Perhaps there is a good reason why Israel is so frequently criticised at the UN. Maybe it might have something to do with the collective punishment meted out to the civillians in Gaza, the daily shelling and murder of innocents which I think is reminiscent of Serb actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

"...the daily shelling and murder of innocents"

"Sderot lies one kilometer from the Gaza Strip and town of Beit Hanoun. Since the beginning of the Second Intifada in October 2000, the city has been under constant rocket fire from Qassam rockets launched by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.[2] Despite the imperfect aim of these homemade projectiles, they have caused deaths and injuries, as well as significant damage to homes and property, psychological distress and emigration from the city. The Israeli government has installed a "Red Dawn" alarm system to warn citizens of impending rocket attacks, although its effectiveness has been questioned. Thousands of Qassam rockets have been launched since Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip in September 2005.

Bomb shelter in SderotIn May 2007, a significant increase in shelling from Gaza prompted the temporary evacuation of thousands of residents.[3] By November 23, 2007, 6,311 rockets had fallen on the city.[4] Yediot Ahronoth reported that during the summer of 2007, 3,000 of the city's 22,000 residents (comprised mostly of the city's key upper and middle class residents) left for other areas, out of Qassam rocket range. Arcadi Gaydamak has in recent years supported relief programs for residents who cannot leave.[5] On December 12, 2007, after more than 20 rockets landed in the Sderot area in a single day, including a direct hit to one of the main avenues,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sderot#Rocket_fire_from_Gaza

Strangely, Hamas' indiscriminate rockets kill far fewer civillians than Israel's supposed surgical strikes.

Patrick,

If true, it's not so strange at all. Hezbollah and Hamas fire much of their arsenal from within civilian population centers, thus making it likely, in many cases, that virtually any retaliation may eventuate in civilian casualties. Also, Hezbollah's and Hamas's rockets - though perhaps improving greatly with increased funding from Iran and Syria - is

Perhaps you can comment on a Hezbollah or Hamas blog or comment board and persuade them to change their tactics.

[sarc tag] Or, if it were Israel who was firing it's weaponry from within its own civilian populations - you'd give that one a pass, right? [sarc tag off]

Finally, are you suggesting the war - and it is a war - Israel is fighting should be fought in order to achieve an equal number of deaths and no more? Is that your conception of how a war should be fought?

I think your conception of what constitutes a war is rather strange. Surely you are not saying that Gilad Shalit and the 3 Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah were legitimate targets (being combatants and all). In that case, how does one justify the policy of collective punishment in there particular cases? And while the Palestinian and Lebanese militants are not exactly poster boys for the Geneva Conventions, neither has Israel distinguished herself in this regard.

Patrick,

In fact and in large part, Israel has often distinguished itself, which is not to accord them any type of absolute purity. For example, in the case of the much publicized and hyped smear that was Jenin, the Israelis could have greatly mitigated the deaths and wounded they suffered by using large amunitions in lieu of going house-to-house in order to help avoid non-militant casualties.

As far as any conception of the "war" is concerned, I'm viewing it within it's larger panorama, historically, ideologically and otherwise. Which includes, for example, Article 7 of Hamas's charter (i.e. their constitution and founding document) which calls for genocide against Jews and the destruction of Israel. So by war I'm including military as well as extra-military strategies, not least of which is ideology, PR and propaganda such as that forwarded by western media, etc. Hezbollah and Fatah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad all operate within strikingly similar organizing principles and strategies, so Article 7 of Hamas's charter is merely one particularly prominent example (imagine similar language within the U.S. or any other Constitution and founding document).

That Hamas charter can be found here.

Peace, yes, but not delusions and not escapism or head-in-the-sand rationalizations.

Israel continues to hold thousands of palestinian and Lebanese prisoners without according them trial. During their incarceration, they are sometimes subject to torture. As an occupying power in Gaza and the West Bank, Israel regularly visits miseries upon its Palestinian wards in the form of home demolitions, checkpoints, the illegal 'security barrier', restriction of goods including medical and humanitarian supplies, denial of permission to travel for life-saving treatment, continues to expand its settlements in violation of international law. Gaza has been transformed into a giant Palestinian ghetto. To add to all this, the Israelis routinely reject any and all proposals that threaten a just peace e.g. Their initial cool reception of the American road map, the rejection of the 2003 Arab offer of a full and comprehensive peace in return for Israeli evacuation of all land occupied in 1967, the many offers by Hamas of a ceasefire or hudna including continuing with the policy of assasination even after Hamas declared, and largely abided by, a unilateral ceasefire. Israel is also guilty of subverting the march of democracy and stable government in Lebanon and Palestine. For years she undermined the Palestinian Authority and then chose to punish the population when it voted overwhelmingly for Hamas. In the outrage that was the 2006 destruction of Lebanon, lies the roots of the current crisis in that country.

