Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[Coyote]

Yeah, it depends on the grade and type of fertilizer. Remember the recent New York Times Square wanna-be bomber, Terror S. McFailurepants? I heard he tried using 2 bags Mircale-Gro in his fizzled "fertilizer bomb". Needless to say, that's the wrong recipe. Israel may well et that sort of stuff in but not the boom-pow stuff.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Completely surrounded? Jordan and Egypt are institutionally terrorist-supporting states (I mean, you might be right in a Chomsky-esque total reversal sense; that they carry out unlawful force against the masses and democracy in the interest of a U.S.-dominated system, but I doubt that's what you mean)? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are "rogue states"? Only Israel flagrantly disobeys international law, consensus, and capriciously invades its neighbors and generally imposes violent aggressive force beyond its borders. When's the last time any of the above states did anything like that? How often do they engage in bombing their neighbors or trying to subvert foreign regimes? Either "rogue state" has a substantive definition in which case it refers to Israel over its neighbors or its just a recent rhetorical innovation of U.S. propaganda.

The last time they bombed their neighbors? I dunno, few months ago? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8360015.stm The Saudis have bombed and invaded Yemen quite a few times in the last year and used upwards of 100 jets at a time to do it. But of course the world doesn't give a shit about that, and you clearly had no idea either.

Oh fucking please. That's still nothing compared to CAST LEAD, LEBANESE FREEDOM or whatever joke they probably called it, the suppression of the Second Intifada -- all of which were within the last 10 years. Israel is by far the most aggressive and violent and capricious challenger of international norms, consensus and law in the region by any substantive criterion. Even if you were right that there was some parity in this case, that would not make the cocksuckers' case that "rogue state" = "people the U.S. doesn't like." God I hate this "wah wah wah, someone else does something mean!, look the otherway for poor widdle Israel" reasoning. Israel is a U.S. client state, so what it does is much more our business, and OUGHT to be more important.

[MagnusTheReD]

As long as we're quoting from San Remo, let's look at some other rules on blockades:

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted;

First of all, thanks for the clarification.

Second, I'd like to discuss the bolded paragraph.
As a disambiguation, I don't think the blockade is justified, and I was of that opinion well before this whole affair ever started.
What I want to discuss is the actual to-the-letter legality of the boarding action (because it's obvious that the moral high ground was never on our side, anyway).

So this part where it's said that the blockading power is obliged to provide the passage of foodstuff, given that it has the right to prescribe the technical arrangements. My point is, that such passage exists.
You can argue that what passes through is not enough. Hell, you should argue that, because it's obviously the case, but if we go by the letter of the law, the minimum conditions are met (I really hate myself for saying that).

Keep in mind that this whole deal was never about the actual cargo, but the way it was going to be transferred.
Israel promised to let the aid supplies through from the very beginning, and regardless of the outcome. And indeed, once the ships docked in Ashdod, unloading began, and the first trucks headed to Gaza the next day.

(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Well, the responsibility of distributing the supplies was never on the Israeli side, since we simply don't have permanent footing inside Gaza.
I don't know who's actually responsible for that right now, but I was under the impression that it was the job of the UN workers and the NGO organizations that Israel allows in.

A state of chronic malnutrition exists in Gaza

I was suspecting something to that extent. Thanks for the link.

Therefore under San Remo Israel has a legal obligation to allow supplies into Gaza.

I'm no lawyer, but if I understand the text correctly, the legal minimum is met (even though the actual spirit of the law is not).

It does have a right to inspect the ships, but it legally must allow the supplies into Gaza.

As per the text, Israel has the right to decide upon the technicalities of such inspection, and the way I see it, choosing the location where the inspection will take place falls under this description.
After all, checking the cargo in port is much more reliable than letting the guys in the boarding team to simply eyeball the parts of the cargo in their immediate field of view...

There is simply no question about that and more to the point it explicitly must be distributed by a protecting power or humanitarian organization, not the blockading belligerent,

Well, the actual distribution of the goods is done by aid workers, not Israel.

and furthermore mandates free passage, not seizure and redistribution.

