Your compassion for the Palestinians never ceases to amaze me Marty.  Why don't you stop parsing and tell us what you really think.  Shouldn't the IDF just wage a full-scale all-out war on the Palestinians and solve the problem for good and all.  Just wipe them all out, or at least most of them, save a few fleeing women and children for the media cameras of course, as a warning to all the other Palestinians around the world.  

Just one well-organized full-scale assault with air support, and it should take no more than a few weeks to accomplish near total eradication of the "enemies of the state". Drive the remnants of the civilian population of Gaza into the sea and make them swim for the Egyptian border.  Then roll the tanks into the West Bank driving from the south, north and east simultaneously, a modern-day Blitzkrieg, until whatever remains of the Palestinians are bottled up and trapped in a pocket around Jericho and then drive them over the border into Jordan. Problem solved. No more of these failed attempts to try to live in peace with your neighbors, just kill em all and let Hashem sort em' out.

Israel for the Israelis right Marty?

AaronBBrown, from what gutter did you come from?

You're a crafty fellow, aren't you? First you put false words in Peretz's mouth, then you criticize him for your own homicidal fantasy. What do you sell - snake oil, crack, Sheikh Yassin posters?

"Just one well-organized full-scale assault with air support, and it should take no more than a few weeks to accomplish near total eradication of the "enemies of the state". "

What a stupid post, Aaron.

It would take a few hours to wipe them out if that is what they wanted to do. Believe me  it's not the international community that is stopping them from doing that, it's Jewish ethics and morality which is much more stringent than all the hypocritical international codes out there. But then you wouldn't know anything about Jewish law.

Aside from that, what makes you think that your fictitious scenario accords with Marty's own vision? It's more likely that it accords with your won view which you are projecting on him. Of course, in your mind it's the Jews that should be wiped out and not the Pals.

Back to planet earth, Israel has been remarkably patient with Hamas acts of aggression which is taking a heavy toll in lives and property. I doubt any other country would have been as patient or as lenient. Certainly not Russia or Turkey and probably not any Western country either.

This is the real irony of the story Western European countries and so called human rights organizations want Israel to suffer death with a patience and calmness that they would deny themselves if they were the targets of such attacks.

Hypocrisy is us, eh Aaron Brown?

"Israel for the Israelis right Marty?"

I missed this little piece of witticism from our great antisemitic humanitarian.

Mr. benighted Brown,  Israel for the Israelis means Israel for all its citizens including Muslims, Christians  and Druze.

Jordan for Jordanians (substitute any other Arab country) on the other hand means Jordan for Muslim Arabs only.  Why do you have a problem with Israel for Israelis and not with Arab countries for Arabs only, Mr. hypocritical Brown?

jack, how dare you? You have committed the mortal sin of Islamophobia. You see, you may hear Hassan Nasrallah wishing for all Jews to be in Israel so as to be killed by an atomic bomb in ("so that it saves us going after Jews worldwide") . But, if you have real social conscience you will translate that as follows "Israel wants to kill Arabs". Just ask Aaron Brown.

I agree that Hamas will have invited Israel to come in and stomp them, and I agree that Israel could and probably should do so, given the recent aggression. And I think Hamas fully understands--and even welcomes--the political implications of that action. Israel and the IDF will, as usual, get the raw end of the public-relations stick, no matter what happens.

But I cannot agree that Palestinians will have "brought it on themselves." The average Palestinian parent or shopkeeper or goatherd didn't make a decision to lob Katushas into Israeli territory. Palestinian civilians. in general, certainly have antipathy toward Israel, but are rather more concerned with food, housing, medicine and potable water. They voted for Hamas because they were fooled into thinking Hamas actually gave a shit about their welfare. And yes--many of them will pay for it with their lives--but they didn't ask for it. To impy that they somehow invited death as collateral damage for Hamas' stupiditiy and evil is...well, stupid and evil. I can't believe you really feel that way, Marty. At least, I don't want to.

Ah, now sullydog, there's the rub.  The monstrous conundrum of this war with the Arab/Muslims, for Israel and the United States and the rest of the civilized world, has been distinguishing between combatants and "civilians" in an asymmetrical war.

What the glib critics of this war fail to acknolwedge is that in war -- any war -- the enemy not only is the combattant but anyone who supports him, either actively or simply by allegiance.  A nation who supports its aggressive combattants is an enemy nation.  This means that by being a part of such a nation, even if you are a minority who does not support the combatants, you still suffer the consequences of their support.  Which is a tragedy, but not stupid or evil.

Civilian status does grant immunity from being targeted directly.  But it certainly does not grant immunity from collateral damage.  If the Palis buy into bloody aggression -- which they certainly have, by freely electing Hamas -- then they certainly do invite the consequences of Hamas aggression upon themselves.

Of course, you're right -- from a public relations angle it's a no-win situation for the Isaelis.  They are stuck with just doing the right thing.

sullydog,  how do you know that the "average Palestinian parent or shopkeeper or goatherd" was fooled by Hamas?  That is, they thought Hamas would improve their living standards, but instead got them into perpetual war?  Have you heard of repeated polls results -  some fairly constant 60% of Palestinians supporting suicide bombing in Israel?

How about a cease fire Marty? They stop shooting rockets and Israel stops the helicopter attacks?

That's what's on the table, right now.

I think threats of perpetrating a "Gaza Holocaust" are hysterical and inappropriate.

Ignorant, cease fire with Hamas means they arm themselves and get better prepared for a war that will be even more destructive.

Each cease with these people fire makes them more dangerous.

We don't like this prospect.

Aaron darling, no,  no, it's not scary at all.

Since 1945 it has kinda obtained a pleasant sound/

I will say it loud and clear now and you will listen carefully. Here goes:

Israel for the Jews

OK now?

Clear enough?

They seem fairly well armed at the moment Babigail. Your logic requires a ground invasion and reoccupation of Gaza. And that's not a solution either.

There will be no reoccupation of Gaza ever again.

It's not an option.

I hope the goal is as much devastation as possible in as short a time as possible with as little as possible Israeli casualties.

I think this is, in general terms, the plan, and also the reason why it's taking as long as it is.

There's never "well enough armed". This concept doesn't exist on this planet, if you haven't noticed yet.

"How about a cease fire Marty? "

Hamas' concept of a cease fire, is the Islamic version, i.e., a Hudna.  And before you go singing the praises of a Hudna, allow me to explain what a Hudna means in Islam.

When Mohammed was still trying to consolidate his power in the Arabian peninsula (I believe still in Mecca), he was stuck a military stalemate against a tribe known as the Queriesh (apologies for my transliterations; I am doing this from memory).  So they reached an agreement known as the Hodabya agreement which brought about a cessation of hostilities (since this was in the days before firearms, you can't really call it a "cease fire").  This was supposed to last 10 years.  But Mohammed rebuilt his forces very quickly and after only 2-3 years, abrogated the agreement, attacked the Queriesh, and utterly destroyed them.

Around the same time he also decimated the Jewish tribes of the Hejaz (Mecca & Medina) but that was merely a side show.  Shortly after his death, the Hejaz was rendered Judenrein, which was ultimately expanded to almost the entire Arabian peninsula (exception being Yemen), and it has remained Judenrein to this day.  But we digress.

The Hodabaya agreement is the archetype of a cessation of hostilities (whether by slings and arrows or rockets or suicide bombers) in Islam.  Indeed, shortly after the signing of the Oslo Accords, Arafat spoke in a mosque in South Africa, where he openly compared the Oslo Accords to the Hodabaya agreement Hudna.

When some evil right-wing M.K.'s brought this to Shimon Peres' attention, he swept in under the rug claiming that Arafat's speech was just for internal consumption and that what Arafat says to him in private is what really counts.  I understand that Peres is still a prime candidate to purchase some prime bridge real estate in Brooklyn.

And now back to Gaza.  What do you think Hamas would do during a cease fire?  Figure out better ways to take out the garbage & beautify Gaza City?  Look what Hezbolla did during the 6 years of "quiet" along the northern border and guess what they have been doing since Lebanon 2.  Iggy, I know you mean well, but you are being pollyannish and naive.  And that we have bitterly learned is a lethal (for us, not for you I suspect) combination.

A common theme I have heard from a number Sderot residents is that they understand that if the IDF goes into Gaza in a big way (having learned the lessons from Lebanon 2) there will be veritable fire storm of rocket fire until the IDF gains control of the territory and puts the terrorists (I don't go for the euphemistic  "militants") out of commission.  But they are willing to put up with that IF the IDF does the job that it is supposed to do and end the capability to launch rockets at them.  (BTW, the same sentiment was heard from the residents of the North during Lebanon 2, but the political & military leadership failed in their mission).

Yes it's going to be messy and yes it's going to be bloody.  But this is the price that is paid for a policy that was steeped in well meaning naivete from do-gooders here and especially abroad.  And this is the price that is being paid for not responding forcefully to the first post-"disengagement" rocket that was fired from Gaza back in the days when Sharon still had all of his cerebral blood vessels intact.  The historical analogy is of course is 1930's Europe when Germany could have been stopped for a far lower cost in lives and treasure than was ultimately paid in WW2 (the Chamberlain legacy continues with Iran too.).

Side note to Avigayil:  Tzvi Hendel made his prediction of Katyushas on Ashqelon in the early 1990's during the Knesset debate on Oslo I.  He probably reiterated the warning in the run up to the Gaza disengagement, but again the original Cassandra-ism goes back the early, halcyon days of Oslo.

And to the Ignorant Populist:  I actually agree with you that Matan Vilnai's use of the term "Gaza Holocaust" was stupid, inappropriate, and counter-productive.  And not very nice either.  But given how Hamas has intentionally embedded itself and it's armaments (including their manufacturing facilities) among the civilian population, unfortunately this is not going to be war de luxe.

Heaven help us all.

Shabbat Shalom,

hershel g. (etc.etc. etc.)

Eh...right. Thank you babigail, for that.

Forgot where I was posting there for a second.

Ignorant -- you got a problem with accuracy...?????

Yes, Dr. Ginsburg, heaven help you all.

Dr. Ginsburg explains cogently how what the Arabs mean by a ceasefire is only the cessation of the exchange of fire, with every intention of using the opportunity to re-arm.  Unless I am mistaken, Israel also uses periods of quiet to re-arm.  Indeed, I have not previously heard of a ceasefire that also embraces an arms limitation agreement.  A ceasefire is a ceasefire.  No point really in arguing semantics.  Dr. Ginsburg's substantive point is that he does not think a ceasefire is in Israel's interest, that Israel should continued armed attacks against targets, terrorists, fighters -- again the semantics are quite irrelevant -- in Gaza, recognizing that this will also cause what is euphemistically known as "collateral damage."  [Here would be a nice point for a fable about the meaning of "collateral damage" in ancient Israel and how when the Jews say collateral damage what they really mean by that is the killing of non-combatants, some inevitably too young to bear any moral responsibility and the destruction of their homes and livelihood, such as it is.  The difference between collateral damage and terrorism is not the fear and loathing that results, and certainly not the fact that the non-combatant lives lost as a collateral damage from the most fearsome weapons of modern war are much larger in number than those that result from terrorism.  The difference is that terrorist intend to kill civilians (although it is rather difficult to know where a Qassam is going to land) while collateral damage is not the purpose of attacks with the most modern weapons.  (One should note, however, that in law, in Israel too, one is presumed to intend the foreseeable, indeed clearly inevitable, consequences of one's actions -- this would be a good time for a drash on why the meaning of intention in a military context is quite different from that in a civil context.)

However, it is properly noted above that the so-called "innocent" lives lost when attacking Gaza are not innocent at all.  Mr. Peretz is the first to note that these people have brought this calamity on themselves.  When it is pointed out that "collective responsibility" is unjustified, the reply comes that this is not a case of collective responsibility but individual responsibility.  Even if there are people who do not carry arms, they may have voted for Hamas.  Or some of them may simply sit simmering in anger silently supporting Hamas.  Then there may be those who do not support Hamas but are silent -- they do not take to the street in protest, although that would more than likely get them killed.  No matter.  They are all individually responsible for their varying degrees of support, ranging from the use of arms against Israel to silent anger or even to silent objection.

