European Union takes tougher stance on Israeli settlements

[regexcellent]

nearly 2/3rds of the population on UN food aid and things are 'not that bad'. seriously reg, this is delusional stuff you're writing here.

Is that food aid reaching them?

Anyway, just because people are on UN food aid doesn't mean they need it. The UN is hopelessly anti-Israel (as well as anti-semitic) and as a general rule I don't value the UN's opinion any more than the paper it's written on.

no one would argue against a blockade on weapons reaching gaza. however, as everyone knows, it goes much further than that, and punishes everyone in gaza, the vast majority of whom have nothing whatsoever to do with rocket attacks.

here is a list of items banned at one time or another, by the blockade (quite a long list i'm afraid).



no chocolate, crayons or toilet paper, that'll show hamas!

it's collective punishmet, pure and simple.

The current list has substantially fewer items on it. In any case, collective punishment is legitimate because how else can the Israelis put pressure on Hamas and get the government to crumble, short of actual invasion?

To clarify, this is an important goal--toppling Hamas--because the elimination of Hamas as a governing entity is a prerequisite to peace and a two state solution, since Hamas is by its nature dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

[Wezil]

Oh dear.

[C0ckney]

Which of the two is preferable/doable to your mind?

I'm in favour of the two state route.

unfortunately, i'm not optimistic about either happening, even within my lifetime. this is actually one of the reasons why i have gone, in the last 6 or 7 years, from being moderately pro-israel to fairly anti-israel. the pure cynicism on their part (their leaders at least). they talk the language of peace and reconciliation, whilst the whole time doing things which make a peaceful solution ever more difficult to achieve.

the idealist in me would like to see a single state, with equality and power sharing between the peoples, something vaguely similar to northern ireland. however, i can see serious practical difficulties with this (to put it mildly).

so i think a two state solution is the most realistic, and probably the one that would be most acceptable to both sides.

[Wezil]

That kind of mirrors my thinking.

The two state solution is the most likely (and I suspect more in Israel's interest) but is becoming increasingly less likely with time.

The status quo isn't sustainable for Israel over the long term. They need a deal. I'm hoping against hope Netanyahu can deliver a "Nixon goes to China" moment.

[C0ckney]

Is that food aid reaching them?

Anyway, just because people are on UN food aid doesn't mean they need it. The UN is hopelessly anti-Israel (as well as anti-semitic) and as a general rule I don't value the UN's opinion any more than the paper it's written on.

you. cannot. be. serious.

The current list has substantially fewer items on it. In any case, collective punishment is legitimate because how else can the Israelis put pressure on Hamas and get the government to crumble, short of actual invasion?

so you think violations of the laws of war and the geneva conventions, that is to say, war crimes, are acceptable as a means of putting pressure on a government.

i think we're done here.

[regexcellent]

That kind of mirrors my thinking.

The two state solution is the most likely (and I suspect more in Israel's interest) but is becoming increasingly less likely with time.

The status quo isn't sustainable for Israel over the long term. They need a deal. I'm hoping against hope Netanyahu can deliver a "Nixon goes to China" moment.

Why do they need a deal? Are the Palestinians developing nuclear weapons?

Israel has always been in a precarious david-and-goliath position of having millions of people trying to kill all of them but it's in a substantially better place than it was 60 years ago.

[regexcellent]

you. cannot. be. serious.



so you think violations of the laws of war and the geneva conventions, that is to say, war crimes, are acceptable as a means of putting pressure on a government.

i think we're done here.

The Geneva Conventions aren't the last word on morality. When the other side doesn't obey them you have no moral obligation to do so yourself. In fact not obeying them has the potential to end the conflict much faster.

Did nuking Hiroshima follow the Geneva conventions? I certainly don't think so. Was it still something we should have done? Hell yes!

[Wezil]

Wouldn't it be nice to not have millions of people trying to kill you?

Not to mention the condemnation of most of the world.

[regexcellent]

Most of the world is tinpot dictatorships, I wouldn't think much of it.

And as long as they have us, which they will for the foreseeable future, they won't be isolated.

[Wezil]

Do yourself a favour and avoid any career involving mediation skills.

[C0ckney]

The two state solution is the most likely (and I suspect more in Israel's interest) but is becoming increasingly less likely with time.

i think a lot of this has to do with domestic politics as well. the settlers are a powerful group, and with their high birth rate and expanding settlements, there are not getting any less powerful or influential.

The status quo isn't sustainable for Israel over the long term. They need a deal. I'm hoping against hope Netanyahu can deliver a "Nixon goes to China" moment.

i agree wholeheartedly, but i'm not optimistic. i hope that a tougher international stance on settlements will persuade the israelis that it's time to do a deal.

[regexcellent]

What will persuade the Palestinians to do a deal, if a complete blockade won't?

Your error is in assuming that the Palestinians are even slightly tractable, which they aren't. They won't even come to the talks without getting everything they want beforehand.

[Fake Boris]

Clearly you're an expert on the issue!

[Elok]

What will persuade the Palestinians to do a deal, if a complete blockade won't?

Why on earth would a blockade persuade them? You don't get people in a mood to negotiate by arbitrarily ****ing them over. The only way it would work is if it utterly broke their spirits, made them feel they had to give in--not likely, with the whole rest of the world, bar us, more sympathetic to them than to Israel.

EDIT: Should probably add that aiming to destroy the spirit of a people as a precursor to bargaining with them is a pretty low thing to do anyway, in case it wasn't obvious.

[kentonio]

In any case, collective punishment is legitimate because how else can the Israelis put pressure on Hamas and get the government to crumble, short of actual invasion?

Errr.. can't be serious.

The Geneva Conventions aren't the last word on morality. When the other side doesn't obey them you have no moral obligation to do so yourself. In fact not obeying them has the potential to end the conflict much faster.

What you just said shows an utter and complete misunderstanding of the intent and purpose of the conventions. The purpose of the conventions is to provide a baseline of acceptable and moral behaviour that no civilized nation will breach. The conventions are not intended to hold back countries from carrying out effective military actions, but rather form an agreement that some forms of behaviour are so morally unacceptable that they pass beyond concepts like self defense and national sovereignty and represent a gross breach of morality.

To put it in simple terms for you, if someone walks into your house and kills your baby, you are not morally justified in walking into theirs and doing the same. Even if by doing so you prevented them from repeating their actions.

Americas recent tendency to ignore 'inconvenient' sections of the conventions represents a frankly terrifying change in international relations, and is a huge part of the reason why America has been losing legitimacy in the eyes of the world over the last decade. War crimes don't stop being crimes just because the other guy committed them first.

Did nuking Hiroshima follow the Geneva conventions? I certainly don't think so. Was it still something we should have done? Hell yes!

The Geneva Conventions prior to 1949 were much less rigorous than the later ones, which were largely shaped by reaction to WW2. It was primarily concerned with the treatment of prisoners of war, which is why the full name of the convention is 'Geneva Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field'.