Israeli blockade 'forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food'

[gtc]

Jersey is listed as part of the UK in the list of sovereign states on wiki.

No. It says that they are dependencies of the British Crown; this is different. Elizabeth is the soveriegn for the UK; the Channel Islands; Canada; Australia etc.

http://www.gov.je/ChiefMinister/International+Relations/Profile+of+Jersey.htm

After the separation of the Islands from Normandy and its administration, the local institutions were gradually moulded from time to time very largely on local initiative to meet the changing circumstances until their present constitutions evolved. The evolution did not at any time involve amalgamation with, or subjection to, the government of the United Kingdom and even today the Islands’ link with the United Kingdom and the remainder of the Commonwealth is through the Sovereign as latter-day successor of the Duke of Normandy. The Channel Islands have never been conquered by, or ceded territories to, the UK, nor have they ever been colonies or dominions.
For clarity it is worth pointing out that the term “Great Britain” refers solely to the mainland of England, Scotland and Wales, whereas “United Kingdom” refers to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Neither term includes Guernsey, Jersey or the Isle of Man which are, in fact, part of the British Isles.

The other ones are sovereign states that have delegated part/most of their foreign relations to bigger neighbouring countries.

So having control over your own foreign relations isn't a necessary condition to be a state. As I said, the definition isn't that simple.

Point taken. The wiki article on standing armies misses out on an important aspect: most states couldn't afford financially to have a permanent (large) standing army; mercenaries are costly. Draft was only instituted (in Europe) during/after Napoleon. Opposition against a standing army may have been strong in England and the US, but the French/Spanish/Austrian/Prussian absolutist rulers had absolutely no problem with the idea.

Thanks.

Is Taiwan a state? See below.

For all intents and purposes, I would say yes. The cut off point that I would use isn't exact but I would say that Taiwan is but Palestine isn't, yet.

Switzerland wasn't a member of the UN, but the UN and virtually all other states in the world recognized it as a state.

I think this bit of the wikipedia article is crucial.

This list derives its definition of a sovereign state from Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention of 1933. According to the Convention, a sovereign state should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. In respect of the last qualification, the role of recognition by other states can often be crucial since it implies acceptance into the international community.[1] The list includes all states that satisfy these criteria and claim independence; however, the aforementioned qualifications are not absolute and permit variations.

International recognition is one way to tell if a country is a state but a country that doesn't have universal recognition can still be a state.

I would consider a country that lacked international recognition but had self-recognition and at least some of the other trappings of a state could also be considered a state.

But whichever entity is not on that list is not a state: no-one, i.e. not a single other state, nor the UN, has recognized it as such.

What makes Northern Cyprus a 'state' however loosly it is defined but not Jersey?

So to get back to the point where the state dispute originated: some posters claimed statehood for "Hamastan", "Gaza" or how you'd like to call it. That point has been invalidated with this.

I wouldn't suggest they are actual countries but they could one day be countries.

 

[ddt]

No. It says that they are dependencies of the British Crown; this is different. Elizabeth is the soveriegn for the UK; the Channel Islands; Canada; Australia etc.

Yes, sorry. When I read the history lesson well, is technically Liz II ruler over the Channel Islands in her capacity as Duke of Normandy? That could give a hint to why it's not considered a sovereign state, as traditionally dukes were no sovereigns - only emperors, kings and princes (as in Prince of Orange) were. The Duke of Normandy was still a vassal of the King of France, so at least until 1793 nominally, the Channel Islands were part of France if I read this correctly. This is all just speculation; it's an interesting case to find out.

So having control over your own foreign relations isn't a necessary condition to be a state. As I said, the definition isn't that simple.

But, say, Monaco could any time rescind the agreement with France about Monaco's foreign relations and set up their own embassies etc.

For all intents and purposes, I would say yes. The cut off point that I would use isn't exact but I would say that Taiwan is but Palestine isn't, yet.

