Israeli ground forces enter southern Gaza - CNN

[Lawrence of Arabia]

besides israel is not at war since it has not been cleared by the UN security council to invade palestine, who as you might know, are recognized as a people by the UN and have observer status in the general assembly and actually have a right under international law to wage war if their homeland is being illegally occupied.

israels actions are thus illegal and israel is in breach of its international obligations.

[Geronimo]

I think the important consequence to Hamas' change in tactics is that unlike when facing terrorism negotiations are entirely possible in the face of the current Hamas campaign.

I think it would be a serious mistake to treat organizations the same when they aren't targeting civilians as when they are. Israel should offer to negotiate with the elected government of the pals. If Hamas siezes on this and claims a 'military victory' GREAT! That would mean that Hamas achieved 'victory' only when it ceased targeting civilians.

Isn't making such distinctions the whole point of refusing to negotiate with terrorists?

[Solver]

Being at war has nothing to do with being approved by the UN. Declaring a war is a unilateral move taken by a country. The US attacked Iraq without UN approval, and they were at war.

Of course, Israel probably isn't at war with PA technically, because Israel never declared war, and neither did the PA. Then again, one can say that the actions by Hamas are an act of war, so I dunno what the technicalities are in the end.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo
"Has Hamas targeted civilians since they came to power? If not then this is all insurection just like the attacks on coalition soldiers in Iraq and it's not really terrorism at all.

If organizations with a long record of terrorism appear to switch from terrorism to insurrection against military forces then they will soon no longer deserve condemnation for their methods. Hamas has legitimate grievances of an extremely urgent sort. It's the elected government of people whose lives are miserable and an area whose economy is non viable due to a military occupation.

Their borders are being unilaterally determined by this occupier which claims to an entirely seperate country (ie they refuse to enfranchise the occupied population).

If Hamas keeps going with actions exclusively directed against IDF and IDF soliders in uniform in light of the various causi belli I can't see how any outside observer could blame them.

This is exactly like iraqis attacking US men and women in uniform in Iraq.

Of course my attitude will completely change if I find that Hamas was behind any of the rocket attacks directed against areas with no significant military targets or any other attacks targeting civilians. Maybe there was such an attack since Hamas came to power that Hamas was behind which I missed hearing about.

1. The soldier "captured" was not in Gaza, OR in the West Bank. He was in "pre-1967 Israel". How exactly is that insurrection? If an Iraqi insurgent, angered at the "occupation" kidnaps an American soldier at, say, Fort Riley, Kansas, is that part of the insurrection?

2. While there is dispute about the future borders of Israel and the West Bank, and Pal opposition to ISrael unilaterally establishing a border, is there ANY question about the future border between Israel and Gaza? Does anyone claim that Sderot will be part of a future Pal entity? Yet its Sderot thats being attacked with rockets. And its nearby to that the soldier was kidnapped.

3. You say its like the insurrection in Iraq. Yet the US govt does not allow the insurgents in Iraq to set up a government with their own ministers, and to run a sanctuary in the Sunni triangle. So it seems youre arguing Israel has the right to eliminate the PA govt. Possibly even the obligation to do that.

Fortunately, I dont think they will follow that advice.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


is that assumed? Is it simply assumed that because Hamas won the elections all palistinian terrorists operations have their blessing? Because there was the little matter of the serious infighting between pals recently.

all that fighting was Hamas versus Fatah. It was NOT Hamas versus Islamic Jihad, and Islamic Jihad has been the most consistent supporter of attacks on Israeli civilians.

[lord of the mark]

"Jordan uncovers more Hamas weapons
From CNN's Caroline Faraj

Tuesday, April 25, 2006; Posted: 9:34 a.m. EDT (13:34 GMT)

AMMAN, Jordan (CNN) -- Jordanian security officials have discovered more Hamas weapons hidden in a village in northern Jordan, a government spokesman said Tuesday.

