"Reporters" Steven Erlanger and Helene Cooper:
Under international law, Israel is considered an occupying power in Gaza, even though it has removed its troops and settlers. Denying civilians access to the necessities of life is considered collective punishment and a violation of international law under both the Hague and Geneva conventions although the amounts involved could be subject to dispute.
This is particularly remarkable, because even the "usual suspects" don't agree that Gaza is clearly "occupied" by Israel. B'tselem, for example, a left-wing human rights organization, will only go so far as to say: "The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip, which exists despite the lack of a physical presence of IDF soldiers in the territory, creates a reasonable basis for the assumption that this control amounts to 'effective control,' such that the laws of occupation continue to apply." In any event, the status of Gaza under international law is clearly in dispute [and I, being ignorant and largely of and largely indifferent to, international law, don't have any view of the issue]. Even for Mr. Erlanger, it's pretty surprising that he would so blatantly adopt a position on a contentious issue in the middle of a news story.
Even if they're not physically occupying, if Gaza because of its location and Israel's intriguing aparteid-like setup is dependent on Israel, then yes -- it's easy to understand how they are not free of Israel's heavy-handed influence and are essentially still occupied in their cage.
Something tells me you have a bias evident here, based on your background and your wife's family, where you choose not to understand the sufferings of Palestinian families and children, or how this "collective punishment" -- like so much Israel has engaged in recently -- will affect many lives.
Will the collective punishment be successful this time around, in essentially starving the Palestinians into submission? Based on history, no. This move will prove to be a failure too. Poor Israel. You almost feel sorry for her, except when you realize she needs tough love -- to learn from her mistakes instead of contining to replicate them, and build herself more and more enemies due to the treatment of innocents.
We're praying for a New Jerusalem, some of us. And it won't be exclusive to the Chosen ones, who have manipulated their hand in the region.
Under international law, Israel is considered an occupying power in Gaza, even though it has removed its troops and settlers. Denying civilians access to the necessities of life is considered collective punishment and a violation of international law under both the Hague and Geneva conventions although the amounts involved could be subject to dispute. Electricity, water and gasoline are considered by many, like the Israeli rights lobbying organizations B’Tselem and Gisha, as well as Oxfam and other groups, to be necessities. But the United States argued, when it bombed power plants in Belgrade during the Kosovo war, that electricity furthered Serbia’s war effort; Israel argued similarly when it bombed Gaza’s main power station in July 2006, after the capture of one of its soldiers.
By leaving out the last two sentences, you made it look like the reporters were asserting as undisputed fact that Israel is violating international law by denying necessities. In fact, the reporters are stating a legal principle and then reporting that there is a dispute over its application to Israel.
Israel wants to know what the USGovt. is thinking, and the USGovt. wants to know what the Israeli Govt. is thinking. Now the official chanels are not always, if ever, going to be straight with each other, so both sides resort to spying. It's that simple.
That's the first sentence of the excerpt. You excerpted two sentences.
Right, but by excerpting the second sentence of the paragraph, and not the last two sentences, you make it appear that the reporters took a position this "separate issue" as well, when in fact they did not.
"Under international law, Israel is considered by some people, but not by other people, to be an occupying power in Gaza, even though it has removed its troops and settlers."
In my view, that sums up the usefulness of international law here.
I tried to follow the link, but it kept timing out but looked like it was coming from UVA law school. If so, I assume it was a law review article. The idea that a law review article is sufficient to put a matter of international law "clearly in dispute" is just silly.
In any event, even if the legal status of Gaza is "Israel owns it fair and square" (which it ain't) the fact that most of the inhabitants of Gaza are not citizens of Israel would be sufficient to trigger the protections of international law for people who are being denied the necessities of life.
(If, in fact that is what is happening. I don't follow this stuff very closely.)
Even if I cared, I wouldn't care what Oxfam thought about it.
I think Mr. Erlanger was absolutely correct in writing that neutrally, and my earlier comments went to suggest that it was you who might have the bias.
I tried to use facts to make the argument that Israel clearly is occupying Gaza under international law, because the people living there are utterly dependent on Israel for their power, food, movement, etc.
If you look a map -- a neutral unbiased one -- this supports the idea that these people cannot yet be independent because Israel essentially has them caged in.
Clearly you have the right to disagree with the news accounts you read, but that doesn't mean that your opinion of Mr. Erlanger's statment is correct. Again, I respectfully suggest that you as a reader have the bias, based on personal facts you have previously shared here.
I don't think it's in dispute -- except perhaps in selective circles -- that Gaza remains "occupied" by Israel even though the physical restrictions might not be in the immediate geographical area anymore.
Hope this helps clarify that my earlier comments were quite on topic indeed.
Neutral coverage would provide less stories from the Israeli's point of view, and a more cold neutral approach to the facts. Instead, often, they print Israel's spin.
Just opinions. It's the actions that ultimately will account.
The later sentences you quote do not discuss a dispute over whether or not Israel is an "occupying power" but the very different question of whether they have abused their authority as an "occupying power."
Why is it Isreael's responsibility to feed, cloth and employ the people of Gaza. They are brothers with Egypt, yet Egypt wants nothing to do with them. Gaza could be flourishing if the nearby Arab countries cared about the Palis more than they cared about Isreael's destruction.
I did a search of the following words and got these results since 1981:
Gaza - 10,587
Palestine - 12,901
Palestinians - 22787
Israelis - 17,528
Israel - 62,420
Obviously there is much more reporting about Israel and Israelis than about the other topic. I guess it is possible that most of those articles about Israel are negative, but I sure don't care enough about this to read through them all.
But I doubt that this is true. After all, how could a story be critical of Israel's stance re Gaza or the Palestinians if it didn't even mention those topics. (I suppose there might be other things about Israel to criticise.)
And, just for fun I searched for Russia (44,977) and China (66,924). Does anyone think it is a bit odd that the NYT provided more coverage of Israel, Palestine, etc. since 1981 than it did of China and Russia? Aren't the latter somewhat more of a strategic concern? (True, this goes back to 1981 before Russia broke up and there are about 66,000 references to the Soviet Union.)
Gaza is defacto at war with Israel.
I think that changes the equation some.
In any event, even if the legal status of Gaza is "Israel owns it fair and square"
What if it's legal status is "Independent state, and the fact that its residents aren't running it very well is not Israel's responsibility."?
Is israel required by "international law" to trade with or give aid to a state they're not on good terms with? Could Cuba declare the US a "de facto occupying power" and claim a "right" to our aid? (Now that I've floated the idea they'll probably try.)
Israel does not have Gaza hemmed in, if you look at a map.
The Gazans could deal with their brothers in Egypt.
All their stuff could come from Egypt if Israel declines. This is not happening. Why?
is Italy "occupying" San Marino or the Vatican?
When you are reliant on a foreign power checkpoints to come and go, to trade freely and to import/export goods (remember how Israel chose to leave Palestinian crops rotting at the border?) that's occupation folks.
I certainly don't know enough about Israel's internal divisions to know which one the Times coverage most closely follows, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that there have been some 110,000 references to the words I listed in the past 6000 days or so, so I would imagine that anyone who had a dog in the fight could probably find quite a few stories to complain about.