Security barrier, in scare quotes or sneer quotes? I don't think so.

It's been proven, it's been well documented, to be highly effective in preventing suicide/homicide attacks and in preventing other attacks against Israeli civilians as well. Indeed, even the folks from Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Fatah have acknowledged as much. It also presents unfortunate difficulties for some, even many, but they foster a culture of genocidal and eliminationist intent vis-a-vis Israel, from the earliest pre-school ages and forward, culturally, institutionally, politically, and otherwise. It simply doesn't reduce to the (proletariat? oppressor/oppressed? other?) categories you're suggesting it does.

No one denies the effectiveness of the 'security barrier' (the East Germans called theirs the 'anti-Fascist protective rampart'). Walls work very well in keeping people locked in. It is the morality of it that is in question. And your excusing the treatment of the Palestinians on the basis that they 'foster a culture of genocidal eliminationist intent' comes mighty close to the sorts of blanket condemnations that are used to support all forms of ethnic cleansing and discrimination from the Holocaust to Apartheid and beyond. It marks a whole people as morally degenerate and deserving of whatever misfortune comes their way. Finally, the way you neatly side-step the issue of Israeli actions vis-a-vis international law speaks volumes.

Do "peace activists" demonstrate against kassam rocket factories or rocket launching crews operating in gaza or the West Bank? No.

Do hamas/hezbullah allow the Red Cross visit captured Israeli soldiers to verify that they are well treated according to the Geneva Convention? No.

Do hamas/hezbullah wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians? No.

Do hamas/hezbullah fire rockets from civilian areas in Gaza? YES.

Do suspected collaborators in gaza/West Bank receive fair trials and humane sentences? No. They are tried in kangaroo courts and executed - hung from lampposts and cranes.

Does the so-called palestinian educational system engage in racist, islamofascist indoctrination of elementary school age children? YES.

Do airports all over the world have checkpoints to prevent islamofascist hijacking, bombings, shootings of inflight planes? YES.

Has Lebanon been hijacked by Syria and the Islamofascist regime of iran? YES.

Eddie, does all of the above exempt Israel from her international obligations? NO.

What International obligations do al-qada, hezbullah, hamas, islamic jihad, islamofascist regime of iran, Baathist Syria, janjaweed, current day slaver Sudan follow?

Are you outraged over current day slavery in Sudan?

Are you outraged over the current civil war in Lebanon between Lebanese and Islamofascist invaders?

Of course I'm outraged by the murderous actions of Islamic extremists and fanatics everywhere. I just don't see that their deeds excuse the equally murderous policies of the Israelis.

But the Sunni Arabs actually do foster a culture of genocidal and eliminationist intent vis-a-vis Israel, from the earliest pre-school ages and forward, culturally, institutionally, politically, and otherwise. It's a reality that is not merely one factor to be considered, abstractedly, within a set of other abstract considerations, it's an existential threat and it is a reality with absolutely pervasive implications in that society, in the very warp and woof of that Sunni Arab society.

That's an issue that you sidestep.

I'm all for talks and diplomacy and resolutions, but the fact remains, if the Israelis laid down their weapons, they would be met with murder, mayhem and eliminationist and genocidal interests; if the Sunni Arabs (the Palis) laid down their weapons, there would be some type of peaceful settlement reached in relatively short order.

And no, there is no "equally" involved in all this. This equivocating rhetoric you use has no basis in the realities on the ground.

We disagree.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the Israelis start hugging trees. Fortunately that is not the only option open to them. I only ask that in the entirely legitimate quest to defend themselves, they act within the acknowledged boundaries of international law (it is a demand I make of the Arabs as well). I would, though, contest your assertion that peace would come with a unilateral Palestinian ceasefire. They tried that and their efforts were met with continued settlement expansion, checkpoints, incursions and assasinations. Fact is Israel has done little to inspire confidence in its declared intentions to make peace. Furthermore, she continues to try and dictate the terms of an eventual peace deal by creating facts-on-ground (the wall, settlements) and refuses to acknowledge the internationally recognised right of return for Palestinian refugees. Peace in short order? We certainly disagree on that!

Well, I am curious. When was this period when the Sunni Arabs laid down their arms? 1920? 1929? 1938? 1948? 1967? 1973? 1980? 1987? 1993? 2000? Any dates in between those dates or since that time? And please tell me you're not thinking of Oslo, of all events.