They're the discussion cases, depending on your point of view. One thing that separates Palestine from the others on that list is that there is no clearly defined territory in Palestine's case. That puts them lower on the ladder to statehood than the others. Another thing that separates Palestine from the others, is that the others are breakaways from a state that did accept the population of the breakaway region as citizens, whereas Israel clearly has no intention of wanting the Palestinians of the Territories as Israeli citizens - and that is an argument the other way round. Lastly there's the longevity of the situation - most are recent upstarts, with Taiwan and Northern Cyprus as exceptions.

I'm inclined for now to say none of them are states, but agree with you that Taiwan has a better claim than Palestine.

I think this bit of the wikipedia article is crucial.

International recognition is one way to tell if a country is a state but a country that doesn't have universal recognition can still be a state.

I would consider a country that lacked international recognition but had self-recognition and at least some of the other trappings of a state could also be considered a state.

Then we're in to the two definitions of statehood I quoted before. States that lack international recognition can't become signatories to international treaties - someone mentioned before that Palestine wanted to sign the Geneva Conventions, but couldn't because they weren't recognized by the UN.

What makes Northern Cyprus a 'state' however loosly it is defined but not Jersey?

It has been recognized by its sponsor, Turkey. Jersey hasn't been recognized as a state by even the UK. Nor have the Netherlands Antilles been recognized as a state by the Netherlands - but that case is more clear-cut: the Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of three countries (Netherlands, Aruba, Netherlands Antilles) with their own legislations and parliaments, much like the devolution in the UK.

I wouldn't suggest they are actual countries but they could one day be countries.

Oh, let's be careful not to interchange the words country and state!

But the status of the Channel Islands now intrigues me. Are there more such cases?

 

[Skeptic]

I doubt they will be able to bring themselves to either concede that you are right or to explain why the situations are different.

The real reason the usual gang here consider the situation to be different is either that instead of England we have the Jewish state (which, being Jewish, has no right for self-defense), or else that instead of Germany we have Palestinians (which, being the designated victim group du jour, get a free pass on anything, including openly attempting genocide), or a combination of both.

 

[gdnp]

2). If a naval blockade of a terrorist entity hell-bent on your destruction by force is somehow illegitimate or a war crime, then obviously no naval blockade is ever legitimate -- and all navy personnel in the western hemisphere, from the civil war to today, are war criminals.

(Perhaps, it seems by the logic of some on this forum, a naval blockade per se is OK, as long as it does not, God forbid, cause those blockaded any serious hardship. We wouldn't want to hurt enemy nations when fighting a war, you know.)

This is absurd, and goes to show that, once more, it isn't the existence of a blockade in itself that raises hackles among the useful idiots, but the fact that it is Israel that does so against the world's "designated victims" -- the Palestinians. It is this holy victim status that must not be violated under any circumstances, no matter how openly and clearly their leadership expresses the goal of wiping the Jews off the map.

I suggest you review the fallacy of false dilemma. A blockade need not be absolute. Take for example the US "blockade" of Cuba, as noted in wikipedia:

In customary international practice, a blockade stops all shipments into the blockaded area, and is considered an act of war. Quarantines are more selective, as, in this case, being limited to offensive weapons. While the original U.S. Navy paper did use the term "blockade,"

This initially was to involve a naval blockade against offensive weapons within the framework of the Organization of American States and the Rio Treaty. Such a blockade might be expanded to cover all types of goods and air transport. The action was to be backed up by surveillance of Cuba. CNO's scenario was followed closely in later implementing the quarantine.

Admiral Anderson's paper, by differentiating between the quarantine of offensive weapons versus all materials, indicated that a classic blockade was not the original intention. Since it would take place in international waters, President John F. Kennedy obtained the approval of the OAS for military action under the hemispheric defense provisions of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (i.e., the Rio Treaty).

I do not think I have heard anyone here claim that Israel does not have a legitimate right to prevent offensive weapons into Gaza. The question here is whether the restrictions on food, fuel, and electricity are legitimate.

