Latest Episode
Play

Go Back   Keith and The Girl Forums Keith and The Girl Forums Talk Shite

Talk Shite General discussion

View Poll Results: Do you still support Israel's blockade of Gaza?
Yes 31 43.66%
No 40 56.34%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-06-2010, 04:51 AM   #81 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
spooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,265
True or false:
The blockade exists.


I feel like people are getting caught up in the morality of something and donning blinders to the reality of the situation. In my mind, the blockade exists, like it or not, fair or not.

Given that fact, the way the blockade is being handled, which is what the whole thing is supposed to be about, seems fairly measured and properly handled by the guys on the ground(or in the water). Their job is to enforce the blockade, and as far as I can tell, they seem to be doing their jobs. The thread is about that, I'm asking where they fucked up, why the outrage, and everyone ducks the question, deflecting to the larger political issues.

Obviously, there are many people who pretend to not know what that word means, "Israel", they certainly do not acknowledge it exists. And I suppose if you say that, you also say the blockade doesn't exist, and then these guys become pirates. Sort of. Pirates with a list of things not allowed that pass the legal stuff through a bureaucracy to the intended consumer and don't look to directly profit from the process.

In short, I don't give a shit what your politics are on the situation, tell me how the blockade, assuming it exists, was improperly enforced.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepetek View Post
To be fair, to really follow Spooky's diet, you can't just eat chicken. You have to spend your days cleaning up after a slob roommate and night shivering like a rain soaked rage filled chihuahua about having to clean up after said roommate until you finally snap and yell at him. It should be called the Mexican maid diet.

Last edited by spooky; 06-06-2010 at 04:53 AM.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 04:59 AM   #82 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DaveNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlysherpa View Post
Why are these on the confiscation list? Who is Isreal to say that innocent "nice but not necessary" items like flour, meat, and sugar are not for the likes of the gaza people, until they accept the iron domination of isreal?

If Isreal is in a state of war with hamas, or even mutual armed conflict, the gaza strip is occupied territory and the 1.5 million palestinians living there have become protected persons under international law. As such, Isreal would be guilty of the following war crimes:

-Apartheid1
-Collective Punishment2
-Ethnic Cleansing3
-Aggressive settlement4

These are the (arguably) committed war crimes that apply whether isreal is currently at war or not.
-war of aggression
-Use of incindiaries as anti-personnel rounds

Isreal wants to be both "at war" and "not officially at war". That's the line they've been riding for some 50 years now.

The Rachel Corrie was boarded because of the illegal blockade of gaza (remember, not officially at war, right?) and it's most needed goods will be confiscated and the rice and medicine will get through to gaza. What happens to the 9000+ tons of other material confiscated from the flotilla? Well I think you can agree they just should not have challenged the blockade.
So, I've numbered the "war crimes" you've listed, and I'll get to them in a moment, but first: Israel is entitled to blockade a hostile territory, especially with mutually agreed upon hostilities. It is not illegal under international law, unless it fails to meet criteria.

Now:

1. Apartheid is not a war crime. It was a practice under the South African government of racial "separateness", and since it was an intranational issue it was a war crime only insofar as South Africa could be classified as being in a state of civil war. Gaza is not an issue of Apartheid. It's an issue of two nation states failing to adequately separate and form their own states.

2. The degree to which this constitutes collective punishment is an issue of military and strategic necessity. It only results in collective punishment if the blockade does not show that strategic necessity. However, there are legitimate arguments for many (though not all) of the listed blockade items. Hamas' military control of the Strip allows them to confiscate luxury goods and sell them for profit within the area. Israel is not obligated to facilitate this by transferring those goods (i.e. chocolate).

3. Ethnic cleansing. The idea that the Gaza Strip, an area with some of the highest birth rates on the planet, is undergoing ethnic cleansing is patently laughable. Economic stagnation or devastation through war is not tantamount to ethnic cleansing. Gaza's population is growing rapidly. Aside from Operation Cast Lead the deaths in the Strip as a result of Israeli action are nowhere near enough to argue that Israel's goal is to kill 1.5 million people.

