Letter from Rachel

[Chris Alger]

Gaza

"You asked me about non-violent resistance.

When that explosive detonated yesterday it broke all the windows in the family's house. I was in the process of being served tea and playing with the two small babies. I'm having a hard time right now. Just feel sick to my stomach a lot from being doted on all the time, very sweetly, by people who are facing doom. I know that from the United States, it all sounds like hyperbole. Honestly, a lot of the time the sheer kindness of the people here, coupled with the overwhelming evidence of the wilful destruction of their lives, makes it seem unreal to me. I really can't believe that something like this can happen in the world without a bigger outcry about it. It really hurts me, again, like it has hurt me in the past, to witness how awful we can allow the world to be. I felt after talking to you that maybe you didn't completely believe me. I think it's actually good if you don't, because I do believe pretty much above all else in the importance of independent critical thinking. And I also realise that with you I'm much less careful than usual about trying to source every assertion that I make. A lot of the reason for that is I know that you actually do go and do your own research. But it makes me worry about the job I'm doing. All of the situation that I tried to enumerate above - and a lot of other things - constitutes a somewhat gradual - often hidden, but nevertheless massive - removal and destruction of the ability of a particular group of people to survive. This is what I am seeing here. The assassinations, rocket attacks and shooting of children are atrocities - but in focusing on them I'm terrified of missing their context. The vast majority of people here - even if they had the economic means to escape, even if they actually wanted to give up resisting on their land and just leave (which appears to be maybe the less nefarious of Sharon's possible goals), can't leave. Because they can't even get into Israel to apply for visas, and because their destination countries won't let them in (both our country and Arab countries). So I think when all means of survival is cut off in a pen (Gaza) which people can't get out of, I think that qualifies as genocide. Even if they could get out, I think it would still qualify as genocide. Maybe you could look up the definition of genocide according to international law. I don't remember it right now. I'm going to get better at illustrating this, hopefully. I don't like to use those charged words. I think you know this about me. I really value words. I really try to illustrate and let people draw their own conclusions."

Rachel Corrie, 23 years old, 2/28/03

Murdered by Israeli occupation forces trying to prevent an illegal house demolition, 3/16/03

RIP

[adios]

How about posting something from the families of those killed by one of the suicide bombers. You wouldn't want to be viewed as nothing but a "propaganda machine" would you?

[nicky g]

The suicide bombings are carried out by terrorists that are avowed enemies of the US who are rightly condemened and pursued throughout the world. This American girl was killed by a US ally, by a US-supplied bulldozer, paid for by the biggest US foreign aid grant in the world. Furthermore the Israelis have killed vastly more civilians than the suicide bombers, and live in an otherwise free and normal society of their own choosing, while the Palestinians are condemened to live in a prison camp whose borders are perpetually shrinking, and walls collapsing. There are therefore good reasons for focusing more on the plight of the Palestinians and the illegal actions of Israel than on the suicide bombings, which already get vast amonts of coverage. I would offer my sympathy to victims of both sides if I thought any of them read this.

[John Cole]

I really value words.

For me, heartbreaking.

John

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/blush.gif what is the definition of : a. just war; b. legal military interaction; c. genocide???

all just categories of inhumanity; where we cease being the spiritual beings having a human experience; and relapse to animals...

jmho..gl all..this thursday, man...gl /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif /forums/images/icons/frown.gif /forums/images/icons/spade.gif

[Easy E]

Chris, where did this come from?

[adios]

"I would offer my sympathy to victims of both sides if I thought any of them read this."

I would too but I would bet a lot of money that if I posted something like this from a family member of a victim of a suicide bombing that you'd be griping about a double standard as would Chris.

[Chris Alger]

The Guardian (UK)

[nicky g]

What would be the point in posting something like this about the victim of a suicide bomber? Noone is in disagreement that the suicide bombings are outrages, and wrong. We seem to be in total disagreement about the morality of the Israeli army's actions, on the other hand. Chris posted this, I assume, to show you what the supposed great democracy, and our ally, Israel, gets up to, and how it treats people. The suicide bombers aren't anyone's ally here and noone views them favourably.

[MMMMMM]

It's tragic indeed.

Maybe there should be some world pressure on Jordan to admit those Palestinians who wish to go to Jordan (after all, didn't Jordan steal some of their partitioned land anyway?). It is disturbing to think that some of these people wish to leave and can't.

An "illegal demolition of a house"--was it the house of a terrorist or suicide bomber? IMO suicide bombers and the families which support them in that endeavor quite possibly should have their homes bulldozed. Maybe that shouldn't be illegal (if it is). Suicide bombing of unrelated innocents is not something which is conditionally OK.

