Israel will allow fuel, medicine into Gaza - official

[Mycroft]

Up until the collapse of the enforcement by Egypt what passed or did not pass was Israels choice. Israel may reimpose closure...I don't think they will but they always have that option. Thats an upside of the collapse of the Border restrictions I suppose. It lessens Israels control of Gaza. Lets see how Israel reacts to the freedom at the border.

Do you have a source for that? My understanding was that the Philadelphia road was no more and that Egypt and the Palestinian Authority was in charge.

No such law exists that makes trading compulsory, I know that you know this because any such law is absurd...

Exactly. Such a law would be absurd. Equally absurd would be laws that the stronger party in a conflict were required to open its borders so that the citizens of the population at war with them could find easy employment, or that the stronger party were forbidden from enacting some kind of embargo against an enemy at war with them, or that the stronger party were forbidden to shoot the militants at war with them if there were any chance of hitting a civilian.

Yet when it's about Israel, all those absurd rules and more are assumed to be in place.

...can we discuss less absurd imaginary laws? Laws do exist that talk about what you can and cannot do to the Civilians caught up in the conflict. It might save time to only discuss laws that exist.

Great idea! Let's talk about the laws that forbid a nation from blockading an enemy at war with them.

Which law is that?

 

[Mycroft]

so you are saying that the entire landmass of a future Palestinian state is being retained to buffer against a future Palestinian state?

So where did he say that?

 

[The Fool]

No, Hamas couldn't possibly have used that opprtunity to smuggle weapons. Hamas would never smuggle weapons! They make their own right there, using parts they manufacture themselves, right?

can I get this quite straight.....do you accept webs claim that those cranes were shifting crates of rockets as fact like he presented it?

 

[a_unique_person]

I have no idea why you think this is a response to my post... and I suppose if Israel had just laid down and allowed itself to be invaded they wouldn't "get in these situations", as you call it.

The Palestinians don't have a snowballs chance in hell of harming Israel materially. Nukes versus guerillas? As you note next, no other Arab states care about their plight, either. Their days of caring and fighting wars over the issue seem to be long gone.

The countries that owned Gaza and the West Bank don't want them back, and Israel sure as hell doesn't want them. In fact, it seems no one wants those loveable Palestinians. Maybe they could all go to Australia?

The problem with them is they want their own state. Seems another colony years ago fought a war for that too. Incredibly, they celebrate the fact .

And btw, can you or the Fool name a single Palestinain political entity that is willing to recognize Israel and has the power enforce a peace deal? Of course you can't, because no such entity exists. Therefore they will continue to live in squalor in the death cult society they have built for themselves. And they have no one but themselves to blame, no matter how much their useful idiots around the globe try to blame Israel for their plight.

You can name it yourself. They, do, however want a just outcome. So far, Israel has shown little inclination to do so.

 

[yairhol]

Unfortunately Yairhol you seem to have abandoned the topic and any form of discussion in favor of silly straw men and ad-homs. Maybe you are not used to being challanged?

It amazes me how you keep supporting everything that is pro Palestinian. Why not point E.J.Armstrong to the beginning of this thread so he can get all of his questioned answered so we wouldn't have to go into all of this again? It just calls to be cynical when such old points as Armstrong's are brought up again.


Now the next parts just made me angry at you TheFool for distorting things that I have said including lies you have said about me:

You still need to change your ming on Gaza as Yairhol says that the gaza is a buffer against a palestinian state.

Lie. I never said that.

Israel doesn't want them?....so they will be leaving them to thier own devices starting tomorrow now that you have proclaimed this? Yairhol says that Israel wants them (as a buffer)

Wrong! You asked many posts ago:

I asked you why you stayed in the occupied territories after 67, this is your response.

and my response was as a buffer zone. But that was to your question regarding '67. Many things have changed since then including a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt which have made those buffer zones less needed now.

The countries that owned Gaza and the West Bank don't want them back, and Israel sure as hell doesn't want them. In fact, it seems no one wants those loveable Palestinians.