Define "seizure and redistribution".
Because I don't think that simply loading the cargo on lorries and having it make the last few kilometers by road rather than by water is such a big deal.

BTW, I didn't see anything that would suggest that the cargo in those ships was subjected to the same restrictions that apply to the rest of the supplies that go into Gaza. I am under the impression that all of it will go inside, even the "conditional contraband" (using the term from that Wiki article quoted here).

International law is being overwhelming violated by the Israeli refusal to cooperate with the terms of San Remo and therefore the resistance was being legitimate.

While I agree that international international law is being violated, namely by the insufficient amount of supplies passing into Gaza, but I see no problem with the naval blockade itself, under the condition that all the delivered supplies will end in Gaza.

Here is the Israeli statement that they would violate international law: Blatantly given before the actual attempt. I already posted it, so I'm just reposting the relevant part:

Israel has said it will overtake the ships as soon as they enter a 20—mile Israeli—controlled zone off Gaza. They will then be towed to the Israeli port of Ashdod, where the foreign nationals will be handed over to Immigration Police for deportation abroad, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor.

IIRC, allowing the cargo into Gaza by land was the official Israeli stance from the very beginning, and I think this particular article simply left that part out for some reason.

Therefore Israel had a international legal requirement to allow free passage under San Remo, and announced in advance that it would not do so, but instead seize and divert the ships, in violation of international law.

According to this radio interchange, the ships were promised the opportunity to unload their cargo in Ashdod for delivery to Gaza, after which they would be allowed to depart with the ships and all the passengers aboard.

This made resistance to the Israeli violation of international law legitimate and legal. Israel is simply blatantly in the wrong with this seizure and to say anything else is to participate in their propaganda machine trying to whitewash their hunger blockade of Gaza.

According to the testimonies of the troops from boarding party, their initial plan was to attempt and reason with the passengers and the crew.
They came equipped accordingly - paintball guns and sidearms only. But they didn't even had the opportunity to squeeze a word in, as they were attacked immediately.
I'm no expert on the international law, but I don't think that attacking a boarding and inspection party before they even had the chance to declare their intentions.

I mean, c'mon, does this look like legitimate resistance to unlawful arrest?
To me it looks like an attempt to provoke unnecessary violence.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Because I don't think that simply loading the cargo on lorries and having it make the last few kilometers by road rather than by water is such a big deal.

I don't have time to do a point by point answer, but I would like to comment on this one point.

The reason it's a big deal is that nobody trusts Israel. At all. Given that Israel has embarked on a deliberate policy of starving the Gaza Strip into submission, and already doesn't let in enough aid, it's not unreasonable to be worried that the aid would be seized at the port or mysteriously 'vanish' on it's way through Israel, or even just be indefinitely held up in 'inspections' at the crossings. This is the problem you have when your international reputation is in the shitter and you don't appear to care about your actions making it worse.

[Elfdart]

I don't remember the US government being so coy in 1996 when Cuban fighters shot down planes belonging to Brothers to the Rescue (one of which actually entered Cuban territory). In fact, Madeleine Albright called the jet pilots cowards.

[Edward Yee]

The reason it's a big deal is that nobody trusts Israel. At all. Given that Israel has embarked on a deliberate policy of starving the Gaza Strip into submission, and already doesn't let in enough aid, it's not unreasonable to be worried that the aid would be seized at the port or mysteriously 'vanish' on it's way through Israel, or even just be indefinitely held up in 'inspections' at the crossings. This is the problem you have when your international reputation is in the shitter and you don't appear to care about your actions making it worse.

Also a problem when apparently a lot of your constituency may have a "fuck the world" mentality...

[Coyote]

Oh fucking please. That's still nothing compared to CAST LEAD, LEBANESE FREEDOM or whatever joke they probably called it, the suppression of the Second Intifada -- all of which were within the last 10 years. Israel is by far the most aggressive and violent and capricious challenger of international norms, consensus and law in the region by any substantive criterion. Even if you were right that there was some parity in this case, that would not make the cocksuckers' case that "rogue state" = "people the U.S. doesn't like." God I hate this "wah wah wah, someone else does something mean!, look the otherway for poor widdle Israel" reasoning. Israel is a U.S. client state, so what it does is much more our business, and OUGHT to be more important.