"When you are reliant on a foreign power checkpoints to come and go, to trade freely and to import/export goods ... that's occupation folks."
(1) They've got a border with Egypt and a beach to land boats on.
(2) So Switzerland is occupied by the EU?
Why is it Isreael's responsibility to feed, cloth and employ the people of Gaza.
Because Israel's seizure of their lands and subsequent refugee policies have created this dependency. Did they not see that coming?
Seems to me before Israel was officially established by the U.N., there was no problem with the Palestinians farming their lands, herding their animals and independently caring for themselves. Likewise, everytime I hear Israel holler at the Palestinian people to control their terrorists, I say, "Who created this mess in the first place?"
Actions have consequences, and until you learn to connect what you do with what you get, then you'll continue to struggle with problems of your own making. Egypt didn't create the refugee crisis -- the ones currently living on the lands from which they were displaced did.
Is israel required by "international law" to trade with or give aid to a state they're not on good terms with?
Independent State? Oh come on now. If what's occuring at those checkpoints is independence, you're not an American.
Israel essentially drew the map and dictates the conditions these people live under. I'm reminded of the time-tested adage: "You made your bed; now sleep in it."
Remember, it's still not too late to change and pursue more successful, less punitive, policies. In the long run, having healthy neighbors is a good thing for the neighborhood you know.
Actually, I'm pretty sure both the Swiss and the Vatican, in the example mentioned above, are living under good terms with their neighbors. No one was displaced to set up those states, or if they were, it was settled long, long ago.
To compare those countries to Israel's actions toward her neighbors is a laugh.
And I'm pretty sure Israel would be poking her nose into what exactly is landing on the beach, and what goods are being brought in from Egypt. Call it a hunch.
This is really a quite peculiar debating approach. Being unable to access a link, assuming what it says, and then using the assumption to critisize the original posting with some rather heated language.
I hope R78 will continue to try the link. He will see it is a summary of a panel discussion on the very question under discussion. In particular, he could focus on the following quote
This seems like pretty strong evidence to me that the question is a debatable one and not an objective fact. It is a quite bold argument to say that referring to this link this is "silly".
Thank you. You might consider posting this disclaimer as an "update."
But if Gaza is not a territory occupied by Israel as a foreign power, then what right does Israel have to restrict commerce and emigration between Gaza and the 99.9% of the world that is recognized either as being an independent state or as being occupied by an identifiable state? Aren't those essentially acts of war?
And one that is not addressed in this post, though it's a crucial issue. And whether or not Israel is an occupying power and has some "duty" to the Palestinians, cutting off fuel and power to the strip IS "collective punishment" under the Geneva Conventions, and a violation of international law. Whether or not Israel "occupies" Gaza is irrelevant to that determination.
And one that is not addressed in this post, though it's a crucial issue. And whether or not Israel is an occupying power and has some "duty" to the Palestinians, cutting off fuel and power to the strip IS "collective punishment" under the Geneva Conventions, and a violation of international law. Whether or not Israel "occupies" Gaza is irrelevant to that determination.
And one that is not addressed in this post, though it's a crucial issue. And whether or not Israel is an occupying power and has some "duty" to the Palestinians, cutting off fuel and power to the strip IS "collective punishment" under the Geneva Conventions, and a violation of international law. Whether or not Israel "occupies" Gaza is irrelevant to that determination.
This rule should be applied to the Arabs, if anyone. They rejected UNGA 181 and repeatedly attacked Israel, openly stating that they intended to destroy it utterly - an intent they maintain to this day. If they are suffering as a consequence, well, they made their bed, they should sleep in it.
The link is to an article about a panel forum at UVA on the disputed status of Gaza. From the linked article:
Assuming what Neese says is true, it may not be dispositive of the International Law status, but it certainly makes me skeptical that Erlanger has a well-founded basis for his conclusory characterization in the Times article.
Yes.
The next question is: Acts of war against who?
Israel's restrictions of traffic across Gaza's border with Egypt could be considered an act of war against Egypt if Egypt objected to them. I haven't followed the situation closely enough to know whether Egypt does object.
Restrictions of motion against aircraft and watercraft entering and leaving Gaza are acts of war by Israel against the entity of Gaza, whatever the heck it is. Rockets fired from Gaza into Israel are acts of war by the entity of Gaza, whatever the heck it is, against Israel.
Despite all the euphemism that both sides and most observers like to use, it sure looks to me like Israel and TEOG,WTHII are having a war. It looks like Israel is using techniques of blockade as part of its war strategy (As, among myriad examples, the US did to Japan long before we got around to actually "occupying" it.) It also looks like Israel is using "retreat" as part of its strategy, also not unprecedented in war.
The international law question becomes, if government A wages war against entity B, invades some of B's territory and occupies it for a while, and then retreats but continues prosecuting the war thus continuing to make life unpleasant for the people of entity B, does government A still bear the responsibilities to those people it had when it had an active occupation force in place? Should "occupier" status be harder to get rid of than it is to acquire?
I don't consider the question a slam-dunk in either direction, and the NYT was wrong to treat it as one.
The concept of "collective punishment" only makes sense in the context of occupation. When you're having a war with a country you haven't invaded yet but are planning to, bombing the crap out of it isn't considered "collective punishment," it's considered "war."
The question is how to classify bombing the crap out of inhabited territory you tried to take but were driven out of. I don't know about the legalities, but there sure is a lot of historical precedent for it....
Shouldn't a neutral report at least hint at the irony of such a statement coming from an organization created to destroy Israel, and whose organizing charter contains passages from the Koran calling for genocide against Jews? Not to mention that there remain countries which since Israel's founding have been in a declared state of war they refuse to rescind with a U.N. member state they refuse to recognize.
And of course that's just those genocidal power mad Israelis deciding to throw their weight around, right? The Hamas attacks on the crossings -- including shooting and launching grenades at Palestinian civilians seeking refuge in Israel and Egypt -- had nothing to do with it. Neither did Hamas smuggling missiles and explosives into Gaza and smuggling terrorists into Israel.
That might or might not be true if the fuel and power were coming in from elsewhere. But to posit a violation of international law for refusing to deliver power and fuel to a polity (or at least a quasi-polity) that is using it to wage war on you is absurd.
Nor was there nearly as great a problem in their doing these things from the time that Israel captured Gaza in a defensive war until the Arabs decided that they preferred starvation to peace and launched two intifadas -- the second occuring AFTER Israel had offered them an independent state in Gaza, 94% or more of the West Bank, compensating portions of pre-1967 Israel, and East Jerusalem. Rather than build a state, the Arabs decided it was more important to keep trying to exterminate the people whose very existence so offend WWJRD, which he justifies by his mistaken idea of what "chosen" means. I suppose I should be grateful that he said chosen ones instead of "murderers of christ."
It's been 40 years since Israel "won" and still look at the shape that region's in.
Perhaps based on experiences like collective punishment to themselves and their family members, there are valid reasons for Palestinians to believe that Israel must be eliminated if they are ever to have hope for better lives.