Couldn't agree more. Nobody wants those territories or the Palestinians today. Not even their so called brothers in Jordan and Egypt.

It is certainly useful as a buffer, since the Arab states all around them save for Egypt refuse to this day to recognize Israel. Gaza is useful as neither, but the people living there prefer to choose terrorists as their leaders and think it's a sport to launch explosives at civilian targets. So every now and then Israel has to give them the attention they so crave.

Again, couldn't agree more. Why is it difficult for you to understand TheFool? Why can't you see the rationalization behind what WildCat and I are saying?
Many things have changed since '67. Today Israel WANTS to give the Palestinians a state of their own but would you allow a terrorist country to form next to your country? I can't imagine who would. The situation today is that Israel is waiting for a rational leader to stand up among the Palestinians, a leader who aside from his title as president/head of government also has control over his people.

So why would you say something like:

good boy, I mentioned yairhol disagreed with you so you changed your mind immediately and suddeny discovered a use for the place....

? Can't you see that WildCat and I agree completely?
unless you completely don't understand the situation here these days and all that's changed since '67. It's really very simple if you would just open your mind and try to understand us.

 

[a_unique_person]

It amazes me how you keep supporting everything that is pro Palestinian. Why not point E.J.Armstrong to the beginning of this thread so he can get all of his questioned answered so we wouldn't have to go into all of this again? It just calls to be cynical when such old points as Armstrong's are brought up again.

It all revolves around the one point, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is wrong. Israel should allow the Palestinians to set up their own state. If you want someone to agree that it's right that the occupation is still happening, that's not going to happen. Just as Apartheid South Africa was wrong, Israel is wrong. I see little difference between the two cases.

 

[yairhol]

It all revolves around the one point, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is wrong. Israel should allow the Palestinians to set up their own state.

Do you notice that we almost agree with eachother?
Listen carefully. I have said this before but since we're so close to an agreement I'll repeat it:
Israel WANTS to give the Palestinians a state of their own. Please understand this and accept it as fact.
So now the question becomes why doesn't a Palestinian state form today? This is actually very simple. The movement that actually controls the Palestinians is Hamas. It is a world recognized terrorist group. Please understand this also and accept it as fact.
No country in the world would allow a terroristic state to form next to its own borders. This is very reasonable and I hope you can agree with me on this point also.
The situation now is that Abbas is the president of the Palestinians and he seems like a rational person who would like peace for his people. Israel is nagotiating with him on almost daily basis but the problem is that he is not in control of his own people and again we return to the Hamas who are de facto in control.

You see how close you and I are to agreeing with eachother completely? Only that you want Israel to accept a terroristic state next to its borders and Israel does not accept it.

 

[The Fool]

and my response was as a buffer zone. But that was to your question regarding '67. Many things have changed since then including a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt which have made those buffer zones less needed now.

Yes, your answer related to 67 and soon after...That is why I asked you another question..."Who is the west bank currently buffering you against? Who is Gaza [/i]currently[/i] buffering you against?"

To which you answered. "Historically the buffering were from Jordan and Egypt. If you're talking about today, you probably are very aware that Israel is for a Palestinian state but one that would be run by reasonable people and not terrorists. Do you agree that that is a fair condition or should Israel let Hamastan be its new neighboring country?"

So you are keeping the land to prevent a palestinian state setting up next door....you are keeping it as a buffer. Do you remember that bit? So are you still saying I am lying??

Today Israel WANTS to give the Palestinians a state of their own but would you allow a terrorist country to form next to your country? I can't imagine who would. The situation today is that Israel is waiting for a rational leader to stand up among the Palestinians, a leader who aside from his title as president/head of government also has control over his people.

you want to give the palestinians a state? well web doesn't but maybe he is not representative. Likud doesn't but maybe they are not representative despite getting elected with a charter that specifically precludes any palestinian state... You want to know the funny thing Yairhol.....look at gaza, tell me how the situation would be worse if a palestinian state was proclaimed. Think of this too.....the civilian population would not be your responsibility anymore...There are downsides of course....no more expansion but thats not a big issue because you don't want to do that any more do you.