Unfortunately, this keen moral analysis raises a small problem.  It seems that Israel has a democratic government.  The people of Israel have elected the government and have parliamentary representatives who sit in the government.  It follows that all of the people of Israel are individually responsible for all of the actions of the government of Israel, excepting only those who protest openly, but then they are leftist Israel-bashers, self-hating Jews, progresso-babbling academics, anti-semites who, by giving aid and comfort to the enemy, actually are the enemy.  Since they are on the Arab side, the cannot be counted amongst Israelis who resist the government.  Accordingly, all Israelis bear individual responsibility for the military actions of their government.  Just as this principle makes Arab non-combatants morally culpable and hence fair targets, it would seem that this principle makes Israeli civilians not civilians at all.  Whatever calamity befalls them, they have brought it on themselves with their support of the Israeli government.  Therefore, the so-called terrorists who target (or are unable to target) their Qassams at Sderot and Ashkelon are not terrorists, they are soldiers and the civilian lives that are lost in Israel are the collateral damage.  And indeed, it is Israel that is morally responsible for these deaths because it refuses a ceasefire that it regards as not in its military interest and therefore invites inevitable retaliation for its attacks on Gaza.

There is a solution to this problem.  As the Israeli objection to a ceasefire without an arms control agreement that Israel itself would never agree to is that Hamas would have a breathing space to plan and further arm itself so as to increase its attacks on Israeli non-combatants at a future date, either in violation of the ceasefire or at its conclusion, Israel should accept the ceasefire but insist that the Arabs only arm themselves with sophisticated modern weapons of great lethality the primary purpose of which is to inflict harm on well-armed and defended troops.  Then when hostilities resume the Arabs will not have to target civilians.  They will be able to inflict collateral damage while inflicting grievous harm on the IDF.

Before the charges that I am an anti-semite start to rain down (although they will likely rain down in any event), I don't believe these moral arguments and justifications.  I think they are pretty much absurd.  That is not to say that I do not believe Israel has the moral right to defend itself and take whatever means it can afford to end attacks from Gaza.  I believe it does have that right and responsibility.  But I do not buy the weird, distorted arguments that are deployed above as justification for Israel's actions.  The fact that a lot of smart Jews (some of whom have doctorates) are driven to make patently ridiculous moral claims -- at least patently ridiculous if the same claims were put in the mouths of Arabs -- should tell us that something is very wrong.  And it is.  

Among other things, just as the Arabs should understand that if they make war they will have war, Israel too must understand that if it makes war, with armed attacks against targets in Gaza, it will have war.  That war will result in civilian deaths on both sides, although many more on their side.  If war is the choice, rather than hudna if it is really available, then there is full moral responsibility, and there must be satisfaction that the loss of life that will result from war is morally justified, not with absurd fantasies about the lives and thoughts of the people on the other side, but because there is not better practical means of assuring one's own survival.  

In that moral calculus must be considered things done and not done by Israel -- for which it therefore has moral responsibility -- that either tend to provoke war or reduce provocation for war.  Prominent on that list is the settlement of areas of the West Bank that Israel declines to incorporate, thus taking the land, not for security purposes but for purposes of settlement, without according to the Arabs who live there the rights of citizens.  The Labor Zionists who founded the State of Israel never claimed that they could do such a thing.  This is a practice that is unacceptable in the modern world and arguments about the need for Israeli lebensraum should shame us.  While circumstances vary, it is accepted that borders can and do change, sometimes through war although acquisition of territory by "aggressive war" is now understood as a war crime.  It does not matter that Israel is likely not in violation of the law of war by settling the West Bank under historical claim of right with an unsettled border.  The moral problem is not the settlement per se but the claim that the land can be settled while denying the people who live their equal political and social rights.  Land changes ownership.  Human rights are understood to be inalienable, and whatever liability or loss of right one might suffer through one's own actions cannot possibly be understood to attach to populations in perpetuity.

Is it certain or even likely that if Israel reversed its settlement policy either by withdrawing settlements or by formally incorporating land and according the people their political rights that the Arabs would eschew war? No, but that is not the point.  If one wants to claim moral justification for war, with all the inevitable loss of innocent lives on both sides, it is necessary to have clean hands, or at least hands that are as clean as possible.  This means not only gross policies such as the subjugation of Arabs in the West Bank under a system that certainly resembles apartheid (the South Africans had security justifications too you know) but actions that are provocative, humiliating and exceed what is necessary for the purposes of security.  

Israel has an absolute right to defend itself and to take such military action as is necessary to that end, despite the losses that will be incurred by Jews and Arabs.  This may include continuing the security occupation of the West Bank as long as necessary, the re-occupation of Gaza if necessary, whatever is necessary.  It is not entitled to more.

Finally, apart from moral considerations, a wise policy would consider that the moral aspects have a real effect on Israel's ability to defend itself.  The idea that Israel is able to defend itself solely by itself is a fantasy.  It does not; it never has although it has wisely chosen self-reliance to the greatest extent possible.  From the inception of the state, and before, Israel has always depended on varying measures of outside support and military sustenance.  In the short-term, it is well-stocked and capable of dealing, by itself, with immediate threats.  But wise heads should understand -- and it seems that those who have authority in Israel do understand -- that Israel remains dependent on the continued goodwill of at least some strong portion of the world, most notably the people and government of the United States.  Behavior without moral justification, without security justification, threatens to compromise that goodwill and therefore represents a direct threat to the ultimate security and safety of Israel and of Jews throughout the world.  (And no, merely declaring that something has a security purpose does not make it so -- see for example the misbegotten administration of George W. Bush.)

There is another word for hudna: sitzkrieg.  A sitzkrieg is still a krieg.

In 1948, Israel fought for its independence virtually alone.  President Truman may have recognized Israel immediately upon independence, but he did not send it one bullet.  Indeed, all the assistance Israel received from the U.S. back then was private and clandestine.  Israel now needs to do what it feels is appropriate for its self-defense, whether a sustained bombing campaign, a ground invasion, the assassination of enemy leaders, or any combination of these options.  Public opinion will not change, and when it comes to diplomacy, nothing is stronger than the force of the accomplished fact.

ginzy, I love how the medievil arabs imported the german word judenrein centuries ago.

I do know one thing, it would help if we in the west acknowledge that the present situation is 99.99% Hamas fault and .01% Israels (under the theory that no one is scot free), just to get our moral priorities straight. I am tired of Israel always being on the losing end of a public relations war, and as a non Jew or non Israeli am more than proud to lend my voice to the cry of stop. To plagarize the wire, a lie is not a side of the story, it is just a lie.

I am bereft of solutions, but if not coddling Arab public opinion means anything, I will not.

Another silly two thousand word post by roiduvoodoo.

Does anyone have the time to read his nonsense?

"In 1946 Ben-Gurion decided that the Yishuv would probably have to defend itself against both the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states and accordingly began a "massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West". By September 1947 the Haganah had "10,489 rifles, 702 light machine-guns, 2,666 submachine guns, 186 medium machine-guns, 672 two-inch mortars and 92 three-inch (76 mm) mortars" and acquired many more during the first few months of hostilities."

In 1948, Israel also received substantial armaments from Czechoslovakia.

In the present, Israel exports a couple of billion dollars a year in arms and imports arms of a similar order of magnitude.  Its defense is dependent on its access to world markets.

The point is that Israel is not now and has never been militarily self-sufficient and there is no immediate prospect that it will be.  The leadership of Israel prudently takes this into account when considering its military plans.  Posters need not.  Messianic settlements impair the ability of the government of Israel to do what is militarily and diplomatically prudent.  They are a liability as well as being highly questionable legally and morally.

Of course Israel will in the immediate days do what it thinks it must.  Hopefully, its ground operations will be far better conceived and executed than the incursion into Lebanon.  In an ideal world, the threat of missile attacks from Gaza will be ended permanently.  Short of re-occupation, that seems unlikely.

Friends of Israel will entertain themselves assigning blame for this state of affairs.  Better friends of Israel will think hard about what Israel can do, in the total picture, in order to achieve security.  It is regrettable that domestic political considerations make it difficult to do that which is prudent.

The only solution here is the one that Israel cannot and the international "community" will not achieve: the complete and utter trouncing of Hamas. My guess is that the only prospect of that ever happening requires a takeover of Gaza by Egypt, with a monopoly on violence and exclusive social service provision for the Egyptian state. We and the EU could give them, oh, maybe $20 billion per annum reasons to do this.

Thanks jackson.  Quite clearly you do have time to read what I write.  I am, as always, flattered.

Peretz is being a little cold, but even I must admit that these longer range rockets demand a real response, you can't just sit around while your neighbors are increasing their destructive power against you, it's ridiculous.

As for Hamas, there's no 'wiping them out' unless you annex Gaza (or convince Egypt to do it and you can trust them). That spectacle from last month of Gazans climbing over the wall to get basic supplies was awful. People in that situation are going to blame those nearby.

tep, how would that play out in the rest of the middle east? Do Arabs still consider Egypt to be an Arab land? Is Pan-Arabism dead?

I will be glad if this puts to rest the silly myth that winning elections can make groups like Hamas or Hezbollah become rational actors, persuing only the aims of wiping all trash off the streets and combatting the evil enterprise of buses not running on time.   Everytime they begin to lose popularity they provoke violence.  Rallying the people around them with an outside enemy works- which is why the mullahs of Iran wouldn't mind limited strikes from the US.  It is a different situation in Israel- we are not currently being attacked by Iran.  Even if it momentarily boosts the popularity of Hamas in Gaza, and even around the Arab world, it is a justifiable and needed action.  

Demonstrating profound stupidity boneill writes:

-- I will be glad if this puts to rest the silly myth that winning elections can make groups like Hamas or Hezbollah become rational actors,

Bullshit. Hamas won an election and  Israel responded to thevictory by getting its flunkeys round the World to impose an embargo on the Gaza Strip. The effects of that embargo have been disastrous for the Palestinian people and yet another nail in the coffin of Israeli morality.

The rational response to the Hamas election victory, that was unexpected by everyone including Hamas, was to use it as an opening to convince Hamas to move completely away from violence.  Indeed, there were at the time plenty of signs reported in the American press that Hamas was actually considering that option. This, however, would have been anathema to an Israeli regime whose singular goal is not peace but is the perpetuation of decades of Palestinian immiseration. And so once again the Israelis donned their jackboots and started kicking the Palestinian people.

The Israeli rightists, which appears to encompass most of the nation, need the war on Palestinians just as the Republican party in the US needs a "war on terror."  They have no intention of ever seeking a genuine and just peace with the Palestinians. That is why the peace process must be taken out of their hands. However much the Israeli rightists, and their supporters like Martin Peretz, may want it the World will not allow Israel to create a thousand year Reich.

I think the end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will come when an Israeli war criminal is arrested in a European airport for "settling" in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This will cause such an international outcry from rightist supporters of Israel that the entire World will finally recognize the moral depths into which the State of Israel has sunk.

Why don't you think that Hamas and Hezbollah are rational?  They have certain war aims.  They view the war as a long-term struggle.  They adopt certain tactics within their means.  Their tactics are to some extent effective.  That is rational.  Their objectives are immoral, but their actions to achieve them are nothing if not rational given their relative military weakness and willingness to take casualties.

This is characteristic of the unreality that surrounds much of the discussion of terrorism.

Al Qaeda succeded in knocking down two of the largest buildings in the world.  They did not achieve this by prayer or the sacrifice of goats.  The achieved it through devastating tactics, well thought-out and executed over a considerable span of time.  We are of course morally outraged.  But our moral outrage does not imbue any response we make with either justification or efficacy merely because recite, "We were attacked and we're mad as hell and we're gonna get 'em" as we proceed to do whatever.  Nor does complaining about how cowardly, unfair, immoral, etc., etc. their tactics are.  They are not going to abandon effective tactics because we are outraged or think them unfair.  To the contrary.  They will do as much more of it as their means allow.  Rather than pray over our responses in the hope that our incantations will help or complain about the unfairness, we had best devise effective tactics to counter and defeat them.  When we're done with that, we can pray and moralize and be happy.