Perhaps if Israel started treating them like fully equal human neighbors, and not caged animals to be played with even though those policies have proven unsuccessful... perhaps if Israel started distinguishing between the terrorists and the innocent... perhaps if Israel pursued justice for all didn't imprison without trial, or assassinate from above often causing "collateral damage", Palestinians would have a greater reason to trust their neighbor.
Perhaps instead of America adopting Israel's unsuccessful "live by the gun" security attitudes, if Israel adopted some of the time-tested American policies of "all men created equal" and equal opportunity based on merit, not ethnic background, they'd be more of a success in the long run.
Does anyone in Israel actually think these deadly decisions are working in their own favor?
Well I wrote that last comment without reading yours, but now I really would like to dedicate it to you. G-d Bless.
I think the sticking point was the right of return for those residents forced out when Israel moved into the neighborhood.
If you're unwilling to provide that because it will somehow make Israel a less pure state to allow so many non-Jews in, why not try to compensate monetarily those who have valid claims of losing homes and lands? It sure would go a long way of making peace with those families looking for justice, providing compensation to those disadvantaged to those who benefitted from the tranfer of lands.
I never bought the idea that "we offered you this, you didn't take it." It's called Negotiation -- if you're trying to settle a deal and the other side doesn't bite at your first offer, the onus is on you to provide them a more just compensation that both parties can live with. Israel isn't there just yet, thinking with U.S. help she can bully her way through rather than negotiate fairly.
Sadly, the days of US support naturally will wane as the United States loses international and financial power herself due to our binds in that region. And something tells me that the new superpower China won't be so coddling to young Israel, or as generous in her financial and military support.
Just something to chew over, if any of you are thinking long term and aren't naturally short-sighted. It really is wonderful to live in peace and respect your neighbors, love them as you love yourself. That's a successfully time-tested trait to, but then some celebrate being the picked-on underdog, and I can see where it'd be tough to abandon that role when it's so addictive being a bully state after so many years of weakness as a people in the world.
The Hamas regime that controls Gaza began to shoot rockets and send bombers into Israel right after Israel pulled out of the territory. This de facto regime thus began warfare against Israel. It is appropriate for Israel to blockade the area in response as an act of war in response to the attacka against it.
Relevant treaty and clause please. Or authoratitive statements that assert that blockades amount to occupation under customary international law.
Thanks.
You are ignoring Prof. Bernstien's point which was also made explicitly by Ralph P. So what do you view the definition of occupation to be and how can it be differentiated from armed conflict?
Yeah, look at all the wars that Israel launched to wipe out its neighbors -- 1948, 1967, 1973, 2000 -- oh wait, those were wars that its neighbors launced to wipe out Israel.
How about giving your enemies access to free medical care in your hospitals -- even the ones who have blown up your citizens? Isreal does that. How about letting everyone vote, Jewish or Arab? Israel does that -- in fact, its the only country in the middle east where Muslim women can vote. How about the fact that Israel's Arab community is one of the more prosperous in the Middle East (outside of the oil countries) and choose to stay in the supposedly oppressive Jewish state rather than live under the misrule of their fellow Arabs?
It's even tougher when ignorant bigots assume an unearned moral superiority and use it to urge us to trust those who have publicly sworn to destroy us, and to keep appeasing them so that we supposedly will be able to trust them. And your disgusting distortion of "chose ones" and "less pure state to let non-Jews in" are -- whether you realize it or not -- no more accurate or less disgusting than accusations of Christ Killer.
You seem unaware that Israel in fact did so. Why does that not suprise me.
WWJRD wrote:
I never bought the idea that "we offered you this, you didn't take it." It's called Negotiation -- if you're trying to settle a deal and the other side doesn't bite at your first offer, the onus is on you to provide them a more just compensation that both parties can live with."holdfast wrote:
Since when. If you reject an offer then YOU come back with another. When Clinton got them together, Arafat was offered at least 95% of what he wanted if not more. Israel is supposed to offer more than that, right off the bat or get bombed? It is called negotiation. What did Arafat offer? What world do you live i?
"It really is wonderful to live in peace and respect your neighbors, love them as you love yourself. That's a successfully time-tested trait"
And, it ever happened when? Who lived in peace when the neighbor was bombing them and devoted to the destruction of them?
holdfast wrote
"Or perhaps you (i.e. WWJRD) are just reflexively anti-Israel and it really doesn't matter what anyone says to you here?"
I think you got it, holdfast. He or she doesn't even make sense given the facts of history. But he doesn't sound like he knows or cares about facts or history. So, I think you got it.
Wait and see?
You seem unaware that Israel in fact did so. Why does that not suprise me.
Obviously then, Israel didn't make a credible offer worth accepting to those displaced. Maybe next time in negotiations, you should pony up more if you truly want a successful resolution and are capable of compromising on Jerusalem.
Why do I have a feeling that many of the patients Israel so generously treats for medical illnesses and injuries would be much better served just growing up in a healthier environment where you didn't have drones routinely dropping in from the sky for targeted assassinations.
That's like telling a guy you just robbed and shot that you're going to be so kind as to call him an ambulance. How kind!
The Arabs who remained, you mean, and were not displaced in the U.N. creation of Israel. I bet you argued too that America attacked Iraq just to make things better for the women and children there, to bring them greater freedomes. How's that one selling these days? :)
I absolutely agree that at the root of many of Israel's problems are her traditions that she is morally superior to other religions. Particularly Islam.
And I'm suggesting that Israel needs to change her actions so that her neighbors and ally's can trust HER -- not the other way around. Shake a hand, count your fingers seems to be the current policy of dealing with Israel. And we're her Ally!
You seem unaware that Israel in fact did so. Why does that not suprise me.
WWJRD seems to feel that Israel should do all the compromising. The Arab nations, which have been trying to wipe Israel out since the day after Israel became independent, have no responsibility to compromise, as he sees it.
You're the only one I see playing that card here, Mister.
Jesus was a Jew, you know. As was his mother and father. They weren't Israelis though...
Just waiting for that Nazi accusation next, that everyone who disagrees with a Jew wants to stuff him in the oven. Get over it and realize it was the Germans, not the Arabs, responsible for the slaughter. Why not take out your anger on those who caused the pain? Why not carve out a nice chunk of conquered Germany for the Jews to begin again in, instead of displacing Palestinians from their fields and homes?
Again, you make your bed, you sleep in it. No points or special protections for short-sightedness or locking yourself into a bad piece of property that you're unable to maintain independently alone. Someday, the US won't be there for Israel. What will the little country that could do then?
Oh, I think they've been compromised plenty. And for what? What was their original crime against the Jews -- living on a desirable piece of property?
Without US protection, that sounds like a damn good deal to me. Don't continue overplaying your hand Israel and assuming that somebody's always got your back to compensate for your ill-thought-out actions.
That's all. Attack the messenger.
You can't seem to provide it?
And, it ever happened when? Who lived in peace when the neighbor was bombing them and devoted to the destruction of them?
Maybe ask yourself:
"Why's everybuddy always pickin' on me??"
