Gas pumped into Gaza tunnels

[Skeptic]

Why aren't you outraged?

Because Gaza is a terrorist hell-hole ruled by a genocidal Jihadi bunch of murderers, and if the Egyptians are not willing to have their smugglers spilling over into their territory, good for them.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why don't we hear about this in the media?

Why is there no outrage, no demonstrations no.....Oh wait.

It's done by Egypt.

Never mind.

I haven't heard of it. The use of gas is illegal, and Egypt should be held accountable.

 

[theprestige]

I haven't heard of it. The use of gas is illegal, and Egypt should be held accountable.

You seem to have some interesting theories about what laws are, who is held accountable to them, and by what authority.

 

[geni]

I haven't heard of it. The use of gas is illegal, and Egypt should be held accountable.

The use of gas is only illegal in external conflicts (if you have signed the relivant treaties). The use of gas for interal law enforcement purposes as long as such use falls below the level of crimes against humanity is entirely legal.

 

[Skeptic]

To the point, my snarky comment above notwithstanding, it depends WHAT gas. Is it nerve gas or tear gas? Nerve gas would be illegal, tear gas would not.

 

[GreNME]

Will somebody get me a facepalm?



You just bit on the lure, and the hook is now embedded securely in your cheek.

I'm going to have to agree with this. From the original post, it was an obvious lure to trick someone into trying to justify it. Very dumb move.

If true, then I'm appalled by the act now that I've heard of it. However, I find the presentation of the act in the context of this thread to be disingenuous at best, outright baiting at worst. If the intention was to make the conversation about Israel, just say so. The act is bad enough on its own, and unless there is some kind of proof that there is an effort to suppress or ignore the story-- which isn't mentioned in the link given by the OP-- due to it being Egypt and not Israel, the rhetoric in the first few posts is not only lame, but dishonest (and akin to conspiracy theory).

 

[geni]

To the point, my snarky comment above notwithstanding, it depends WHAT gas. Is it nerve gas or tear gas? Nerve gas would be illegal, tear gas would not.

Would it though? Egypt hasn't signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, there isn't a state of war and the legal status of gaza with regards to the convention is unclear.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I'm going to have to agree with this. From the original post, it was an obvious lure to trick someone into trying to justify it. Very dumb move.

If true, then I'm appalled by the act now that I've heard of it. However, I find the presentation of the act in the context of this thread to be disingenuous at best, outright baiting at worst. If the intention was to make the conversation about Israel, just say so. The act is bad enough on its own, and unless there is some kind of proof that there is an effort to suppress or ignore the story-- which isn't mentioned in the link given by the OP-- due to it being Egypt and not Israel, the rhetoric in the first few posts is not only lame, but dishonest (and akin to conspiracy theory).

My intention was to highlight media bias and bias in public reaction.
I thought the "but there were no Jews involved, so nobody cares" meme is so strong on this board that everybody would recognise it as such.
For all practical purposes I did say openly that the discussion was to be about Israel. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

To be fair. The Dutch Volkskrant newspaper (left-leaning publication) put the story on the front page. They based their story on the article I linked.

Still, I think the reaction is different to the Egyptians using this method, than the reaction the Israelis would receive. There would probably be more media coverage and reaction would be more emotional.

This despite the fact that Israel is effectively at war with Gaza and tunnels going into Israeli territory are more likely meant to export terrorism than to import medication.

For the record:
I'm critical of many Israeli policies and I oppose the ongoing expansion into occupied territory. And I'm exactly a big fan of Egypt's current government either, but as DR already pointed out, this is what we're stuck with at the moment.

On a practical/tactical note: why do the Egyptians use gas? If they just dynamite the tunnels, the smugglers are kept busy digging new ones rather then waiting for the gas to clear.
I won't take long before they figure out that they can use captured Fatah rivals as canaries to test for gas in the tunnels.

 

[FireGarden]

They were justified then as well, as a sovereign nation, to defend the penetration of their borders by unwelcome intruders.

We've had this conversation before. I thought you were merely playing devil's advocate, but those hopes are dashed.

Having the right to defend your borders doesn't negate the responsibility to care for refugees from a warzone.

When he dies, who or what do you expect will replace him?

Sadly, his son. But that's part of the problem called "Mubarak".

ElBaradei would stand in an election. If it was free and fair:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8395752.stm

About as likely as Kasparov's political success.

 

[Eddie Dane]

We've had this conversation before. I thought you were merely playing devil's advocate, but those hopes are dashed.

Having the right to defend your borders doesn't negate the responsibility to care for refugees from a warzone.



Sadly, his son. But that's part of the problem called "Mubarak".

ElBaradei would stand in an election. If it was free and fair:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8395752.stm

About as likely as Kasparov's political success.

LOL. I remember seeing footage of the last Egyptian election.

This woman came out of the voting booth, smiling and beaming. The interviewer asked her who she voted for. She enthusiastically said 'Mubarak'.
He then asked is she had considered voting for another party. She suddenly got a puzzled look and said 'other parties'?

