ChrisWWW Starving the population because you don't disapprove of their leaders is a number of things including: A) Immoral B) An act of war C) A war crime, and possibly a crime against humanity D) Counterproductive, because it makes the population more reliant on their leaders Not to say the EU would be guilty of this if they didn't send aid, but that doesn't let Israel off the hook.

Jason, Managing Editor A and D may well be true, but I think the case under international law for B and C is at best contestable. Most of international law is based on the customary practice of states and economic sanctions are longstanding components of state practice. My own research into the details of international law is at a beginning, however, so if you have specific treaty text or ICJ/ICC findings to support your characterizations, I'd be interested to see them. I would also point out that the leaders themselves bear much of the blame if and when their policy is to use incoming aid as a political tool to privilege some of their citizens and withhold from others. Saddam did this sort of thing all the time because he received a huge PR benefit from a credulous western media establishment that blamed the U.S. for the consequences of Saddam's manipulations of the aid stream. Hamas has certainly shown the requisite cynicism and media savvy to pull the same trick.

ChrisWWW Jason, UN Resolution 3314 establishes that a blockade is a considered an "act of aggression" which would mean, if I understand correctly, that Israel is engaged in a war of aggression which is a crime: http://tinyurl.com/dz7cj7 Israel itself used Egypt's blockade as a justification for the Six Day War. And then there are the provisions against collective punishment in the Geneva convention.

I would also point out that the leaders themselves bear much of the blame if and when their policy is to use incoming aid as a political tool to privilege some of their citizens and withhold from others.

No argument there.

Jason, Managing Editor Yes, a blockade is generally considered to be an act of aggression, but it is nonetheless considered a justifiable tool of foreign policy. For example, the U.S. used a blockade during the Cuban missile crisis specifically as an alternative to full-scale warfare. And economic sanctions have been frequently used by many different states. So it cannot be argued that sanctions are by definition a "war crime" EVEN IF they are indicative of hostility or even belligerency. BTW, use of an act of aggression does not by itself constitute a finding of a "war of aggression". The particular circumstances, context, and justifications for the sanctions are highly relevant. Your point about collective punishment is one for which I have great sympathy but, as I have argued elsewhere, it begs the question of alternatives for Israel. To demand that Israel do absolutely nothing while the territory controlled by a hostile (even genocidal) belligerent power is used for ongoing attacks and threats against Israel is unreasonable and contrary to basic standards of international law. Israel does have a right to self-defense against Hamas. Those who object to its means should suggest some plausible alternatives rather than insisting, as one anti-Israel critic did, that "they should just take it".

ChrisWWW Jason, Yes, I misread the resolutions. A war of aggression is different from an act of aggression. A war requires sustained intent (I'd argue that when you combine all of crimes committed against the Palestinians, you reach that threshold). However, both are supposed to compel international action. The Cuban missile crisis is an interesting example. A number of American actions (some of them crimes), including support for a coup, an invasion, and a general cessation of trade created the foundation for Cuba/Soviet relations and precipitated the conflict. A short term blockade was certainly preferable to nuclear war, but it could have just as easily have caused it. The question of alternatives has been answered by critics and allies for quite some time. There are a number of proposals for moving forward including a two state solution, or integration of the Palestinians as citizens into Israel. It's clear that something besides ethnic cleansing should take place, as a perpetual siege of Gaza, combined with apartheid conditions in both the Gaza and the West Bank isn't acceptable.

Jason, Managing Editor

(I’d argue that when you combine all of crimes committed against the Palestinians, you reach that threshold).

Once you take context into account (i.e. the context of the continuing crimes by Hamas against Israel), both the legal and moral analysis becomes much more complex. Unfortunately, to much of the anti-Israel (and often anti-semitic) left, Hamas' crimes are just what they feel Israel deserves. I find their moral framework grossly hypocritical and corrupt. You seem to want international action to stop the Israelis from attacking the Palestinians, but when the Palestinians are the ones attacked, you and the rest of the left side of the "international community" suddenly loses interest in doing anything. That's an unreasonable approach, at best. It could also be suspected of being anti-semitic, in that it continually treats Jewish lives as unimportant and unworthy of international concern.

The question of alternatives has been answered by critics and allies for quite some time. There are a number of proposals for moving forward including a two state solution, or integration of the Palestinians as citizens into Israel. It’s clear that something besides ethnic cleansing should take place, as a perpetual siege of Gaza, combined with apartheid conditions in both the Gaza and the West Bank isn’t acceptable.