You have to figure out the answer yourself, and change your behavior accordingly. Maybe short-term gains aren't worth it in the long run if you can't maintain stability and peace with others.
Maybe the reason you hear so many declarations of intent to destroy Israel is because the neighbors actually intend to destroy Israel. They said they wanted to do it from the moment Israel came into being, they've kept saying it, and they have tried to do so for the full span of Israel's existence. What "trust" should they expect from Israel in such circumstances? What "fair treatment" should you expect from a neighbor you have sworn to destroy and repeatedly attacked?
there are valid reasons for Palestinians to believe that Israel must be eliminated if they are ever to have hope for better lives.
Oh great, so now genocide is justified.
Does anyone in Israel actually think these deadly decisions are working in their own favor?
I imagine the Israelis think they're doing what they have to do given the vicious neighborhood they live in.
why not try to compensate monetarily those who have valid claims of losing homes and lands?
Trillions of dollars in aid have flowed to the Arabs. They're not after money. If peace could be bought, it would already have been paid for many times over.
if you're trying to settle a deal and the other side doesn't bite at your first offer, the onus is on you to provide them a more just compensation that both parties can live with.
Geez, I really want to "negotiate" with you sometime if all I have to do is keep pushing and you roll over so easily.
And how come this rule doesn't apply on the Arab side of the table? Seemingly there is no onus on them to do anything.
It really is wonderful to live in peace and respect your neighbors, love them as you love yourself.
It is indeed. Too bad the Arabs have a 60 year track record that clearly shows they do not want peace, love, and respect. They want to destroy Israel.
This logic applies precisely to the Palestinians. They've made their bed, they should lie in it. If they've been short-sighted enough to lock themselves into a bad piece of property (Gaza) that they're unable to maintain independently alone, too bad, no extra points or special protection for them.
Google maps shows Gaza as
(Israeli occupied-Status to be determined).
The parenthesis are theirs. I am not sure what they mean. Perhaps they are just behind on thing?
Anyone?
Occupation is defined in Hague IV (1907):
"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."
Since Israeli army authority neither extends to territory in Gaza, nor is established and exercised in a Gaza now empty of Israeli troops, that territory may not be considered occupied at international law.
Next.
From what I can find, Gaza is still referred to as an "occupied territory" by people who should know better, albeit not in a legalistic context. The general concensus however is that Israel's obligations as an occupying power continue. Here is the Secretary-Gerenal today:
19 September 2007 – Israel’s decision to interrupt the provision of essential services, such as electricity and fuel, to the Gaza Strip contravenes its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights towards the territory’s civilian population, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today, voicing concern at the move.
So I don't think the NYT was editorializing. I think you are reading it in an overly-legalistic way. Reading it more forgivingly as
Under international law, Israel is considered [to be held to the obligations of] an occupying power in Gaza, even though it has removed its troops and settlers.
would I think be fair.
Are there any UN quotes condeming the Palestinians, Hezbollah, Iran, et al for their attacks on Israel?
Has Egypt offered to provide power and fuel to the Gaa Strip and the Israeli's refused them?
And as for accusations of anti-semitism, you brought up the canard about "Chosen people," a slogan used primarily by anti-semites to attack Jews.
Now, we know the residents of Gaza are not in Israel. If Gaza is not legally occupied by Israel, then the residents of Gaza are not protected persons under the Geneva Convention (IV). So, the Geneva Convention (IV) does not prohibit the collective punishment of Gaza residents unless Gaza is occupied.
So, no occupation? No convention violation.
Now, under Part II of the Convention, General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War, Israel must allow "the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases."
I note there's nothing there about electricity, or fuel, or even food for people who are over the age of 15 and not pregnant. Israel can put up a blockade that results in every adult male civilian in Gaza starving to death without violating the Geneva Convention (IV). Would it be brutal? Sure. But it wouldn't violate anything in the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. And are the residents of Gaza citizens of a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Convention (IV)? If not, Israel doesn't have to let any food through for anyone.
There seems to be this idea floating around that the Geneva Conventions prohibit all mean things. They don't. They prohibit a bunch of things, but the list is limited.
At the same time, other commentors have revealed the article's context: Israel is being generally held to the obligations of an Occupier. This fact doesn't seem to be in much dispute at all.
So you're pissed that the NYT printed the phrase "Israel is considered an occupying power in Gaza" even though:
1. You claim not to care whether Isreal is considered an occupying power in Gaza.
2. You acknowledge that Israel is being treated as an occupying power in Gaza vis a vis its general obligations to the Palestinians there.
3. You acknowledge that these obligations are the focus of the NTY article.
4. You are making a legalistic point on a law blog, whereas the NYT is a mass-market newspaper.
5. You understand that there is no possible way for the statement "Israel is considered an occupying power in Gaza" to be shown to be indisputable under international law, since you recognize that there is no authority on international law.
6. You realize that mass-market newspapers (and English-speakers in general) prefer concise statements to legalistic ones, especially when the legalistic interpretation of the concise statement is obviously dubious - such as, "There's a 20% chance of rain" or "abortions are legal."
7. If you allowed the context to inform the meaning, you would understand that the NTY is talking about the obligations of an occupier, not the Occupier label. If you really got anal, you would realize that it only takes one person to think it for "Under international law, Israel is considered an occupying power in Gaza" to be technically true, so it certainly is. You've chosen to analyze the quote at the precise level of literality to satiate your paranoia.
I therefore have to conclude that this VC post and thread is classic content-free Bernstein agitprop.
Some folks just don't learn, until it's too late for a good portion of the population. Damn shame, but it's not so easy to view those groups as victims when they merely ignored all the warning signs and overestimate their power and independence. Damn shame really.
So we're not supposed to read a statement about international law in a legalistic or even 'over-legalistic' way? Are you for real?
As David points out, the Sec Gen does NOT say that Gaza is occupied territory. And even if he did, he is neither a valid nor authoritative source of international law - he is not even a jurist, let alone a "highly qualified publicist" of the law.
Sure, there are tons. From the same (today's) press release I quoted above:
Mr. Ban added that “the continued indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza into Israel is unacceptable and I deplore it. I call for it to stop immediately."
And boy, Randal, you've sure wasted a lot of time on "content-free" agitprop, haven't? If it's not, then you're wrong. If it is, then you're pretty foolish.
The Times' journalists made a factual error and got called on it. An egregious factual error at that, since the better view - and the FAR better view - is that Gaza is not occupied territory under the plain language of Hague IV and thus not an occupier in Gaza at international law.
You're getting upset because Bernstein pointed out an obvious factual error in an article? How precious.
Get over it.
I have no problem calling the article sloppy, but I think you are reaching to call it editorializing.
The way I heard it... the Settlers smashed up anything of value and dismantled structures so the Palestinians wouldn't benefit from their work.
Then, lots and lots of Palestinian crops rotted at the borders because Israel would not permit the food to be exported through their control barriers and port.