The accusation marks increasingly strained relations between the Jordanian government and the Hamas-led government in the Palestinian territories.

Last week, the Jordanian government asked Hamas to postpone a visit by the Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al-Zahhar after announcing they had found Syrian-supplied weapons that Hamas had smuggled into Jordan.

The spokesman, Nasser Judeh, said the latest weapons were smuggled into Jordan by Hamas members in Syria and were intended for use in terror attacks against Jordanian targets including Jordanian officials.

"The security apparatus seized weapons, TNT explosives, T4, and missiles to target some foundations and a number of officials," Judeh said.

Last week Hamas leaders denied smuggling the weapons. Hamas leaders said they were focused on fighting Israel and had no intention of interfering in other Arab states.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas visited Amman last Friday in an attempt to patch up relations with the Jordanians.

Jordanian officials said Abbas was shown the weapons and given a briefing by Jordanian security officials. They quoted Abbas as saying the situation was becoming "dangerous and ugly."

Judeh said security officials had arrested Jordanians who were involved in the weapons smuggling. He said they told security officials they were getting instructions from Hamas in Syria.

[lord of the mark]

Israel blames Hamas for bombing but limits response
A police officer surveys the scene of a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, April 17, 2006. (REUTERS/Sebastian Scheiner)
By Dan Williams | April 18, 2006

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel blamed the Hamas-led Palestinian government on Tuesday for a Tel Aviv suicide bombing but acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert decided for now against launching a military offensive against it.

After a meeting of the interim cabinet and security chiefs, Olmert's office said Israel would instead revoke the Israeli residency status of Hamas officials living in East Jerusalem, which means they could be subject to arrest if they enter the city.

"We will do that immediately," Olmert spokesman Raanan Gissin said one day after Monday's attack at a sandwich bar killed nine people.

The cabinet also approved a police crackdown on the smuggling of Palestinians without permits, who could be militants, into the Jewish state.

"Olmert heard the defense establishment's ideas for possible strikes against the Palestinian Authority and, though the government is responsible, the decision was that there should be more limited action for now," a political source said.

President Bush, asked if he was encouraging Israel to show restraint, said: "I have consistently reminded all parties that they must be mindful of whatever actions they take and mindful of the consequences."

A large-scale Israeli assault targeting the new Palestinian government could spark a backlash against the Jewish state at a time when it is trying to cement a U.S.-led boycott of the Islamic militant group.

Hamas, which has largely abided by a year-long truce but refuses to embrace peacemaking efforts, stirred Israeli and Western ire by describing Monday's attack -- claimed by the militant group Islamic Jihad -- as an act of "self defense."

On Tuesday, Prime Minister and senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said Israeli actions had triggered the attack.

"The reason behind this cycle is the continuation of the occupation and the continued Israeli assaults against the Palestinian people," Haniyeh said before a cabinet meeting.

It was the first such bombing in Israel since Hamas took power three weeks ago, and the deadliest since 2004.

In a statement, a top Islamic Jihad official vowed more suicide bombings, saying the group had 70 more "martyrs-in-waiting" who were "awaiting the moment to explode."

ABBAS CONDEMNATION ANGERS MILITANTS

The moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the Tel Aviv bombing, angering militants who demanded on Tuesday that he apologize.

In response, Abbas issued a fresh critique of the attack as an act of a type that "distort the image of the struggle of the Palestinian people and their just goals" and said he objected to killing civilians on either side of the conflict.

Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy politburo chief of Hamas, said Abbas should apologize to the Palestinian people for calling the bombing a "despicable" operation.

Gunmen briefly abducted an elite military trooper from outside the office of an Abbas staff member in the Gaza Strip, triggering fears, later disproven, that the Palestinian leader's entourage had been targeted in retaliation for his remarks.

Olmert declared the Palestinian Authority a terrorist entity after Hamas won January elections. But Israel has refrained from assaults on the authority's new leadership or institutions.

