Gas pumped into Gaza tunnels

[Darth Rotor]

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.

Then you are willing to risk getting shot rather than bombed. Good for you.

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.

I agree with your assessment on that practical matter.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

Why should I advocate criminal acitivity? Please share. Have you any clue how much human trafficking attends this illegal immigration?

DR

 

[FireGarden]

And this is Egypt's problem how?

No man, let alone a nation, is an island. (or something!)

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?

Darth understood that paragraph. Maybe you should reread the context: where airstrikes hit/didn't hit during the 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 do you get that?
One criticism is that Egypt was barely generous at all. They let out people with the most serious injuries and no-one else. Did they even let children out of a warzone?

And then... They shot at people fleeing a warzone. This is to be characterised as "less generous"? "Generous enough" maybe? You've got to be kidding.

Indeed, securing its borders by whatever means it chooses is, I think, one of the fundamental principles of being a nation-state.

The people I like have more responsibilities than merely looking out for number one. The same goes for nations I like.





Here's more of Egypt shooting people at borders -- this time while they try to LEAVE Egypt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091211/wl_time/08599194686100

As the group approached the fence, recalls Beyene, she heard warning shouts from Egyptian border guards and then shots. Terrified, she kept running and jumped over the fence with her youngest son, 7-year-old Mulugeta. As she turned around, she saw that 21-year-old Iskender and his 3-year-old sibling Rosa, whom he was carrying on his back, had been shot. "I shouted for Iskender to jump over the fence and he did. That's when the Israeli soldiers took them to hospital. After four days, my son died," Beyene says. Rosa, who reveals a bullet-wound scar the size of a large coin on her right leg, looks on mutely. Her mother says she has hardly spoken since that night 18 months ago.

[...] In Europe, coast-guard patrols might try to turn back boats full of refugees and asylum seekers, or detain people only to send them home later. The luckiest ones may end up being accepted for asylum and then dispatched around Europe.


In Egypt, the response can be more immediate.

How do you spell "euphemism"?

Nongovernmental organizations such as the Hotline for Migrant Workers and the African Refugee Development Center say that Egyptian border police have shot dead several hundred migrants seeking to cross the border into Israel for work and asylum over the past few years. "From both Israeli soldiers and refugees who crossed the border we can tell for sure that the Egyptians almost always shoot, they shoot to kill and very often they hit the asylum seekers," says Sigal Rozen of Hotline, an independent group that helps asylum seekers in Israel. At the Israeli cemetery in Hazor, Rozen points to 25 graves marked "Anonymous." "These were asylum seekers," she says, "who were shot by the Egyptians and died from their wounds in Israel."

[...] On Nov. 26, in comments on an ongoing case before Israel's high court, UNHCR said that Egypt is not safe for asylum seekers. It mentions the regular imprisonment by Egypt of asylum seekers; "numerous" reports that Egypt deports some asylum seekers back to their home countries in breach of international law; and the "disturbing" shootings at asylum seekers, as reasons for Israel to stop hot return.

Go on... Defend away.
Be sure to mention international law and sovereignty.

 

[theprestige]

No man, let alone a nation, is an island. (or something!)

All the more reason for nations bordering on failed states to take border security seriously. (Or something.)

Darth understood that paragraph. Maybe you should reread the context: where airstrikes hit/didn't hit during the war.

If airstrikes aren't targeting (or even accidentally hitting) refugees at legal ports of entry, then what's the justification for trying to cross the border illegally?

How do you get that?
One criticism is that Egypt was barely generous at all. They let out people with the most serious injuries and no-one else. Did they even let children out of a warzone?

And then... They shot at people fleeing a warzone. This is to be characterised as "less generous"? "Generous enough" maybe? You've got to be kidding.

My mistake. I thought you were arguing that even though the Egyptian government is unwilling to grant entry to most people who try to enter legally, they should nevertheless tolerate illegal entry attempts. Personally, I think that's a stupid argument. Apparently you do, too. I'm glad we're in agreement on at least this point.

The people I like have more responsibilities than merely looking out for number one. The same goes for nations I like.

I imagine the Egyptian people would be glad to know their government isn't concerned with winning a FireGarden Popularity Contest.

Here's more of Egypt shooting people at borders -- this time while they try to LEAVE Egypt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091211/wl_time/08599194686100

I'm sure there's plenty of ways to leave Egypt that don't involve running into prohibited areas while armed guards shout at you to stop what you're doing.

How do you spell "euphemism"?

Here in America, we spell it "undocumented worker".

Go on... Defend away.
Be sure to mention international law and sovereignty.

Done and done!

Now what?

 

[Eddie Dane]

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.

Yup, that's it.