Your outburst prompts a comment from me, and it is that some perspective must be borne in mind. There is a reason why Israel frequently dismisses criticism of Israeli policies as "bog-standard anti-Semitism", and that is because Israel sees itself as singled out for exceptional scrutiny that other regimes do not endure.

There are more UN Resolutions against Israel than many places with egregious human rights violations. There are more UN Resolutions against Israel than there are against, say, Burma/Myanmar, or Somalia, or Afghanistan. Israel is routinely criticized for the destruction of the town of Deir Yassin, but the Syrian destruction of the town of Hama is all but forgotten.

Before you jump down my throat and remind me about how Myanmar isn't a "US client state" I'll say right off the bat that you are correct, but the disproportionate attention paid to Israeli actions in the UN gives fuel to the fire that this is just an "anti-Semitic" thing of the sort that has been going on for centuries. Really, the general attitude I encountered over there every time the European criticized Israel was "O, boy, Europe wagging their finger at the Jews again, wake me when something original happens".

Israelis feel it is unfair that when they shoot at Palestinians, they are condemned, but the Palestinians shooting into Israel is given a shrug and a pass (from their point of view). Israel pulled out all their Settlements and bases from Gaza, completely, and they are "thanked" with the election of Hamas into power and a regular barrage of rocket fire. They put effort into the Oslo Peace Accords and were "thanked" with the Second Intifada. Israel withdrew from Lebanon and adhered to the UN border exactly, winning rare praise from the international body for their adherence to rules; and they are "thanked" by a Hezbollah offensive that claims the Shaba'a Farms are still Lebanese territory despite even the UN and Syria both agreeing that the accusation is a false and flimsy excuse to maintain militant operations (a manufactured reason to keep Hezbollah active).

Now no one expects the Palestinaisn to be grateful to the Israelis, not by a long shot, but when they make concessions it gets them nothing whatsoever. They give up land and that land is used for exactly what they feared-- a launch point for more Palestinian attacks, and the attackers get constant sympathy and the victims get constant criticism when they dare to defend themselves.

From the Israeli point of view, world concern about human rights seems to start and stop on their doorstep alone. Darfur, Zimbabwe, Congo & Rwanda, Myanmar, the Tibetians and Uighurs, Syrian asshattery in Lebanon and so on... barely a mention. Saudi Arabia has been cornholing Yemen off and on for decades, and not a peep of concern. Israel, however, is singled out as the global face of evil.

With an atmosphere like that, is it any wonder that Israel feels that playing nicey-nice gets them jack and diddley and squat?


Now I'm not excusing any of this, just explaining it, okay?


I think part of the problem is that criticism of Israel has been driven a lot by international attention focused on the Palestinians, and the spotlight has been kept focused on them for decades by the various Arab states surrounding Israel, all of whom have a vested interest in maintaining pressure.

In maintaining that pressure, it has been forgotten that the Arab states use the threat of Israel to maintain large internal security forces. Those same Arab states keep the Palestinians refugee camps in their territory as ghettoes themselves, and the Israelis have to ask "why?" Many of the Arab states have had oil profits coming out their ears, and since 1945 Europe went from a bombed-out wasteland to a thriving and powerful community-- while the same 60 years have come and gone for the Palestinians and yet they are still poor and destitute in the Arab states that sponsor them.

So, again-- Israel feels that they are being singled out for exceptional scrutiny and exceptional criticism, so why bother when the deck is stacked with Israel-haters anyway?

So like I said, I'm not bringing all this up to make excuses for Israel, I think it should be fairly obvious that I, too, am seriously disgusted with Netanyahu and the course he and his cronies have taken Israel down. I've been a harsh critic of the Settlements for a long time and also pissed that the US doesn't lean on Israel to stop the goddamn Settlements.

I'm just taking a moment to explain the utter frustration one can experience in Israel with the situation there. When they do what is asked of them, they get played for suckers. When they dare to defend themselves, they get called Nazis. So from their point of view, what's the point of caring?