In the absence of peace talks, Olmert has vowed to follow last year's Gaza withdrawal by quitting areas of the West Bank and setting Israel's border around Jewish settlement blocs.

Since his centrist Kadima Party narrowly won elections last month, Olmert has been struggling to put together a coalition government robust enough to push through the "convergence plan."

Palestinians condemn the plan as a land-grab that could deprive them of a state. They say it boosts support for Hamas, which seeks the Jewish state's destruction, not co-existence.

Israeli forces detained the suicide bomber's father and teenaged brother around the West Bank town of Jenin overnight, Palestinian security sources said. They said about 30 Palestinians were detained in raids in the northern West Bank.

Hamas faces challenges on many fronts, especially finding fresh aid sources following cuts from the West to the new government.

(Additional reporting by Dean Yates in Jerusalem, Wafa Amr in Ramallah, Wael al-Ahmad in Jenin, Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza)

[Lawrence of Arabia]

[chris rock]

what you want a cookie? you're not supposed to violate international law you low-expectation mother****ers

[/chris rock]

[Dinner]

The Israelis should just adopt the Mongol tactic of killing everyone in a town where an attack occurs. The end result is the locals start attacking their own militants because they don't want to have the whole town slaughtered because of a few dumb asses.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

YOU can not have it both ways either. If they are at war, then Israel is justified in bombing the Palestinians into the stone age, or cutting off ISRAELI power or ISRAELI water, or preventing travel from ports from Israel to Palestine, or from airports to Israel or Palestine, and stopping all trade and acess, between Israel and Palestine.

There is no such thing as an illegal war. Law is a stick and without the threat of enforcment followerd up by violence, there is no law.

Internationalist nut jobs with no moral footing say the word "law" when in fact, it is not law. Law implies a moral or legal obligation. There is no legal or moral obligation involved, nor is there a threat of force to ensure compliance, it is not law.

It has no moral or legal conotation.

I never said that they were not justified if they were at war. but you keep on fliflopping between whether they are at war or not. israel is justified in doing anything that does not violate the geneva conventions, which have been signed and ratified by israel. which means they cannot target civilians and bomb the country mercilessly into the stoneage. yet again, you are constrained by international law.

Flip flopping? Israel is not at war with Palestine. We have seen what happens when Israel goes to war-it wins, overwhelmingly. If Israel was at war with Palestine, we'd know.

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

International law does not exist. It does not carry the moral or legal imperative of national law, nor does it have any enforcment.

how ignorant is that?

Ignorant?

If I say it is a law that from now on, you will only eat fruits that end in "urple", is that a law?

Suppose we agree on it.

You don't follow it.

Is it a law?

You say "international law" and law usually invokes the conotation of moral or legal legitimacy. International law has neither of these things.

When you say an action does not follow international law, what you mean is that the action is either illegal, immoral, or both. However an action which does not follow international law is not neccesarily immoral and not illegal because international law, is not law.

Something is not a law just because you say it is.

Actually this has a pretty good overlap with religion. I say Alah is the only true god and all others are demons and falsehoods. Well..... yeah? That statement needs a little proof. Your statement that international law is legitimate stands in a vacum. It needs proof and justification.

What jusification does international law have?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Flip flopping? Israel is not at war with Palestine. We have seen what happens when Israel goes to war-it wins, overwhelmingly. If Israel was at war with Palestine, we'd know.

if israel isnt at war with palestine, then what are its soldiers and tanks doing in gaza?

Ignorant?

If I say it is a law that from now on, you will only eat fruits that end in "urple", is that a law?

Suppose we agree on it.

You don't follow it.

Is it a law?

You say "international law" and law usually invokes the conotation of moral or legal legitimacy. International law has neither of these things.

When you say an action does not follow international law, what you mean is that the action is either illegal, immoral, or both. However an action which does not follow international law is not neccesarily immoral and not illegal because international law, is not law.

Something is not a law just because you say it is.

