The Palestinian Authority declares war on Israel?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


How can every nation cease to exist with Israel also ceasing to exist? In any case, this opinion doesn't tally with your repeated claim that Jews exist on some alternate sociological plane. Not to mention Israel endlessly flouting the currently existing international system.

a sociological plane isnt necessarily a political plane. if there were no longer states, Jews would still exist, would still be a people, and would still not be definable according to western categories of religion, race, etc. They just wouldnt have a state.

If the Arabs had been willing to concede free immigration, there are several Zionists who would have been willing to accept a binational state (notably Martin Buber). But that was not accepted, either in the 30s, or in the discussions between 1945 and 1948.

as for the jab in your last sentence, I wont dignify it.

[lord of the mark]

no one seems interested in discussing the events of the last few days? is there any point to continuing with the metaphysical discussion?

[Arrian]

Israel army concedes old munition may be behind beach deaths by Jacques Pinto
1 hour, 3 minutes ago



The military conceded old Israeli ordnance could have been responsible for the death of eight Palestinians at a beach picnic in the Gaza Strip, hours after absolving itself of any blame.

As the dispute over the cause of the tragedy continued to rage, the Palestinians called on the United Nations to launch its own investigation.

Initial declarations by the chief of staff and defence minister that Israel was not behind last week's killings were greeted with scepticism by both UN chief Kofi Annan and the US-based Human Rights Watch, whose own on-site probe concluded an Israeli shell was the probable cause of the tragedy.

But the officer leading the army's inquiry acknowledged in an interview with public radio that the investigation was still not complete and unexploded Israeli ordnance, or another device, could have been the cause of the blast.

General Meir Klifi said an examination of shrapnel removed from one of the casualties proved that it did not come from a 155mm shell which was being fired by the army last Friday when the tragedy occurred.

"This shrapnel was not from a 155mm... there is no doubt on this point," he said.

"It could be from another kind of munition that we have used in the past... or a non-Israeli device, but we have not finished the work of the inquiry," he added.

Klifi's comments came after he appeared at a news conference late Tuesday along with chief of staff General Dan Halutz who declared "we do not bear responsibility" for the deaths on the beach in northern Gaza.

Defence Minister Amir Peretz also declared that "we have enough evidence" that "the attempt to present this as an Israeli incident is simply untrue."

However their claims were immediately disputed by the New York-based Human Rights Watch which carried out its own investigation at the scene of the blast, unlike Israel.

"It is my contention that the most likely scenario is that Israeli shelling hit the area," said Human Rights Watch's military analyst Marc Garlasco.

Israeli military sources have suggested that the blast was the result of a Palestinian mine but Garlasco, a former Pentagon advisor, said "this is patently not the case."

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was equally sceptical about such claims, describing them as "odd."

Garlasco said Human Rights Watch was hopeful of being able to exchange evidence with Israel but dismissed Klifi's claim that it was not a 155mm shell after examining shrapnel he found at the scene and studying victims' wounds and the x-rays of shrapnel lodged in victims.

"We are very certain that it is a 155mm shell," Garlasco told AFP.

"The Israelis stated that the shrapnel removed from victims in Israel was not artillery shrapnel but they offered up no alternative explanation of what it is.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat urged the United Nations to launch its own investigation.

"I urge Mr Annan to launch an international investigation into the crime on the Gaza beach," he told AFP.

"The Israeli escalation in Gaza and the large number of martyrs should force the United Nations and international community to increase their efforts to protect the civilian Palestinian population."

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, who has described the beach deaths as a "bloody massacre", said he had spoken with Annan and urged him to rein in the Israeli military.

"We want peace while they are determined to randomly kill the innocents and the civilians," he told Palestinian radio.

Asked whether an international inquiry was in order to ascertain the facts, Annan replied: "We would need both the Israelis and Palestinian authorities to cooperate with such an investigation."

A senior official in the Israeli foreign ministry said no request had been received from the United Nations to conduct an inquiry.

"We don't rule anything out and would seek to cooperate if such a request was forthcoming. We have nothing to hide," Yigal Palmor said.

Nine other civilians were killed in an Israeli air strike on Tuesday in Gaza which targeted a vehicle carrying members of the hardline Islamic Jihad movement who were on their way to fire missiles across the border.

General Yoav Galant, head of the army's southern command, has expressed regret over the death of the civilians.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Sandman
Not to mention Israel endlessly flouting the currently existing international system.

Which is, what, exactly? The "system" by which all the Arab and Muslim states join with pissant dictatorships and commie wannabes to condemn Israel for the same things they themselves have done within their own borders and to their own neighbors?

On an international scale the world is an anarchy. The "system" is just a means for fighting with words instead of guns.

[Vesayen]

System means that the individual and collective actions of said despots are legal and commendable since it is in the "system".

I have been studying basically nothing but international law for the last year in college.... I am more and more convinced it is full of ####, the more I study.

The world is an anarchy. LAW only matters anywhere in so much as it is enforced, or voluntarily observed on a regular basis. If a person points a gun at you and says to give them your money or else, is it the same as taxation? Answer from a sociologist(most answers come out similar to this one when you boil them down to their esscence): No, because taxes are from an established, regular system, and the gun man is not.

There is no international law because it is never enforced and routinley ignored.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
no one seems interested in discussing the events of the last few days? is there any point to continuing with the metaphysical discussion?