Unfortunately, Hamas does not accept the two-state solution and would use the integration solution as a pretext for genocide against the Jews. Israel should not be forced into a position of subservience before an intransigent and willfully genocidal enemy just because a few safe westerners romanticize Hamas. Also, Israel should not be condemned for what are in fact your gross exaggerations of its misdeeds combined with your apparent indifference towards Hamas' misdeeds. I agree that there are many elements of Israel's policies towards Palestinians that are legally and morally questionable and counterproductive. But asking Israel to just ignore or, even worse, surrender to the demands of an openly genocidal enemy is unreasonable and morally bankrupt.

ChrisWWW

Unfortunately, to much of the anti-Israel (and often anti-semitic) left, Hamas’ crimes are just what they feel Israel deserves. ... just because a few safe westerners romanticize Hamas. Also, Israel should not be condemned for what are in fact your gross exaggerations of its misdeeds combined with your apparent indifference towards Hamas’ misdeeds.

That's a gross characterization of my viewpoints, and cartoonish view of many of the others who have adopted a similar line of thought. But at least you didn't accuse us of anti-Semitism, so I guess it's a start.

Unfortunately, Hamas does not accept the two-state solution and would use the integration solution as a pretext for genocide against the Jews.

Hamas has murmured about the possibility of accepting a two-state solution, although it's anyone's guess at this point since they are not being bargained with. And before you say they refuse negotiations, I'd like to know how that can be true if they previously negotiated a cease fire with Israel? In any event, the siege is ultimately counterproductive if you want to weaken Hamas. So if you're interested in removing them as a threat, you can't endorse a continuation of the status quo, even if you leave aside any other questions.

Castanea I recall that a majority of Palestinians wanted a two-state solution coupled with the condition that Israel is recognized in every sense of the word. If I'm not mistaken the same amjority of Israelis were against this kind of resolution. The poll may not have been flawless so I mention this with some scepticism. I also wonder if Palestinians were extended any kind of graces or constructive attempts at peace from Israel back when they had to suffer the corrupt rule of Fatah. I think electing Hamas wasn't neccessarily the declaration of genocidal designs against Israel som make it out to be, and Fatah wasn't a viable alternative back then. Israel should have seen the clear difference between Fatah and Hamas and shown Palestinians that putting up with corrupt moderates is better than electing strongmen who will say that genocide is dandy. Anyway, this is all moot since Cast Lead successfully destroyed the peace process and made a two-state solution impossible for the foreseeable future, and now we have Netanyahoo and the Tough Guys ("Yeah let's put those Palestinian prisoners in a bus and drive them into the Mediterranean!") in power so there is no reason to be optimistic.

Jason, Managing Editor I have certainly not seen any poll like that, and it would be a remarkable finding given that Palestinians have elected a party openly dedicated to the genocidal elimination of Israel. Hamas reaffirmed that provision of its charter AFTER it was elected, so it is real whether anti-Israel critics find it convenient to notice or not. And the "peace process" was already dead long before Israel started to retaliate for the continuing rain of missiles on its southern villages. It is remarkable to see how anti-Israel critics will ignore those Hamas missiles over periods of months and even years, but let Israel take ANY action in response and all the sudden it is the end of everything and it is all Israel's fault. It is hardly surprising that ANY democracy would elect a hardline party under such circumstances. And it should hardly be surprising that some of us suspect anti-semitism when we see such blatant double standards. And Chris, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to "bargain" with an entity that continues to endorse genocide. How could any "bargain" with such an entity ever be trusted? I don't think I mischaracterized your views at all. All I did was take note of their silences. If you find the implications of that unpleasant, tough. And I do not endorse the status quo. I do try to understand what caused it, however. The Hamas missiles voted in Israel. Until you anti-Israel types understand that, you're going to continue to live in an intellectual la-la land on this issue. Any serious proposal in the Middle East has to take into account Israel's legitimate concerns about a Palestinian governing party openly dedicated to genocide, openly working to carry it out using whatever means might become available, and totally untrustworthy to fulfill any agreement with a Jewish people it sees as sub-human.