 

[The Fool]

Do you have a source for that? My understanding was that the Philadelphia road was no more and that Egypt and the Palestinian Authority was in charge.

The crossing monitored and opened and closed on Israels say so, all.....here, read all about it.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Rafah_Crossing.asp

As I've said before it will be interesting to see how long this collapse of Israeli control goes on.

 

[yairhol]

So you are keeping the land to prevent a palestinian state setting up next door....you are keeping it as a buffer.

No. We are not keeping the land to prevent a Palestinian state and it is not a buffer today. It is a territory which Israel took over when several Arab countries tried to destroy it (destory Israel, not the territories). It is a territory that will be given to the Palestinians for their own country as soon as they elect leaders who are not terrorists and who can control the people. Plain and simple, no buffer no shmuffer.

you want to give the palestinians a state? well web doesn't but maybe he is not representative. Likud doesn't but maybe they are not representative despite getting elected with a charter that specifically precludes any palestinian state...

The government of Israel seems to be for a Palestinian state:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3434455,00.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080109-4.html

regarding the likud, I found in their whatchamacallit that they will recognize all the international agreements that have been signed between Israel and the Palestinians and that they are in favor of ending the Israeli-Palestinian fighting on the basis of equallity, good neighboring and cooperation as long as Israel's security is provided. It continues that The Likud party will not support a one-sided Palestinian declaration for a state.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/likud_m.htm (Hebrew link)

 

[Mycroft]

The crossing monitored and opened and closed on Israels say so, all.....here, read all about it.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Rafah_Crossing.asp

B'tselem has a bad habit of leaving out a lot of important information. In this case they fail to mention that the Rafah crossing has been closed for the last 8 or 9 months because Hamas took over Gaza at gunpoint and the EU won't man the station unless Fatah forces are in charge. Hamas, of course, refuses to let the suffering of their people weaken their resolve.

Or more accurately, Hamas understands that the suffering of Palestinians can be an important tool to get the power they want. If they work hard enough to manufacture a large enough humanitarian crisis, eventually the EU, Egypt and Israel will relent and let them have their way.

What do you suppose would happen if they took a different strategy? What do you think would happen if they returned a kidnapped soldier or two and told the guys who are making and firing the rockets to knock it off? Do you think it's possible that if Hamas were to take positive action that they could influence Israeli policy?

Yes? No? Maybe? Is it possible to pull an opinion out of you of what Palestinian-Arabs could do to make things better? Or do you think only Israelis are capable of self-motivated action?

BTW, any thought to answering the questions I put to you? Have you figured out which laws prevent a nation from enforcing an embargo against an enemy that wages war against them? Previously you seemed to think there were some relevant laws on the matter, but now you're strangely silent. You remember, when you said. "Laws do exist that talk about what you can and cannot do to the Civilians caught up in the conflict."

 

[The Fool]

No. We are not keeping the land to prevent a Palestinian state and it is not a buffer today.

Ok then why are you keeping it? Not to prevent a palestinian state not as a buffer....then why?

 

[Mycroft]

It all revolves around the one point, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is wrong. Israel should allow the Palestinians to set up their own state.

In another post recently you bashed Israel for its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, yet hear you seem to be calling for a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. Can you explain this apparent contradiction? It seems to me you damn them no matter what they do, but I'd be interested in hearing an explanation from you if you believe that impression is wrong.

 

[The Fool]

BTW, any thought to answering the questions I put to you? Have you figured out which laws prevent a nation from enforcing an embargo against an enemy that wages war against them?

which enemy would that be?...the entire palestinian population?...they are Israels enemy? You do understand thats the rationalisation Hamas uses for attacking Israeli civilians don't you? They are all our enemy....You seem to have a common attitude
Look mycroft, there is no point discussing this with you. You have no regard for international law on this issue.

 

[Mycroft]

Ok then why are you keeping it? Not to prevent a palestinian state not as a buffer....then why?

