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.