As the United States is learning in Iraq and Afghanistan, the possession of "overwhelming military power" does not suffice, as there are a multitude of reasons why that power cannot be fully deployed except in the most extreme circumstances.  Therefore, among the useless tactics is self-congratulation about "how powerful we are."  About as pointless as descrying "how irrational they are."  If they were irrational, they wouldn't be capable of causing so much damage.

boneill, you're right, though I wonder...  

Of course, Israel will make whatever incursions it deems necessary.  But what does it take to stop those bastards once and for all?  This tit-for-tat could go on forever; it's the kind of battle of attrition that suits Hamas.  The Lebanon action was a good concept, poorly executed.  It shouldn't deter another root canal action, this time in Gaza.  Frankly, I don't think the Egyptians would be too unhappy.  Gaza is a pain in the ass which I think they, as much as the Israelis, would just like to see go away.

jm_rice-  you are right about Egypt.  Gaza is a headache the creaky Mubarak regime does not need, at all.   And you are right that attrition suits Hamas.   There isn't much Israel can do right now, I think, except hope that Gazans get too weary of their benighted and stupid leaders.  

ndmac...I don't know where to begin.  I thank you for saying I am profoundly stupid; I've always wanted to be considered a profound kind of guy.   But you, my friend, are just wrong if you think that Hamas would militate its militancy.  Look: they are a political actor.  Their whole reason for being is to be against Israel.  Adapation would be the end of them.   Like anyone else, they intend to stay in power.  They have zero skills at actual governance, so they have to start conflict to rally the people around the common enemy.  It really isn't that complicated or insidious.  Hezbollah did the same thing.  They were losing popularity and had lost their Syrian backers, so they kidnapped Israeli soldiers knowing full well that Israel would respind, and once again they would be the brave defenders of tiny Lebanon.  This is simple- if amoral- politcal consideration, especially in that neighborhood.  I don't even see this as controversial, but, then again, I am a thick American rightist.

If Hamas wanted peace, the easiest thing in the world would have been for them to drop their central plank- that is, the destruction of Israel.  They didn't.  Why?  Because then they would have ceased to exist.  And no state should tolerate a government on its fucking border dedicated to its destruction.  No country would.   Why should Israel be any different?

I agree with ndmackenzie in this limited respect:  I do not believe that peace is the primary goal of the Israeli right, nor has it ever been.  Certainly it would like Israel to be free from threat and loss of life and injury -- no doubt the Palestinians want the same.  But they both have goals that they regard as more important than peace.  In the case of the Palestinians, it is the liquidation of Israel at worst or the return to an impossible status quo ante at best.  In the case of the Israeli right, it is the perpetuation of Israeli control over, and continued settlement in, the West Bank for the indefinite future.  I don't think they have any endgame in mind for this.  They just believe with nbarry above that, "Public opinion will not change, and when it comes to diplomacy, nothing is stronger than the force of the accomplished fact," and that, finally, G-d will provide.

The "unilateral actions" of withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza are not much evidence to the contrary.  Those were clearly tactical and, in the case of Gaza, undertaken in a manner --the withdrawal of the IDF simultaneously with the abandonment of the settlements -- that was virtually certain to lead to terrorist control.  That was either grossly stupidity or deeply cynical, in the latter case to prove the impossibility of any Palestinian self-government that would not threaten Israel.   Hard to say which as Sharon cannot tell us.  It is difficult to believe any Israeli government could be that cynical.  It is equally difficult to believe it could be that feckless.

On the other hand, the evidence of an Israeli intention to continue settlement of the West Bank as long as circumstances allow includes, (1) its failure to remove even settlements that it regards as illegal, (2) its continued expansion of "legal" settlements including those that, rhetorically, it says it is willing to give up, and (3) the greatest possible "immiseration," as ndmckenzie puts it, of the Palestinians.

The Peretzian response to this, echoed by many, is that "they bring it upon themselves."  But if Israel wants peace on acceptable terms as its highest goal -- as it claims -- then it would be doing whatever it could to bring about conditions more likely to lead to reconciliation, regardless of whether moral blame can be assigned to the Palestinians.  You do not refrain from doing that which is in your own best interest, or at least moves you towards your own goal, because the other guy "doesn't deserve it."  Thus, as with all of us, the best evidence of what Israel intends is what Israel does.  It settles and it immiserates and when necessary it retaliates. The rhetorical claim that it is "willing to make painful sacrifices for peace" is but rhetoric.  Just as the Arab and Palestinian rhetoric is belied by their deeds, so to the Israeli rhetoric is belied be its deeds.  It is surely possible that no efforts by Israel to create a more politically conciliatory environment would prevail, as so many claim with total certainty.  I think the odds are about 50:50 on that.  But the visible failure to try is the best evidence of the lack of interest in doing so.

I don't think that any Israelis are going to be arrested in any European airport.  The more likely case, if the current stasis is allowed by Israel to go on indefinitely, is that Iran will ultimately gain nuclear weapons and the threat to world peace, security, and oil posed by the possibility of an Israeli-Iranian nuclear exchange will drive the UN -- meaning the great powers, including the US -- to impose a solution that Israel will be completely unable to resist.  From Israel's point of view, it will be harsh but not so dire as to lead it to refuse and suffer the consequences of world isolation.

I would rather see Israel not play out the settlement string to this logical conclusion, both because I don't wish that outcome on Israel and because the potential for epic disaster is there.  I am profoundly disturbed by the self-righteousness of the Israeli right, especially the messianic wing, because I think this is where it is taking the nation.  The messianic settlements are like a dead weight that are slowly dragging Israel over a precipice.

Roid:  I agree with you absolutely that Israel needs to stop building and building up settlements.  When this is achieved, they will have the moral high ground, which would give them the truly God-given right to fight back.  What would the world have to say then?  Much as it says now.  But at least the Israelis would be following a Jewish moral code.  Re:  Gaza.  Do you really think that Israel had the option to stay there?  Of course they could have, but what then would be the world's reaction.  Yet another UN resolution condemning Israel.  So let's get real on that part.  Israel did what the world wanted, perhaps cynically (and I happen to think that if it was cynicism, it was smart cynicism).   "Look at that Jews," they'd say, "they're still occupying Gaza.  No wonder Hamas keeps retaliating."  

The Palestinians voted for them--and I do think many were duped into believing that Hamas would do a better job at getting buses to run on time.  But they did nonetheless bring it on themselves, regardless of Israel's ridiculous settlements.  

Furthermore, no sane person in the reality-based world believed that Hamas was interested in the goal of good governance.  So really, it was the world community being cynical.  Especially the Arabs, who see this as another opportunity to keep their own people distracted--and to "prove" that Israel truly is satanic.  And if the rest of the world really gave a shit, they themselves would be coming into the West Bank to help build an infra-structure.  But they don't care.  Or they only care enough to send billions to scum like Arafat who'll ferret it away to Switzerland.  Sort of like the approach they're taking in Africa.

For you, ND, to suggest that Hamas would have negotiated is just plain moronic.  When you start making sane arguments, perhaps someone will listen. But you, like Hamas, have no interest in peace.  Your primary goal, in fact, seems to demonize Israel at every opportunity.  You're a very freaky girl.

Nazi mackenzie shows her colors again:

"Bullshit. Hamas won an election and  Israel responded to thevictory by getting its flunkeys round the World to impose an embargo on the Gaza Strip."

Yes, the Jewish lobby controls all its allies.

She has been reading "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" again.

Before it was some treaty of Rome which condemned ipso facto the Jews on so called occupied land to certain death and now it's the Jews control the world and Washington is "Zionist occupied territory." This means that Jews residing in Washington are also war criminals.

No, voodoo King I don't read your screeds., They are just one man's opinions and an opinion is an opinion whether its articulated in ten words or in ten thousand words.

Besides, from what I read so far nothing you say is original with you and I have read these opinions before.

If you got something original to say say it and say under your won name if you dare.

It's questionable whether Israel is committing war crimes. There are legal complications there, as these territories have never been part of sovereign states, etc.

But even if she is, I guess these are "crimes" we can live with.

It's not like, say.... hard to find an appropriate example... taking a whole population and liquidating it by gas, or... digging large graves and shooting masses into them. It's not even anything like deliberately and regularly lobbing rockets at civilian populations, or routinely blowing up in discotheques full of kids.

nahhh, nothing of the kind.

If colonizing conquered areas is considered to be a war crime - so be it. Not so terrible.

No one will go to court for this.

I happen to think that the settlements were a mistake, but at this point it's too late to get out of them. Israel will have to wait for a more opportune occasion to remove settlements.

As far as the poverty of the Pals goes, well, Israel had been their source of livelihood and economic growth for as long as it was possible. They had been poor before, and they merely returned to this miserable state of existence after Israel had closed her borders.

Not our responsibility.

There's always UNRWA around, their best friend and savior, to hand out sugar sacks and flour bags, not to mention clothes and blankets disposed of by the West, and make sure they get the very best education the world can offer, not to forget the huge incentive endorsed by this UN organization to create, for once, an economy of their own.

Oh, and btw: Had Israel decided to launch rockets or mortars or bombs back at them, to the civilian centers from which they bombard us, this would NOT have been considered a war crime.  Any country is allowed to shoot at the sources of fire that's being fired at her.

Ooops, "any country" means in our reality "any country but Israel", doesn't it.

So maybe not.

Oh come on Molly, Israel has the right to fight back now. They also have the moral high ground in Gaza, but that hasn't stopped Hamas from launching attacks on Israelis with the blessings of leftist (mostly leftists) Israel haters around the world.

No, I am no supporter of the settlement movement for demographic as well as economic reasons and would welcome their abandonment, but to supposed that if they stopped building them and even dismantled them that Hamas or even many members of Fatah would be satisfied is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

Whether the right wing in Israel was interested in peace or not they did accept a two State solution and I am sure that if the Pals stopped killing civilians and sat down to negotiate ordinary Israelis would certainly be interested in peace and would elect a government that delivered a peace deal.

babigail said: "It's questionable whether Israel is committing war crimes. There are legal complications there, as these territories have never been part of sovereign states, etc. "

Just because some treaty of Rome declares that it's a "war crime" to settle on occupied land doesn't mean that Israeli settlers are guilty of anything.  Only a court of law can declare someone guilty of a war crime and every one is innocent till proven guilty.

This is something that the mackenzies of this world don't understand thinking that they have the right to declare someone guilty without benefit of trial. Laws that declare accused persons guilty before a trial takes place are not laws they are tyrannical decrees and are themselves warrants  (or fatwas) for genocide and not legal documents.

jacksondyer, isn't it funny how roi agrees with nazmackenzie? Great minds think alike.

Nazimackenzie is a real democrat. If Hamas won a democratic election, that gives it the right to kil Israelis and destroy Israel. That is what they clearly and openly say they want to do.

By her Nazi logic, Hitler too had all the rights to kill Jews. Hitler was elected in a genuinely democratic election.

Why is her logic a Nazi one? Because this right to murder she extends only to those who murder Jews.

Meet the sick ghost Nazimackenzie.

jackson is right.

Look molly, try to see it this way: whenever real peace was a realistic result, Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew (Egypt), or simply withdrew (Jordan).

When peace was not offered, on 2 occasions Israel withdrew: Gaza, where she also removed settlements, and Lebanon, where she withdrew her forces.

Israel has more than proven her good will and readiness to give up, to yield before an opportunity of peace, and even to take risks for the sake of a remote possibility of quiet.

What now? These settlements?

I have no doubt that if Israel should remove ALL the settlements tomorrow morning, including the big blocs, all we will get in return will be rockets at our soft belly.

no doubt, molly. not for a second.

How come we're still talking of these idiotic settlements as if they were even a minor obstacle to any solution?

Is there no lesson to be drawn from Israel's withdrawals and retreats, from her peace accords and treaties and conferences and meetings and talks, from her absolute submission in the face of peace?

Are we completely blind?