Rachel was obviously a thoughtful and compassionate person which makes this all the more tragic IMO. However let's not forget that deciding to be a human shield does carry some inherent risks.

[nicky g]

"It is disturbing to think that some of these people wish to leave and can't."

They don't want to leave. They are being forced to, and if they leave once they are not allowed to return. Making their lives untenably miserable and then sending them off to Jordan would be tantamount ethnic cleansing IMO. I know that's not how you see it, and not what you're advocating. But that's what it would be.


"An "illegal demolition of a house"--was it the house of a terrorist or suicide bomber? IMO suicide bombers and the families which support them in that endeavor quite possibly should have their homes bulldozed. Maybe that shouldn't be illegal (if it is). Suicide bombing of unrelated innocents is not something which is conditionally OK."

WHy can't you see that NEITHER of those things are OK?

[Chris Alger]

You'd lose. Anyway, I didn't post this to score points. Someone emailed it to me. Before Rachel Corrie becomes as forgotten as Ben Linder I thought I'd share a poignant reminder that there remain among us a few people willing to both take responsibility for and risk their lives opposing the carnage their government causes.

[Chris Alger]

"Maybe there should be some world pressure on Jordan to admit those Palestinians who wish to go to Jordan (after all, didn't Jordan steal some of their partitioned land anyway?)"

But of course there should be no presssure on the country that created the Palestinian refugees in the first place? And no, Israel occupies 100% of the land designated by UNGAR 181 in November 1947 for the Palestinian state. Some of it was occupied at the time and never relinquished by the Yishuv, more was conquered in 1947-48, the rest in 1967. Jordan occupied the West Bank until 1967, but this was preferred by Israel to an independent Palestinian state. The spin that Jordan bears unique responsibility for the absence of a Palestinian state on the West Bank ignores the history of how nascent Israel colluded with King Abdullah to prevent it from happening. A good source is Avi Shlaim's "Collusion Across the Jordan."

No the house was not occupied by a terrorist or suicide bomber. If you want to learn about illegal housing demolitions and the reasons for them, visit the B'tselem website.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, they're both wrong, but they're not both equivalently wrong. Targeting uninvolved innocents for suicide bombing is far worse than home bulldozing.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying Jordan bears unique responsibility, but it probably bears some.

I'll check out your link.

[nicky g]

That's true. That doesn't mean that you can do one because t's not as bad as what's been done to you. You may think collective punishment/reprisals are appropriate in this case but they're illegal under the Geneva convention.

[adios]

" You may think collective punishment/reprisals are appropriate in this case but they're illegal under the Geneva convention. "

How about suicide bombing is that legal under the Geneva convention?

Look it the Iraeli policy referred to in this thread is appealing in an emotional, vengeful, perhaps irrational way. However, it's unlawful and wrong IMO. However, to be screaming foul about the Israeli's and what monsters they are with out condemning the suicide terrorist savages as well indicates a bias in my mind and yes it does indicate a double standard to me.

[nicky g]

No, Tom. It's not. Deliberate targetting of civilians is a war crime. I'm tired of this - what's your point? I've condemned suicide bombing as often as I can in this thread. The Geneva convention does not stop applying when your opponent refuses to abide by its rules. You act like I'm the inconsistent one - yet I condemn the illegal acts and murder of civilians on both sides. I focus on the Israeli atrocities for the reasons I outlined above, but nevertheless I condemn the actions of the Palestinian bombers as well. You, on the other hand, refuse to condemn the illegal activities of the Israeli army, and repeatedly falesly characterise my position as disregarding the atrocities carried out by the side I disagree with most, when in fact that is not what I am doing and precisely what you are. Why, may I ask?

[andyfox]

A good source is Avi Shlaim's "Collusion Across the Jordan."

-Now out of print. It has been reissued in an abridged form under the title "The Politics of Partition."

[Jimbo]

rickyG I just reread all 60 articles of the "Convention of the Laws and Customs of War on Land" (commonly called the Geneva Convention) and it says nothing about killing civillians. So perhaps you had better find another rebuttal.

[brad]

which do u think is worse, criminal killings by individuals or state sponsored killings by (say ) death squads.

obviously i think the latter is far worse.

---------------

let me put it another way.

when the nazis occupied a fierce place (say a village in yugoslavia or something) and one of their soldiers was wounded or killed, they would line up (10?) villagers and shoot them.

now the thing is, i think in a 'total war' context this may be practical although obviously not moral. do u think israeli/palestine is in context of 'total war', in which anything is permissable?