4. Aggressive settlement. Very decent case for the West Bank. Absolutely no case for the Gaza Strip post-2005 pullout.

As to the other two, the war of aggression claim is pretty weak given Hamas actions in the past, and the incendiary round issue is limited to several incidents that are also questionable as to whether the intent was to use white phosphorus in an anti-personnel capacity.

As for challenging the blockade, I have little issue with civilian protests. Armed protest, though, as on the Mavi Marmara, is a bad call. Those who take issue with the blockade are allowed to question it. However, remember that the ultimate outcome could have a negative effect for Palestinians in Gaza if easing the blockade strengthens Hamas. Then it's only a matter of time until Hamas kidnaps another soldier or takes a call from Tehran and there's a second, bloodier conflict in Gaza.

Digging the non-arguments, too, petek and SSG.

And Hayroob, if Hamas met Quartet demands the pressure to end the blockade would be so overwhelming and insurmountable as to necessitate it.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 06:02 AM   #83 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Alexandra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Free State
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky View Post
True or false:
The blockade exists.


I feel like people are getting caught up in the morality of something and donning blinders to the reality of the situation. In my mind, the blockade exists, like it or not, fair or not.

Given that fact, the way the blockade is being handled, which is what the whole thing is supposed to be about, seems fairly measured and properly handled by the guys on the ground(or in the water). Their job is to enforce the blockade, and as far as I can tell, they seem to be doing their jobs. The thread is about that, I'm asking where they fucked up, why the outrage, and everyone ducks the question, deflecting to the larger political issues.

Obviously, there are many people who pretend to not know what that word means, "Israel", they certainly do not acknowledge it exists. And I suppose if you say that, you also say the blockade doesn't exist, and then these guys become pirates. Sort of. Pirates with a list of things not allowed that pass the legal stuff through a bureaucracy to the intended consumer and don't look to directly profit from the process.

In short, I don't give a shit what your politics are on the situation, tell me how the blockade, assuming it exists, was improperly enforced.
It wasn't. There is a blockade, it was and continues to be enforced with no gratuitous violence. I'm sure you understand though Spooky, that it's not really about the blockade, it's about this:

(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 06:04 AM   #84 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Alexandra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Free State
Posts: 580
And for your entertainment, a timely piece:

(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 06:11 AM   #85 (permalink)
Senior Member
54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
John Galt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nude Hampster
Posts: 1,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky View Post
True or false:
The blockade exists.


I feel like people are getting caught up in the morality of something and donning blinders to the reality of the situation. In my mind, the blockade exists, like it or not, fair or not.

Given that fact, the way the blockade is being handled, which is what the whole thing is supposed to be about, seems fairly measured and properly handled by the guys on the ground(or in the water). Their job is to enforce the blockade, and as far as I can tell, they seem to be doing their jobs. The thread is about that, I'm asking where they fucked up, why the outrage, and everyone ducks the question, deflecting to the larger political issues.

Obviously, there are many people who pretend to not know what that word means, "Israel", they certainly do not acknowledge it exists. And I suppose if you say that, you also say the blockade doesn't exist, and then these guys become pirates. Sort of. Pirates with a list of things not allowed that pass the legal stuff through a bureaucracy to the intended consumer and don't look to directly profit from the process.

In short, I don't give a shit what your politics are on the situation, tell me how the blockade, assuming it exists, was improperly enforced.
They can't, because it wasn't ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
You've got two different lines of discussion here, but you're acting as if they are the same thing.

First of all, Israel may or may not be a terrorist state ... we could debate that issue. Interesting that they were formed as a modern state by an international body, something which a very few countries could say. At the end of the day, everybody is living on somebody else's old land.

Second, according to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law.

Israel's boarding of the Gaza flotilla was certainly an example of #67 section A. The Captain of one of the boats told the IDF that they intended to "run the blockade" And the video evidence shows that Israel did indeed give the flotilla a warning and asked them to re-route to an Israeli port.

Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.