Actually this has a pretty good overlap with religion. I say Alah is the only true god and all others are demons and falsehoods. Well..... yeah? That statement needs a little proof. Your statement that international law is legitimate stands in a vacum. It needs proof and justification.

What jusification does international law have?

simple - the fact that israel is a member of the UN, has signed and ratified treaties has demonstrated that they accept and are under the rule of international law. that is proof and justification.

not to mention all the international lawyers out there, the International Court of Justice (ICJ.) what more proof do you want that international law exists?

[Dinner]

Israel should be at war with the Palestinians since the Palestinians have elected a government which says they want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews*.

If the Palestinians are so keen on starting wars then the total weight of war should be put upon them and since the civilians cheer for terrorism then they should suffer the same unprotected status that Israeli citizens suffer under. If the Palestinians want total war then they should be given total war. Carpet bombing and posion gas. The Palestinians want to claim they're suffering genicide? Then make their wish come true.

*To show how nice the Hamas people are they claim they'll allow only those Jews whose total family history in Israel predate independence from the UK. Not that such people exist.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



1. The soldier "captured" was not in Gaza, OR in the West Bank. He was in "pre-1967 Israel". How exactly is that insurrection? If an Iraqi insurgent, angered at the "occupation" kidnaps an American soldier at, say, Fort Riley, Kansas, is that part of the insurrection?

2. While there is dispute about the future borders of Israel and the West Bank, and Pal opposition to ISrael unilaterally establishing a border, is there ANY question about the future border between Israel and Gaza? Does anyone claim that Sderot will be part of a future Pal entity? Yet its Sderot thats being attacked with rockets. And its nearby to that the soldier was kidnapped.

3. You say its like the insurrection in Iraq. Yet the US govt does not allow the insurgents in Iraq to set up a government with their own ministers, and to run a sanctuary in the Sunni triangle. So it seems youre arguing Israel has the right to eliminate the PA govt. Possibly even the obligation to do that.

Fortunately, I dont think they will follow that advice.

1. I think it wouldn't matter where the iraqis captured US soldiers from so long as it was a soldier from the occupiers armed forces who was in uniform. Capturing soldiers elsewhere may be more practical if they find it necessary to operate from those parts of the pal territories that lack an active IDF presence. Obviously it will tend to be easier to organize and operate out of such areas.

On the other hand I agree that it would be in Hamas' interest diplomatically to captured soldiers stationed in the west bank. That doesn't mean it would be easy to pull off however.

2. So what? Insurrection can strike against the military forces of the occupier anywhere. The question becomes is it credible to assume that the rockets were 'aimed' at a military target? I'm not convinced yet. It's possible it was the same BS where they intentionally hope to kill random civilian israelis.

My posts have concerned the possibilities that in fact the rockets were targeting a military target(s) or were not under the control of Hamas.

3. I'll admit there is one important set of differences between the situation in iraq and the occupied pal territories revolving around the stance of the elected governments involved in the two conflicts. The elected Iraqi government in Iraq is not taking part in the insurrection, is actively fighting the insurrection and it has not asked the occupiers to leave (yet). Hamas however is now actively engaged in insurrection activities and has adopted as a central policy a demand that the occupiers leave the occupied areas and even worse insists that they leave their homeland as well.

Israel has a serious dispute with the elected pal government while the coalition countires have no serious disputes with the Iraqi government. These sorts of disputes happen and can be negotiated if the other side isn't using terrorist tactics. For instance in the US war of independance the war ended with a negotiated peace despite claims by the revolutionary government at various points in the conflict to all of the british north american territories.

Israel can tailor it's military response however it chooses. It's only obligations are to the welfare of the civilians in areas under it's control or in which it is operating. It has no obligation to destroy the pals government any more than Bush senior had any obligation to destroy the iraqi government in the first gulf war.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Israel blames Hamas for bombing but limits response
A police officer surveys the scene of a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, April 17, 2006. (REUTERS/Sebastian Scheiner)
By Dan Williams | April 18, 2006

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel blamed the Hamas-led Palestinian government on Tuesday for a Tel Aviv suicide bombing but acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert decided for now against launching a military offensive against it.