[MMMMMM]

I'm not sure what you're driving at here. I definitely think targeting innocents for murder is worse than bulldozing homes. I don't think all limits should be off in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I do think state-sponsored murders are worse than individual murders in general, but not in all cases--note that intent matters a great deal here: for instance, collateral damage in war necessarily involves civilian casualties, but responsible/moral military conduct generally seeks to target military infrastructures and soldiers in preference to civilians. Suicide bombers generally seek to target anyone.

While more Palestinians than Israelis have died in the conflict, that's to be expected when a poorly armed party attacks a well-armed party.

[brad]

'Suicide bombers generally seek to target anyone.'

i posted a link a while back which dispels this notion; ie, nightclubs are frequent terrorist targets cause many off duty soldiers are there.

--------------------

im 100% serious when i say this though, why doesnt the US just ship all these palestinians over here to america?

i mean like 5 million illegal aliens cross border each year (ins numbers) from mexico anyway, whats (a guess at arab palestinian population) another million in a one shot deal? nothing.

and i bet israel would pay shipping so it wouldnt cost US anything anyway.

[Jimbo]

im 100% serious when i say this though, why doesnt the US just ship all these palestinians over here to america? If we tatoo PSB on their foreheads (potential suicide bomber), I am all for your idea. Heck, I'll even supply some of the ink.

[brad]

why would they even consider violence when illegal aliens in this country get welfare and stuff right off the bat?

i mean, theyre living in tents now. think about it.

[Jimbo]

What would make you think I expected them to live somewhere besides in a tent here Brad? Pitch their tents somewhere in the Mojave and they would feel right at home. No need to disturb the status quo. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[HDPM]

In a cynical moment I was thinking that we should offer Paris as the Palestinian state. I mean, the last time anybody wanted Paris it fell quicker than anywhere over on the westbank.

[Cyrus]

The much-maligned concept of ethnic cleansing is the only answer to the central Middle East problem (no, it's not Iraq). It is becoming quite clear that the Israelis will never accept a Palestinian free state alongside theirs, no matter what. Even if the leader of that West Bank state is Mahatma Ghandi incarnate. Palestinians have to be forcibly relocated elsewhere, as Netanyahu and Sharon are openly recommending.

Perhaps Jordan, Sharon's pet destination, is all played out. I don't see too much enthusiasm for that idea in Washington. Sending those folks over to an area in Iraq that'll be a bit "emptied out" by Allied "operations", is a thought.

As a last resort, I submit the case for Madagascar. You know, it's that island they were thinking of packing in Europe's Jews in an earlier time.

[andyfox]

"Palestinians have to be forcibly relocated elsewhere, as Netanyahu and Sharon are openly recommending."

This idea has permeated Zionist thinking all along. Even in Herzl's diary, he speculated that the Palestinians would have to be sent elsewhere. And of course that is what "miraculously" happened in 1948.

[MMMMMM]

I'm glad to see you're back with style, Cyrus.

If I may be permitted to expand on your remark:

Cyrus: "It is becoming quite clear that the Israelis will never accept a Palestinian free state alongside theirs, no matter what. Even if the leader of that West Bank state is Mahatma Ghandi incarnate."

Well...this may be true. It may also be true that the Palestinians will never stop attacking Israel, no matter what. Even if they receive a completely autonomous Palestinian state alongside Israel. You know, the Hamas Charter and the other fanatical terrorist groups and all that. The only Israel they will accept is no Israel.

I don't pretend to know the answer to this mess. Given that the Israelis will never permit a Palestinian state, and that the Palestinians will never cease attacking Israel, I'm starting to favor Dynasty's idea (it was Dynasty's idea, wasn't it?)--of resettling the Palestinians in Paris. M Chirac could actually do something for world peace.

[Chris Alger]

Right, in the 1800's they also talked about a Jewish homeland in Uganda and the US.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't credit Israeli hardliners with the wherewithal to put together a serious transfer plan, I think they're just pandering. But since there's no end to the amount of destruction they''re willing to inflict, who knows? There's been a lot of demolishing recently, and a lot of speculation among the Palestinians and their supporters over whether Sharon will use the war as cover for the kind of bloodbath he perpretrated this time last year. But I doubt he has any plan to transfer a big part of the population.

Israel dosesn't have the power to transfer. More likely, Sharon is stuck in time, still dreaming about booting the Palestinians into Jordan. It's a nonstarter, but he'll be satisfied with the slow torture of the territories.

[Chris Alger]

Your read the wrong one. There are 4 Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Israel is a party to all of them.