ChrisWWW Here's a poll on Wikipedia of Palestinians from 2007: http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2007/no61.pdf When forced to choose between a two-state solution and a bi-national state, over one quarter of the Palestinian respondents in the West Bank and Gaza Strip preferred neither, 46% of respondents preferred the two-state over the bi-national solution, and 26% preferred the binational over the two-state.

And the “peace process” was already dead long before Israel started to retaliate for the continuing rain of missiles on its southern villages. It is remarkable to see how anti-Israel critics will ignore those Hamas missiles over periods of months and even years, but let Israel take ANY action in response and all the sudden it is the end of everything

What's remarkable is to think that peace was made impossible by rocket attacks, which while illegal, hardly rise to level of an existential threat, nor have they killed as many Israelis in 10 years as Israel just killed in Gaza in 3 weeks. What is ultimately going to make peace impossible is the settlements in the West Bank, along with other land grabs, checkpoints, etc.

And Chris, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to “bargain” with an entity that continues to endorse genocide. How could any “bargain” with such an entity ever be trusted?

Like I said, the Israelis have already successfully bargained with Hamas over a ceasefire. Both sides ended up violating it (Israel continued the blockade, and while rocket fire was reduced sharply, it never totally ceased), but it provides a glimmer of hope.

I don’t think I mischaracterized your views at all. All I did was take note of their silences. If you find the implications of that unpleasant, tough.

You're utilizing a frequent attack on Israel's critics that they refuse to recognize the crimes of Hamas, and before them Fatah, the Palestinians in general, and other Arab states ad infinitum. It's the same sort of "they do it too" defense you criticize when it comes to domestic politics. But if it's a sticking point for further debate then consider this statement to apply now and into the future: "Hamas is bad too."

Jannaan I wonder why Europe should compensate for the damage caused by Israel... Should Israel not be held responsible for the mess they created?

Jason, Managing Editor The right to self-defense is not limited to situations of "existential threat". And anyway the rockets certainly ARE an existential threat for the civilians on the receiving end.

Like I said, the Israelis have already successfully bargained with Hamas over a ceasefire. Both sides ended up violating it

Not from Israel's perspective. The reason they continued the blockade was because Hamas never met up with the initial conditions of the cease fire AND Hamas continued to actively promote genocidal mindsets among its people. It is amazing to me that your reaction to a situation of mutual violation is to insist that one side (Israel) surrender while the other side (Hamas) faces no sanction, no responsibility, nothing. A pro forma "Hamas is bad too" is thoroughly inadequate in light of your detailed and energetic condemnations of Israel and your refusal to acknowledge or respond to any of the specific Israeli grievances against Hamas. You just give Hamas a pass, pure and simple. And it is hard for me not to see such soft treatment towards Hamas combined with harsh condemnations towards Israel as anything other than anti-semitism. It is not "they do it too". It is "Hamas is actively far worse than Israel". BTW, Hamas created the mess in Gaza far more than the Israelis did. It was due to Hamas' insistence on maintaining its genocidal charter that the blockade was put up in the first place. And most of the civilian casualties during the Israeli retaliation were the result of Hamas' policy of placing its weapons and fighters behind civilian human shields.

Jason, Managing Editor Chris, you have been warned before about lying about what other people did or did not say. Your comment has been deleted and if the behavior is repeated, you will be banned. I recognize that this is an emotional issue, but I will not tolerate blatant misrepresentation of what others did or did not say. P.S. You might want to note an important but fine distinction between anti-semitism and being an anti-semite. The former need not be willful, but the latter is. You might also want to note that I never used the word "animals" to describe anyone.

ChrisWWW My comment pushed the boundaries of good taste. I'm just a little sick and tired of the rhetorical mallet of of anti-Semitism, especially when I've said nothing about Jews at all. The Israelis could well be Irish for all I care. I have no hatred for the Jewish people, and I simply believe the Israelis are ill-served by their political leadership.

Jason, Managing Editor I understand that anti-semitism is often overused as a "rhetorical mallet" to suppress all criticism of Israel. But that recognition should not become a bar to pointing out the reality of double standards that are often used when it comes to the Jewish state of Israel. Israel is asked by its critics to tolerate the intolerable -- endless missile attacks on its southern cities undertaken by an enemy with an openly genocidal (and repeatedly reaffirmed) founding charter -- with no option for response other than attempts at appeasement that have in the past resulted in nothing more than escalated attacks. When an analyst condones or makes excuses for the genocidal side of a conflict while using much more strict standards to condemn anything and everything that the flawed democratic side might do, it seems to me legitimate to point out the manifest prejudice that underlies such presumptions, if only in the hope that it will cause the analyst to reject their biased framework in favor of a more complex and understanding approach. And let's not forget that some anti-Israel critics actually ARE anti-semitic. Protests in Europe over the recent Gaza war included a substantial number of anti-semitic attacks on Jews, both rhetorical and physical. Anti-semitism does in fact exist and it is in fact influential in shaping the international debate about Israel.

