Letter from Rachel

[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.