"Rules governing the conduct of an Occupying Power in occupied territories, aimed at protecting the population, are set out in the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 (the Fourth Geneva Convention).

Persons protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention are all those who "at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals"(Article 4).

The obligations of an Occupying Power to protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention include the duties to:

· Treat them humanely at all times and protect them from all acts or threats of violence (Article 27)
· Respect their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, practices and their customs (Article 27)
The Occupying Power must also:

· Ensure that the basic medical, and nutritional needs of the population are met (Article 55)
· Agree, ensure and facilitate relief if all or part of the population of the occupied territory is inadequately supplied, and permit free passage of consignments of food, medical supplies and clothing (Article 59)
· Ensure and maintain medical and hospital services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory (Article 56)
· Ensure that medical personnel are allowed to carry out their duties and are respected and protected (Articles 56 and Article 20 and 21)
· Not destroy real or personal property of individuals, organizations or public authorities unless such destruction is "rendered absolutely necessary by military operations" (Article 53). Pillage is also prohibited (Article 33)
· Not carry out "individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons". The Occupying Power must not "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" (Article 49)
Protected persons may not be:

· Wilfully [unlawfully] killed, tortured, ill-treated, subjected to corporal punishment or suffer humiliating and degrading treatment (Articles 27 and 32)
· Punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed or subjected to collective punishments or reprisals against their persons or property (Article 33)
· Compelled by the occupying power to assist in military operations (Article 51), and cannot be used as "human shields" (Article 28)
According to international humanitarian law, persons who take direct part in hostilities may temporarily lose their status as protected persons, but they do so only for such time as they take direct part in hostilities. However, at all times they must be treated with respect for their humanity; if they are tried, their rights to a fair trial must be respected. In addition, all other of their applicable human rights must be respected."

From Amnesty International
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE151432002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\ISRAEL/OCCUPIED+TERRITORIES

[Chris Alger]

"with out condemning the suicide terrorist savages"

Can you name a single supporter of Palestinian rights on this forum, or any member of the Palestinian Authority, including Arafat, that has not already done so repeatedly? I know that Cyrus, Andy Fox, Irish Hand, Nicky and I have. Or do you think this is something we should do every time we criticize Israeli terrorism, an obligation that doesn't apply to those who condemn Palestinian terrorism?

OTOH, I can't recall you ever acknowledging your repsonsibility for the crimes of the occupying forces that, as Nicky correctly points out, have killed and destroyed far more than the suicide bombers, nor can I recall your demand that they be stopped or at least that the US stop supporting them. Maybe I'm wrong. But before you start throwing around loose accusations of unfair bias and hypocrisy maybe you should make your own position clear.

In any event, there's one position you can't get out of. You (and I) helped pay for the bulldozer that scooped Rachel Corrie into the air, dropped her, ran over her, and then backed up to run over her again. You have as much resonsibility for what happened to her as Hamas donors have for the ingredients used for suicide bombs. (The precise analogy would be someone killed trying to prevent a suicide bomber from perpetrating his act). These are facts. How you deal with this responsibility is between you and your conscience.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "In any event, there's one position you can't get out of. You (and I) helped pay for the bulldozer that scooped Rachel Corrie into the air, dropped her, ran over her, and then backed up to run over her again. You have as much resonsibility for what happened to her as Hamas donors have for the ingredients used for suicide bombs. (The precise analogy would be someone killed trying to prevent a suicide bomber from perpetrating his act). These are facts. How you deal with this responsibility is between you and your conscience."

So we Americans are personally responsible for any down-the-chain effects of any broad policies our government has, or any and every use of our tax dollars????

So if our government drills in Alaska, ...I am responsible for environmental destruction? Ray Zee is responsible??? What are you, nuts? We don't control the effects of everything that develops as a result of our government's policies, and neither do we control every policy our government has. Further, assigning responsibility as you are doing would mean every citizen of every representative democratic country is guilty of horrid things just because of some effect of some policy their government has. In fact many policies have both good AND bad effects.

Our tax dollars pay for various things. You are implying we are responsible for any bad use of that money, or even any unfortunate incidents which occur from ANY use of that money.

This is an idiotic argument Chris and well beneath you.

What you are claiming is further removed from reality than even the most implausible extensions of the RICO statutes.

Hamas provides suicide bombing weapons and is avowed, as an organization, to destroy Israel. We just pay our taxes; you are essentially using bin-Laden's view: all American taxpayers are equally guilty. If you believe that then you are nuts, and the next step would be for you to believe that all American taxpayers deserve some horrid fate--as bin-Laden believes--or that the US government should be overthrown.