Molly,

The project of withdrawal from Gaza was Israel's initiative. I don't see why the world would have raised any objection if it had declared its intention to remove all settlements immediately and hand over security in stages as the Palestinians assumed effective responsibility for security.  Israel has maintained control over the air and sea in Gaza, and initially controlled the border with Egypt.  The world didn't denounce the withdrawal for those reasons.

I make no claims as to the beneficence of the Arabs, the world, and surely not Hamas.  Just the reverse.  But I don't see the point of holding your own future hostage to the intentions of your enemies.  Contrast the policy of Israel with that the US is attempting in Afghanistan, as described in last Sunday's NYT magazine about the travails of a US company there.  They face an exquisite dilemma, trying to fight insurgents without alienating the locale population that takes casualties.  But they are very conscious of the problem.  When non-combatants are killed, they don't talk about how "the Afghans brought it on themselves by harboring the Taliban."  They recognize that the "collateral damage" is a setback to their own cause.  Indeed, the civilian casualties directly provoke the populace into supporting insurgents.  Even then, the American soldiers understand that this is a setback to the goal of separating the terrorists from the populace and pacifying the area.  They do not dismiss the bad outcome by blaming the Afghans as that is not relevant to their goal.  I wouldn't claim that under the particular circumstances they can succeed, but they understand the objective and act, or refrain from acting, with it in mind.

If the goal of Israel is the pacification of as much of the Palestinian population as possible, it does not appear to act with that goal in mind.  

Frick and Frack return.

The idea that a crime is not a crime until is adjudicated is silly.  If that were so, no one could ever commit one and would have the ready excuse at the time of the crime that no trial had yet been held.  This is a bizarre idea.  

There are genuine, unresolved legal issues surrounding the settlement of the West Bank by Israelis.  None-the-less, I am surprised babigail that, even if this were prohibited by international law and has no security justification, you are indifferent to it on the theory that there are worse crimes. Would you expect this to have no impact on the willingness of Palestinians to support terrorists?  Why then could not some  Arab Peretz claim that you bring all your woes on yourselves?

As for the willingness of the Israeli right to embrace a two-state solution, if I were the PA, I would make a very public offer of peace in exchange for a state in all of the West Bank and Gaza with condominium over East Jerusalem.  I would offer to allow the Israel settlements in the West Bank to remain under Palestinian sovereignty.  And I would abandon the claimed right of Arabs to return to Israel except to the extent that Israeli settlers remain in the West Bank, one for one.  My expectation, if I were the PA, would be that Israeli society would come apart at the seams and it would be clear that the Israeli right is no more committed to land for peace and two sovereign states than Hamas is to peace for land and two sovereign states.  They both want the whole thing and figure that it they can somehow maintain the status quo -- Isreali occupation and low level warfare -- for long enough they will ultimately prevail.

Mr. Peretz is correct that Hamas is bruising for a war.  The better question  is why and how to proceed.

Hamas is supporting Hizbollah and Iran with their diversions.  Iran is furious about the Mughniyah death and wants war.  Unfortunately for them, to acknowledge Mughniyah would expose their lies and deceit.  US State Department and CIA is watching Iran for any actions that could tie them into the Hizbollah crimes.  They are screaming for war, but can't say so without drawing US attention.

Hizbollah and Hamas like that they can bomb US Military Targets like Beruit Barracks, and torture CIA Agents like William Francis Buckley, without attacks on their countries.  But when they lose an asset, they have to let it go.  So they are trying to provoke Israel into starting the war in the south, to allow preperations for an attaack from Lebanon.

Israel needs to channel Sharon and get the US and Eygpt involved.  Iran is cognizant that the US now controls a lot of the territory used to transit men and material into Lebanon.  And they know a US attack is a possibility if they raise the stakes too high.  President Bush needs to let Israel and Hizbollah (Iran) know that any attack on Israel in the next 6 months is an attack on the US and will be treated as such.  And I would try to get Eygpt on board for a squeeze play on the terrorists in Gaza that will attack Eygpt as soon as they are done with Israel.

With Bush backing them the Israeli's would be in a better position to pound out the military capability built up.  This is an operation that needs no limits.  Then they would be ready for Lebanon.  Watch Syria and Russia to see what they do.  

Iran wants a war.  This may be it.  Prepare as well as possible and be clear in your goals.

jackson and babigail, whatever you guys might think of mackenzie's politics (or for that matter, intellect) using the word 'Nazi' as a descriptive actually demeans the memory of the 10s of millions of people who suffered and died under the actual Nazis.

Surely you don't think mackenzie is an actual Nazi (standing post at bergen-belsen), if you have to hurl invective, you might just want to stick with 'anti-semite,' (although I'm not positive anyone really even has proof of that).

I actually think she's a neo-Nazi or a far-Left (hard to distinguish them these days). She doesn't post about anything except Jews - and only if it refers to the possibility of murder of Jews.

"Surely you don't think mackenzie is an actual Nazi (standing post at bergen-belsen), if you have to hurl invective, you might just want to stick with 'anti-semite,' (although I'm not positive anyone really even has proof of that)." mmathog

If you mean by nazi someone who belongs to a political party by that name, the answer is of course not. However, her views on Zionists (Jews really) are so extreme that when she lets her guard down it's hard to distinguish her views from those of an antisemitic ideologue. Before the nazis I would have called her a pogromist but few people know the terrible meaning of that word today.

No, she wouldn’t stand “post” at Bergen Belsen she would have been one of the people justifying its existence. After all the Jews were occupiers of land the German Nazis claimed to be theirs.

Just when I was beginning to think that Voodoo king was perhaps not as stupid as I had thought he comes up with the following incomprehensible nonsense:

“The idea that a crime is not a crime until is adjudicated is silly.  If that were so, no one could ever commit one and would have the ready excuse at the time of the crime that no trial had yet been held.  This is a bizarre idea.”

In any legitimate system of justice an accused is not guilty until a court of law determines his guilt of innocence. In fact it is possible that a person has committed a deed and for some technical reason he is just not guilty by a court of law than he is not guilty.

Guilt or innocence is very different from being, say “a murderer in fact.” Many of us think not

unreasonably is that O.J. Simpson a murderer yet as a court of law found him innocent of the charge he cannot be so regarded by our criminal justice system.

Conversely, if a man is judged guilty by a court of law then he is guilty of the crime for which he has been convicted. To clear his name he has to go through legal channels and can’t just say “I am innocent.” Hence courts of law determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.

The same is true for “crimes against humanity.” That there is such a statue is irrelevant. A person or a group of people are guilty of such charges if and only if a proper court of law determines that they are guilty.

Given the complexity of international law and the indeterminate status of the West Bank it is empty but vicious rhetoric to say that Jews residing there are guilty of “crimes against humanity.”  

It’s also empty verbiage to say that “a crime is a crime” just because our king of voodoo dolls says it is a crime. Murder is a crime, but determining whether the death of a person was actually a case of criminal homicide, as opposed to justifiable homicide, or negligent homicide (a crime of commission or a crime of omission), or a mere accident, etc., is something that a court of law needs to do.

Hence one is not speaking of empty tautological nonsense like “a crime is a crime” but of the determination whether a deed was indeed a crime or can be categorized in some other fashion.

"However, her views on Zionists (Jews really) are so extreme that when she lets her guard down it's hard to distinguish her views from those of an antisemitic ideologue."

That might be Jackson, and I might very well agree. I still don't think that meets the standard. Personally I would prefer if you guys chose another descriptor.

"After all the Jews were occupiers of land the German Nazis claimed to be theirs."

Personally, I have never been able to work up any sympathy or sense of forgiveness for middle class German citizens living during that era, but we really just don't know which way mackenzie, in that particular situation, would've swung.

"...but we really just don't know which way mackenzie, in that particular situation, would've swung."

Well, I can guess.  

The Mackenzies of Canada were not exactly Jew friendly nor were most of the Brits in the 1930's.

A trier of fact determines that the accused either did or did "commit a crime" at the past time when the events that would meet the statutory definition of the crime occurred.  The court does not determine that as of the moment of the verdict a crime has occurred.  The criminal cannot defend himself or avoid culpability on the theory that the criminal "statute is irrelevant" because no trial has yet been held.  The criminal statute is exactly what is relevant.  Some murders go unsolved.  Some go unpunished.  That does not change our understanding of whether a murder was committed.  

There are substantial questions of international law that are unresolved as to whether the particular conduct of Israel meets the definitions given the legal status of the West Bank.  However, as with a statute that applies to individuals, it is precisely the language of the applicable treaty as it applies to nations that is relevant.  

I don't happen to agree with ndmackenzie's interpretation of the treaty.  In my opinion, the settlement in the West Bank is under bona fide claim of right because there was never a settled boundary within Israel (meaning all the land east of the Jordan).  The UN partition might have been a border, but it was rejected by the Arabs and hence never came into force.  The so-called 1967 "borders" were only the armistice lines of 1948 and the UN was quite clear that these did not constitute borders.  Accordingly, I am of the view that Israel's claim to the whole of Israel remains unresolved, as does the Palestinian claim to the whole of Israel.  That by the way does not change the fact that breach of the armistice lines is still an act of war.  Under the UN charter, only self-defense and authorization by the Security Council are permissible uses of force.  Hence, once the armistice was achieved, a breach is still a violation of law even though the legal status of the boundary is unsettled.  I had a long argument with smaceachern about this and did enough research to satisfy myself that there should be no serious question that the actions of Egypt in the run-up to the Six Day War were a breach that allowed Israel properly to invoke its right of self-defense.

As I have said previously, I do not think the legal problem for Israel arises because it has settled in the West Bank.  It did not breach the 1948 armistice.  There is an ancient historical claim that Israel tried to cede by accepting the partition.  But the cession was rejected.  And there were Jewish communities there before 1948.  The legal problem arises because Israel has chosen to settle the land without incorporating it and according political rights to the inhabitants.  It treats the territories effectively or juridically as occupied while also settling them.  These are inconsistent positions, not at all like what occurred after 1948 when Israel fully incorporated all the territory on its side of the armistice lines and granted political rights to the Arabs there as full citizens.

It is quite understandable given the demographics that Israel would not want to incorporate the West Bank, but if it treats the territory as unincorporated it cannot settle it and if it settles it and de facto incorporates it, it has to give citizenship to the inhabitants.  It cannot render them stateless, and if they do not assume full citizenship it must accord them the normal status of fully-legal non-citizen residents.  It cannot have it both ways without violating international law. Some will recall that the early PLO position was that there should be a unitary bi-national state.  Again for obvious reasons Israel rejected this.  But it cannot have the land without the people in it because it is not legal to remove them.

Of course, one can pooh-pooh international law -- on specious grounds or in some cases on strong grounds as it is always a work in progress.  But that is not the same thing as misstating it.  To simply misstate it is to fail to understand that it strongly influences the judgment of nations and their acquiescence, or not, in the actions of other nations.

Part I --  here's what's happening (a compilation from Haaretz):

Palestinians in Gaza fired about a dozen Grad rockets Thursday on the southern port city of Ashkelon, some 15 kilometers north of the Strip. A 17-year-old girl was lightly hurt in the rocket attacks and several others suffered from shock. The day before, a Sapir College student was killed in a rocket attack on Sderot.

Early Thursday evening, a Katyusha-type rocket struck an apartment building in Ashkelon, crashing through the roof and slicing through three floors. No casualties were reported. In another Grad-missile attack on Ashkelon, a 17-year-old girl was lightly hurt and several other people were treated for shock.

...

Part II -- and here's a coordinated, well thought out, tough response from the Israeli leadership (again, a compilation from Haaretz):

Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai went as far as threatening a "shoah" ...the word is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust, but a spokesman for Vilnai said the deputy defense minister used the word in the sense of "disaster," saying "he did not mean to make any allusion to the genocide."

"The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, [the Palestinians] will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," Vilnai told Army Radio on Friday.

Barak:  [a ground invasion into Gaza] is "a real likelihood" -- although he told Quartet representatives that it was not imminent, a position that appeared to be echoed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"The major ground operation is real and tangible," Barak told his security chiefs during a meeting Thursday, according to sources who took part in the meeting. "We are not afraid of it."