There is only one party.

 

[GreNME]

My intention was to highlight media bias and bias in public reaction.
I thought the "but there were no Jews involved, so nobody cares" meme is so strong on this board that everybody would recognise it as such.
For all practical purposes I did say openly that the discussion was to be about Israel. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

To be fair. The Dutch Volkskrant newspaper (left-leaning publication) put the story on the front page. They based their story on the article I linked.

But you didn't provide any proof of the media bias in this case, which kind of makes it a bit of a red herring. I'm aware of the meme you're talking about, and I think it's stupid histrionics trying to make a victim (out of Israel) without there actually being one. Israel is under enough real, clear, and present threats that it doesn't need conspiracy theories about media bias or how all the mean-old Euro Libruls are in cahoots with Islamic Jihadists to marginalize Israel (which is a paraphrase of an actual claim I've read here at JREF).

You know what impression I get when I see these threads? Varied degrees of Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim sentiments, and not just from gullible baited posts like parky's in this thread. There are several pages (in the Swiss thread on banning minarets) of criticism against open anti-Muslim or anti-Mid-Eastern sentiment, but I see low, barely-subtle sentiments expressed here all the time, particularly whenever an argument about Israel pops up. The actual meme that seems to be at play whenever Israel is in the discussion is "Israelis act in self-defense and are the good guys; criticism against Israel is wrong for reasons ranging from naivete, stupidity, or malice of the critic, and that means the critic supports terrorists, jihadists, and maybe even Hitler." Discussions involving Israel are poisoned from the start around here, and the manner in which the OP here was presented is a perfect example of this. The most likely voices to really chime in on the discussion in earnest beat the chances for actual discussion into a pulp with this either/or trap that demands everyone take one side or the other and stick to it with a practically jingoistic bent.

In short: I understood the intention, but the trend behind the intention is such that I'm really not inclined to take part beyond pointing out that 1) I'd not heard of this act (by Egypt) previously, and 2) I also think it's wrong. I'm put off any more discussion by the implications that are automatically attached to the topic, because those discussions never go well and lead into the type of hyperbolic language Skeptic and WildCat brought into the thread dominating the discussion by sheer volume, and that lessens the intellectual honesty of the debate (intentionally or not).

 

[Darth Rotor]

No but you are meant to check before shooting them.

Not when they don't use the official and legal border crossing sites, no. Wrong again.

 

[Darth Rotor]

We've had this conversation before. I thought you were merely playing devil's advocate, but those hopes are dashed.

While I was indeed mostly doing that, I don't think the Egyptian government is bound to honor any illegal border crossing as other than intrusion, to be repelled by such means as they find appropriate.

Having the right to defend your borders doesn't negate the responsibility to care for refugees from a warzone.

You are now being false. Is Egypt a warzone now? That is what they are tying to prevent! It is not reasonable to presume legitimate refugee status by persons illegally entering a country at other than the legal border crossing points. No, I do not accept that this figleaf is in any way, shape, or form legitimate. There is a reason for that. The persons who are not legitimate refugees can use them as cover to illegally enter Egypt, and I see no rational reason, nor rule, that requires Egypt to allow that either. There are legal border crossing points. Care to tell me why they are not used? What further excuse do you offer for deliberate illegal intrusion into Egypt? There is more than one "rule" in play here.

Sadly, his son. But that's part of the problem called "Mubarak".

Aye. And I agree, sad but true.

By the way, Firegarden, the IDF incursion into Gaza is over, has been for some months now. Do you have some phantom war that these "refugees" are fleeing from that has not made the news? Please share.

DR

 

[FireGarden]

Not when they don't use the official and legal border crossing sites, no. Wrong again.

Have you ever heard of the concept "panic"?

And you seem to be confused, as this question illustrates:

You are now being false. Is Egypt a warzone now?

Err, no. I was talking about last year, during the war in Gaza. Gaza was a warzone during that war in Gaza. Palestinians tried to leave, a few times. They were shot at, some were injured.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LS331475.htm

Bursts of gunfire were audible by telephone from Rafah as the Egyptian police tried to frighten the Palestinians off. Gaza hospitals said they were treating 10 people wounded by Egyptian police shooting at Rafah.

The Palestinians returned fire and injured/killed one Egyptian. I can't remember for sure and don't have the time to google.

There are legal border crossing points. Care to tell me why they are not used?

Because they are often shut. And people don't like to queue during an air-raid.

What further excuse do you offer for deliberate illegal intrusion into Egypt?

Wanting to live rather than die in an airstrike.

In summary:
The case I was talking about, during the war last year, didn't involve people going through tunnels. It involved breaching the wall with a bulldozer and running away from a warzone. I thought you'd know that, considering I referenced the previous conversation.

Incidently, our previous conversation happened on this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4305559

By the way, Firegarden, the IDF incursion into Gaza is over, has been for some months now. Do you have some phantom war that these "refugees" are fleeing from that has not made the news? Please share.