This is similar to you passing right over the note concerning the eliminationist tenets within the very founding documents of entities such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Hezbollah and all that implies at social, political, cultural, institutional, etc. levels of Sunni and Shi'a Muslim society in the region. Likewise the enculturation of positively murderous and genocidal antiSemitism from the earlist pre-school ages and forward, e.g., where pre-school children, coaxed and taught by their parents and tribal and clan leaders to dip their hands in red paint in order to simulate such as this.

Of course I'm outraged by the murderous actions of Islamic extremists and fanatics everywhere. I just don't see that their deeds excuse the of the Israelis.

Really? Can you point us to any work of yours where you spend equal amounts of effort expressing your outrage over the murderous policies, practices of al qada, hamas, hezbullah, islamic jihad, plo, pflp, slaver sudan, apartheid saudi arabia?

I hope you don't lump them all together. Each of these islamist, islamofascist organizations and regimes deserve their own section of outrage.

Michael, nothing easier. In the early 90s, Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin offered Israel a fixed ceasefire of 20-50 years if she withdrew to the 1967 borders, if both sides undertook not to attack each other and if there were free elections for Palestinian reps to peace talks. Yassin explicitly accepted that elected Palestinian reps would recognise Israel and that such an outcome would end the conflict. There were no takers from Israel. On July 31, 2001, Israel's assassination of 2 militants in Nablus ended a near two-month Hamas ceasefire. On July 22, 2002, just 90 minutes after the text of a Tanzim ceasefire supported by the EU, Jordan and the Saudis had been completed, an Israeli airstrike on a crowded apartment block killed a senior Hamas leader, Sheikh Salah Shehada, and 14 civilians, 9 of them children. The Israelis later admitted that they were aware of the impending declaration of the ceasefire. In February 2005, Hamas signed on to a limited ceasefire agreement banning non-retaliatory attacks on Israeli targets, during talks with the Palestinian Authority and other militant groups. While the ceasefire officially ended on January 1, 2006, Hamas maintained it without further commitment till popular anger over the alleged Israeli shelling of a beach in northern Gaza, which killed 7 family members, forced it to withdraw from the ceasefire in June 2006. It is instructive to note that throughout this period, Israel continued her policy of incursions, shelling and assassinations. As for your accusations of my glossing over the unsavoury aspects of Arab society, I would point out that criticising Israel does not make me an automatic defender of Arabs. You and Eddie, on the other hand, seem convinced that the indiscretions of the Arabs excuse those of the Israelis. I have not heard from you a single refutation of the charges that Israel contravenes international law in its dealings with the Palestinians (which is where this started). All I hear you say is that the Palestinians do the same.

Yea, "nothing easier." Yassin. So we're to trust someone like Yassin now. And you do realize, that in referring to the early 90's, you're referring to the Oslo Accords period? Boy, that turned out well, entrusting Arafat and the rest. Iow, citing the early 90's as a period where Israel failed to trust a mix of Sunni Arabs - and you're playing that as something of a trump card, no less - is patently absurd. You evidence zero aptitude in coming to terms with some very prominent realities.

What are these realities you keep refering to? The late Rabin said one makes peace with one's enemies, not one's friends. The facts are that Hamas has severally declared and observed unilateral ceasefires and Israel has failed to reciprocate. Please do not obfuscate issues.

In the early 90s, Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin offered Israel a fixed ceasefire of 20-50 years if she withdrew to the 1967 borders, if both sides undertook not to attack each other and if there were free elections for Palestinian reps to peace talks.

Israel should have topped Snake Yassins offer with an offer of a 100 year ceasefire if Hamas and company relocate to Jordan, Egypt, Iraq. Just think how those countries would benefit from the Palestinian brain trust!

Yassin explicitly accepted that elected Palestinian reps would recognize Israel and that such an outcome would end the conflict.

Wow! What about non-elected reps? Would they also recognize Israel? That’s a tempting offer!

There were no takers from Israel.

I can’t believe that Israel would not have accepted the magnanimous offer of recognition. Are you sure Patrick?

On July 31, 2001, Israel's assassination of 2 militants in Nablus ended a near two-month Hamas ceasefire.

“Militants”? Were they the kind of “militants” that march around with signs, shouting, burning effigies or the kind that shoot, stab, bomb, murder Israelis and uncooperative Palestinians?

On July 22, 2002, just 90 minutes after the text of a Tanzim ceasefire supported by the EU, Jordan and the Saudis had been completed,

Was it a draft or the final text? Was it ratified? Who signed on? What about the others “militants” like Fatah, PLO, PFLP, Islamic Jihad, Ali Baba Martyrs Brigade?