Even your analogy is horrid: Hamas is providing specifically for suicide-bombing parts and is dedicated to destroying Israel, while we are just paying our taxes in general. You are claiming equivalence. For a well-read person who is also capable of writing well, just HOW can you be so terrible at analogies???

And just to briefly address your other point that more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis: that's generally what happens when a poorly-armed party attacks a well-armed party: more of the poorly-armed party dies.

But let's not get too far away from your claim: that I, and you, and Tom Haley are guilty or responsible simply because we are taxpaying Americans. That's complete and utter bullshit. You are drawing the most tenous of far-fetched connections, assigning right and wrong, and implying responsibilities which aren't practically assumable. Furthermore, your logic guarantees that ALL citizens of any democratic-style government are all responsible for the most horrid crimes, since it is a certainty that some of their tax dollars will somehow be used to cause death or misery somewhere.

If dramatically flawed reasoning such as this appeals to even well-educated intelligent people such as yourself, I can see why less educated people, such as many Palestinians/Arabs, would latch onto these ideas.

Illogic is the cause of half of all of mankind's woes. Human foibles account for another quarter, and unavoidable circumstances for the final quarter. Just my estimation.

[Chris Alger]

"So we Americans are personally responsible for any down-the-chain effects of any broad policies our government has, or any and every use of our tax dollars????"

Of course we are. Who do you think pays the taxes, Saddam Hussein? All I'm saying is that citizenship comesa with responsibilities. I'm not suggesting that if tax dollars go to a criminal purpose, than all taxpayers are criminals. But in a democracy people are generally responsible for the political choices they make, including the choice of doing nothing.

Obviously, the question is how much responsibility, not whether responsibility exists. Your argument merely assumes that I think everyone that pays taxes is just as guilty as the guy that orders the bombing, and I didn't say or imply that at all.

In a complex hierarchical world where people start out confused and end up abused, overworked and lied to by institutions of authority, its difficult and foolish to assign much blame ot ordinary folks. But if people are educated and have time on their hands, if they to stand by and do nothing while their government perpetrates something they know or ought to know is criminal or immoral, they should be faulted. If they actively support it, they should be faulted even more. I can't imagine that this is controversial.

"Hamas is providing specifically for suicide-bombing parts and is dedicated to destroying Israel, while we are just paying our taxes in general."

I didn't analogize Hamas to taxpayers, I analogized Hamas donors to taxpayers. And taxpayers that knowingly give their money without protest to a government that uses it for terror are quite similar to those that give money to Hamas with the same understanding. You can certainly argue over whether tax dollars are used for terrorism, but the analogy is no different that Bush's vilification of countries that directly or indirectly support terror. By the way, I don't excuse myself form this in the slightest: I should be faulted as well, probably more so.

"And just to briefly address your other point that more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis: that's generally what happens when a poorly-armed party attacks a well-armed party: more of the poorly-armed party dies."

Yeah, it's even more common when a completely unarmed party is shot at by someone who is.

[Chris Alger]

Look up the Geneva Conventions and the various protocols and treaties that govern the belligerants that have agreed to abide by them.

[MMMMMM]

First of all, Hamas donors are not required by law to donate money to be used for suicide bombs. We are required by law to pay taxes.

Secondly, donating money for a specific cause is very different than paying taxes in general. Donating to a specific organization--say the Sierra Club--is a specific donation with an intended purpose--similar in this manner to Hamas donors donating for the purchase of suicide-bombing materiels.

There are other flaws in your analogy but it is late now. Good night.

[nicky g]

Thank you Chris. Care to change your tune, Jimbo?

[brad]

are you kidding theres like a whole african stone age tribe that got relocated to maine or somewhere and they all got free housing and everything.

unless youre a childless male (and to a lesser extent a childless female) its a total welfare free for all.

[nicky g]

"Well...this may be true. It may also be true that the Palestinians will never stop attacking Israel, no matter what. Even if they receive a completely autonomous Palestinian state alongside Israel. You know, the Hamas Charter and the other fanatical terrorist groups and all that. The only Israel they will accept is no Israel."

This completely ignores the fact that a. there have been peaceful periods during this conflict, always coincidental with negotiations, and b. most conflicts end without either of the parties getting what they demanded (eg Northern Ireland, where the IRA have stopped fighting for a United Ireland, something many would hve said was unthinkable). When the Palestinian Authroity was onside while negotiations were taking place, support for Hamas and IJ was low, and most of them were locked up - proof that a Palestinian state would not allow the attacks to continue. As things stand at the moment, it's impossible for the PA to exert any control over Hamas and IJ - thanks to Israeli actions they are more popular than ever, and the Israelis have destroyed most of the Palestinian security infrastructure (including, ingeniously, PA prisons, which suggests that Sharon and co don't actually want the a solution to the conflict, as it benefits them politically).