WWJRD would also benefit from learning something about the land tenure system in the Middle East, and why that makes a difference under Arab as well as Israeli law. But I have a hunch that, judging from his posts, WWJRD has no inkling of the differenced between mulk land, miri land and the other varieties, and why that makes all the difference when it comes to quieting titles in that part of the world, even under Arab law.
Finally, as I like to remind folks like WWJRD who operate under a full head of steam, who the hell are we Americans to lecture anybody on such matters, being as under our law (Johnson v. M'Intosh) the right of conquest confers upon the conqueror not only sovereignty ofer the conquetred land but also title to it. Then again perhaps WWJRD is dying to give Illinois back to the Piankeshaw Indians. So why do I have this feeling that he doesn't?
Do you agree with DB that this is a case of "Remarkable Editorializing?"
Which would be the better and CORRECT view under the plain reading of Hague IV.
or
"Under international law, it is unclear whether Israel is an occupying power, but denying civilians . . ."
If one wants to maintain that Israel's status in Gaza is still in dispute.
It's not difficult. Stop digging.
It sounds like we basically agree - the sentence is so easily misinterpreted as to count as inaccurate... but not as editorial.
Anyway, don't change the subject. You were talking about concision, not "thrust". One is not a synonym for the other. The sentence at issue may therefore be rewritten - correcting for its factually erroneous "thrust" - without any loss in concision.
And for the last time, Israel is NOT "generally being held to the obligations of an occupying power under international law". The obligations of an occupying power are different from those of a non-occupying party to an armed conflict - see Section III on "Occupied Territories" in the Fourth Convention: as a general rule, Occupying Powers have greater obligations than ordinary non-occupying parties to an armed conflict.
There is no "basically agree". The false trope that Gaza is occupied territory - a trope that has no basis in international law but is nevertheless maintained by some Palestinian advocates and their sympathizers - is simply false. Even if you give _minimum_ credence to this heterodox view, you shouldn't pretend that it is the _only_ view, let alone an accurate statement of Israel's status in Gaza "under international law," as the Times does.
David is justified in calling them out for editorializing. Misinterpretation has nothing to do with it.
Yankev: I'm not saying anything about Israel's reasons here, just making some observations about whether occupation can be said to exist in fact.
However, what really stands out in the series of comments above is the following:
Maybe ask yourself:
"Why's everybuddy always pickin' on me??"
You have to figure out the answer yourself, and change your behavior accordingly.
I will will refrain from saying anything more than one doesn't need to be Jewish (I'm not) to be taken aback by the classic racism of this formulation.
Sure, how about, "If those grandparents had not been displaced during the artificial creation of the state of Israel, their children and grandchildren would have been continued living on their homelands, practicing their lifestyles peacefully as they had for generations. Now, grandkids are in refugee camps and it all traces back to a proximate cause. If you work to honestly recognize and compensate them for their losses -- and remember, the onus is on the ones doing the displacing to atone for the consequences of their actions -- then you are more likely to gain reognition of Israel as a credible neighbor. Until then, generations out will continue to work for justice in terms or regaining what lost, taken from them when the new Israelites moved in on their lands."
If you look at this as essentially a justice issue, rather than a Nazi "they hate me just because I'm a Jew" one, then there is hope for a future. If you continually dismiss the valid claims of these people -- and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren -- then I suspect we'll still be seeing rocket fire, retaliation, and a lot of dead civilians -- Israeli and Arab.
It's like Northern Ireland: eventually, both peoples are going to get sick the killings and exhausted at sacrificing innocent civilians. Until that time comes though, and both see they are better off putting down their weapons and working for a just peace, American taxpayers will be asked to continue propping up Israel, who for all her claims of independence is unable to stand alone in that region.
History too provides examples of many lands that were initially "conquered" but then abandoned because the conquerors were unable to establish themselves and maintain their presence in hostile territory.
Isn't that where we at now, "conquistadores"? Israel's problem is that, so many years in, they haven't really "conquered" anything.
Bitch all you want, but if it wasn't for that Christian President Jimmy Carter acting out of his political and spiritual beliefs, Israel probably wouldn't even be at peace with its neighbor Egypt. And then folks spit in Carter's face for not being sufficiently pro-Israel, but more realistic about the entire region.
Whatever happened to valuing wisdom? Did that drop down on the list when the worship of weapons and technology started? Maybe you should go back to the basics, dance with what brung you this far, so to speak...
Hague IV states that military authority must be _established_ in the territory for it to amount to occupation. The temporary nature of an incursion, followed by withdrawal, is not the same as having an "established authority" in the territory, no matter how you try to stretch the definition of "established".
By your parsing of the provision, North Korea "occupies" South Korea since its infiltrators "claim and frequently exercise the right to enter [South Korean] territory when it sees fit" in a series of partially successful and failed operations throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.
By the same token, Indonesia "occupied" Malaysia when it conducted numerous cross-border raids during the Confrontation in the 60s, Britain "occupied" Indonesia with retaliatory cross-border operations in Operation Claret in the same period, and Sudan "occupies" Chad when Sudanese irregulars and government-backed militias mount cross-border attacks on Chadian villages in the on-going Darfur crisis. Yet none of these are regarded as occupations under international law. Nor do the obligations that accrue to an occupying power vest in the belligerents in the aforementioned actions. If they did, you would be able to point us to the relevant documentation on occupied territories in the foregoing examples. (But you can't.)
Ergo, your idiosyncratic reading of "occupied" has no basis in international law.
Finally, even if we grant arguendo that your reading of Hague IV is a plausible reading, it still doesn't change the thrust of David's argument: that the Times is editorializing by pretending that such a plausible reading is the only correct reading. Either way, you're tilting at windmills.
How is it that the Arabs never have the onus to atone for the consequences of their actions? Those who repeatedly conduct aggressive war, and repeatedly conduct terrorist attacks, should certainly suffer punitive consequences.
Seems to me that by your logic, Poland should return a considerable proportion of its territory to Germany. After all, if 10 million German grandparents had not been displaced during the artificial creation of the state of Poland, their children and grandchildren would have been continued living on their homelands, practicing their lifestyles peacefully as they had for generations. Now, grandkids remain dispossessed and it all traces back to a proximate cause. If you work to honestly recognize and compensate them for their losses -- and remember, the onus is on the ones doing the displacing to atone for the consequences of their actions -- then you are more likely to gain reognition of Poland as a credible neighbor. Until then, generations of Germans will continue to work for justice in terms or regaining what lost, taken from them when the new Poles moved in on their lands...
folks spit in Carter's face for not being sufficiently pro-Israel, but more realistic about the entire region.
I had a good LOL at the use of "Carter" and "realistic" in the same sentence.
Let's just say that Saint Jimmah's position on Arab-Israeli issues has, ah, "evolved" since 1978, and not in a pro-Israel direction.
There's another guy who works at the Times, name of Michael Gordon. I've noticed some of his reporting on Iraq looks a little questionable too. But I don't want to go OT...
Help me out here; it's still early for me and I haven't had my Starbuck's fix yet. So you are saying that SCOTUS was wrong and that we should give Illinois back to the Piankeshaw Indians, since our conquest is the "proximate cause" of the Indians' downfall. Right?