Meretz-Yahad chairman MK Yossi Beilin advocated a diplomatic solution rather than a military one.   "My solution is to reach a cease-fire with Hamas," said Beilin, who said Israel should also continue negotiation with the Palestinian Authority.

Beilin said Hamas has expressed an interest in a truce over the last few weeks and that it was irresponsible of Israel not to respond to them.

"There have been at least two requests from Hamas, via a third party, to accept a cease-fire," he said.

The government, for its part, has been sending mixed messages regarding the possibility of a ground offensive in Gaza.

Olmert:... a major Israeli ground operation against militants in the Gaza Strip is not imminent ... Israel's fight against [Hamas] is  a "long process" and that there was "no magic formula" to halt frequent rocket attacks.

Public Security Minister Avi Dichter... rejected proposals to reoccupy the Gaza Strip, calling them "populist ideas which I don't agree with, and in my opinion, no intelligent person does either."

Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman:  the violence "may leave us no choice" but to send troops back in, two and a half years after Israel ended its occupation of Gaza.

You guys should read this awesome blog on the Middle East through the foreign policy association by some impossibly handsome young genius.

middleeast.foreignpolicyblogs.com

Jackson might like it, ndmac will cal the author profoundly stupid, but clicking on it will drive this scribe to dizzying heights of fame.  

Seriously, though: check it out and leave comments.  I love these discussions even when they drive me up the wall.  

Yo handsome dude, there's no picture on the bloggie.

news.bbc.co.uk/.../7272329.stm

"However, a recent opinion poll has indicated a majority of Israelis favour a truce with the Islamist movement Hamas, which controls Gaza."

Would that be a "truce," a "ceasefire," or a "hudna" that a majority of Israelis are prepared to support?  Or might it be a linear combination of the three?  Does it matter?

Nice that the middleeast foreign policy blogger says such nice things about us.  But "inflamed" comments?  Where does he get the idea that any of the comments here are inflamed?

He's clearly irrational, roi.

roiduvoodoo said:

“A trier of fact determines that the accused either did or did "commit a crime" at the past time when the events that would meet the statutory definition of the crime occurred.  The court does not determine that as of the moment of the verdict a crime has occurred.  The criminal cannot defend himself or avoid culpability on the theory that the criminal "statute is irrelevant" because no trial has yet been held.  The criminal statute is exactly what is relevant.  Some murders go unsolved.  Some go unpunished.  That does not change our understanding of whether a murder was committed.”

Which law book did you borrow this from?

Still, let’s take a closer look at what you said:

““A trier of fact determines that the accused either did or did "commit a crime" at the past time when the events that would meet the statutory definition of the crime occurred.”

Firstly, this point already begs the question about is the nature of guilt or innocence of an individual and who decided. This “trier of facts” (legalese talk) be it judge or jury is already part of a system of justice set up to adjudicate a case. Hence it doesn’t contradict my point that innocence or guilt are decided by legal systems and that outside the legal realm these terms have only a moral and sometime political meaning.

“The court does not determine that as of the moment of the verdict a crime has occurred.  The criminal cannot defend himself or avoid culpability on the theory that the criminal "statute is irrelevant"”

There is a non-sequitur between the two sentences above.

In any case, if a particular statute, under which a defendant is accused, is “irrelevant” than his attorney can definitely demand that the case be dismissed. If a defendant is accused of spiting on a side walk and the statute used to him deals with a crime that involves a charge of attempted murder than of course the defendant can demand that his case be dismissed.

“The criminal statute is exactly what is relevant.  Some murders go unsolved.  Some go unpunished.  That does not change our understanding of whether a murder was committed.”

It is relevant if it is relevant to the case. In any case you are arguing with a straw man as I never claimed that just because a defendant is found innocent of a crime that “a murder was not committed.” The OJ trial in itself which I brought up above proves the opposite.  A murder was committed and many of us think OK is the murderer but in the eyes of the law he is innocent.  

Now, the whole point is that just because there is a law against murder doesn’t mean that you (the public) can decide a priori that someone is guilty of murder. Such decisions are left to a court of law and it is meaningless to say that someone is a murderer before a trial took place. We can’t even say that a crime was committed until a trial is completed. The law may mistakenly believe that a crime was committed when in fact it was not committed: for example a case involving a complex chain of events leading to someone’s death.  

I should also note that different legal systems adjudicate questions of guilt or innocence differently: some European legal systems, for example, are very different from the American one.

“There are substantial questions of international law that are unresolved as to whether the particular conduct of Israel meets the definitions given the legal status of the West Bank.  However, as with a statute that applies to individuals, it is precisely the language of the applicable treaty as it applies to nations that is relevant. “

Here we get into even murkier waters: all genuine legal systems are particular systems that depend on national law and custom. Hence you can’t move from statutes applied to individuals under national legal systems to statutes applied to countries under “international treaties” without compounding the problems and ironies.

“Of course, one can pooh-pooh international law -- on specious grounds or in some cases on strong grounds as it is always a work in progress.”

As you yourself said international law is a work in progress, but if it’s a “work in progress” then it’s not a genuine legal system since all legal systems are not “works in progress.” A legal system like a language is determined by a specific set of distinctive features which are unchanging: phonology and morphology in language, criminal and civil codes and how they are adjudicated in a legal system.

Almost everything about “international law” is till open to debate.

“But that is not the same thing as misstating it.  To simply misstate it is to fail to understand that it strongly influences the judgment of nations and their acquiescence, or not, in the actions of other nations.”

This is spurious to say the least. Which nations are you talking about? What judgments?

Is the judgment of a nation like Iran with its reliance on Shariah law to be part of an international system of justice? In fact many Muslim countries want to develop their own international court of justice. Should they set the standards?

Give me a break.

jackson,

I really don't want to be dismissive.  You make some serious meta-points about the nature of legal systems and their relationship to culture and context.  However, your original point was that there cannot be a crime (whether under normal state law or international law) until there is an adjudication and for that reason Israel need have no concern about whether its conduct in the West Bank violates international law.  By your reasoning, it cannot have violated international law because no adjudication has taken place.

I think it is logically clear that, by these reasoning, there can never be a crime committed at the time prohibited deeds are done, the clear implication being that anyone or any nation is free to do what it wants.  To bolster this, you assert that "statute is irrelevant."  

There are many contexts outside of a courtroom where people both opine and act on what the law is.  If you ask a cop, or a lawyer, whether you are free to shoot the guy standing quietly next to you in the head, you will be told that that is most certainly against the law and if you do it you will be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder.  The "against the law" part is said by normal speakers, even those without any relationship to law enforcement, well in advance of the acts.  They don't say, "If you do that you increase the risk to yourself that you will be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder," and that is not what they mean to say.

One can argue about whether the treaty cited by mackenzie applies and what means in the context of West Bank settlement.  One can game the chances that Israel will ever be called to account under international law for the settlement policy.  One can make the political judgment that there is or is not reason to be concerned about it.  But one cannot linguistically claim that the actions in question cannot violate the treat because there has as yet been no adjudication.  That does not even make linguistic sense let alone legal sense.

I am well aware that the analogies between domestic and international law are quite imperfect.  In some contexts, trials of individual war criminals, suits between states in the International Court of Justice, it more closely resembles domestic law.  In other contexts, it is more a set of customs and usages broadly recognized, and oft violated, by states.  Withal, it is worth understanding what does, does not, and might violate international law, or norms, because the actions of state actors are shaped by the perception of conduct with respect to those norms.  Conduct that is itself dismissive of those norms is more likely to invite sanction of various kinds.

And international law reflects the broad judgment of mankind about what is and is not morally acceptable.  All moral actors, even while they may choose to reject an international norm, should want to pay close attention to the considered judgment of mankind.

“By your reasoning, it cannot have violated international law because no adjudication has taken place.”

Without getting into another long exchange of tirades I will just say that my point about international law in general and the Rome treaty in particular is that to state that the Jews living on the West bank are “war criminals” hence can be killed with impunity which is what mackenzie’s point was, is both false and a warrant for murder (the same as issuing a fatwa).

Only a proper court can decide if someone is a criminal “war” or “peace” criminal doesn’t matter. To State in advance that someone is guilty is to take the law into one’s hands. This isn’t justice it’s a call to injustice.

This is the context of my remarks make of them what you will.

Btw: lest you think that Mackenzie is the only antisemite to have given sanction to murder (in herself she doesnt matter) the current head of the UN for human rights in Gaza made the same point.

From a Palestinian media center:

www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp

“Dugard: Violence ‘Inevitable Consequence’ of Israeli Occupation

27/02/2008

Palestinian violence is the "inevitable consequence" of Israeli occupation and laws that resemble South African apartheid, John Dugard, the independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the U.N. Human Rights Council, said in a report that is commissioned by the United Nations and will be presented next month, but it has been posted on the body's Web site.

As long as there is occupation, there will be terrorism, Dugard argued: "Acts of terror against military occupation must be seen in historical context," he said. "This is why every effort should be made to bring the occupation to a speedy end. Until this is done, peace cannot be expected, and violence will continue."”

This is a call for murder, pure and simple. Under what “international treaty” is a UN official allowed to call for the murder of Jewish civilians?

The Ignorant Populist  said:

"However, a recent opinion poll has indicated a majority of Israelis favour a truce with the Islamist movement Hamas, which controls Gaza."

I really did not wan to re-enter the fray.  Avigayil (as is her wont when she is not calling me a pagan) is doing a nice job explaining the realities of this end of the Mediterranean and there is just too too much to respond to (you can guess from whom).  BUT when I saw this quote from the aptly self-named Ignorant Populist I just had to respond.

Take anything and everything that the BBC reports about Israel & the Middle East in general, including and especially ostensible "facts" with a grain of salt... make that a lump of salt... on further reflection make that the entire salt mine.

I have not heard any report here about such a poll (I am a news addict and I am fluent in Hebrew) and before I would believe it, I would want to know EXACTLY how the question was phrased, what was the context of the other questions in the poll, and who conducted the poll.  Then I MIGHT believe the report of the poll from the BBC.  After all, the BBC is like a stopped clock that has the correct time twice a day.

Shavua Tov,

hershel g.

The notion of a  "crime" carries many meanings that would take a language philosopher to disaggregate.

As a legal term of art, a crime is what the law says is a crime. Conduct not so legally cognizable is not a crime. Can I commit a crime, but never have been found guilty? Why not? If I wantonly kill someone and never get caught, in what sense can it be said that I am not a criminal: I am literally getting away with murder. And I am both guilty and not guilty: I am not guilty insofar as guilt is a conclusion reached by a *trier of fact*; I am guilty insofar as I have in fact killed someone and ideally should be found to be guilty. This paradox goes to the tension between reallity and legal reality. As a matter of policy, as a necessary condition for the rule of law, we need instrumenatlly to sort out legal right and legal wrong and we then need rights, privileges and obligations to flow from that sorting out. Sometimes, the crimiinal and civil determinations of right and wrong conflci--OJ is a good example--and we get a glaring example of the law's fallibility and the particular price that gets paid for the arbitrariness that the policy need for finality can breed.

As a non legal term of art, we speak of a crime as an act that violates norms of conduct whether or not proscribed by law. Perhaps the conflating of these two meanings of the word crime has led to some confusion in the above very interesting discussion.

International law as a system of guiding and judging conduct is weaker than a state's law, because, for one thing, the world comprised of state and non state actors does not ultimately require or resort to the rule of law. States act primarily in their interests and seek as much as possible to dress up their actions in international law terms. But in the end, rending the notion of rule of law, interest will prevail over legal justification, precisely due to the lack of enforcement.

So international law arguments over who was right in 1948, the status of the West Bank, and so on, will spin on endlessly, as part of the arsenal of justification, as part of the arsenal of framing international perceptions, all themselves part of the arsenal of advancing interests.

   roidubouloi said:

“And international law reflects the broad judgment of mankind about what is and is not morally acceptable.  All moral actors, even while they may choose to reject an international norm, should want to pay close attention to the considered judgment of mankind.”

This is wrong, wrong, wrong, on many levels:

International law is momentary and it therefore has no universal applicability. I can foresee a time when International law will be deeply influenced by Shariah law which will challenge notions of individual rights as well as questions of what is and what is not a crime.