 

[FireGarden]

Reading this thread thus far, I see again why I had decided months ago how pointless it is to engage in these I/P threads, as you're not really going to sway anyone. But it's some sort of addiction, so I can't refrain from putting in my 2 cents too.

Let's first review how the current situation came to be - yes, I haven't followed the news too closely of lately. In June, Hamas and Israel agreed to a 6-month ceasefire. In the begin, there were some infractions and/or alleged infractions of that on both sides, but both sides emphatically stated the ceasefire was still in place - and violence was markedly lower than before. Webfusion had created a thread about that - what happened with that thread? (and what happened with webfusion?)

The article in the OP states that the Israeli blockade was instated about a month ago, and that the ceasefire has been ended only about a week ago. Funny way to blockade someone you have a ceasefire with.

So, what happened in between? Did Hamas fire rockets at Israeli villages/towns? Did Islamic Jihad or other Palestinian factions do so? Did the IDF make incursions into Gaza? (Yes, I'm too lazy to hunt those facts down now - wiki's timeline ends in June).

As to what various people stated in this thread:

Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, no matter if Hamas has de facto control on the ground. Various international organizations and human rights NGOs have that opinion. And there's a very simple reason: Israel is a state, and Hamas or Palestine is not. Someone here argued that Palestine was no signatory to the Geneva Convention, and the reason is simply because Palestine is no state. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Israel wants to absolve itself from the responsibility that the people in Gaza need to get food, they should encourage that the Palestinians declare statehood and only then instate a blockade.

As to the Hamas program: yes I know its charter, I know it's vile. I note, though, that in the parliamentary elections, they ran with an election program which didn't include these things and had a markedly different tone w.r.t. the existence of Israel. Note also the quotes Firegarden posted in this respect from leading Hamas members. How do you account for those remarks? I have no-one seen commenting on them.

I also remark that Hamas declared to cease with suicide bombings when they won the elections and, AFAIK, have abided by that. The suicide bombings carried out since then have predominantly been the work of Fatah or factions within Fatah.

And no, I'm not a fan of Hamas - I abhor any religious extremism. But it is a force in the playing field right now, so you can't just say "we don't talk with you". In fact, not talking with Hamas and at the same time talking with Abbas or Fatah on the pretext of Hamas' violence is hypocritical in light of the previous paragraph. In the end, Northern Ireland also achieved peace by talking with the IRA (well, with its political arm the Sinn Fein - what's the difference?)

Thank you for posting.
My blood is boiling too hot for me to say anything at the moment.

An older story, from the 14th of Dec:
Palestinians eating grass
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5338014.ece

Abu Amra and her unemployed husband have seven daughters and a son. Their tiny breeze-block house has had no furniture since they burnt the last cupboard for heat.

[...] Israel controls the borders and allows in humanitarian supplies only sporadically. Families had electricity for six hours a day last week. Cooking gas was available only through the illegal tunnels that run into Egypt, and by last week had jumped in price from 80 shekels per canister (£14) to 380 shekels (£66).

40% of Gazans want to leave:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1046126.html

But I guess they have nowhere to go. And no way to get there.

 

[BirdStrike]

The question here is whether the restrictions on food, fuel, and electricity are legitimate.

I shall show you why. I'll spoon feed it to you since you have neglected to find out why.

Associated Press - Policemen from Hamas halted 14 trucks filled with food and medicine at a checkpoint after it crossed an Israeli checkpoint into Gaza on Thursday, said employees of the Palestinian Red Crescent, who declined to be named, fearing reprisals from ruling group Hamas.

JULY 2008 - At least 10 trucks with humanitarian aid sent to the Gaza Strip by the Jordanian Red Crescent Society were confiscated by Hamas police shortly after the trucks entered the territory on Thursday evening, according to aid officials in Jerusalem. Eight trucks had food products and another two had medicines. They were reportedly taken to Hamas-run ministries.