Hamas and IJ would have no popular support if a fair solution to the problems were found and the Palestinians were given a viable state with control over themseleves and the same opportunities as Israel has. As things are at the moment, the Palestinians are bound and to resist, and justified in doing so - do you really believe they should just put up with the situation they currently find themselves in, or that anyone else would? Unfortunately as in many such conflicts, some groups do it partly through attacking civilians, which is wrong, and totally counterproductive, ifnot particularly surprising. Similarly, if the Palestinians were shipped off somewhere else ie ethnically cleansed, all-out war on Israel would be guaranteed.

[adios]

Personally I don't think Chris feels responsible in the least for what that bulldozer did.

[Jimbo]

Thank you Chris. Care to change your tune, Jimbo? Not at all, what Chris quoted was piecemeal quotes that supported your position, although the articles I referred to were the original adopted in 1900. Here is more of Article 4 which Chris neglected to include:

Article 4
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

It appears that Palestinians are not covered here either. I can find no evidence that they were a contracting party under these articles although it could have occurred since 1949. At any rate Israel did ratify the Geneva convention articles in 1951 but here is their response quoted below with the link at the end:

Israel rejects applying the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against Jordan and Egypt, countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948. Furthermore, it is Article 49 that is commonly cited to accuse Israel of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. But a close reading of Article 49 reveals that it prohibits "individual or mass forcible transfers" which are not happening in the territories under Israeli administration. Further, the Occupying Power is obliged not to "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population" to territories under its control. The use of "deport" and "transfer" indicate that the Convention prohibits the Occupying Power from the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians. Article 49 does not oblige Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population just because Arabs don't like it.

It is also interesting to find in the Fourth Geneva Convention, in Art. 3 and elsewhere, prohibitions of murder, violence to life and person, and other acts that are commonly employed by Palestinian Arabs against innocent Israeli civilians. To date no one in the international community has made a formal protest against these Palestinian Arab tactics.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_4thgeneva.php

Finally after careful consideration of considering as to whether I should reconsider I consider your statement about the violations to be incorrect and consider the matter settled, although I would be willing to reconsider other considerations if you will consider providing such for our mutual discussion and consideration. Is that doublespeak lingo diplomatic enough?

[MMMMMM]

Well nicky I hope you're right. Note please that I said that these things may be true--not that they [/i]are[/i] true. I'm not ruling out hope either.

[Chris Alger]

The argument that the 4th Convention doesn't apply to Israel and the Palestinians because the Palestinians didn't sign it is spurious because Palestinians in the occupied territories are not nationals of any state. The UN has made it plain time and again that Palestinians in the occupied territories are regarded as "protected persons" under the 4th Convention. More spurious is the argument that because Egypt and Jordan illegaly occupied Gaza and the West Bank prior to 1967, that Israel's occupation is somehow permissible.

The interpretation you quoted illustrates just how far Israel has to bend the language in order to excuse its behavior. The language provides that Israel cannot "transfer parts of its own civilian population" to the territories. The interpretation (rendered by the apologist "Jewish Virtual Library" site) states that this language prohibits only "the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians." Do you see anything in the original text about the transfer having to be "active" or "forcible?" In any event, the made-up "active" element has been met because Israel provides lavish subsidies, government-funded construction and military protection in order to encourage settlement.

Further, the Security Council has already determined that Israel's settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. UN Security Council Resolution 446, one of 32 resolutions that Israel has violated sine 1967, provides in pertinent part as follows:

"Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories...."

UNSCR 465 reiterated: the Security Council "determines" that "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War...."

"To date no one in the international community has made a formal protest against these Palestinian Arab tactics."

This is the usual misleading bullshit designed to appeal to the self-pitying and paranoid. Every major actor and entity in the international community, including the Palestinian Authority and the human rights organizations, have long-condemned Palestinian terrorism. The world doesn't have a double standard, Israel and its big patron do.

Both the General Assembly and the Security Council have passed resolutions condemning terrorism against Israeli civlians. Interestingly, the SC resolution was passed last December in connection with the terrorism against an Israeli airliner in Kenya. So why did the UN wait so long, and why in a context outside the occupied territories? Because the SC has had before it numerous resolutions condemning terror against Israeli civilians but the US keeps vetoing them. Why? Because the resolutions invariably draw a distinction between the right of Palestinians to resist, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Israeli aggression and encroachment of their land, just as every other nation in the world has the right to take up arms against an invader. The US refuses to allow the principle to be applied in the occupied territories.