The considered judgment of mankind, btw, is not plural and not singular. There is no such thing as a “judgment of mankind.” There are judgments of mankind, plural. Many of these plural judgments contradict each other. Hence there is no possibility of a singe unanimous “moral judgment.”

There is of course a possibility of an international moral judgment imposed by force. This too can become morally acceptable to a majority. However, that doesn’t mean that such judgments are in themselves moral.

Your whole formulation is faulty, but I have no more time for this.

OK, Brian, I just posted a comment to your "Yemen’s Lowest Class" post.  Enjoy!

ginzy, the BurkaBroadcastingCompany is worse than a stopped clock.  It's quite actively pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.  I think they get all their news feeds from al Jazeera and al Arabiya.  Apparently, the BBC competes with France 2 (of al Durah infamy) for the title of most baldfaced anti-Israel frauds.

Ginzy the BBC Lies!

The BBC is again spreading lies about the use of the term Shoah and about rocket attacks:

newsvote.bbc.co.uk/.../7272329.stm

"Dozens die in Israel-Gaza clashes"

"The Palestinian leader said the Israeli raids were "more than a holocaust".

Mahmoud Abbas was apparently alluding to controversial remarks made on Friday by Israel's Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai, who said Palestinians risked a "shoah" - the Hebrew word for a big disaster as well as for the Nazi Holocaust.

Mr Vilnai's colleagues insisted he had not meant "genocide". "

Was he? Or was he referring to his own thesis that nazi Holocaust is "exggerated" by the Jews?

The whole BBC  report though makes no sense:

"Israel says its aim is to stop Palestinian militants firing rockets across the border.

On Wednesday a rocket fired by Hamas militants killed an Israeli student in the southern town of Sderot, the first such death in nine months.

Palestinian militant leaders say they are responding to Israeli attacks."

Great! So the Palestinians attack with rockets Israel tries to defend itself and then the Palestinains say they are merely trying to fend off "Israeli attacks."

It's in reports like these that you can find the source of contemporary antisemitism.

There's no need to respond Ginzy to your accusation that the BBC is a pro palestinian propaganda tool. That's a familiar sentiment on the Spine and it's so completely ridiculous that it barely deserves this badly constructed and misspelled sentence.

The mere fact that a self confessed news addict hasn't heard of this poll speaks volumes in its own right.

Now, if you'll excuse me I have a lot of Guinness to drink and young women to terrorize.

The International Court of Justice has peer status at the United Nations to the Security Council. In an advisory opinion on the legality of the so-called security wall the Court wrote:

-- 78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter "the Hague Regulations of 1907"), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the airthority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the iterritory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

-- The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

www.icj-cij.org/.../1671.pdf

There is no LEGAL issue about the status of the Occupied Palestinin Territories - they are OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. Consequently, any Israeli who has transferred into the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 1967 has committed a war crime consequent to the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court which states:

-- The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

untreaty.un.org/.../romefra.htm

Israeli "settlers" in the Occupied Palestinian Territories ARE war criminals. It is to the eternal shame of Israel that it has perepetuated these war crimes and allowed them to continue without any legal accountability.  Sadly, we all share in that shame to some extent because we all live in Nations that continue to provide legal immunity to hundreds of thousands of Israeli war criminals.  Some among us though - those who openly support the war crimes and appease the war criminals - bear a far greater responsibility for them than the rest of us.

People like jacksondyer and sleepyavl are not Jewish in any moral sense.  They are bgots who cloak their bigotry in the religion of others.

Itzik, if there's a term of art, it has to be "international law".  International law in the sense we normally umderstand law, is a conceit.  There are treaties, i.e. contracts, bilateral and multilateral, among nations, each of which has its own provisions (or lack of same) for enforcement, adjudication and remedy.  But there's no overarching international body of law which has, as genuine law, the formal and legitimate mandate and jurisdiction to coerce, whether the subject signs on or not.

If there is such a thing as international law, then why is there no international police?  The closest we have, the United Nations, is a prime example of the fatuousness of the notion of international law.  I hate to see the term used so heedlessly and promiscuously, particularly by sanctimonious assholes like Chomsky, who usually don't know what the hell they're talking about.

"I have a lot of Guinness to drink"

Ah, so that's where you get your insights. ;)

Now, if you'll excuse me I have a lot of Guinness to drink and young women to terrorize....

In the green old days of yesteryear,  I'd have put it differently: "I have a lot of young women to drink and a lot of Guiness to terrorize."

Now, if you'll excuse me I have a lot of Guinness to drink and young women to terrorize....

In the green old days of yesteryear,  I'd have put it differently: "I have a lot of young women to drink and a lot of Guiness to terrorize."

Thank you ginzy. What do you care what I call you, I have already publicly confessed that I'm in love with you. Besides, you know damn well whom I call pagans. I wouldn't be surprised if you do too, silently.

The BaBy-Say (not kidding you, i was in the Erez crossing some time ago, and started to talk to one of the reporters there. He said he was from the Baby-Say, and I had to consult my husband as to what the fuck that meant, and what baby was he representing. My husband deciphered it for me) has a network of its own reporters scattered across the area, and I don't think it's fed by any other news outlet. This baby is independent and has a very clear stance and agenda here. Please let no one attribute the Baby-say's despicable bias to any other factor.

Today Abu Mazen and Mashal, like Pavlov's dog, have morphed into the ultimate victims again. Rather like those male cats in heat (Kooter in Yiddish and now Hebrew too), you know? They scream as if they were in the process of being slaughtered while having sex.

They both describe IDF's operation in Gaza worse than the Shoa or the Real Shoa. Qassams and Katyushas falling all over the place as they express these words.

Seems like this is the new Jenin "massacre", but no massacre can be worthy of its name without Peter Hansen's awe-inspiring presence. Boy, do I miss him here.

Unfortunately these operations will not stop the bombardment. They serve to punish, I suppose, and I may surprise y'all: I don't support any action whose goal is punishment or revenge. It's useless and base. It achieves nothing but some collective gland secretion of stupid obscure chemicals. I have to confess that I also feel some relief, and I hate myself for this.

Bottom line is that I just want the Qassams to stop, and there must be a way to do it. After all, we do have this cosmic genius for our defense minister, so there's a tangible and real basis for my expectations.

Today I've read Dr. Guy Behor's blog, or site, or column (don't think he's translated into English). He has an interesting suggestion: bombard the civilian neighborhoods from which Hamas launches its rockets  with unremovable red paint, black pepper powder, and tear gas, and harass them with huge loudspeakers, and just turn their lives into a living hell without killing anyone.    

They may get tired of this after a few nights without sleep, and pressure Hamas to stop.

In any case no one will be killed by such a retaliation, and I'm for trying anything.

This is his site, for the Hebrew readers among you:

www.gplanet.co.il/prodetailsamewin.asp

Jack as in (as others call you) Jim, I have always thought of a term of art as a  word or phrase  that has a precise meaning in a self-contained subject as demarcated from common usage, kind of like a technical definition or jargon in its true meaning.  In that sense, I don't see the notion of international law as term of art, though i can certainly see it being  something of a conceit.

It's, even beyond treaties and multi-national agreements,  something, not nothing, but it's not all that either, precisely because, as you say and I said, there is no enforcement, because, paraphrasing Hart, there is no underlying consensus informing a definable community that would give body to it, though there of course gestures toward that which are not, to repeat, entirely menaingless.

Zealots and fanatics like Chomsky pretend to its fixed, absolute meaning, but I tend to think they, or the more sophisticated amongst them,  understand very well how very contingent and ewill of the wisp international law is, but are utterly cynical and disingenuous in their deployment of arguments based on it.

Did you hear about when Netanyahu's mother introduced him to Arafat? "Yassir that's my Bibi."

Mmmm.  "International law" is what knowledgeable speakers mean when they say "international law."  It is not the same as domestic law but resembles it in certain respects in that it is, at times, a set of norms, applying to states, that are considered binding.  Sometimes there is an enforcement mechanism, through the Security Council and/or the International Court of Justice.  Often times there isn't.  In some areas there is a broad consensus about what international law means or requires in a particular context. Oftentimes there is not.  The fact that some questions have clearer answers than others does not render international law meaningless.  The fact that it is not always enforced, does not make it meaningless.  States do in fact act and refrain from acting with reference to international law and acquiesce or do not acquiesce in the actions of other states based upon it.  In that sense, it "exists" however ill-defined.  Indeed, many of the arguments advanced in these blogs, for example as to the scope of the "right of self-defense" are arguments about what are or should be the norms of international law.  It is ironic and a bit amusing that so many hear have heated arguments about what is called international law while denying its relevance, meaning, or existence.

While it is true that mankind did not get together and vote by referendum on any of what constitutes international law, through the medium of institutions -- states, courts, the UN -- a large part of humanity has participated, at least indirectly, in the fashioning of international law.  Principally through the medium of state actors, at least those principles of international law that are reasonably well settled certainly can be said to reflect the consensus of mankind.

ndmckenzie:  The opinion of the ICJ that you like to cite is first of all an advisory opinion.  While the views expressed by these judges deserve weight, opinions rendered in an advisory context, without jurisdiction, are just that, opinions.

This particular opinion is incoherent.  If read literally, it would mean that all the territory of Israel between the 1948 partition lines and the 1948 armistice lines is also "occupied."  Yet virtually all of the actors who cite this opinion accept that the contrary is the case.  The opinion does not consider the variety of circumstances under which occupied territory ceases to have that status.  It take no consideration of the circumstance that the territory in dispute is the subject of a still unresolved set of competing claims to all of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.  It takes no account of the aggressive war waged by Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 that resulted in their loss of territory.  Indeed, it takes no account of the unusual circumstance that Jordan, the previous sovereign or occupying power has abandoned its claim to sovereignty without being able to surrender the territory to any other sovereign than Israel.

As well, mackenzie, one has to wonder whether your righteous anger is ever directed anywhere other than at Israel.  Consider these war crimes:

     (viii)     Taking of hostages.

(b)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

     (i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

     (ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

     .  .  .

     (v)     Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

Does any of this offend your sensibilities, or do you consider Sderot a "military objective?"  One wonders also how you view the Chinese occupation of Tibet (which surely was the result of aggressive war by the Chinese).  In order to settle the persistent accusations that you are motivated by, and interpret events in light of, racial hatred of Jews, would you share with us your opinions about China?  Or must we await an advisory opinion of the ICJ to know your view?  For that matter, what would be your view if the PRC were to attack and occupy Taiwan?  Would it be an Occupying Power?  I believe you are Canadian.  Do you have any view about the claim of European immigrants and their army to legitimate sovereignty over Canada in derogation of the rights of the Native American population?  If that is legitimate, how do you distinguish the claim of Europeans to Canada from the claim of Jews to Israel, their aboriginal home, a claim of far more ancient vintage by several thousand years than the existence of Canada or of Islam for that matter?  I ask only to understand whether the principles you espouse are principles of broad application or only find force when applied to the Jews.  

Here mackenzie are another couple of war crimes:

(xxiii)     Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

.  .  .

(xxvi)     Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

Would you share your opinion about the use by Arab combatants of these practices?  With respect to the Jews you said, "This will cause such an international outcry from rightist supporters of Israel that the entire World will finally recognize the moral depths into which the State of Israel has sunk."  What is your view of the current "moral depth" of Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah and their supporters in light of such practices?

Itzik, thanks for the correction about "term of art."  I see lots of professors, departments, even schools of "International Law".  I think in this respect, the stipulation that international law means something within those precincts, as opposed to common usage, makes it a term of art.  The fact that it pretends to have meaning in common usage makes it a conceit.  In any case, we agree that it's grossly misused.

You say the term is something, not nothing.  Let me go out on a limb.  Can you name me a single law -- not agreement, but law -- which has international jurisdiction?

Jack as in Jim, I'd say no I can't. But...

But what follows from that, and what do we make of for example the Geneva Conventions or *international* conventions, which are agreements to be sure?

What is your argument: is it that International law is no thing at all?

The Rome Treaty cited by ndmackenzie creates a court with international jurisdiction over stated war crimes and crimes against humanity, for those states that have acceded to its jurisdiction.