FEB 2008 - Jordan said on Saturday the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas has confiscated a convoy of humanitarian aid sent to people living under an Israeli blockade in the Gaza Strip. Minister of State for Information Affairs Nasser Joudeh told the state news agency Petra that Hamas members on Thursday seized 16 trucks carrying emergency supplies into Gaza and diverted the cargo to a warehouse run by the Islamist group.

APR 2008 - The head of the Palestinian Authority's gas agency confirmed Tuesday that Hamas gunmen had raided the Palestinian side of the Nahal Oz fuel terminal, stealing at least 60,000 liters of fuel meant for the Gaza power station in order to fill their own vehicles.

DEC 2007 - The Palestinian Authority Health Ministry on Thursday accused Hamas of robbing fuel stockpiles in two hospitals in the Gaza Strip. A statement published by the ministry claimed that Hamas had been stealing fuel from the European Hospital in the Strip for use in the group's operations.

Hamas steals the aid meant for the non-combatants in Gaza to run it's organization. That organization fires rockets at Israel, remember?

Israel doesn't want to HELP Hamas to continue to operate. Why the ^%#% that has to be spoon fed to posters here exposes the gross level of ignorance in this matter.

 

[FireGarden]

I do not think I have heard anyone here claim that Israel does not have a legitimate right to prevent offensive weapons into Gaza. The question here is whether the restrictions on food, fuel, and electricity are legitimate.

Especially when Israel is still responsible for the people of Gaza. As acknowldged when Hamas broke through the border with Egypt:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/947858.html

A top Egyptian official said Thursday that Egypt's border with Gaza would go back to normal, and strongly rejected the idea - floated by Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai - that Israel might relinquish all responsibility for the troubled Gaza Strip.

Israel has not relinquished responsibility for Palastinians in Gaza. No matter who pretends they have. They tried to in Jan 2008. The idea didn't fly.

 

[gdnp]

Hamas steals the aid meant for the non-combatants in Gaza to run it's organization. That organization fires rockets at Israel, remember?

I see. Some of the food and fuel is stolen by Hamas, and the solution is to punish the victims who had their food and fuel stolen by cutting off all shipments. Tell me, how is the stolen food threatening Israel? Is Hamas using it to power their rockets or as projectiles?

By using your logic, if someone reports an unauthorized withdrawal from their bank account we should protect them by taking the rest of their money.

Israel doesn't want to HELP Hamas to continue to operate. Why the ^%#% that has to be spoon fed to posters here exposes their gross ignorance in this matter.

Are you here because you like the adrenaline rush from screaming iprofanity via your computer keyboard or because you actually wish to contribute an intellectual discussion? You implied the former earlier. If I am mistaken and it is the latter, you may wish to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, which only leads to a further polarization of the discussion.

 

[BirdStrike]

I see. Some of the food and fuel is stolen by Hamas, and the solution is to punish the victims who had their food and fuel stolen by cutting off all shipments.

If a terrorist organization is stealing aid is it your contention that aid should continue to flow unchecked? Yes or no.

Tell me, how is the stolen food threatening Israel? Is Hamas using it to power their rockets or as projectiles?

You have left the realm of reality. Really you have. You are bending over backwards and twisting into a pretzel to cling to a ill-informed position.

By using your logic, if someone reports an unauthorized withdrawal from their bank account we should protect them by taking the rest of their money.

OMFG. What a load.

If someone reports an unauthorized withdrawal from their bank account IT IS CLOSED BY THE BANK to STOP THE THEIVES from withdrawing more money. The bank does not take the rest of the money away from the person holding the compromised bank account.

If someone reports an unauthorized use from their credit card IT IS CANCELED BY THE BANK to STOP THE THEIVES from USING THE CREDIT CARD. The bank does not take the credit card away from the person holding the compromised credit card.

edited to add: There is no mechanism to stop Hamas from stealing aid for it's operations, that is why Israel restricts aid to Gaza. Period. End of story.