So the US has a right to "preemptively" invade and conquer a country that has neither attacked nor threatened to attack the US, but the Palestinians have no right to fight an acutal invader. And what's the constant refrain you hear against people that find this appalling? That we have a "double standard."

[Chris Alger]

We are not merely "required" by a supreme authority to pay taxes, we elect representatives that enact legislation. Living in a dmeocracy entails responsiblity for the use of taxes and the effects of other legislation. Do you really disagree with this?

[MMMMMM]

It entails some responsibility but not even remotely to the same degree as directly funding an organization with malicious intent and specific purpose.

This is an example of one thing I object to in many of your analogies. Even when you compare Macintosh apples with Cortland apples (not that you are so doing here), you often neglect to compare the size of the apples.

In your above example, the relative degrees of personal responsibility are miles apart. Also the ability of the taxpayer to influence the situation, or to withdraw from it, is minor compared with the ability of the Hamas donor.

I really and respectfully suggest that you consider degree to a greater extent in many of your analogies.

[Jimbo]

Further, the Security Council has already determined that Israel's settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. UN Security Council Resolution 446, one of 32 resolutions that Israel has violated sine 1967, provides in pertinent part as follows: I counted no less than 12 times from 1979 thru 1992 that this was stated, affirmed and reaffirmed by the UN. Like stating it over and over is going to make it true. It is notable that the US and Great Britain (permanent members of the UN Secutity Council) abstained from UN resolution 446. I construe this fact to mean that since my government did not agree that I am under no obligation to agree with this resolution and needless to say Israel fails to agree as well.

So the US has a right to "preemptively" invade and conquer a country that has neither attacked nor threatened to attack the US, but the Palestinians have no right to fight an acutal invader. Yes Chris that sums it up nicely.

[nicky g]

You are talking about the how the settlements are not in breach. I was talking about collective punishment, forcible transfer (whch is a much bigger problem than simply the settlements, though Chris points out how htese are covered) and the killing of civilians. Explain to me how these aren't covered by the convention.

The convention clearly states that if a party is subject to it, as Israel is, it must obey it even if the other party isn't, so long as the other party accepts its terms.
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. "
The PA do accept it. That Hamas and IJ don't is irrelevant. The Israeli argument that their breaches should be ignored because of attacks on Israeli citizens is tantamount to "two wrongs make a right" which we "liberals" are so ofen accused of.

Regardless of the fact that your legalistic arguments are incorrect, why do you think Palestinian civilians should not be treated according to the basic international humanitarian guidelines modern society is based upon?

[Jimbo]

nicky g,

How do you construe this:

"Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are."

to be the same as what you wrote here?

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. "

[nicky g]

What I wrote is a quote from Article 2. Furthermore:
"The High Commissioner (for Human RIghts) noted that UN bodies such as the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have repeatedly reaffirmed the "de jure applicability" of the Convention to the occupied Palestinian territories."
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/011207/2001120726.html
And

"6. (The General Assembly) Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,1 which is applicable to all territories occupied by Israel since 1967 "
http://www.israel-un.org/assembly/emergency/Illegal%20Israeli%20actions%20in%20Occupied%20East %20Jerusalem.htm




Any elaboration on why you don't think the Palestinians are entitled to basic human rights, regardless of whether the convention covers them?

[Jimbo]

Any elaboration on why you don't think the Palestinians are entitled to basic human rights, regardless of whether the convention covers them? I find it odd that you assume that simply because I do not believe they are protected by the articles of The Geneva Convention that I therefore must believe that they are not entitled to basic human rights. I seriously doubt you will be able to find where I have ever said, written nor implied as much.

What I do believe is that if Israel tells the Palestines that if a suicide bomber kills our people we will destry that persons' families homes that that is reasonable retribution and potential prevention all rolled into one. Further if some young girl stands in front a bulldozer and thinks she can stop that dozer by sheer will or mental engery then it is a good example of Darwinism at work. In other words stupid people who intentionally put themselves in harms way (aka "Human Shields') must expect to be harmed.

That said it both disturbs and saddens me when innocent civillians in Palestine are killed or injured by the Israeli Army on a mission to either seek out Hammas leaders or potential suicide bombers or their trainers. This becomes a case of the chicken and the egg. Israel will not stop their actions untill the suicide bombings cease yet the bombings continue because Israel will not stop.