Did they agree to the text too or just the “good cop” Tanzim?

an Israeli airstrike on a crowded apartment block killed a senior Hamas leader, Sheikh Salah Shehada, and 14 civilians, 9 of them children.

Ah yes, Salah Shedada, the leader of the Hamas military wing, as opposed to the cultural, educational, Lullaby League wing of Hamas.

As a member of the military wing, he was a target. Too bad he used children as human shields.

Isn’t a Muslim “militant” using Muslim children as human shields Haram?

The Israelis later admitted that they were aware of the impending declaration of the ceasefire.

I think it’s called, getting your last licks in.

In February 2005, Hamas signed on to a limited ceasefire agreement banning non-retaliatory attacks on Israeli targets, during talks with the Palestinian Authority and other militant groups.

Wow! Would Israel have to withdraw to the 1967 borders too? Previously Hamas offered a 20-50 year ceasefire. What was the deal this time?

While the ceasefire officially ended on January 1, 2006, Hamas maintained it without further commitment till popular anger over the alleged Israeli shelling of a beach in northern Gaza, which killed 7 family members, forced it to withdraw from the ceasefire in June 2006.

Hmmm. Alleged Israeli shelling. Sounds like someone else was responsible for their deaths – like those Palestinian “militants” I keep reading about.

It is instructive to note that throughout this period, Israel continued her policy of incursions, shelling and assassinations.

It’s instructive to note that the “bad cop” Fatah, Islamo Jihad etc. continued their murderous policy.

As for your accusations of my glossing over the unsavoury aspects of Arab society,

Wow! Current day Slavery, hijacking, bombing, stabbings, shootings are “unsavory”. You set the bar very high.

I would point out that criticising Israel does not make me an automatic defender of Arabs.

Nah. Singling out Israel while ignoring Islamofascist bombings of Pan Am 103, 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, Beslan, fatwas against writers of ficton, apostates. That’s minor. Right?

You and Eddie, on the other hand, seem convinced that the indiscretions of the Arabs excuse those of the Israelis.

Videotapped beheadings of bound captives, an “indiscretion”. Like stepping one someone’s toes.

I have not heard from you a single refutation of the charges that Israel contravenes international law in its dealings with the Palestinians (which is where this started). All I hear you say is that the Palestinians do the same.

International Law applies to all – even Arabs/Muslims, al qada, fatah, plo, pflp, islamo jihad, Islamofascist regime of iran, baathist Syria.

Please direct us to websites where you vent your ire on al qada.

Either Israel wants to make peace or it doesn't. Make up your mind. A withdrawal to the 1967 borders is mandated by UN resolution (the same UN that mandated the creation of Israel) as is the right of return for Palestinian refugees. If Israel wishes to be regarded as a respectable member of the international community, she has to play by the rules. Otherwise, she is just another nuclear armed rogue terrorist state which aspires to the territory of its neighbours.

You're a caricature of myopia, massive equivocations and complacency.

Patrick, in Israel there are several non-governmental Peace movements - "Peace Now", B'Tselem.

Where is "Salaam Now"?

Where is an Arab/Muslim/"Palestinian" NGO Peace organization?

An Arab peoples Anti-War coalition that

- demonstrates against Kassam rocket firings against Israel

- demonstrates against the racist "palestinian" demonization of Israel and Jews

- demands an accounting of the billions of dollars arafat received from the EU, US and Israel,

- denounces the "one state" Islamofascist solution of hamas?

I support the palestinian right of return to "palestine" AKA Jordan, Iraq, Egypt (birthplace of yassir arafat).

#22 Patrick Gathara at:

A withdrawal to the 1967 borders is mandated by UN resolution (the same UN that mandated the creation of Israel) as is the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

2. "1967 borders"? Nonsense. No such thing. Unless you accept Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria, which they subsequently renounced. The 1949 Armistice Lines never had the status of internationally recognized borders.

3. Of the millions and millions of refugees of the 1940s, only the Arabs of Palestine are still unsettled. They were kept in squalid camps, now cities with permanent structures, electricity and running water, by their Arab brethren. Even now, the PA and Hamas confine these "refugees"to their "camps." Why is that? Why don't the "Palestinian" governments allow the "refugees" to move out of the "refugee camps?" What's up with that? The relevant UN documents and the discussions at Annapolis talk about "all refugees" from the conflict, not just the Arabs. That includes an even greater number of Jewish refugees whose property was confiscated and who were expelled from Arab lands. Unlike the Arab refugees, the Jewish refugees weren't exploited as political pawns. The current generation of "Palestinian refugees" are not refugees by any reasonable definition of the term of by analogy with refugees in history; they're refugees only by virtue of a unique, one-time, special definition by the UN which has created large bureaucracies like UNWRA specifically devoted to maintaining their refugee status.