Are you here because you like the adrenaline rush from screaming iprofanity via your computer keyboard or because you actually wish to contribute an intellectual discussion?

I have used ZERO profanity-laden personal attacks in this thread. The fact that you created a strawman whereby I am using profanity exposes the utter weakness of your position.

You implied the former earlier. If I am mistaken and it is the latter, you may wish to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, which only leads to a further polarization of the discussion.

What polarizes this discussion is people - see: you - behaving as experts on this subject. Then, when they - see: you -are confronted with documentation and facts that are linked and cited, they - see: you - continue to flame the person who was kind enough to provide documented evidence.

That is why there is polarization of this discussion. You are no different than a 9-11 truther.

 

[ddt]

Hamas steals the aid meant for the non-combatants in Gaza to run it's organization.

The aid meant for the population in Gaza is a matter between the (UN) organizations giving that aid and the population, and Israel has nothing to do with it.

That organization fires rockets at Israel, remember?

So, care to elaborate how that went the last 6 months? You know, when there was a ceasefire? I asked before, and no-one cared to answer.

Daniel Levy, Israeli advisor at the Geneva talks, writes in Haaretz:

To recap: For most of the six months of the cease-fire, relative quiet prevailed, and life returned to near-normal for the residents of Sderot and environs (though not for Gazans, who remained under siege). Then on November 4, an Israeli operation sparked a new round of dangerous, if controlled, violence - characterized by occasional Israeli strikes and incursions, matched by Palestinian rockets and shooting across the border.

So, it did have the effect that rocket firing at Sderot et al. (nearly) stopped.

Maybe the argument that Levy makes that Israel in the end spites its own nose with its Gaza policy has more impression on you:

Gaza is not yet Somalia. But the warning signs are there. There was nothing inevitable about the disintegration of Somalia. It happened as a result of misguided policies - notably of the current Bush administration and Ethiopia - which should not be repeated by Israel in Gaza.

Israel must do more than extend a cease-fire - Israel must allow Gaza to breathe, to reconnect to the world, to live on more than international handouts, and to reclaim its dignity. Could Hamas benefit in the short term? Perhaps. But worse things can happen - and not just to the Palestinians. For Israel, too, much is at stake. It's no fun to live in a Somalia, and no picnic either being its next-door neighbor.

 

[DC]

when people get very hungry, when people have no home and no future.
things will get very ugly and bloody.

remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Morality is in the top, starving people are at the bottom of that hierarchy.

 

[BirdStrike]

when people get very hungry, when people have no home and no future. things will get very ugly and bloody.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/29/israel

The Islamist party Hamas has won control of seven out of 10 councils in the Gaza Strip, dealing a crushing blow to the Fatah party of the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas. Voters rejected Fatah's corrupt image and endorsed Hamas for its opposition to Israel and for providing welfare, schools and nurseries to the impoverished residents of the territory.

The people spoke. Democracy in action. Now the Gazans and Hamas have to take responsibility for their choices. I don't think I am being unreasonable.

The aid meant for the population in Gaza is a matter between the (UN) organizations giving that aid and the population, and Israel has nothing to do with it.

It does involve Israel when the UN is powerless to stop aid thefts by forces hostile to Israel. The only alternative to hindering these supply lines is _____________________?

So, care to elaborate how that went the last 6 months? You know, when there was a ceasefire? I asked before, and no-one cared to answer.So, it did have the effect that rocket firing at Sderot et al. (nearly) stopped.

Maybe the argument that Levy makes that Israel in the end spites its own nose with its Gaza policy has more impression on you.

I wish Hamas had never taken Gaza in a bloody coup. But now that that is a reality, and the UN is powerless to protect it's aid shipments in Gaza, what is the alternative to disrupting the supply lines to forces hostile to the citizens of Sderot?

 

[FireGarden]

Daniel Levy, Israeli advisor at the Geneva talks, writes in Haaretz:

I think you meant this link:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048067.html

 

[Pardalis]

Hamas steals the aid meant for the non-combatants in Gaza to run it's organization.