And if it all goes back to "proximate causes" wouldn't it follow under your reasoning that the Jews as the ur-inhabitants of the Holy Land have a right to recapture it and repell the Arab invaders who came out of the Arabian Peninsula? Make up your mind, fella. Either the "proximate causes" shtick is decisive, or the right of conquest is. But you want to have it both ways depending on what suits your virulent anti-Israel fury of the moment. So by all means keep ranting -- so far, you have only dug your hole deeper.
Last but not least, I'd be curious to know how you feel about the expulsion of Jews from all Arab countries in the late 1940s. Do those folks get to be the beneficiaries of you moral judgment too or is your fury reserved only for the cause of the Arabs? Just wondering.
As far as I can see, that dispute as well as the Native American/Pioneer disputes, have been long settled and nobody is lobbing bombs and still credibly agitating for justice. Think reality! Indians were displaced to far-off reservations and their numbers had significantly dwindled that they were no longer a true threat to the "conquering" country. Oh so very not true with Israel.
Demographics, demographics, demographics.
Oops. I almost forgot. You are right in noting that history records conquerors who couldn't hang on to their conquests. Which is what happened to the Arabs. They came out of the Hejaz after 600 AD, conquered a lot of territory (inckuding parts of Europe) but over time were unable to hang on to it, and in modern times have been displaced by Turks, the French and the British, to name a couple of conspicuous examples. Ditto for the Israelis who, unlike those other folks, had a strong historical claim to the Holy Land which they recaptured fair and square in 1948 and 1967 in wars started by Arabs.
So there you have it your way: the Arabs conquered Israel, Judea and Samaria, but couldn't hang on to their conquests. Case closed. Right?
Again, many places were "conquered" but for whatever reason, the conquerors were later driven out.
Not true in the United States, which after a little foreign help and the aid of thousands of immigrants who became citizens, successfully put down any "rebellion" and any credible threat to them so eventually there was peace in the land. Eventually, you have to make peace with the past. In Israel, the honest answer seems to be to address the growing numbers of threats to them, and to work for justice to "put down" these threats.
Because military dominance over there only seems to be increasing the threats to Israel and making her security even more fragile than it was 40 years ago. You can't compare apples and oranges -- each country's founding is unique, but if you truly want peace and security, try to think like your enemy and act accordingly. So far, it seems like everything Israel has done has failed at providing any semblance of security or long-term prospects. Maybe it's time to rethink a new tactic -- ones that will successfully work.
Again, look at how the peace was made with Egypt. Say what you will, but so far, Jimmy Carter has done the best -- had the most success in reality at providing any sense of security for Israel. That's reality folks.
Tell me, what have Ariel Sharon's policies (exactly the opposite tactics of Jimmy Carter) brought the country? Sure these are hard questions, and you might be more uncomfortable dealing with reality than with idealized visions of country building. But clearly, Israel is failing at establishing any sense of security in that region, and she's bringing a good country down with her.
I suspect many Americans with no bias in favor of Israel feel the same way: what exactly are the American taxpayers getting for this unilateral support of Israel's policies? When enough realize that the costs greatly outweigh the benefits, then I do fear for Israel who has been overestimating her status all along. America is a superpower; Israel is not, despite the fact she has obtained nuclear weapons.
Have you done any reading this summer of the reassessments of the 1967 conquests? If you can't successfully maintain those lands, perhaps it would have been best not to have taken them at all.
Case closed. Right?
But that's the whole point.
With the Palistinians packed into refugee camps and lobbing bombs across the borders, with surrounding countries having either no relationship or a negative "go away" one with Israel, clearly the case is "not" closed.
Look, if Israel could have successfully "won" that war, and the case truly had been "closed" and successfully concluded all the way around, rah for Israel. But she didn't. And her problems and the worldwide fallout continue to this day.
Don't make it personal.
Keeps you from thinking rationally.
For the first question, I don't think anyone considers those displaced Jews to be a credible threat to their former countries. Can you see the realistic difference? If there was no threat and the formerly vanquished had "moved on" instead of sitting parked outside your gates in large numbers, why would there be any talk of compromising or providing compensation to secure the peace?
For the record, I don't have an anti-Israel bias, though as you can tell I'm not pro-. Like with the Cubans, I believe Americans of any descent can privately organize and fund causes in their homelands. But for good reason, we don't make the Cuban people's fight into America's fight. Get it?
I know if more attacks against Israel happen I'll be called upon to shed tears and feel for the victims -- and maybe I will, but I surely won't feign surprise. Doesn't everybody see that coming if we continue on the current no-compromise, merely overpower route?
I really wish Israel would get its act together today and realistically start acting in its own best intersts in establishing a secure peace, rather than crying over their dead. Live by the sword, die by the sword applies to all peoples, after all.
Anybody remember how that one ended?
Keeps you from thinking rationally.
Doesn't this apply to the Arabs who are yammering now about something that happened back in 1948, when the vast majority of them weren't even alive?
Love the way you advise the Israelis to get realistic, quit crying, quit resorting to force at every turn, and move on, but not the Arabs.
My goodness! Are you suggesting that the Israelis treat the Arabs the way we treated the Indians, and solve the problem that way? What a great idea. Render the Arabs incapable of waging war, and that, as you say, would take care of things, wouldn't it? Until this moment, WWJRD, I necer thought of you as a closet follower of Meir Kahane. Live and learn.
The Palestinians don't have that much to lose at this point. Israel certainly does.
Are you suggesting that the Israelis treat the Arabs the way we treated the Indians, and solve the problem that way? What a great idea. Render the Arabs incapable of waging war, and that, as you say, would take care of things, wouldn't it?
Much much to late for that at this time, friend! Every time I hear an Israeli supporter defend Israel's actions with "Look what America did to the Indians when their country was founded" I think, "Yeah, but that was the 1800s. Things have certainly changed since then, so you'd better revise your strategies, eh? See, you have to fit the tactics to the situation if you want to be successful, get it? What Israel has done thus far, has proven the opposit of successful."
Forgiveme if others have made this point, but Hamas and Gaza could have peaceful, friendly relations with Israel tomorrow, with open borders, just like the US and Canada - all the Arabs have to do is give up their revanchist, irrendist policies, disarm, and recognize Israel. Indeed, they could have done that at any point from the UN recognition of Israel on.
Not sure what denistry has to do with anything, and what you say sounds real pretty and all, but the sticking point is: based on past Israeli actions, they are not trusted to keep their end of the bargain.
Look at the weaseling taking place right now with C.Rice's visit and Israel promising that not now, but in good time, they'll be ready to discuss the 3 major issues preventing peace. Hmmmm.... I wonder what they're waiting for if indeed they want peace with their neighbors.
Don't overplay your hand, friends! Make the tough concessions now, because the Palestinians aren't going the way of the Indian tribes and offensive attacks are in no one's best interests.
The problem with this thinking is: you still think Israel can come in and "negotiate" with the upper hand. You're not exhausted by the deaths yet to make the necessary concessions and still think you can "have it all" and dictate the terms and contours of the Palestinian state.