I have taken the time to read most of the opinion about the wall.  It's particular glaring failures are first to consider at all the implications of the language of the armistice agreement of 1949 under which the lines are declared not to be borders and to be without derogation to the claims of any party regarding the territory.  This explicitly rejects, by agreement of all the parties, the notion that the 1948 lines are boundaries and that any party is surrendering its claim to any land on either side of the lines.  The Palestinians have not surrendered their claims to all of Israel.  And Israel has not surrendered its claim to all of Israel.  The court further directly decline to consider the status of the territories prior to 1967.  Yet, if they are territory of Israel, a possibility not excluded, then Israel cannot be an Occupying power.  Of course, the court avoided this central question because it clearly has no authority to settle it.  Recognizing that it would impeach its own opinion as soon as it sought to address this foundational question -- whose territory is it? -- it just jumped over it.

The second glaring error with respect to the legitimacy of the wall concerns Israel's "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member."  This is one of the foundational principles of the UN Charter.  The court, with no discussion whatsoever, simply states that this right only exists in the case of an armed attack from one State against another.  This is a complete invention as the UN Charter does not say this at all.  The court then ties itself completely into knots by asserting that attacks form the West Bank do not emanate from another State.  Having just written 150 pages or so all premised on the notion that Israel is occupying territory that belongs to another state, it blithely negates Israel's right of self-defense on the grounds that attacks against it do not emanate from another state if they come from the West Bank.  Then it completely ignores the self-contradictory conclusions of its own opinion. Just skips over them with no effort to reconcile them.

If the West Bank is not another state's territory, then Israel cannot be an Occupying Power.  By first expressly declining to consider whose territory it is, then treating it as the territory of another state without having decided that it is, and then summarily stating, just for particular purpose of denying Israel's right of self-defense, that the territory is not that of another state, the court makes a shambles of the whole undertaking.  It is, it isn't, it is, it isn't -- depending on which conclusion we want to reach on this page of the opinion.  Makes a mockery even out of international law.

This is the reason why an advisory opinion rendered in derogation of the authority of the Security Council was a misadventure from the start.  But it does give foes of Israel something to cite which was always its intended purpose.

ndmackenzie  "People like jacksondyer and sleepyavl are not Jewish in any moral sense.  They are bgots who cloak their bigotry in the religion of others."

LOL, . so mackenzie is now a authority on who is a Jew too.  

"Israeli "settlers" in the Occupied Palestinian Territories ARE war criminals. "

Another mckenzie pronouncement or is it incitement to murder. I tend to think the latter inciting others to commit genocide aa mackenzie does makes her a war criminal.

"What is your argument: is it that International law is no thing at all?"

At first, I had that assertion in my post, but then thought it wiser to have you defend your assertion, that "international law is something, not nothing."

Well, since we don't have an example of an international law, I guess, res ipsa loquitur, it is indeed "no thing at all".  I don't mean to be glib or self-serving.  I think my deifnition of law is pretty close to what's commonly understood:  a defined, persistent decree (i.e. not being contingent on the agreement of the subject, using, at least in English, the command form of "shall".)

Again, this is not trivial, because law implies diue process, which is missing in so-called international law.  Everything is ad hoc.  International tribunals, despite the name, depend on who decide to show up.  A proper system of law is self-perpetuating.

Here's a rather sickening example of the folly of "international law".  There is indeed a kind of international police -- Interpol.  It's located in Lyon, France.  Until fairly recently, the head of Interpol was a Frenchman.  French law has defined terrorism as a "political offense," and in France a poltical offense is not a criminal offense.  Because of this, Interpol was completely useless in dealing with international terorrists.  It is why, until recently, terrorists and other gangsters have found France a safe haven. (We have the French to thank for Khomeini.)  So much for international law.

Actually, I just thought of a rebuttal to my claim.  The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution says that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."  This means that a treaty has the force of law and indeed is law.  So I guess that a treaty, by definition being international, is international law.

"Mmmm.  "International law" is what knowledgeable speakers mean when they say "international law." "

Are you quoting anyone? is it humpty dumpty per chance?

" It is not the same as domestic law but resembles it in certain respects in that it is, at times, a set of norms, applying to states, that are considered binding.  Sometimes there is an enforcement mechanism, through the Security Council and/or the International Court of Justice.  Often times there isn't.  In some areas there is a broad consensus about what international law means or requires in a particular context. Oftentimes there is not.  The fact that some questions have clearer answers than others does not render international law meaningless. "

This makes it temporary law at best and subject to political manipulation at worst.

"The fact that it is not always enforced, does not make it meaningless."

Not just meaningless, it makes it dangerous because as Rousseau noted centuries ago laws that are flouted make a mockery of the legal system in general.  Better not to make laws which are unenforceable than risk making the law itself something to be ridiculed.

jacksondyer obviiously doesn't hold Adolf Hitler responsible for the Holocaust because Hitler was never found guilty by a German court.

"Religious"  extermists of any type be they "Christian",  "Muslim", "Hindu", "Jewish" or whatever are not religious they just use other people's religiosity to cloak their own bigotry.

So yes, jacksondyer, your extremist bigotry is clearly a far more important part of your self than is the religion of your mother. Your extermist bigotry has squeezed every last drop of her religion out of you.  There is no real meaning to your being a Jew because your true religion is extremist bigotry.

Nazi ndmackenzie wrote February 29, 2008 2:12 PM

The Jewish Lobby:

“Bullshit. Hamas won an election and  Israel responded to thevictory by getting its flunkeys round the World to impose an embargo on the Gaza Strip. The effects of that embargo have been disastrous for the Palestinian people and yet another nail in the coffin of Israeli morality.”

Jews as “Zionazis”

“And so once again the Israelis donned their jackboots and started kicking the Palestinian people.”

And yet again:

“The Israeli rightists, which appears to encompass most of the nation, need the war on Palestinians  ….   However much the Israeli rightists, and their supporters like Martin Peretz, may want it the World will not allow Israel to create a thousand year Reich.”

Here is mackenzie in all her Jew hating glory.

I dunno, jackson, sleepy and the others, why you bother to answer this piece of crap. I've resolved never to read his posts and never to refer to him again, and sometimes no one else does either and his shit remains forlorn and unanswered, and then he disappears for long periods.

This fucked up demon is sitting there and provoking pain and indignation from you people, and you oblige.

And it makes him happy. Each time you answer him, you are making his day.

He's so mean and biased and hateful, he doesn’t deserve your responses.

Can't we decide to ignore him altogether?

He will go away after a while, promise!

All he wants is to see you ache.

Jack as in Jim: I really don't follow your argument.

International law binds states to adhere to  recognized rules of conduct in a myriad of contexts. So it involves the law of the sea, international criminal law, the U.N.  the Geneva conventions, the W.T.O, air space agreements, bi-lateral and multi lateral agreements and on and on endlessly. Nations can't go to war every time they disagree. So they, or many of them, set up mechanisms to resolve disputes in every area in which states act, from war to the copy right in Britney Spear records, heaven help us.

And even your defintion of law is problematic. Every legal system is "contingent on agreement". Consensus underlies legitmacy; and what is consensus ultimately but the existential agreement of a citizenry to agree to the laws that bind it. (That is of course different from the creation of discrete laws at any particular time or the agreements of nations by virtue of treaties and so on.) The paradox of the citizen in respect to the law is an incident of the paradox of the citizen in relation to the state. The citizenry vest in the state the very power it will be subject to. So while states can be efficient examples of this, because the state to exist must monopolize coercion, there will obviously be great lassitude in the instance of nations agreeing to be so bound. But it does not follow from that  lasstidue and imperfection and egregious gaps in the law of nations   that lnternational law is as no thing. It is clearly something as evidenced by the way the world functions every day in innumerable ways.

Where I respectfully see the fundamental flaw in your argument is your move from rightly reacting to overblown claims about the meaning and efficacy of International law to the unneccesary and incorrect conclusion that it is no thing. It is a muddled and  profoundlyl ess than satisfactory thing to be sure, but it is not no thing, and most particularly from a positivist perspective.

Res ipsa loquitur indeed: the thing speaks for itself.

More unhinged nonsense form nazi Mackenzie:

“…the end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will come when an Israeli war criminal is arrested in a European airport for "settling" in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

Yea, especially if he is arrested in Munich, or Bruges land of anti-Jewish boycotts. He should also be deported to Auschwitz. “That’ll learn ‘em.”

It gets better:

“This will cause such an international outcry from rightist supporters of Israel that the entire World will finally recognize the moral depths into which the State of Israel has sunk.”

Yes protesting injustice means being immoral.

Let’s have a reality check about Europe’s morality in relation to Jews:

“‘We are not serving Jews,’ an American Jewish tourist was told at Belgian café  

by: EJP  Updated: 10/Feb/2008 22:29

ANTWERP (EJP)---The Mayor of the Belgian city of Bruges has asked for an inquiry after an American Jewish tourist was ousted from a café-restaurant because he was wearing a kippa or skullcap.

On a visit to Bruges two weeks ago, Marcel Kalmann, a 64-year-old US professor, entered Le Panier d’Or, a renowned café-restaurant located on the main city square, to have a coffee.

When the waiter saw his kippa under his hat, he told him to get out. “We are not serving Jews, out of here,” he allegedly shouted.

In shock, the man went to another café nearby where the owners helped him to call police. An operator told him that police patrols do not go out for such cases and advised him to call on a police station.

According to the account given by Kalmann to “Joods Actueel”, a Jewish magazine in Antwerp, at the police station a policeman first made clear that he didn't believe his story.

Later, an  officer  indicated that a complaint can only be stated in Flemish and not in English, adding erroneously that anti-Semitic offense doesn't exist in Belgian law.

An angry Kalmann told the magazine that he is planning to lodge a complaint against the owner of the café-restaurant and against the police.

Contacted by ‘Joods Actueel’, the owner of Le Panier d’Or acknowledged that Kalmann was kicked out. He said he was ready to apology but added that the client had a “strange behaviour.” The restaurants in the area spoke rather of a quarrel about "outrageous prices."

Patrick Monaert, Mayor of Bruges, has asked police for an inquiry and apologized to Kalmann for the "inadequate behaviours" which, he said, “are contrary to the welcoming image the city intends to give.”

The Jewish community in Antwerp was all the more outraged and moved by this anti-Semitic incident that Kalmann was born in Auschwitz three days before the liberation of the Nazi camp by the Russian army….”

There is more, of course:

From EJP:

“"I invite all those Germans who say they want an end to the debate about the Nazi past to wear the kippah (skullcap) or a Star of David so they can experience the anti-Semitism that German Jews are confronted with on a daily basis".

“Gideon Joffe, head of the Berlin Jewish community at a  prayer service held to protest against the attack against a Jewish kindergarten over the weekend  in which "Auschwitz" and "Jews get out" were sprayed on a wall and a smoke bomb was thrown into the building.”

Yea, let’s see a European country arrest a Jew for “travelling while Israeli.”

...I dunno, jackson, sleepy and the others, why you bother to answer this piece of crap. I've resolved never to read his posts and never to refer to him again, and sometimes no one else does either and his shit remains forlorn and unanswered, and then he disappears for long periods...

Ignore him or her completely; the correct advice. It's what I do. See the name, just move on.

babigail -

I wonder if your son has written any articles on the extremist bigotry in his own family. He would be a far more honest journalist were he to do so. I guess that wouldn't be for the good of the cause.

" dunno, jackson, sleepy and the others, why you bother to answer this piece of crap."

I am not answering her directly. The piece of crap is not  important.  What I am doing is highliting here Jew hatred so that readers (and most readers don't post) won't be able to ignore it.

Oy, jackson, what a lucky waiter! It should have been me!

Not much would have been left of this cafe 10 minutes after this incident.

I once was in Poland, and saw for the fist time in my life a stand with Nazi memorabilia. The real Nazi emblems, ranks, and medals were kept under a glass what… (sheet? Slab? Board?) and I asked the stand lady why she had these abominated items for sale.

Why? She said, Coz I wanna!

How could she have known, the poor idiot.