ChrisWWW I would respectfully suggest that rather than immediately assume anti-Semitism, you should simply point out that you believe a double standard is being applied. I think you can draw a lot of parallels between this sort of argument and the one over America's actions in the "War on Terror." Internal critics of America's policy abroad were quickly smeared as "blame America first'ers" and accused of hating their own country. After all, how could one find fault with America when it's involved in a struggle against brutal terrorists hell bent on it's destruction? But the argument in that case, and with regard to Israel, is not about excoriation, it's about stopping self-destructive behavior. There is also the dangerous tendency to equate disapproval of government with dislike for the people under that government. I no more dislike the people of Israel because of the actions of their government than I'm sure you do the Palestinians because of the actions of Hamas or Fatah. Most of the people in any country (democratic or not) have very little interest or control over the actions of their government.

Jason, Managing Editor

I would respectfully suggest that rather than immediately assume anti-Semitism, you should simply point out that you believe a double standard is being applied.

When I have done so (repeatedly) in the past, I have simply been ignored. Speculating on the reason that may be the cause of such persistent double standards on the anti-Israel left seems to be the only way to get an actual response. Also, as the anti-semitic attacks that have accompanied anti-Israel protests (without any observable protest from the fellow travelers who would immediately and vigorously condemn any anti-Muslim attacks of similar nature) from London to Miami to Montreal demonstrates, there actually IS some correlation here. Anti-semitism actually does constitute a significant and influential part of the overall anti-Israel coalition. We should not be prohibited from pointing that out any more than leftists feel prohibited from pointing out the persistent racism that infects some segments of the anti-Obama coalition, no? If you find association with anti-semites to be offensive, perhaps you should consider confronting them or condemning them directly instead of trying to shove them under the rug and trying to clap your hand over the mouth of anyone who points out their existence and their influence. Perhaps you should also go out of your way to escape the frames they set for you and consider things from the Israeli viewpoint that they want you to ignore completely. I do NOT argue that all critics of Israeli policy are anti-semitic. I DO argue that anti-semitic attitudes and presumptions are enormously influential in shaping how even many critics of Israel who are not themselves anti-semites view the situation.

ChrisWWW Jason, If you're unwilling to argue based on the merits of the arguments I'm presenting, and will instead require me to answer for everyone who holds a related viewpoint (whether they are anti-Semitic or not) then there is no more value in continuing this conversation. I'll see you on another thread.

Noga "Israel is asked by its critics to tolerate the intolerable — endless missile attacks on its southern cities undertaken by an enemy with an openly genocidal (and repeatedly reaffirmed) founding charter — with no option for response other than attempts at appeasement that have in the past resulted in nothing more than escalated attacks" (Jason) I get the impression that many critics of Israel would be much happier if only there were more, many more, dead Jews in Sderot. Their main beef is that so few Jews were actually killed while their enemy methodically perseveres in the attempt to wipe them out. Such an inapt kind of genocide, wouldn't you say. Hamas and Hizzbulla may sound like Hitler but unfortunately, Hitler they are not. They do not have the industrial infrastructure to sustain their programme. The argument, then, taken in its literal translation, should read like this: Israel, of course, should calibrate its response to the Hamas level of sophistication. In other words, Israel should wait until they get enough weaponry and skill to carry out a more successful campaign of liquidation, and ONLY THEN attempt to stop them. Give them a chance at least to carry out a little genocide, for God's sake; it's the fair and decent thing to do. And while Israel is waiting for them to acquire better weapons and get better at mass destruction, it is only a humanitarian basic that Israel should feed and care for the Hamas's people, ease the suffering of Palestinians so that Hamas does not have to worry about these inconsequential demands. Hamas must be allowed complete freedom from the petty concerns and selfish demands of their own population, and from the business of governing and providing for their people in order to be able to pursue their higher purpose of genocide and destruction, undisturbed and uninhibited.