Better to compromise now and find that elusive security, rather than continue risking and living always watching your back? Personally, I think so, but then I'm not Jewish and it seems that's a bit part of the tradition.
Keeps you from thinking rationally.
Doesn't this apply to the Arabs who are yammering now about something that happened back in 1948, when the vast majority of them weren't even alive?
Lol. You just don't get it, at your own peril. Sad.
Say, aren't the 2nd and 3rd generation American Jews still suing and collecting for paintings their ancestors lost back before 1948? Same concept of justice, less serious consequences -- make the losers whole if they still harbor resentment over their losses and aren't willing to move on until the issues are settled.
Also have you read your own postings? Among a rich selection of candidates, we get the following classic inanity that appears to border on anti-semitism: "Better to compromise now and find that elusive security, rather than continue risking and living always watching your back? Personally, I think so, but then I'm not Jewish and it seems that's a bit part of the tradition."
Somebody is certainly not thinking rationally...
Isn't there built into a lot of the tradition the idea that the Jews are persecuted and must band together against the outside forces that are out to get them? Aren't there plenty of Jewish that distinguish between the goyim and themselves and are suspicious of the former?
I know there has been a lot of religious outreach in recent years to help overcome that mindset -- where Jewish and Christian organizations are recognizing their similarities and working together, but in general, you must admit that this ... separateness is an integral part of Judaism, no?
And for those who found the first remark of mine on this thread anti-Semitic: isn't that what your extremists cite as the legal reason for possessing so many of these lands? Quote: "That G-d gave them to us?"
Perhaps it doesn't fit all, but you must admit there is plenty of housecleaning to be done in all religions, including Judaism. The difference is most religios conflicts today don't affect the entire world, with nuclear fallout as a strong potential based on strongly held religious beliefs that even over time show no signs of compromising.
Personally, I always thought that was an interesting difference between the OT and the NT stories: Abraham put his son up for death yet ultimately wasn't called to sacrifice him. Mary was.
Like many Christians, I sincerely hope Israel is able to work out her problems with her neighbors, particulary when for geopolitical reasons, the entire world is affected.
Hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from, rather than just tossing out labels when you can't respond to substance.
Gotta go watch the news and see what our Sec. of State is accomplishing over there. Not expecting much, of course, until we get more neutral peacemakers willing to extract genuine and painful concessions from both parties.
You want both parties to walk away thinking they got the benefit of the bargain -- a win-win. Otherwise, aren't you just trading short-term gain at the price of long-term security? Honest question.
Perhaps some Jews benefit more in short-term transactions because they are willing to take actions that others would reject because they can see the long-term consequences of taking those actions for short-term gain and factor that into the cost of their decision-making.
Sometimes buying yourself a bit of "security" at the cost of not gaining too many undue advantages proves a more successful strategy. "Love your neighbor as yourself"
When questioned what the greatest commandment is, Jesus is portrayed by the Gospels of Mark (12:28–34) and of Matthew (22:34-40) as stating that the first two commandments, and the greatest, are
One should love Yahweh with one's entire heart, soul, mind, and strength
One should love one's neighbour as one would love oneself
Though it isn't clear what commandment refers to, the latter part of the first of these two is a quotation from the Ritual Decalogue in Deuteronomy. The second, however, does not appear as one of either set of Ten Commandments, instead appearing in the Holiness Code (at Leviticus 19:18), and therefore it is likely that commandment is a reference to the 613 mitzvot of Jewish law. The first part of the first commandment given by Jesus is from the Shema, an important daily Jewish prayer of the period, suggesting to several scholars that when the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels was written the Christian groups still retained Jewish prayer formats (Brown 144). The second commandment, essentially a formulation of the ethic of reciprocity, is also present in the Pauline Epistles (Romans 13:8-10, Gal 5:14, also in Luke 10:25-28, James 2:8), where it is portrayed as the summary of Jewish law (i.e. as the most important command, not the second most important), and textual critics argue that this is likely where Mark ultimately derived the passage from. See also Didache#The Two Ways. from wiki -- a generic source, but if you're interested, you can read up more on your own.
It is going to very difficult to treat seriously anything you write in the future. Certainly your following comment can only be viewed as some sad joke: "it's because I love both the Jews and the Arabs that I would like to see them settle their differences and learn to live in peace and harmoney in that region."
The idea that perhaps it's better to sacrifice a little short-term gain for a peace that all parties can live with in the long run?
The idea that the NT stories incorporated the best of the OT but then offered an alternative to covenant to others in which the principle character called some people in the Temple on their hypocrisies and failings?
I meant that last comment in all sincerity. Of course, being an outsider to the Jewish faith, I don't expect you'd trust me on that.
Ok, let's start with Jews concentrate on short-term gains and don't see long-term consequences. Then we move onto Jews don't trust non Jews (repeated a few times) and end with Jews don't want a fair bargain. These are the same old slanders about Jews that have been repeated for centuries. (And please don't say these are true by by quoting a few extremists - every culture has its outliers).
WWJRD, I would like to believe you a fair and reasonable person. Please go back and re-read your comments. If you still believe they are appropriate, then I don't think that I can continue this discussion with you.
Heck, even the peace between Israel and Egypt was allegedly the result of Christian Jimmy Carter. If only Jews were more Christian, we wouldn't be persecuted. It's our fault.
The main point was: many of the Palestinians don't trust Israel's verbal offers based on Israel's past actions. Can you blame them?
Also, if you seriously want to argue that SOME Jewish people don't trust and provide for their own over outsiders or "goyim", (not that there's anything wrong with that), I will gladly make some introductions.
Christianity is open to all believers; Judiasm is not. Again, not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that. But the insular mindset might explain a lot of the current and historical situational differences between the two. Can you grasp that concept, or have you been stunned by the PC gun?
and end with Jews don't want a fair bargain.
Never said that. Just said that Israel will have to eventually make painful concessions and actually, you know, offer up what her neighbors consider as a "fair bargain" if they want their enemies to settle their grievances and have a peaceful neighborhood. I think it's too far gone to honestly think they'll just give in and move away.
WWJRD, I would like to believe you a fair and reasonable person. Please go back and re-read your comments. If you still believe they are appropriate, then I don't think that I can continue this discussion with you.
I'd really like to see a resolution in the MidEast, because as I noted before, this conflict envelops the entire region and the world. I realize that because of lingering Holocaust sensitivities, and the PC enforcement of playing the "you anti-Semite" card, that free disussion and criticism of Israel from outsiders was almost non-existant in recent years. Luckily, that hold is failing, and more outside criticism is being allowed. Many of you have shown your discussion skills to be weak though, perhaps because of special protections where such criticism was discouraged for so long. If it's too hard for you to speak outside of an echo chamber though, I understand and welcome you back when you're able to discuss these issues less personally and more rationally.
David:
You of course are welcome to your beliefs that your religion must remain "separate", and to isolate yourself from the overall community. But I'm suggesting that mindset is exactly what is contributing to many of Israel's current problems.
My example of the greatest commandment given by Jesus "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" was not an invitation or encouragement to convert. Merely a suggest that perhaps the inherent belief systems have helped contribute to the overall success and failings of the two groups.