The above reminds me of a WWII joke which I will adapt to this situation:

The suicide bomber trainer is standing in front of his potential bombers. As he carefully straps on the bomb and conceals it beneath his clothing, placing the detonator in his hand he says "Pay close attention. I am only going to show you this once."

[MMMMMM]

Sadly, the bombings have continued even when Israel has stopped. That's one of the most essential parts of the whole problem.

[Cyrus]

"It may also be true that the Palestinians will never stop attacking Israel, no matter what. Even if they receive a completely autonomous Palestinian state alongside Israel. You know, the Hamas Charter and the other fanatical terrorist groups and all that. The only Israel they will accept is no Israel."

Well, I don't know how to say this any other way so I will say it flat out straight : Israel actively encouraged and assisted the Hamas organisation from its birth until relatively recently. And that was from back when Hamas had started out as a religious, humanitarian and educational grass-roots organisation with mild militancy, until such time as they started shoving off PLO loyalists from positions of power due to their "pacifist and capitulative spirit".

You see, Israel wanted to counter the PLO's influence among Palestinians. The PLO, as Israel's leadership correctly surmised, was the real "danger" because it had realistic objectives, was comprised of secular and sophisticated functionaries and it was not blind with fanatism (=not easily misled). If it meant marginalising the PLO, Israel was ready to assist even the devil.

...And, in a sense, they did.


TARGETING HAMAS (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/hamas_7-23.html)

[B-Man]

Well, I don't know how to say this any other way so I will say it flat out straight : Israel actively encouraged and assisted the Hamas organisation from its birth until relatively recently.

So what? At the time they saw Hamas as the lesser of two evils. Similarly, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during the 80s because he was viewed as the lesser of two evils (as opposed to Iran). This is not uncommon ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend").

I don't see how this has any relevance to the situation today. The U.S. fought Germany and Japan in WWII, now they are our allies. Should we hold a grudge against them because we were enemies 60 years ago? Should Israel be estopped from fighting against a terrorist group because they thought it was a good idea 20 years ago (long before Hamas murdered hundreds of Israelis in cold blood, as opposed to the PLO, which had been murdering Israelis for years)? Should the U.S. be estopped from attacking Iraq because we helped Saddam in the 80s (when he was fighting against a fanatical regime which had held American hostages for many months)?

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.

[Cyrus]

So what? At the time [Israel] saw Hamas as the lesser of two evils. Similarly, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during the 80s because he was viewed as the lesser of two evils (as opposed to Iran). This is not uncommon.

It is strange to see at this hour someone posting in admiration of America's stupid support for Saddam's regime. But peristence in the face of facts should cease to amaze us.

The U.S. fought Germany and Japan in WWII, now they are our allies.

Your example is irrelevant. The Germany the U.S. fought is different from the Germany we have peace with now. The example you should have used is the Soviet Union being in the camp of the Allies. But, notice, that the Allies could not help but be in the same camp with the USSR. They had all being attacked by Germany. And the Soviet Union was not then a superpower so supporting them against the Nazis was not but an ideological discrepancy for the West.

Should Israel be estopped ...

Hey, a lawyerly slip! Funny.

...from fighting against a terrorist group because they thought it was a good idea 20 years ago (long before Hamas murdered hundreds of Israelis in cold blood, as opposed to the PLO, which had been murdering Israelis for years)?

No, I am simply saying that the Israelis have always prefered to have the Palestinians as adversaries rather than as peaceful cohabitants of the land or even partners in peace. And that their support for Hamas was nothing more than one more expression of Israeli unwillingness to come to terms with Palestinian national aspirations.

You know. Those national aspirations that were repeatedly endorsed and reaffirmed by the United Nations in resolutions unanimoulsy adopted, even by the U.S.? The same resolutions that Israel has flagrantly and patently ignored? Surely you remember.

Should the U.S. be estopped from attacking Iraq because we helped Saddam in the 80s , when he was fighting against a fanatical regime which had held American hostages for many months?

I see. So it's OK to prop up a small devil in order to combat the great devil. Isn't it obvious by now that all little devils grow up to become great devils themselves? Come on. Why the U.S. had to support either Iran or Iraq when they were fighting each other? Wouldn't a more sensible, if not prudent, policy have been to let them weaken each other as soon as possible?

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.

Only that American policy in the Middle East has been a series of disasters or near-misses. (Israel, for its part, has not done anything different than what Reform Zionists proclaimed they would do when in power, back from the days of Zabotinsly. "Iron Wall" an' all that.)

[brad]

i agree with cyrus.

a good example in the US is the NRA (national rifle association).

it has been infiltrated at the top and now is the loyal opposition of the gun grabbing groups.