DR

In my first post, I reffered to "during the war". You seem to have missed that or interpreted it as something other than "at the time the war was still happening."

 

[Darth Rotor]

Because they are often shut. And people don't like to queue during an air-raid.

Sorry, FireGarden, but with this little piece of sarcasm you insinuate that the IAF were conducting air strikes on the border between Gaza and Egypt, and on persons waiting to get into Egypt. No sale.

Care to try again? Are you aware that the bulk of the land surface area in Gaza was NOT under air attack during that little fracas? The camera can fool you.

In my first post, I reffered to "during the war". You seem to have missed that or interpreted it as something other than "at the time the war was still happening."

Yes, I did, thanks for clearing that up.

DR

 

[FireGarden]

Sorry, FireGarden, but with this little piece of sarcasm you insinuate that the IAF were conducting air strikes on the border between Gaza and Egypt, and on persons waiting to get into Egypt. No sale.

With this dodge, you imply that people who have had their homes bombed will give a fig about the legal method of getting out of a warzone. Queue at the border? I wouldn't have.

So I don't agree with your interpretation. There is no need for an airstrike on a queue of people waiting to get into Egypt for people to not feel like queing to get out of a warzone.

btw,
Do you have a link to Egypt letting out any Gazan, other than some of the wounded? I think you needed more than a visa to get out of Gaza and into Egypt -- even during a war.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053171.html

Mognie and a colleague, both part of the Greek organization Doctors for Peace, came to Rafah four days ago, loaded with instruments and medical supplies. Egyptian border guards turn them back daily.

Mognie, who said he has worked in conflict zones such as Iraq, Angola and Somalia, added that he understood worries over security but that he was willing to take the risk to help the people in Gaza.

[...] Although Egypt allowed two Norwegian doctors into Gaza on Dec. 31, the majority of physicians are frustrated at their inability to get in.

[...] On Monday, at least 18 Palestinian patients were brought to Egypt, according to Mohammad Arafat, a Palestinian representative in Rafah. The wounded included a man missing both legs and another who lost his eye and fractured his skull.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not when they don't use the official and legal border crossing sites, no. Wrong again.

I don't think you would advocate illegal mexican immigrants to the US.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think you would advocate illegal mexican immigrants to the US.

I can't speak for DR, but I certainly don't "advocate illegal mexican immigrants to the US".

I also don't "advocate gassing illegal mexican immigrants to the US", which I think is probably what you meant.

But I do think that illegal immigrants who bypass ports of entry aren't entitled to much in the way of tolerance from the country they're trying to sneak into. Certainly they're not entitled to the rights and privileges reserved for citizens of that country. Nor are they entitled to the courtesies reserved for asylum-seekers and other immigrants who present themeselves at legal ports of entry and petition for entry through legal means.

The only reason I don't advocate gassing (or shooting) illegal immigrants to the US is because I don't see how they pose any major threat to national security or civic order. Obviously the Egyptian government feels differently about its own illegal immigrant situation. And that's there prerogative.

Indeed, securing its borders by whatever means it chooses is, I think, one of the fundamental principles of being a nation-state. Prohibiting border crossings is pointless if the prohibition isn't enforced. And enforcement is pointless unless, you know, it actually solves the problem you're trying to solve.

The Egyptian government is under no obligation to permit unlimited entries from Gaza. The Egyptian government is under no obligation to spend resources managing Gaza's social crises or sustaining Gaza's displaced citizens. The Egyptian government's only obligation is to sustain its own citizens and mitigate its own social crises.

If Gazans want to force the issue, they're entitled to do so, but by the same token Egypt is entitled to use force as well. What Gazans aren't entitled to do is make their problems Egypt's problems against Egypt's will. Stopping that kind of thing from happening is another fundamental principle of being a nation-state.

So, yeah. Just because I don't advocate gassing illegal immigrants in every case, that doesn't mean I want to see the option banned.

 

[Wildy]

Do we know if they are pumping gas into the tunnels at regular intervals?

It would seem to me that they are trying to stop people from using the tunnels so they can get their steel barrier in place.

 

[theprestige]

With this dodge, you imply that people who have had their homes bombed will give a fig about the legal method of getting out of a warzone. Queue at the border? I wouldn't have.

And this is Egypt's problem how?

So I don't agree with your interpretation. There is no need for an airstrike on a queue of people waiting to get into Egypt for people to not feel like queing to get out of a warzone.

So even when there's no imminent threat to life and limb, Egypt should still go easy on them, just because they don't feel like standing in line?

btw,
Do you have a link to Egypt letting out any Gazan, other than some of the wounded? I think you needed more than a visa to get out of Gaza and into Egypt -- even during a war.

Egypt should, in fact, be more generous to people who don't feel like following the rules than they are to people who do? How does that work, exactly? Can we extend this principle to other places? Maybe instead of suspending people who breach the MA, our forum moderators should suspend those that don't, and give the rest a free pass?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053171.html[/QUOTE]