I wonder if the average Palestinian is aware of this?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Three points.

1). The idea that Hamas' REASON for bombing of cities is "reacting to the blockade" is nonsense. At most that's the current EXCUSE -- much like, every time the Nazis committed some atrocity, their propaganda claimed they were just "reacting" and "retaliating" to the "war crimes" or "terrorism" of the British or Russians or Czech resistance or whomever.

In reality, of course, Hamas bombed Israeli cities before the blockade ....

Once more your rhetoric has swamped your argument, and once more I'll ask you my question.

If the same terrorist atrocities against Israelis will be committed whether or not there's a blockade, then what's the point of the blockade? According to your own testimony, the blockade doesn't affect terrorism. However, it does mean that innocent Palestinians have to scrabble for food in garbage dumps.

For year after year after year, ever since I joined these forums, I've seen you and your pals come up with the same argument over and over, which I might paraphrase as follows:

In practical terms, it doesn't matter whether we do good or evil, since the terrorists will commit terrorist acts whatever we do. Therefore, we might as well do what is evil.​

But if this is really the case, then we might as well do what is good. If the terrorists are just destined to be terrorists, if there is no "root cause" except that they're a bunch of Jew-hating scum and there is nothing we can do about it, then we might as well keep our hands clean rather than steeping our hands in innocent blood.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There have to be elections. They have to choose between .....

Of course.

When are the next elections scheduled?

Are more elections scheduled?

Why is there no vote of "no confidence" if Hamas is doing such a crap job?

About Hamas stealing aid, embargo, etc: if Hamas doesn't give a crap about its own people, how much less of a crap will they give about anyone else, to include the people across the border who they apparently don't mind shelling, rocketing, or seeing shelled and rocketed?

That's a disturbing thought. Maybe Hamas are doing a crap job.

DR

 

[Dr Adequate]

I shall show you why. I'll spoon feed it to you since you have neglected to find out why.

Hamas steals the aid meant for the non-combatants in Gaza to run it's organization. That organization fires rockets at Israel, remember?

Israel doesn't want to HELP Hamas to continue to operate. Why the ^%#% that has to be spoon fed to posters here exposes the gross level of ignorance in this matter.

But still, if Israel maintains the blockade, and Hamas is the only organization capable of breaching it, then this brings power, money, and kudos to Hamas.

 

[Pardalis]

If a terrorist organization is stealing aid is it your contention that aid should continue to flow unchecked? Yes or no.

The aid meant for the population in Gaza is a matter between the (UN) organizations giving that aid and the population, and Israel has nothing to do with it.

You didnt answer the question.

Hamas is acting like a bunch of thugs, not like a government who cares for its people.

 

[BirdStrike]

But still, if Israel maintains the blockade, and Hamas is the only organization capable of breaching it, then this brings power, money, and kudos to Hamas.

In the short run ya. IMHO eventually Gazans will realize that Hamas is more interested in the jihad to liberate Palestine than the mundane day to day responsibilities as a functioning government.

I feel people forget Hamas is a threat to the Palestinian Authority as well. They murdered over a hundred of Abbas's men to take Gaza. And until they are defeated or disarmed the can be no Palestinian state.

 

[DC]

the Palestinian Children are not the enemy of Israel.
the enemy of Israel is not really punished by the blockade.
the children are.

and im totaly convinced that they will not blame Hamas for the hunger, they will blame Israel.

no mather if that is rational or not.

the Palestinians dont have the Information we have. i doubt they know that hamas is stealing food.

Israel is shooting its own foot. creating new hatred.

and prolly the ordinary Israeli will have to suffer under the new hatred and violence.

Aslong the conditions in Gaza stay as they are, nothing will improve.
the situation is creating humans that see no future and have nothing to loose, humans that are not well educated. Ideal new fodder for suicide bombers.