4. It has been well documented that the vast majority of the Arabs who fled in 1947-1949 did so at the behest of Arab leaders, and in some cases, were forced out by them. The "Palestinian refugee" crisis is a huge scam.

Big Lies (small pdf), can be a helpful corrective and resource in several areas. It also has a helpful bibliography, together with web resources at the end.

Nappy-headed Ho, Let me for one minute grant the tenuous assertion that 'territories seized in the recent conflict' somehow excludes some territories seized in the recent conflict. Even assuming your position, settlements on the occupied territory would be illegal as they prejudice the very talks you claim are envisaged in the resolution. The wall is illegal for similar reasons. As for claims that the Palestinians left their homes voluntarily, even granting that (though Israeli historians such as Ilan Pappè and Benny Morris have effectively debunked that particular myth), it in no way prejudices their right of return. And you are absolutely right that Jewish refugees are similarly covered should they wish to return. I see on argument against Palestinian rights. Finally, the Palestinian refugees law claim to land in what is now Israel, not to land in Jordan, Lebanon or Syria. Your argument could be turned on its head to apply to the Zionist quest for return. Many of there Jews were actually settled in, and citizens of, other states. It didn't seen to dull their appetite for return. Why should you assume the Palestinians would feel any differently?

Eddie, what does any of that have to do with the rightness or wrongness of Israeli policy in the occupied territories? If anything, B'Tselem documents countless violations of Palestinian human rights by the occupying force.

Patrick, for the second time, I ask you to tell us of ANY Arab/Muslim Peace, Anti-War, anti-Islamofascist NGO that opposes the Islamofascist activities of

- Hamas
- Hezbullah
- Fatah
- Al Qada

I point to Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan as two brave Muslim women who speak the truth about the Islamofascism threatening the World.

And for their outspokenness, they receive death threats and require constant guard. Sad.

Look at what is going on now in Lebanon - an entire country is being hijacked by Islamofascist Hezbullah. Where is the UN?

Maybe it might have something to do with the collective punishment meted out to the civillians in Gaza, the daily shelling and murder of innocents which I think is reminiscent of Serb actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It's interesting that you'd bring this up. Muslims in the former Yugoslavia support the Israelis, not the Palestinians:

Accomplished businessman and practicing Muslim Luan Berisha told me that 90 percent of Kosovars support Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't know if that's really true. But if so it means Kosovo is more pro-Israel than even the United States. And even if he was exaggerating, it was an intriguing-- and telling--exaggeration. No one in any Arabic country would say such a thing. Whatever sneaking sympathy for Israel might exist here and there in the Arab world is vehemently denied by just about everyone else. Kosovo sharply contrasts also with nearby Serbia on this question, where General Wesley Clark is seen as a sinister Jewish figure who plotted Belgrade's destruction, and where Saddam Hussein was considered an ally.

Hamas is supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist-fascist organization that was founded by Nazis like Tariq Ramadan's grandfather Al Banna. The Palestinian constitution calls for the establishment of Islamic law in 'Palestine'. All Palestinians hope to ethnically cleanse Jews from "Palestinian" land. Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood supporters hope to force all Jews to leave the Middle East.

In contrast, I heard more Muslim calls to prayer in Israel than I ever heard in Malaysia. Most Arabs living in Israel would not want to live in Arab-managed states, because they'd suffer a tremendous drop in their standard of living.

Strangely, Hamas' indiscriminate rockets kill far fewer civillians than Israel's supposed surgical strikes.

You repeat the terrorist mantra, "your superior intelligence is no match for our puny weapons"

The average American or Israeli 12 year old can figure out how to aim a rocket. The fact that educated Palestinian adults can't explains why they're losing their war.

Eddie, for the second time I ask you what that has to do with the righteousness or otherwise of Israeli policy in the occupied territories. By the way, isn't there a UN resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah?

Mary, international law is not a popularity contest. As you point out, there is a diversity of opinion within the Muslim world that sadly gets no press. However, that has no bearing on the legality of Israel's actions and policies. As for my comparison of civilian deaths caused by Hamas and Israel, I simply sought to illustrate that both sides demonstrate a criminal disregard for the lives of non-combatants. Unlike Michael, I do not believe it is better to die as collateral damage in an Israeli airstrike than when deliberately targetted by a Hamas rocket.

Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself from Islamofascist terrorist attacks and do whatever is necessary to persuade the attackers to cease and desist.

The islamofascist hamas regime that currently controls Gaza is responsible with what goes on in Gaza. hamas, among other Islamofascist gangs operating in Gaza, are behind the rocket attacks, shootings, stabbings, bombings, suicide bombings on Israel emanating from Gaza and the West Bank.

The old sham that arafat used to pull after a particularly bloody Islamofascist attack on Israel, "we condemn the attack on innocent civilians" said in English, was opposite to what he said in Arabic to a cheering crowd of “palestinians”.

You Patrick are blind to the Islamofascism that afflicts the entire World.

Every airport in the world needs passenger and cargo screening to thwart “Allah Akbar” shouting thugs like those who cut off the head of bound captives.

And some people whine about Abu Grab???

Mary, international law is not a popularity contest.

Patrick, international law is also not a formal, enforceable legal system. Like Disney's Pirate's code, it is merely a series of guidelines.

Iran, the Gulf Arabs and many other Arab nationalist states are currently waging war against Israel. They've been waging war against Israel for decades. The weapons they use are diplomacy, terrorism, subterfuge, various 'peace processes' and the Palestinian people.

The Palestinians and their supporters want peace. I'm sure you want peace too.

Osama bin Laden defines "peace" as an international Calphate ruled by Osama bin Laden. Hitler defined peace as worldwide Lebensraum for the Aryan Race. The Palestinians and their supporters define "peace" as the elimination of what they call The Jewish state.

How do you define peace?

PG,

I'm sincerely curious, do you spend even 1% of your time criticizing Hezbollah, for what they're doing presently in Lebanon or for any other reason? Or Palestinian Jihad, or Hamas, or Fatah, or their sponsors Iran and Syria?

1% (as in one percent)?

If so, can you point or link to it?

Mary, I think the Nazis hanged at Nuremburg, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic and a host of other genocidal individuals awaiting trial at the Hague would probably differ with your assertion that international law is not enforceable. As for peace, I think the main elements of an agreement are already on the table. The basic deal is land for peace i.e. Israeli withdrawal from all land occupied in '67 in return for full diplomatic recognition from all 22 Arab countries. Palestinians would get their state on the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in East Jerusalem. The deal would also include a formal recognition by Israel and the international community of the ethnic cleansing that Palestinians suffered in '48 and their right of return or to receive fair and just compensation. All signatories to the deal would have to cease any and all offensive actions and commit to maintain the peace. I think an international force would be necessary to police any such agreement.

Eddie, I fail to see how confiscating Palestinian land and building settlements falls under the category of self-defense. The siege of Gaza is just creating another generation of militant, homicidal Palestinians and doing precious little to stop the current wave of rocket attacks. The only aspect of Israeli action that seems to afford a measure of security is the wall, which I suppose would still be just as effective if it was built on Israeli and not Palestinian land.

Michael, again the straw man argument. What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Patrick, your plan left out

compensation

for the 1 million Arab Jews

driven out of their homes in Arab Muslim countries

by Arab Muslim supremacists starting in 1948.

Also include compensation for the oil revenue from the Arab Jewish land in Arab Muslim countries.

That's if Arab Jews allowed to own property in Arab Muslim countries before 1948?

---

As an aside, I notice that our "friends" the Saudis have refused to increase oil production. The ENTIRE WORLD is forced to pay $127 per barrel of over priced oil.

Fair comment, Eddie. I absolutely agree that the same right of return or fair compensation in its stead should apply to all refugees, whether Jewish or Palestinian. Oh, and believe me when I tell you I harbour nothing but contempt and loathing for the Islamofascists. They have twice carried out bombings in my country killing many innocents. However the Palestinians do have legitimate grievances that Israel seems determined not only to turn a blind eye to, but to aggravate.

0% then.

And no PG, it's not a "strawman." It may well be inconvenient for you to face, but inconvenient aspects of the discussions are not strawmen. In this case, it relates to a certain proportion and scale and it relates to a certain achievement that must be accorded the propaganda and PR wings of Hamas & Co., together with their enablers, their tacit supporters, etc.

The answer would appear to be no, or 0%.

Patrick, you say you have contempt and loathing for the Islamofascists.

I echo Michael B's question,

Please direct us to sites where you excoriate Islamofascists.

Since Islamofascists have attacked all over the world, there should be a ton of your negative comments.

Do you you consider hamas, hezbullah, fatah, al qada to be Islamofascists?

PG said...

They have twice carried out bombings in my country killing many innocents.

Which country is that?

