully's friends in this case, you really aren't any more ethically mature than he was.
Well, if it really were that simple, I might be inclined to agree with you...but frankly your description of the history of this conflict is contextually vacuous, and strikes me as being quite similar to the very propaganda that led you to write the original blog, above.
Indeed, it is typical that I would want to come down on ANY country, including Israel, when they violate international humanitarian law.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.