[Ziggy Stardust]

There are more UN Resolutions against Israel than many places with egregious human rights violations. There are more UN Resolutions against Israel than there are against, say, Burma/Myanmar, or Somalia, or Afghanistan.

To be fair, Israel is also in violation of more UN Resolutions than any other nation on Earth.

[Coyote]

There are more UN Resolutions against Israel than many places with egregious human rights violations. There are more UN Resolutions against Israel than there are against, say, Burma/Myanmar, or Somalia, or Afghanistan.

To be fair, Israel is also in violation of more UN Resolutions than any other nation on Earth.

But to top that off, there are more people looking for reasons to slap resolutions on Israel.

This does not mean the resolutions are invalid, but that there is an active effort to keep Palestinian suffering in the limelight, while, say, people suffering in Africa or Myanmar are allowed to wither because there are no "cheerleaders" for them.

[Einzige]

Israel absolutely needs to be slapped with more resolutions. Again, and again, and again. The kid gloves of the international community need to come off; everyone knows that Israel has utter disregard for international law, and will until they actually suffer the consequences of their rebellion. They need to be punished for both their arrogance and their inability to play by the rules.

[Akhlut]

This does not mean the resolutions are invalid, but that there is an active effort to keep Palestinian suffering in the limelight, while, say, people suffering in Africa or Myanmar are allowed to wither because there are no "cheerleaders" for them.

Africa is full of too many diverse countries to really say much about sanctions/resolutions/what-have-you, however, Burma is subject to sanctions from the US, Canada, EU, and a few other countries for its actions against its own populace. That it hasn't made it into the UN doesn't necessarily mean it is not being watched.

Similarly, the main reason that Israel is probably subject to so much UN scrutiny is because it receives so much protection and aid from the US and is in such a contentious location and has such a tumultuous history.

[Simon_Jester]

Israel absolutely needs to be slapped with more resolutions. Again, and again, and again. The kid gloves of the international community need to come off; everyone knows that Israel has utter disregard for international law, and will until they actually suffer the consequences of their rebellion. They need to be punished for both their arrogance and their inability to play by the rules.

But Coyote has a point here; why should they be expected to play by rules that are defined largely by their enemies? And I don't mean "the whole world" either; I mean the Arab states around them, which make hostility toward Israel a cornerstone of their foreign policy, and push a very strong "oppose Israel!" agenda in the UN to the limit of their ability to do so.

International law must be applied dispassionately or it can't work. Everyone who violates the same law should receive the same treatment. When the UN Declaration of Human Rights isn't enforced on Burma, the Israelis may reasonably wonder why much pettier UN resolutions should be enforced on them. Why they "need to be punished for both their arrogance and their inability to play by the rules."

As I see it there are two separate problems here. One is Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, which is an ongoing human rights violation but far from the worst one in the world. The other is Israeli policy towards other nation-states, which tends to be lax and high-handed, as the recent attack on a Turkish-flagged merchantman in international waters demonstrates.

Their conduct towards the Palestinians is a domestic matter, and other nations should be just as wary of interfering in it as they are of interfering in nations like Burma. Their conduct towards other states is a problem, and one that those states have a right to object to, as is happening here.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I think part of the problem is that Israel is considered a first world (or at least second world) nation, and thus is held to some higher standards, rigthly or wrongly, than what are considered third world hell holes like Burma and the Sudan. In a way its sorta similar to what I've heard about how the major Axis powers were treated after WWII. The Germans were treated in some respects more harshly in how they were dealt with becuase they were civilized Europeans and should have known better. The Japanese on the other hand were treated somewhat more leniently becuase they weren't Europeans, and thus were probably viewed as little better than Europeans tended to view their colonial subjects. Certainly racist and ethnocentric, but the idea has some merit to it in my opinion as racism was certainly prevalent at that time. Mind you I'm not sure I subscribe to that theory, but I've heard it before.

[Zed]

I think part of the problem is that Israel is considered a first world (or at least second world) nation

Second world? What the hell? The second world is the communist world.