Two seconds after the words had been out of her mouth the glass was smashed to very small pieces, and the precious items scattered over a perimeter of 3 meters.

Her son threatened us (I was with my poor husband…) that he was gonna call the police.

Do it, I said, by all means.

But he couldn’t do that. The whole operation they were running there was illegal. So we just walked away slowly.

Later i discovered that these stands were all over the place. So I just let go. She had to take the punishment for all of them.

:)

babigail said: "Oy, jackson, what a lucky waiter! It should have been me!"

I feel the same way, Abigail. But these cowards only pick on mild mannered people wlho can't defend themselves.

Still it goes to show what still llurks  in civilized Europe.!

Then there is. Relatives and friends of mackenzie no doubt:

"German Rappers Steeped in Anti-Semitism, Jihad "

March 1, 2008 1:01 AM

Lizas Welt examines a German rap scene that increasingly spews Jew-hatred, extols terrorist attacks, and idolizes Osama bin Laden.

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

by Lizas Welt (translated from the German by John Rosenthal)

"When an unknown assailant fired four bullets at German rap star Massiv in Berlin in mid-January — one of them grazing the rapper’s right arm — the initial outrage soon gave way to questions. Was the episode really an attempted murder, perhaps the opening salvo in an emerging turf war among rival rappers, or had Massiv staged the attack himself as a publicity stunt? Threats of violence are, in any case, commonplace among rivals in the German rap scene. Among Massiv’s most adamant foes, for instance, is the Stuttgart-based rapper Bözemann [roughly, “Badman”], who likes to appear in the persona of an armed Albanian guerrilla fighter and who makes a point of his Muslim faith, as does Massiv...."

pajamasmedia.com/.../german_rappers_steeped_in_anti.php

"Jack as in Jim: I really don't follow your argument"

Sorry, some of the concepts, like due process and self-perpetuating, weren't tied together very well.  I just threw them out there, hoping you'd get the drift.

Simple -- the "international law" you describe is nothing but a bunch of contracts, and a contract is not a law, and a law is not a contract, so there's no such thing as "international law."

Actually, "international law" is impossible, because implicit in the law is the subject (as in "subject to the law"), and states, by defintion, are not subjects.

"but it is not no thing, and most particularly from a positivist perspective."

Positivist...ah, you betray yourself as a Brit.  No wonder you don't follow!  There are two kinds of philosophy, British (positivist) philosophy and everything else, which the Brits don't understand. ;)

But I can play the game, too.  Whenever someone starts going on about "international law," I can honestly say that I don't know what they're talking about.

International law—and I am referring to Public International Law— is the rules and principles governing international (inter-national, get it) relations and dealings.  It deals with questions of rights between nations or among nations  and it deals with the citizens or subjects of other nations

International Law includes the basic law in national legal systems—status, property, contract, and tort). It also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies. It is based in its acceptance by the states comprising the system; and  customary law and conventional law are its primary sources:

Customary international law follows from states generally adhering to certain out of a sense of legal obligation. And recently the customary law was codified in the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties;

Conventional international law arises from inter-national agreements and takes any form that the contracting parties agree upon. They may concern anything unless they conflict with the international rules as to fundamental standards of international conduct or the obligations of members under the U.N. Charter. These agreements create law for their parties;

They may also lead to customary law when they are widely accepted.

General principles common to systems of national law is a secondary source of international law. There are situations where neither conventional nor customary international law can be applicable. In this case a general principle may be invoked as a rule of international law because it is a general principle common to the major legal systems of the world and not inappropriate for international claims.

As you noted, the law of nations is a part of the law of the United States unless there is some statute or treaty to the contrary. International law is a part of the law of the United States only for the application of its principles on questions of international rights and duties. It does not restrict the United States or any other nation from making laws governing its own territory. A State of the United States is not a "state" under international law, since your Constitution does not vest it with a capacity to conduct foreign relations.

An international organization is created by international agreement or has states as members. I understand that to enhance the status of international organization to which the U.S. belongs, your congress has enacted the International Organization Immunities Act. It, among other things, defines the capacity and status of such organizations.

The Charter of the U.N., obviously an international organization, has been adhered to by virtually all states. Even most  non-member states have said they agree to the principles it established. The International Court of Justice  established by the Charter, is its principal judicial organ

Hope that helps.

p.s

"International law" certainly exists in that it has a real impact on the conduct of real states here in the real world.  Some clearly feel that it is a misnomer to call it law, which was my point that "international law" means what knowledgeable speakers intend when they say it.  That is, of course, the meaning of any noun.  Is it important that grapefruit don't bear much resemblance to grapes?  Is anyone genuinely confused about what is meant when someone says grapefruit?  

International law is what it is.  It is not the same thing as domestic law and knowledgeable speakers understand that distinction.  They don't need to check off a litany of the ways in which international law and domestic law differ every time they have something to discuss.  This is all but a distraction from any serious point.

The major difference between international law and domestic law  as "law" is that there is no world government to give binding meaning, full scope, and enforcement to international law.  We have an organization that functions at times like a world government but is clearly not a government in the full sense.  Much else is a matter of custom and practice.  We could call it "international usage and practice" and proceed to have all the same discussion.  Some things in the world are partial, contingent, conditional, or exist in different modes at different times.  Not everything is a 1 or a 0.  One can argue about whether something is on balance good or bad, could be made better, accomplishes some things, doesn't accomplish others.  But the claim that it is a nullity because it is not a perfect analog of something else that it does not purport to be does not advance our understanding.

There have perhaps been as many times and places in history when and where Jewish law did not have standing behind it any enforcement or sanction other than the opinions of others.  That never stopped anyone from referring to it as "law."

roidu: needlessly to say, on these points I agree with you, even as I admit you have put the points more succinctly than I.

"There have perhaps been as many times and places in history when and where Jewish law did not have standing behind it any enforcement or sanction other than the opinions of others.  That never stopped anyone from referring to it as "law.""

Specifics, we need specifics.

Jewish laws in the Ghettos, for example, which were self contained communities was enforced by the community in various ways. Utimately, Jews that did not want to conform to Jewish law before the rise of the secular nation State either left Judaism or were shunned by other Jews.

Like I say, a term of art.

And when states want to enforce international law, they impose sanctions, i.e., shunning, on other states.  And the Security Council has the power to use force.  That would seem to make international law more law-liike than Jewish law in those places and times when Jews enjoyed no sovereignty.  

Since there is also no Bet Din in existence to provide definitive rulings on Jewish law, there are many opinions, sometimes consensus, and sometimes not.  Yet, it is still referred to as law.

Basman, I rather preferred the way you put it.  More erudite.  I have heard you accused of being a Brit.  Wouldn't surprise me.  Nice use of the English language.

"International law" is a term of art in that a non-practioner with no specific education about the term would not correctly infer its meaning from general usage.  It is not that analog of "American law,"  "English law, "New York law." etc.  The speech community that practices in the area -- diplomats, international lawyers, etc. etc. -- knows that very well.

I am a nice Canadian.

They speak English in Canada?

mais oui

Je ne savais pas ça.

Basman

Yes those innocent Canadians and their oh so benign meddlings in the affairs of other countries.  Maybe you want to tell us about the crap your country has been pulling in Haiti for the last decade Itzik, or have you been blissfully unaware of your government's activities?

blissfully unaware

Brown!

Oh yeah I forgot: I have nothing to say to you.

Jackson--I've been away for a few days, and see this talkback has morphed into something quite big. Just wanted to respond to your much earlier post.  Of course I know that Israel has the moral high ground.  I'm simply attacking the dirt worshipping settlers who've gone deep into the  West Bank.  Yes, their leaving won't make a damn difference.  But Roid does make a good point about the impact of making the Palestinians feel humiliated; letting religious nuts homestead is like rubbing your thumb into their eye.  Perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier, but these settlements are immoral.  You can't point to Hamas's evil and say, well look what they're doing.  As if you're a child.  Israel, Judaism, has its set of ethics.  It's what makes us civilized--even in a sea of dung.  God said we were the chosen.  Which doesn't mean we can do as we please.  It means we are obliged to maintain our morality.  Whether you believe in GOd or not (and I don't) Judaism was founded at a time when others were making human sacrifices.  The idea is that we were to elevate ourselves above such an animal-like life.  This is what it means to be Jewish.  

Moreover, these creeps are unnecessarily endangering the innocent lives of Israeli soldiers.  Which goes beyond the bounds of Jewish law, frankly.

Thank you Molly.

Reading and thinking through these recent threads has crystallized for me something perhaps obvious that I don't think I have fully comprehended before:  the power of feelings of humiliation, shame, and loss of dignity as motivators of human behavior.  One would think that these feelings are far less important than, for example, the desire to live.  But I am increasingly convinced that this is not necessarily so, and that a great deal of the crisis between Islam and other peoples of the world, with all of its violent aspects, is in fact attributable to profound feelings of humiliation in the Moslem world.  We of course deplore the events of 9/11, but it is a tremendous demonstration of what will, driven by the desire to strike a blow at the perceived dominator, can do.  That is not to say that the West is to blame for the state of affairs in the Moslem world (although we surely do have some blame for it) or that it is solely or even primarily our duty to ameliorate that situation, or that anything we do in that regard can take the form of appeasement or capitulation.  But I suspect that we will not see an end to Moslem terrorism until that situation is ameliorated.  It is worth thinking about how to do that, or at least contribute to a better climate.  The recent Wall Street Journal article by Alan Dershowitz, to which we were directed by Martin Peretz, points in exactly the wrong direction.

I think now that this is above all what has gone so terribly wrong in the West Bank and Gaza.  I was explaining to my inamorata last night, who is not a student of politics, that the Egyptians were able to make peace after the Yom Kippur War because they perceived themselves as having reclaimed their dignity, even though, objectively, they lost that war and, but for Israeli forbearance, their surrounded armies would have been destroyed by Israel.  The objective reality was far less important than their renewed experience of dignity by having at least initially caught Israel by surprise and forced it back, even to the brink.  It is that discussion that crystalized the thought for me.

At the urging of a dear friend in Paris who is Lebanese, I went last night to see "The Band's Visit."  Of course, it is only a little movie (Israeli), but I was very moved by its poignant and funny portrayal of our shared and fragile humanity, Arab, Israeli, and the rest of us.  I do not believe this is a lost cause.

Roid, your idea in one of your posts about allowing Palestinians into Israel for work struck me as a terrific economic incentive, but also possibly dangerous.  So, you let these workers pass the checkpoint, and with their minimum of clothing, they have not much chance for hiding a belt.  What happens, though, when they get to their job?  How can we be sure they won't assemble something within the borders?  Seems desirable but ultimately too risky.  I can't see anyone in Israel going for that.

Also, regarding humiliation.  I don't understand how these posters can ignore that crucial point.  I'm not suggesting they morally equate the Palestinians and Israelis, but is it possible that they could pause and, for one minute, contemplate what it might be like--especially if you are essentially innocent, to wait in long lines, not much better than cattle, to get from one area of the WB to another?  Especially if it's just to reach another part of their property?   Or seeing your neighbor's kid killed in a soccer field.  Collateral damage it all you want.  But the reality on the ground is quite different.

Didn't many in the Israeli military think the occupation was a bad idea from day one?  In my opinion, the country was, unfortunately, run by a generation of Jews who'd witnessed Holocaust survivors limp into their country.  They didn't have the distance to see how destructive their strategy would be, ultimately.   I believe Babigail herself made this point.  To some degree, the Israelis early on turned  the Palestinians into their bogeymen.  And to some degree, it's been a self-fulfilling prophecy.  

P.S.  If we're speaking of movies addressing P and I personal relationships, then I urge you to watch the Israeli movie "Home."  It's quite amazing, and encapsulates my whole idea of either side dehumanizing the other.

I will try to find "Home."

I'm cannot really evaluate the risks of a West Bank resident coming to Israel to work and then setting off a bomb already located in Israel.  Seems to me that getting the bomb or bomb-making materials into the country is the harder part.  But they could start letting in workers who don't fit the likely suicide bomber profile -- wife and kids maybe.  Someone more knowledgeable than I would have to address this for sure.