Mary, I think the Nazis hanged at Nuremburg, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic and a host of other genocidal individuals awaiting trial at the Hague would probably differ with your assertion that international law is not enforceable.

Which genocidal individuals are you talking about?

Milosevic died of natural causes. Otherwise, I think Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, the well-armed and powerful members of Hezbollah, the Sudanese janjiweed and the Libyans who make up the UN's human rights commission, Rwanda, the Sudan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, slavery in Mauritania, Tibet, the starving refugees in Burma, the oil-for-food scandal, the Congo, UN peacekeepers shooting at Haitian food rioters, Zimbabwe, and the various UN scandals involving sex and children, the elitist, non-elected status of all UN members and the general amorality of the organization should be a convincing argument against the enforceability of UN regulated 'international law'.

Mary, Milosevic died in a prison cell in the Hague, one similar to the ones currently occupied by Liberia's Charles Taylor and several Serb and Croatian generals. In Arusha, Tanzania, perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide are also on trial. A UN investigation into Cambodia's killing fields is ongoing. The fact that a larger number of criminals have gotten away with genocide is not sufficient to prove that international law is unenforceable. It is simply unenforced.

In Arusha, Tanzania, perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide are also on trial.

The French who arranged Operation Turquoise are on trial? That's good news.

However, if the French (and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda members) who arranged Operation Turquoise are not on trial, then you have your explanation for why UN administration of international law is a farce at best.

Michael and Eddie, I live in Nairobi, Kenya. We have been hit twice by Al Qaida terrorists including the Embassy attacks of 1998 (as a proportion of population, Kenyan casualties were on a par with 9/11). I do consider any group that seeks to impose a religious government based on their particular interpretation of scripture to be religiofascists (my word) be they Christians bombing abortion clinics, Jews seeking to impose a strict Sabbath law or Muslims seeking to impose Sharia. Any group or state that employs the tactics of terror (deliberately employs violence and other illegitimate pressure to target the civilian populace for political gain) is a terrorist group or state regardless of the legitimacy of their quest or motive. By that score, the groups you mention with the possible exception of Fatah (and that only because I am not sure of their attitude towards Sharia) are Islamofascist terrorists. Israel, Iran and Syria are terrorist states. And to answer your question, I haven't written a blog post specifically addressing the morality or otherwise of terrorism. My bad. I simply assumed that decent folks did not need convincing on the subject. I still think the issue is a red herring. Even assuming I am a cave-dwelling, anti-Semitic, Islamofascist terrorist, that would have no bearing on the justice or injustice of Israeli policy. Argue the facts please.

Mary, that UN administration of international law is farcical is something we both agree on. The inaction over the many outstanding resolutions against her compared with the relatively fast actions taken against nations with far fewer transgressions proves it. However, UN incompetence and bias cannot be taken as proof that international law is only a series of guidelines. That argument is precluded by the fact that some nations and individuals have paid a price for transgressing it.

Attempting to forward your bona fides based upon your residence does not convince of anything whatsoever; it's an ad hominem plea of no favorable consequence to what you're attempting to proffer here. Likewise, your silly equivocation with Judaism, Xianity and Islam is preposterous, is risible - but it's worse than that for it serves to water down what is being experienced in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, southern Thailand, Waziristan and Pakistan at large, Israel, Lebanon, sleeper cells in places known and unknown, and many more places around the globe. Iow, you've now gone from 0% to some negative number since in advancing such watered down "logic" you're effectively providing a type of fifth columnist equivocation and rationale, whether consciously or otherwise, it's impossible to tell.

Pathetic.

If you want to compare the jihadists and salafists with something apt, Leftist inspired insurgents in Sri Lanka, the Phillipines, Peru and other places still would be apt. But that would assume aptness is your desire when nothing could be further from the truth, as is evidenced elsewhere.

You seem to forward your insistencies with three rules in mind: avoidance, avoidance and avoidance. And they are in fact insistencies, rather than arguments, better understood.

Btw, if you're not going to quit in proper shame, you could at least provide a respite from these political/ideological insistencies you're attempting to leverage. E.g., since you reside in Kenya you could regale us a bit as to the quality of life in terms of culture, politics, society, business, tribal and/or race relations, prevalent norms, domestic Kenyan and African beers, secular or traditional religions that are waxing or waning, etc.

The reference to my place of habitation was in direct answer to a question and yes, it does serve to illustrate that I do understand from bitter experience the dangers posed by terrorist. I do not feel any urge to apologise for that. May I remind you that it was your reaction to Richard Falk's criticism of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians that started all this. So far I have read nothing in your comments that refutes his allegations. Now who's avoiding? And I don't really think it's my job to regale you.