Are you ignorant of the various agreements that were supposed to lead towards Palestinian independence?

Do you believe Palestinians should have any obligations at all in making them work? Or do you think it's enough that they make agreements and simply not keep them?

 

[Mycroft]

which enemy would that be?...the entire palestinian population?...they are Israels enemy? You do understand thats the rationalisation Hamas uses for attacking Israeli civilians don't you? They are all our enemy....You seem to have a common attitude

Don't be obtuse. The Palestinians have leaders, voted in all democratic like in an election certified by Jimmy Carter, and those leaders make war. It's not necessary that each and every one of the 1.5 million Gaza residents be against Israel. They are led by those who are, that's all it takes.

So, which law is it that prevents Israel from enforcing an embargo against an enemy that wages war against them?

Look mycroft, there is no point discussing this with you. You have no regard for international law on this issue.

Don't personalize the issue by making unfounded statements on what I do or do not have regard for. If you can make an argument based on an international law, then do it. Name the law and tell us how Israel is breaking it.


Edited to add:

I asked before;

What do you suppose would happen if they took a different strategy? What do you think would happen if they returned a kidnapped soldier or two and told the guys who are making and firing the rockets to knock it off? Do you think it's possible that if Hamas were to take positive action that they could influence Israeli policy?

Care to comment? Do Palestinians hold any responsibility at all in their fate?

 

[The Fool]

B'tselem has a bad habit of leaving out a lot of important information. In this case they fail to mention that the Rafah crossing has been closed for the last 8 or 9 months because Hamas took over Gaza at gunpoint and the EU won't man the station unless Fatah forces are in charge. Hamas, of course, refuses to let the suffering of their people weaken their resolve.

so the reason it is closed is that the EU isn't there?...so who insists the eu has to be there for it to open? The EU? Hamas? Egypt? The USA?.....Israel?(hint hint)

What do you suppose would happen if they took a different strategy? What do you think would happen if they returned a kidnapped soldier or two and told the guys who are making and firing the rockets to knock it off? Do you think it's possible that if Hamas were to take positive action that they could influence Israeli policy?

Absolutely, things would get better for all concerned. Should Hamas stop attacking Israelis....absolutely. Should we take action against the palestinian civilian population to try to achieve it? Absolutely not.....Its one of the things that should differentiate us from Terrorists.

 

[The Fool]

Don't personalize the issue by making unfounded statements on what I do or do not have regard for. If you can make an argument based on an international law, then do it. Name the law and tell us how Israel is breaking it.

That you have no regard for international law in this case? That you reject its applicability? Unfounded? Ok lets found it.

The fourth Geneva convention....

http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/geneva4.htm

time for you to have no regard for it in this dispute....time for you to reject its applicability. Or its time for you to show that it is unfounded to say that this is your attitude.
Over to you.

 

[Mycroft]

so the reason it is closed is that the EU isn't there?...so who insists the eu has to be there for it to open? The EU? Hamas? Egypt? The USA?.....Israel?(hint hint)

Apparently it's the EU.

Absolutely, things would get better for all concerned. Should Hamas stop attacking Israelis....absolutely. Should we take action against the palestinian civilian population to try to achieve it? Absolutely not.....Its one of the things that should differentiate us from Terrorists.

It's disingenuous of you to try to separate Hamas from Palestinians like that. Hamas couldn't exist as it does without a large degree of popular support among the populace. Hamas is the elected leaders of the Palestinian people, and the sole leaders of the Gaza Strip after they took over at gunpoint. Hamas is responsible for the well being of the Palestinian people and they choose to lead them to war and hardship.

 

[Mycroft]

That you have no regard for international law in this case? That you reject its applicability? Unfounded? Ok lets found it.

The fourth Geneva convention....

http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/geneva4.htm

time for you to have no regard for it in this dispute....time for you to reject its applicability. Or its time for you to show that it is unfounded to say that this is your attitude.
Over to you.

Okay, now tell us what part of the FGC forbids enacting a blockade against an enemy?