After a meeting of the interim cabinet and security chiefs, Olmert's office said Israel would instead revoke the Israeli residency status of Hamas officials living in East Jerusalem, which means they could be subject to arrest if they enter the city.

"We will do that immediately," Olmert spokesman Raanan Gissin said one day after Monday's attack at a sandwich bar killed nine people.

The cabinet also approved a police crackdown on the smuggling of Palestinians without permits, who could be militants, into the Jewish state.

"Olmert heard the defense establishment's ideas for possible strikes against the Palestinian Authority and, though the government is responsible, the decision was that there should be more limited action for now," a political source said.

President Bush, asked if he was encouraging Israel to show restraint, said: "I have consistently reminded all parties that they must be mindful of whatever actions they take and mindful of the consequences."

A large-scale Israeli assault targeting the new Palestinian government could spark a backlash against the Jewish state at a time when it is trying to cement a U.S.-led boycott of the Islamic militant group.

Hamas, which has largely abided by a year-long truce but refuses to embrace peacemaking efforts, stirred Israeli and Western ire by describing Monday's attack -- claimed by the militant group Islamic Jihad -- as an act of "self defense."

On Tuesday, Prime Minister and senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said Israeli actions had triggered the attack.

"The reason behind this cycle is the continuation of the occupation and the continued Israeli assaults against the Palestinian people," Haniyeh said before a cabinet meeting.

It was the first such bombing in Israel since Hamas took power three weeks ago, and the deadliest since 2004.

In a statement, a top Islamic Jihad official vowed more suicide bombings, saying the group had 70 more "martyrs-in-waiting" who were "awaiting the moment to explode."

ABBAS CONDEMNATION ANGERS MILITANTS

The moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the Tel Aviv bombing, angering militants who demanded on Tuesday that he apologize.

In response, Abbas issued a fresh critique of the attack as an act of a type that "distort the image of the struggle of the Palestinian people and their just goals" and said he objected to killing civilians on either side of the conflict.

Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy politburo chief of Hamas, said Abbas should apologize to the Palestinian people for calling the bombing a "despicable" operation.

Gunmen briefly abducted an elite military trooper from outside the office of an Abbas staff member in the Gaza Strip, triggering fears, later disproven, that the Palestinian leader's entourage had been targeted in retaliation for his remarks.

Olmert declared the Palestinian Authority a terrorist entity after Hamas won January elections. But Israel has refrained from assaults on the authority's new leadership or institutions.

In the absence of peace talks, Olmert has vowed to follow last year's Gaza withdrawal by quitting areas of the West Bank and setting Israel's border around Jewish settlement blocs.

Since his centrist Kadima Party narrowly won elections last month, Olmert has been struggling to put together a coalition government robust enough to push through the "convergence plan."

Palestinians condemn the plan as a land-grab that could deprive them of a state. They say it boosts support for Hamas, which seeks the Jewish state's destruction, not co-existence.

Israeli forces detained the suicide bomber's father and teenaged brother around the West Bank town of Jenin overnight, Palestinian security sources said. They said about 30 Palestinians were detained in raids in the northern West Bank.

Hamas faces challenges on many fronts, especially finding fresh aid sources following cuts from the West to the new government.

(Additional reporting by Dean Yates in Jerusalem, Wafa Amr in Ramallah, Wael al-Ahmad in Jenin, Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza)

Abbas is absolutely right. Hamas had better not have been the real culprit if they hope to garner decisive foreign sympathy. Without decisive foreign sympathy they will never accomplish or even partially accomplish any of their stated goals.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Israel should be at war with the Palestinians since the Palestinians have elected a government which says they want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews*.

but thats no justification for war. palestine is not in breach of its international obligations because of what it believes. you can only be in breach through an action.