I'm suggesting:
Perhaps precisely the mindset that has let many excel in business transactions and entreprenuerial success is also contributing to the difficulties in maintaining a long-term homeland and finding stability with your neighbors, whether they be Europeans, Arabs, or others outside that faith. It's a tradeoff, and again, if Israel chooses to live walled up like that, I would argue she should definitely have that choice. But not on disputed lands and that's really the bottom line that we're still unable to openly discuss:
There's a well recognized theory that many of the stalls we're seeing currently is because Israel wants to unilaterally set the borders, on disputed lands. Some believe if they can just get established and settled soon enough, the Palestinians will be forced to take what Israel offers. I would argue that's a no-win mindset with long-term consequences, as we are currently seeing in the region. Only a legalistic showman would argue that those lands aren't currently controlled and "occupied" by Israel -- physical presence or not -- who can say who and what comes and goes, and whether there's light or they live in cold and darkness.
Contrast that with Christianity and perhaps you see a connection between their current security differences:
"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." John 8:12
And again I personally would advise you lose the persecution mindset because all that baggage really does affect the way you respond to others today. It's just not rational to blame the Palestinian shepards for the pain caused by German Nazis, and expect them to compensate for the benefit of the Jewish homeland.
Good night and G-d bless us everyone.
Ok, let's start with Jews concentrate on short-term gains and don't see long-term consequences.
You seem to think, for some reason, that you can buffalo us away from the fact that their were nomadic peoples living successfully on that land for years before the state of Israel was established, and that the original Balfour Declaration (which of course preceded UN action) called for these people not to be displaced. Perhaps there was good reason for that stipulation, in the long run.
And please enlighten me: what essential role did the Germans need the Palestinian shepherds to play in implementing their Final Solution? I thought the Germans were mighty powerful on their own back then, and I don't recall the shepards being a big part of the Axis movement. Perhaps they've updated the textbooks though to expand the list of enemies against the Jews at that time, just as some Holocaust survivors invited into the classrooms that have passed mandatory Holocaust education laws preach that America knew what was going on in those camps and chose to look the other way. I have no problem with education (before you play that card) but I do strongly believe that emotions very often overcome reason and facts when I read things like that.
It's too late ...
tonight...
to drag the past out...
into the light..
But staying on topic, you tell me how the Christians, if you really want to go there, are responsible in any way for the killings of Palestinians or Israelis associated with the establishment of Israel? Again, I'd advise you to lose some of the baggage because it warps the way you view the current facts and consequences. That's exactly what I was alluding to though in the inherent differences between the two religions via forgiveness and being able to find a secure place in the world.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
...
Similarly, an early draft did not include the commitment to not prejudicing the rights of the non-Jewish communities. These changes came about partly as the result of the urgings of Edwin Samuel Montagu, an influential anti-Zionist Jew and Secretary of State for India, who, among others, was concerned that the declaration without those changes could result in increased anti-Semitic persecution.
You can protest against the anti-semitism card being played, but no reasonable person can look at your postings and not come to the conclusion that you have a deep rooted issue with the Jewish culture. You should be truely ashamed.
I'm not ashamed at all for observing that perhaps some of the inherent traditions are helping to contribute to the insecurity that Israel continually faces, and that perhaps if she examined her mischaracterization of the past, and considered other strategies and heeding advice like that listed two posts above, the region would be in less disarray at this time.
Nobody wants to see more innocent civilians killed -- in any country over there. There really are better ways than killing your way to peace. I think a very wise people once both preached, and practiced, that. Why not dance to the tune that brung you, so to speak?
We'd all love to see that Shining Light on the Hill twinkling once again, and not locked away in the shadows and deliberately causing darkness for her neighbors. Accept the olive branch?
Remember, it's always good advice:
if you're accepting a deed for land previously owned by the British, make sure you check to ascertain whether or not you're getting a clean title.
Could help avoid plenty of problems down the road...
You seem to have this weird notion that after WW2, bunches of armed Jewish brigades from Europe landed on the shores of Palestine in troop transports and kicked all the Arabs out. Jews had lived there for millennia. Others emigrated there over decades and decades before the establishment of Israel, bought property there, established villages and communities, took up farming or other business, etc. After the war,
The fact that you don't know anything about the Middle East is disappointing, but hardly surprising. The fact that you so confidently discuss how it's the fault of Jews for not accepting Jesus that have caused the problems, when you don't know anything about the Middle East, is a little bit surprising. Apparently you don't realize that the fighting in WW2 extended beyond Europe, and into the Middle East. Apparently you don't realize that many Arabs sided with the Germans.
Apparently you don't realize that before and during the war, Arabs worked to keep Jewish refugees from Europe from being allowed into Palestine, thus trapping many Jews in what was or would be Nazi-occupied Europe. In particular, the Mufti of Jerusalem was a staunch ally of the Nazis.
Don't flatter yourself. While many found Summer's speech or the Bell Curve objectionable, at least those arguments involved critical thinking and referenced scientific studies to support their hypothesis. Your diatribes, by contrast, are poorly reasoned rants wherein you claim "facts" without any evidence and regurgitate age-old slanders against Jews.
Sophisticated critics of Israel are careful to separate criticism of the country from criticism of Jews. You not only do not make the distinction, you proudly embrace the two as if they are the same. In doing so, you (inadvertantly?) make the point of die-hard Israeli defenders who have claimed for years that a critic of Israel is a critic of Jews.
Perhaps you are just a poor debater. But I am now leaning towards the conclusion that can only be a plant by Mossad/ Israeli Embassy/ Memri/ Debka to make anti-Israel critics look bad.
Like most of your comments, this too is inaccurate. Judaism is open to sincere converts of any background who wish to cast their lot with that of the Jewish people, learn and follow the mitzvot (commandments) of G-d.
Seen as a religion, Judaism is relatively insular. It isn't anti-semitic to point that out. I don't think I've ever heard of a Jewish mission or evangelical Jew. It would be very difficult for me to convert to Judaism compared to pretty much any other religion due to the obstacles inherent in Judaism to doing so.
Drawing rational conclusions from that fact also isn't anti-semitic. You have to be careful of course not to overstep, but it isn't per se prejudiced.
I have never seen the PC police out in such force on the VC before.
It isn't automatically anti-semitic to point to flaws in those policies. It can be, but it isn't necessarily.
It's very possible that there are ways in which Judaism's perfectly acceptable attitudes create unfortunate tensions within Israel's perilous situation. Pointing that out isn't anti-semitic.
It's possible that as a result, Jews in Israel to some extent find themselves in the position of balancing their principles against effective foreign policy.
That such a dynamic may exist does not mean that pointing out specific instances of it becomes anti-semitic.
Sounds like many are not ready to hear any honest criticism, and would prefer to stay the course rather than adapt and make it a safer world for all.
I hope they know what they're doing, but if past history is any indication, America is in for a rough time of it if we continue to stick by this ally, no questions asked, and intertwine our futures together.
I for one don't want to live like the Israeli people have become accustomed. It's not the American way, and our way is superior, imo.