So really, Israel didn't have to offer them another alternative to get where they "wanted to go." They followed the law as it is currently written. You can disagree with them, or argue that the law should be changed. Still, their actions were more legitimate by law that the US invasions of Vietnam, Grenada, and Iraq. So throw some stones if you care to.

By the way, if you're writing from outside the US, you might want to look up whether or not your country participated in 2/3rds of those "conflicts."
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 06:52 AM   #86 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
spooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,265
Well, after nine pages, I think I will cast my vote to support the blockade.

Sure, it's a vote based in ignorance, I have little knowledge of the whole thing, but I can smell bullshit when someone is trying to feed it to me, and this whole thing has the odor of a quad processed bolus.


Why did this even make the news? Someone call me when something noteworthy happens.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 06:53 AM   #87 (permalink)
Senior Member
2019 Marathon Kickstarter Backer24-hour Marathon 2018 Fundraiser Backer24-hour Marathon 2017 Fundraiser Backer47-hour Marathon 2016 Kickstarter Backer57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer38-hour Marathon 2014 Kickstarter Backer54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
BrianAlt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 4,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandra View Post
I'm sure you understand though Spooky, that it's not really about the blockade, it's about this:
Yes, ignorance.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 03:47 PM   #88 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DaveNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky View Post
Why did this even make the news? Someone call me when something noteworthy happens.
Compared to North Korea basically committing an act of war against South Korea it does seem like a bit of an overreaction.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 03:50 PM   #89 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Deadlysherpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky View Post
In short, I don't give a shit what your politics are on the situation, tell me how the blockade, assuming it exists, was improperly enforced.
Of course the blockade fucking exists. There isn't anyone in this thread arguing it isn't. The arguments here are:

1. Is the whole thing illegal
2. Is it illegal to apply the blockade in international waters by boarding a civilian vessel when not in a state of war
3. Has Isreal commited a war crime for killing 9 aid workers and hospitalizing 34 more

The last two are the arguments that the blockade was improperly enforced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNJ View Post
So, I've numbered the "war crimes" you've listed, and I'll get to them in a moment, but first: Israel is entitled to blockade a hostile territory, especially with mutually agreed upon hostilities. It is not illegal under international law, unless it fails to meet criteria.
I've already explained how it failed those criteria.

Quote:
Now:

1. Apartheid is not a war crime. It was a practice under the South African government of racial "separateness", and since it was an intranational issue it was a war crime only insofar as South Africa could be classified as being in a state of civil war. Gaza is not an issue of Apartheid. It's an issue of two nation states failing to adequately separate and form their own states.

2. The degree to which this constitutes collective punishment is an issue of military and strategic necessity. It only results in collective punishment if the blockade does not show that strategic necessity. However, there are legitimate arguments for many (though not all) of the listed blockade items. Hamas' military control of the Strip allows them to confiscate luxury goods and sell them for profit within the area. Israel is not obligated to facilitate this by transferring those goods (i.e. chocolate).

3. Ethnic cleansing. The idea that the Gaza Strip, an area with some of the highest birth rates on the planet, is undergoing ethnic cleansing is patently laughable. Economic stagnation or devastation through war is not tantamount to ethnic cleansing. Gaza's population is growing rapidly. Aside from Operation Cast Lead the deaths in the Strip as a result of Israeli action are nowhere near enough to argue that Israel's goal is to kill 1.5 million people.

4. Aggressive settlement. Very decent case for the West Bank. Absolutely no case for the Gaza Strip post-2005 pullout.

As to the other two, the war of aggression claim is pretty weak given Hamas actions in the past, and the incendiary round issue is limited to several incidents that are also questionable as to whether the intent was to use white phosphorus in an anti-personnel capacity.

As for challenging the blockade, I have little issue with civilian protests. Armed protest, though, as on the Mavi Marmara, is a bad call. Those who take issue with the blockade are allowed to question it. However, remember that the ultimate outcome could have a negative effect for Palestinians in Gaza if easing the blockade strengthens Hamas. Then it's only a matter of time until Hamas kidnaps another soldier or takes a call from Tehran and there's a second, bloodier conflict in Gaza.

Digging the non-arguments, too, petek and SSG.