[Samuel]

International law must be applied dispassionately or it can't work. Everyone who violates the same law should receive the same treatment. When the UN Declaration of Human Rights isn't enforced on Burma, the Israelis may reasonably wonder why much pettier UN resolutions should be enforced on them. Why they "need to be punished for both their arrogance and their inability to play by the rules."

http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8931/236/
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9139.doc.htm
http://www.burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/a ... 00144.html

Their conduct towards the Palestinians is a domestic matter, and other nations should be just as wary of interfering in it as they are of interfering in nations like Burma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia ... _Authority

Israelis feel it is unfair that when they shoot at Palestinians, they are condemned, but the Palestinians shooting into Israel is given a shrug and a pass (from their point of view).

Welcome to the US's world. It is what happens when you have such crushing superiority that you take one casulty and your enemies take hundreds- people focus on your actions alot more.

[Coyote]

I think part of the problem is that Israel is considered a first world (or at least second world) nation

Second world? What the hell? The second world is the communist world.

It was, but I think it has since become a generic term for a nation that is industrially and technically developed, but there are still large sectors that lag behind-- large blocs of poor, a struggling, stagnant, or dependent economy, that sort of thing.

[Sea Skimmer]

Oh fucking please. That's still nothing compared to CAST LEAD, LEBANESE FREEDOM or whatever joke they probably called it, the suppression of the Second Intifada -- all of which were within the last 10 years. Israel is by far the most aggressive and violent and capricious challenger of international norms, consensus and law in the region by any substantive criterion. Even if you were right that there was some parity in this case, that would not make the cocksuckers' case that "rogue state" = "people the U.S. doesn't like." God I hate this "wah wah wah, someone else does something mean!, look the otherway for poor widdle Israel" reasoning. Israel is a U.S. client state, so what it does is much more our business, and OUGHT to be more important.

Fuck you too idiot. Its not my fault your too fucking stupid and focused on jewistan to the exclusion of all else to notice your blanket claims are bullshit before you post them.. Now you've got to backpedal from 'ONLY ISRAEL' to 'that shit doesn't count because it does not met my personal standard of mattering'. Of course one could also point out the last 30 years of constant fighting between the Kurds and everyone, which routinely crosses the Turkish, Iranian and Iraqi boarders but I'm sure that doesn't count either.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I think part of the problem is that Israel is considered a first world (or at least second world) nation

Second world? What the hell? The second world is the communist world.

I should note that I tend to use the more modern bastardized version that looks at overall wealth and prosperity rather than the original version that was drawn up primarily around political ideologies. Sorry.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Your outburst

Okay, play to the choir with this rhetoric. I'm so sorry this armchair internet arguing person (y'know, what all of us are here) rails against a state which not only fits the criteria of "rogue state", but if it was an objective category, would be its archetype, as opposed for something one gets patted on the back, has their neck massaged, their balls cupped, and the dick sucked for, like "omg wuts wrong with teh Norks!" or "wtf guys fuck this asshole wrt attn whore story about child molester". Outrage and indignation -- if tolerated at all --, should be on objective grounds, not whether the target is a politically and socially popular one (e.g., establishing Internet Tough Guy street-cred through murder-fantasies about child-victimizing criminals, however ugly the criminals, though I will say this board is atypically better about discouraging this), or worse yet, one where state interest and power shored up by it (e.g., hating on Official Enemies, where one has next to no ability to influence their actions and where their moral behavior does not reflect on us and our moral responsibilities, and thereby where our attentions should be focused first) and therefore one is rewarded for it.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming:

prompts a comment from me, and it is that some perspective must be borne in mind. There is a reason why Israel frequently dismisses criticism of Israeli policies as "bog-standard anti-Semitism", and that is because Israel sees itself as singled out for exceptional scrutiny that other regimes do not endure.

I dispute this. Israel and its apologists use the "New Antisemitism" as just some propagandist shield under which they can hide their state crimes and terrorism. There are and always have been anti-Semites (by the way, am I the only one who thinks it is tacitly racist against Arabs and exclusionist, as well as inaccurate, to describe Jews as identical to Semitic peoples?), but there is no unique cultural-political movement or entity as the "New Antisemitism." Its a propaganda manufacture of U.S. and Israeli Israel-whore academics, commentators, intellectuals, and general denizens of the articulate chattering class.