PG, I didn't in any suggest you "apologize," I indicated it doesn't serve to advance any type of bona fides whatsoever. E.g., any more than my being a resident of the U.S. during 9/11 advances my own arguments.

(And you might take at least some of the give-and-take with more forebearance and ironic distance.)

Michael, by that score, then the Israelis cannot claim any bona fides from their experience with the likes of Hamas. Your argument seems to be self defeating. They cannot claim that their case is unique and thus claim an exception from international law simply because they suffer terrorist attack.

Not remotely close.

Israel itself is under existential threat; Jewish Israeli citizens (just over 75% of Israel's population base, the remainder being Arab and mostly Arab Muslim Israelis) are under perpetual existential threat.

Further, if you truly believe what you're most recently advancing, then you'd need to accord my being a U.S. resident and experiencing 9/11 on an equal footing with your being a resident of Kenya such that it would be a wash.

Israel is an outpost. In existential and geographic and ideological and social/political terms Israel is an outpost of the west, of a type of west-ern frontier, at the borderlands. Both in terms of the nation/state and in terms of many of its citizens it is under constant, if varied and sundry, existential threats from both state and non-state and proxy actors.

For you to be a more interesting interlocutor, for you to have any relevance (i.e. not you, but your insistencies), you need to advance with some intellectual and moral proportionality in tow and you persistently refuse to do so. That is why you (again, now you personally, but these insistencies you're advancing) have in fact become a type of caricature, as previously noted.

... not you personally ...

Israel is not under existential threat. Yes she faces rocket attacks and suicide bombings but these lack the capacity to wipe her off the map. And while that may be the stated goal of the likes of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, these groups do not even come close to possessing the requisite capability. Even the Arab states have accepted the reality of Israel's existence. Today the argument is not about whether she should continue to exist, but about her borders. Israel has the strongest and best equipped military in the region. She is also a nuclear power. The existential threat may have been true in 48, but it is certainly not true now.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, their sponsors in Damascus and Tehran and elsewhere.

And there is no qualified "may" about it.

It's simply a fact.

A reality.

An existential reality.

On empirical display in their founding documents (e.g., Article 7 of Hamas's charter, as previously noted).

On empirical display when Hezbollah or Hamas fires rockets from within civilian areas in Gaza and southern Lebanon into Israeli civilian population centers.

Etc.

But thanks for the reassurance that Israel is not under existential threat. We can all refrain from considering the scale and proportion within which that statement is true, because Patrick has magnanimously assurred us. Good to know. Patrick refuses to regale us with mundane facts about Kenya, but doesn't hesitate to reassure us concerning a regional and geo-political and existential notion of dubious merit, to put it in the kindest of terms. (It's true that the type and quality of the existential threat against Israel can be variously and honestly debated, but the notion - and it is purely notional - that there simply is no existential threat is delusional, which in turn reflects back upon so much of Patrick's and others' fantasist offerings.)

May I remind you that it was your reaction to Richard Falk's criticism of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians that started all this. So far I have read nothing in your comments that refutes his allegations

Is that what this is all about? Why on earth should anyone refute an accusation like that?

I can claim, with plenty of justification, that the French were acting like Nazis when they wiped out the entire air force of the Côte d'Ivoire. The Brits acted like Nazis in Ireland. My Volkswagen mechanic acts like a Nazi sometimes. So did my gym teacher. During the '60, calling cops Nazis was a regular form of recreation for stupid kids.

But when that cop was a holocaust survivor, the comparison went from being rude and stupid to being offensive and brutally cruel.

Israel is at war with nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the Palestinians, Yemen and Syria. For the most part, the UN demands that Israel conform to peacetime laws, yet they don't make the same demands of the Arab-Muslim nations on the other side. This is not the first time the UN has been unfair and it certainly won't be the last.

So we're allowed to 'honestly debate the type and quality' of the threat against Israel for as long as we don't question its existential nature?

Mary, one can chose to focus on Falk's Nazi comparison and ignore the substance of his remarks. I much prefer to debate the appropriateness of Israel's policy and actions in the West Bank ant Gaza.

Patrick is a palestinian apologist. They can do no wrong. Arafat could do no wrong. Arabs can do no wrong. Only Israel and America. If Israel further compromises its borders and security, it will be days until the next arab attack. Patrick truly has the apologist blinders on.

What about Egypt and their sealing of the Gaza Strip? Food, power and water can still enter from Egypt if the Egyptian authorities allow it. Where is your protest against Egypt? What about the behavior of Jordan and Syria towards the West Bank and Golan Heights?