The Romany are likewise a people for whom standard definitions of nation, state, religion, etc fail. The difference being that they don't seek a homeland in their native India that contains a city considered holy to three religions including one that foments sociopathic, xenophobic behavior as an outlet for their own disenfranchized.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
a sociological plane isnt necessarily a political plane. if there were no longer states, Jews would still exist, would still be a people, and would still not be definable according to western categories of religion, race, etc. They just wouldnt have a state.

If the Arabs had been willing to concede free immigration, there are several Zionists who would have been willing to accept a binational state (notably Martin Buber). But that was not accepted, either in the 30s, or in the discussions between 1945 and 1948.

as for the jab in your last sentence, I wont dignify it.

Isn't a state a 'western' concept as well?

What does your misleading historical snippet have to do with anything? It's not as if the majority of Zionists were/are open to the idea of a binational state.

Straybow and Vesayen's contempt for international diplomacy is hardly a big surprise. Imagine if the international system was really successful, with no threat of war, ethnic tensions diminishing and shrinking military budgets. A true nightmare for conservatives.

[Vesayen]

If you want to call me conservative because I believe in individual liberty, right to privacy and (generally) staying out of foreign entanglements, then yes I am a conservative.

If you want to call me a liberal because I believe we should have a living wage for every American, fund social works like healthcare and other poverty relief, that we should protect the environment then yes I am a liberal.

Conservative and liberal are stupid, worthless labels especially because the leaders of their respective movements, no longer hold the values classically associated with their movements.

Then again I guess i'm a dity conservative who hates Bush, thinks congress is criminal and thinks Ronald Regan is a sociopath, but since i'm a conservative(apparently) discard my views.

Who said I showed contempt for diplomacy? Diplomacy is fantastic. When nations can solve their problems with words through mutual understanding and cooperation the world is enriched.

HOWEVER agreements which are not unanimously agreed on or enforced does not carry the same “moral” connotation normally assigned to law inside a nation.

People appeal to “international law” because it is valuable and important when in reality it is routinely ignored and does not carry the same “moral” authority assigned to law inside nations because unlike law inside of nations, it is routinely ignored.

If in a more ideal situation say(and this is impossible)…..

Suppose the populace of every South American country showed support for an agreement of non aggression between all signatories and there were mechanisms to punish people who broke the agreement. If this agreement was always observed, or those who broke it were routinely punished resulting in overall obedience to the agreement…

In THAT situation it would be applicable to compare international “law” to the law in any democratic country.

As it stands, no international agreement in the world comes even close to that ideal.

When we saw law, we imagine the law within a democratic nation which is normally something we respect. Saying “law” to something which is not law, invokes a false and unjustified sense of respect.





As to the ridiculous idea of "if the international system was successful...." First every government in the system must be democratic and responsive to the will of its citizens. We'll talk after that.

Goverments have no innate value, only people do and goverments which are not representative of their people, have no value and are not worthy of respect-nor are the opinions and values they share in an "international system" worthy of respect or even consideration.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



By definition its morally repugnant that any individual be denied basic civil rights, period. Thats what basic civil rights means. Nice rhetorical trick. There is no basic civil right to deny an indigenous people their right to return to the land from which they were exiled.

One, since this is a discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian issue to begin with, the mass denial of basic civil rights to Palestinians is morally repugnant. Yet you seem to be OK with it, because you put the security of a "Jewish" state and its citizens ahead.

Two: the rights of indigenous peoples were violated by the way in whcih they lost the land. If this is true about anyone, its true about native Americans, against whom the Unites States broke multiple treaties that had been ratified by the Congress itself.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
Nor is there a basic civil right to move anywhere and expect hug and a warm cup of cocoa from the welcoming committee.

Who guives a **** about people accpeting if someone moved in next to them. That one individual likes another is irrelevant to the discussion of what rights individuals should have.

One reason I don't invariably associate Democracy with Liberalism, since people can democratically decide to be bigotted Xenophobic asses.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
no one seems interested in discussing the events of the last few days? is there any point to continuing with the metaphysical discussion?

What is the point? So israel claims it had nothing to do with the blast on the beach, then goes and kills 8 civilians in their attempt to kill two militants.

Great, Israeli military action is not repsonsible for 15 civilian deaths, only 8. Whoopie!

As for the inter-Palestinian violence that is going on, never seems to be much interest in discussing it. After all, its only Palestinians dying. Who cares.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sandman

Straybow and Vesayen's contempt for international diplomacy is hardly a big surprise. Imagine if the international system was really successful, with no threat of war, ethnic tensions diminishing and shrinking military budgets. A true nightmare for conservatives.

you must not personally know any conservatives. I've never met any conservative who even implied much less stated that a large military budget is a worthy end in and of itself. In fact they all seem to say such bloated military budgets are in fact needed to mitigate the dangers of threats of war or ethnic tensions.

I bet they would see a world devoid of threat of war and ethnic tension as a utopian paradise rather than a nightmare. Of course I also suspect they would claim such a paradise would be impossible to achieve with any internation system of law.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If the Arabs had been willing to concede free immigration,

The Hashimites were, but they were turned down both times the offer was made. In the case of Abdullah's offer, he even offered the Jews a permanent majority in the Jordanian parliament.

[Vesayen]

Such a utopian world could not exist under international law because that implies the existance of multiple nations.... multiple nations will never achieve such a perfect state.

And no I am not one of the one world nuts-my country is doing okay(though quite poor latley... I am hopeful we may recover), I won't pin my hopes on some impossible utopian dream which would come at Americas expense.

[chequita guevara]

**** America!