And Hayroob, if Hamas met Quartet demands the pressure to end the blockade would be so overwhelming and insurmountable as to necessitate it.
1. There are segregated roads, infrastructure, and ID cards are issued which must be shown at checkpoints. There's a big ol' fuckoff wall in the west bank. There are tons of examples of apartheid-like discrimination; even many isreali officials acknowledge them.

2. By the same argument, Hamas' military control of the strip allows them to confiscate any goods and sell them for a profit. It's not defensible and you'll all but admitted that there is collective punishment.

3. Ethnic Cleansing is not genocide. More specifically it's "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." It aptly describes the occupation of many former palestinian territories and currently palestinian but occupied territories in which palestinians were forcibly removed and their houses bulldozed; and isreali settlements sometimes built in their place.

4. Great, i'm glad we agree isreal has committed war crimes.

I can see how you would have little problem with non-violent protests of the blockade. Cargo gets confiscated, there's little noise from the media, palestinians continue to be subjugated. These violent resistances really gum up the works and shed unpleasant light on isreal.
__________________
Two lessons:
1. Get big
2. Sell Shit.

Bear's in the back.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 04:54 PM   #90 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DaveNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlysherpa View Post
Of course the blockade fucking exists. There isn't anyone in this thread arguing it isn't. The arguments here are:

1. Is the whole thing illegal
2. Is it illegal to apply the blockade in international waters by boarding a civilian vessel when not in a state of war
3. Has Isreal commited a war crime for killing 9 aid workers and hospitalizing 34 more

The last two are the arguments that the blockade was improperly enforced.



I've already explained how it failed those criteria.



1. There are segregated roads, infrastructure, and ID cards are issued which must be shown at checkpoints. There's a big ol' fuckoff wall in the west bank. There are tons of examples of apartheid-like discrimination; even many isreali officials acknowledge them.

2. By the same argument, Hamas' military control of the strip allows them to confiscate any goods and sell them for a profit. It's not defensible and you'll all but admitted that there is collective punishment.

3. Ethnic Cleansing is not genocide. More specifically it's "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." It aptly describes the occupation of many former palestinian territories and currently palestinian but occupied territories in which palestinians were forcibly removed and their houses bulldozed; and isreali settlements sometimes built in their place.

4. Great, i'm glad we agree isreal has committed war crimes.

I can see how you would have little problem with non-violent protests of the blockade. Cargo gets confiscated, there's little noise from the media, palestinians continue to be subjugated. These violent resistances really gum up the works and shed unpleasant light on isreal.
1. That's not Apartheid, though. Apartheid was intranational, whereas if you consider the Palestinians and Israelis as separate entities then it's a land dispute, not Apartheid. The degree to which Israel uses land in the West Bank, and final settlement terms, are issues, but they're not Apartheid.

2. That's true. But again, it's an issue of strategic necessity vs. human impact. That means Israel can't restrict all food or all medicine, even if Hamas seizes those goods (and they do), due to impact. However, chocolate? Coriander? People can live without those. The human impact is decreased quality of life, but not death. That's the impact vs. strategy issue. Israel's not obligated to allow goods like candy or soda into a warring territory.

3. It doesn't apply to Gaza, which is the point of issue here. If anything Israel ethnically cleansed Jews from Gaza during the Gaza pullout.

4. Sure, Israel has committed war crimes. So has every other country that has ever gone to war. What's your point?

The blockade is legal. You say that Israel is not in a state of war with Hamas, something both parties disagree with you on. They say they're at war. That means they're at war. And under San Remo Israel is allowed to blockade a warring territory. The criteria you brought up are incorrect. Israel's not entitled to allow luxury goods or goods with military application into Gaza. They're obligated to allow the people of Gaza to survive. It's up to Hamas to determine if they thrive.

They are allowed to board in international waters, too, if the stated goal of the ship is to break the blockade. As to use of force, it seems like the use of force here was legit. You're not required to only use a gun against someone else with a gun. When met with potentially lethal force one is allowed to use lethal force.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Keith and The GirlAd Management plugin by RedTyger