Throughout history, all criticized states and power have hid behind the claim of racism and hatred of their nation (sometimes creed), and employed kept intellectuals to compose polemics and narratives of this for the ruling elite. Surely, there is Judeophobia among the Arab population, organically formed in response (mostly) to the frequent wars, conquest, and terror -- as well as in response the protected impunity with which it commits it -- committed by Israel along with some sectarian and historical ingredients thrown in, and there is of course opportunistic support for this by white supremacist and neo-Nazi sectors -- whatever guise they adopt -- as usual. However, in the Western media and culture, and among pro-Israeli wings more specifically, this is not the cause of the claim of "New Antisemitism". It is almost entirely in defense of Israel's right to terror, and intellectuals' right to lie in defense of it.

There are more UN Resolutions against Israel than many places with egregious human rights violations.

That because other states functionally are subjected to the consequences of international law and consensus with much greater regularity and thoroughness than Israel (which is to say they are ever subject to these things, where Israel never is). Would you accept the claim that because a criminal has found himself prosecuted multiple times, that he is up against "Third Strike" violations, etc., etc., would you tacitly accept his contention this was because the police were personally biased against him and mounting fishing expeditions and harassing him? Would you accept his excuse that he was being singled out because unlike him -- the clever organized criminal, able to bribe cops or cow witnesses, was charged time and time again -- simpler thugs had been charged once, but were on probation or in jail now?

There are more UN Resolutions against Israel than there are against, say, Burma/Myanmar, or Somalia, or Afghanistan. Israel is routinely criticized for the destruction of the town of Deir Yassin, but the Syrian destruction of the town of Hama is all but forgotten.

As pointed out, none of those states flagrantly disobeyed international law and proceeded to get away with it to break it again and again for 50 years. In fact all three were targets for U.S. sanctions or otherwise support for the UN position. Whereas with Israel it votes and acts like the Ukraine did with the USSR.

Before you jump down my throat and remind me about how Myanmar isn't a "US client state" I'll say right off the bat that you are correct, but the disproportionate attention paid to Israeli actions in the UN gives fuel to the fire that this is just an "anti-Semitic" thing of the sort that has been going on for centuries.

The attention is hardly disproportionate, and at least here and in Israel we are all partially responsible for it, whereas we have jack and shit to do with Myanmar crimes. Furthermore, that's not some organic opinion. Intellectuals and opinion-shapers use rhetoric and narratives of racism and of passionate hatred of the nation and creed in order to beat the drum and get the population in line. That extends broadly, if not universally.

Really, the general attitude I encountered over there every time the European criticized Israel was "O, boy, Europe wagging their finger at the Jews again, wake me when something original happens".

Yeah and American jingoists claim all criticism of America is due to economic or political jealousy, endemic irrational anti-American hatred, hatred of Christianity, hatred of morality in general, crypto-Communism, quasi-conspiracist plans or motives to see the downfall of benign American power, ad nauseum. In the USSR, all criticism was born of anti-worker bourgeois sentiment, bourgeois nationalist chauvinism, Marxist revisionism, anti-Soviet sentiment, ad nauseum. The "my opponents are all motivated by dogmatic 'anti-me/us' sentiment" canard is the universal last retreat of Stalinists. Not very curiously to me, the three main instances of "anti"-blank allegations that I can recall really gaining traction and being used broadly was "anti-Sovietism", "anti-Americanism", and "Antisemitism". Propagandists find similar solutions to similar problems.

Israelis feel it is unfair that when they shoot at Palestinians, they are condemned, but the Palestinians shooting into Israel is given a shrug and a pass (from their point of view).

They're an illegal occupier. People have a right to resist unlawful occupation. Do people hate on the Partisans because politically they were committed Marxist-Leninists? Do people hate on African National Congress and Nelson Mandela (the head of its armed resistance faction) because they were violent? Or do we support them for resisting Nazi rule or apartheid, regardless of their political character?

Interestingly enough, people did hate on the ANC and Mandela before it became politically untenable, for about the same motives as hating on Hamas.

Israel pulled out all their Settlements and bases from Gaza, completely, and they are "thanked" with the election of Hamas into power and a regular barrage of rocket fire.

I didn't realize withdrawing from unlawful colonization and occupation meant you should have veto powers over democratic elections.

They put effort into the Oslo Peace Accords and were "thanked" with the Second Intifada.

I would love to see Israel or any other self-respecting nation-state submit themselves to the circumstances and criteria the "Palestinian state" would be subject to. That's not statehood, that legally-ratified subjugation or Bantustanization.

Now no one expects the Palestinaisn to be grateful to the Israelis, not by a long shot, but when they make concessions it gets them nothing whatsoever.

I don't expect to be compensated for obeying the law, just not arrested or prosecuted.

They give up land and that land is used for exactly what they feared-- a launch point for more Palestinian attacks, and the attackers get constant sympathy and the victims get constant criticism when they dare to defend themselves.

You'll excuse me if I don't think victims is on the right side, considering the kill counts, quality of life, economic development, losers of all the war, ad nauseum.

Now I'm not excusing any of this, just explaining it, okay?

Your 'explanation' requires tacit approval of Israel's policies and accepting apologism for its basis.

In maintaining that pressure, it has been forgotten that the Arab states use the threat of Israel to maintain large internal security forces. Those same Arab states keep the Palestinians refugee camps in their territory as ghettoes themselves, and the Israelis have to ask "why?" Many of the Arab states have had oil profits coming out their ears, and since 1945 Europe went from a bombed-out wasteland to a thriving and powerful community-- while the same 60 years have come and gone for the Palestinians and yet they are still poor and destitute in the Arab states that sponsor them.

What a bunch of pro-Israel bullshit. The tu quoque is not a valid argument, however used like the town bicycle it is as the come-all, all-purpose excuse propagandists use for everything they do. If the U.S. expelled Indians into Mexico, their treatment of them would not be the operative moral issue, because we're responsible for what WE DO and its not Mexico's responsibility to subsidize our crimes (though in the interests of human decency they probably ought to anyway).

So, again-- Israel feels that they are being singled out for exceptional scrutiny and exceptional criticism, so why bother when the deck is stacked with Israel-haters anyway?

The same excuse used by all state criminals when people illuminate their crimes. Everyone just hates us! Everyone else is doing it too! Why don't other people take care of it? Yeah okay.

I'm just taking a moment to explain the utter frustration one can experience in Israel with the situation there. When they do what is asked of them, they get played for suckers. When they dare to defend themselves, they get called Nazis. So from their point of view, what's the point of caring?

Thanks for explaining. Israel is a spoiled Self-Esteem Generation Kid going through his PUNK REBELLION phase, and needs to be allowed to "express himself" and just needs to be rubs on the back and told he's not that bad and loved, before trying to "discuss" his misbehavior.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh fucking please. That's still nothing compared to CAST LEAD, LEBANESE FREEDOM or whatever joke they probably called it, the suppression of the Second Intifada -- all of which were within the last 10 years. Israel is by far the most aggressive and violent and capricious challenger of international norms, consensus and law in the region by any substantive criterion. Even if you were right that there was some parity in this case, that would not make the cocksuckers' case that "rogue state" = "people the U.S. doesn't like." God I hate this "wah wah wah, someone else does something mean!, look the otherway for poor widdle Israel" reasoning. Israel is a U.S. client state, so what it does is much more our business, and OUGHT to be more important.

Fuck you too idiot. Its not my fault your too fucking stupid and focused on jewistan to the exclusion of all else to notice your blanket claims are bullshit before you post them..

Fine, you were right, there are examples of other countries doing some things similar. Only Israel is different qualitatively, quantitatively, and otherwise by large margins.

Now you've got to backpedal from 'ONLY ISRAEL' to 'that shit doesn't count because it does not met my personal standard of mattering'.

Bullshit, you quibbled that it was not an ASBOLUTE distinction in kind, only (implicitly) an HUGE one in degree. Wow, nitpicker, that totally demolishes my point that Israel meets the criterion of a "rogue state" by any objective definition better than its neighbors. I am in owe of your reading-ability and intellect, Sherlock.

Of course one could also point out the last 30 years of constant fighting between the Kurds and everyone, which routinely crosses the Turkish, Iranian and Iraqi boarders but I'm sure that doesn't count either.

The Kurds are an ethnic group, not a state, and therefore not a subject of international law in the sense of Israel, et al., you fucking idiot. You're a fucking moron to draw a relationship like that. The dispute only was, oh I don't know, about these things called "rogue STATES". Care me to show how the square peg Kurds fit in that circle hole, illiterate?

[Vanzetti]

I should note that I tend to use the more modern bastardized version that looks at overall wealth and prosperity rather than the original version that was drawn up primarily around political ideologies. Sorry.

Israel is rated "Very High" on Human Development index and considered "Free" in Freedom in the World report. If is definitely First World.

[Illuminatus Primus]

International law must be applied dispassionately or it can't work. Everyone who violates the same law should receive the same treatment. When the UN Declaration of Human Rights isn't enforced on Burma, the Israelis may reasonably wonder why much pettier UN resolutions should be enforced on them. Why they "need to be punished for both their arrogance and their inability to play by the rules."

I bet plenty of the people who recite shit like this are totally cool with Third Strike laws against felons and capricious acts of force to cow the criminal in general (like work camps, forced labor more generally, the death penalty, etc.). Of course that LIBRUL pansy law is morally and functionally mandatory when it comes to OUR criminal STATES, versus poor criminals.

[Stark]

It's amusing to see people complaint about rules made by 'others' whomight not be friendly.

When America does it to the entire world it's realpolitik. When anyone does it to Israel it's just not cricket! Better go kill some civilians and act shocked.

But it's the peace process or humanitarians that cynically perpetuate the conflict, right?

[Sea Skimmer]

The Kurds are an ethnic group, not a state, and therefore not a subject of international law in the sense of Israel, et al., you fucking idiot. You're a fucking moron to draw a relationship like that. The dispute only was, oh I don't know, about these things called "rogue STATES". Care me to show how the square peg Kurds fit in that circle hole, illiterate?

Lets see they had a government, independent territory and a uniformed military from 1992 until 2003 thanks to Saddam being unable to crush them. I'd call that a state, it was certainly more of a state then Gaza and the West Bank are now. It'd also sure as shit be a rouge state since it carved itself out of another country by force and fought to defend it across international boundaries, and only sort of gave in when the US showed up, kicked out the other guys and then unilaterally installed a bunch of Kurds as the head of the Iraqi interim government. It still operates its own military to this day though.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Kurds are an ethnic group, not a state, and therefore not a subject of international law in the sense of Israel, et al., you fucking idiot. You're a fucking moron to draw a relationship like that. The dispute only was, oh I don't know, about these things called "rogue STATES". Care me to show how the square peg Kurds fit in that circle hole, illiterate?

Lets see they had a government, independent territory and a uniformed military from 1992 until 2003 thanks to Saddam being unable to crush them. I'd call that a state, it was certainly more of a state then Gaza and the West Bank are now. It'd also sure as shit be a rouge state since it carved itself out of another country by force and fought to defend it across international boundaries, and only sort of gave in when the US showed up, kicked out the other guys and then unilaterally installed a bunch of Kurds as the head of the Iraqi interim government. It still operates its own military to this day though.

You're a moron. International recognition matters. You know just as well as I do that that doesn't count vis-a-vis the criteria by which the U.S. or other powers define states, and therefore candidates for "rogue state"-dom, and certainly not by the UN (and of course, no one was claiming Gaza and the West Bank is a state or are states: that's the central issue of the conflict). The UN did not, and is not going to, pass resolutions against Iraqi Kurdistan, and the U.S. isn't going to call the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic a rogue state (well, actually it might, because the U.S. is that politically and diplomatically intellectually dishonest; but I think it can be accepted for the purposes of this argument, we're pretending that "rogue state" might be an objectively defined category).