If I lived in a country bordering on a region like Gaza, I'd want my government to keep the crazy, theocratic loonies on the other side of the line.

I know that the population of Gaze arrived at this point in their history through a long line of very unfortunate occurrences. I know that their decision to give a Hamas a try, after the decades of Fatah failing to produce results, is understandable.

But if I lived in Egypt, understanding Gazans would be way down my priority list. My priority would be keeping these guys away from me.

 

[FireGarden]

All the more reason for nations bordering on failed states to take border security seriously. (Or something.)

"No man is an island"
"They should try harder to isolate themselves."

What a world.

If airstrikes aren't targeting (or even accidentally hitting) refugees at legal ports of entry, then what's the justification for trying to cross the border illegally?

It's called panic.
Of course, brave guy like you, you'd have stayed put in a warzone. Along with your family. Heck, you wouldn't want to break the law -- even under those circumstances.

My mistake. I thought you were arguing that even though the Egyptian government is unwilling to grant entry to most people who try to enter legally, they should nevertheless tolerate illegal entry attempts. Personally, I think that's a stupid argument. Apparently you do, too. I'm glad we're in agreement on at least this point.

The problem comes with Egypt's style of law enforcement.

I'm sure there's plenty of ways to leave Egypt that don't involve running into prohibited areas while armed guards shout at you to stop what you're doing.

I'm sure there's plenty of ways to control Egypt's borders that don't involve shooting at so many people -- including children. Europe seems to manage.

Done and done!

No, not done.
Where are your points on sovereignty and international law?

0/10 for failing to read the question.





Here's HRW (2007 -- they have more recent articles, too):
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/11/13/letter-egypts-minister-interior-general-habib-al-adli

To shoot and kill migrants attempting to leave your country is an excessive and illegal use of force and out of all proportion to any legitimate interest in maintaining orderly border controls.

Sounds accurate to me.

And, also, the topic is of interest in Israel itself. Because Israel sends back migrants who cross the border, it could be said to be helping Egypt to send them back to danger if they get deported to their original homes without a fair assessment of the dangers they will face.

This is from November:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131611.html

Here's a recent request from HRW watch for Israel to stop sending refugees back to Egypt:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/12/12/israel-court-should-halt-forced-returns-migrants-egypt

Egypt typically detains the migrants who are forcibly returned and sentences them in military courts to one-year jail terms, regardless of whether they had already registered as refugees through the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Egypt also refuses to allow the UN refugee agency access to the refugees and asylum seekers, in violation of international refugee law.

[...] Refugee aid workers say that a large proportion of these Eritrean and Sudanese migrants had registered for asylum with the UN agency, in Sudan and Egypt respectively, before coming to Israel, but that they were willing to risk death on the Egyptian border because of the continuing risk of insecurity there and of being sent back to their home countries, rather than for economic reasons alone.

[...] Egypt forcibly repatriated dozens of Sudanese, including refugees and registered asylum seekers, in April 2008. Egypt also repatriated dozens of Eritreans whom Israel had forcibly returned in August 2008, and up to 1,200 Eritreans in June 2008 - despite warnings that Eritrea was likely to torture or maltreat them.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The problem comes with Egypt's style of law enforcement.

I'm sure there's plenty of ways to control Egypt's borders that don't involve shooting at so many people -- including children. Europe seems to manage.

Funny, Europe and Egypt have considerably different security environments. Why are you attempting a cookie cutter here?

DR

 

[theprestige]

. . .

There's a lot here for me to mull over, and mull it over I will.

In the mean time, however, please clarify one thing for me:

Are you claiming that even when they are not being targeted by weapons of any kind--even when legal Egyptian ports of entry are nowhere near any flying bullets or exploding bombs--that Palestians are so thoroughly panicked by being in a "war zone" that they cannot help but rush thoughtlessly through prohibited zones along the Egyptian border?

 

[FireGarden]

Are you claiming that even when they are not being targeted by weapons of any kind--even when legal Egyptian ports of entry are nowhere near any flying bullets or exploding bombs--that Palestians are so thoroughly panicked by being in a "war zone" that they cannot help but rush thoughtlessly through prohibited zones along the Egyptian border?

You're desperate for a border control justification, aren't you?

Egypt has the right to keep Gazans out of Egypt. Shooting at them while their homes were being bombed oversteps the bounds of decency -- leaps beyond those bounds with the aid of a Saturn V jet-pack, actually.

Do Palestinians still feel the need to leave Gaza, even while their homes are not being bombed? I'm sure that many do. Some will feel enough of a need to cross borders illegally. Good luck to them, I say.

Now justify shooting unarmed people as a method of law-enforcement.

Funny, Europe and Egypt have considerably different security environments. Why are you attempting a cookie cutter here?

DR

Egypt, because of its situation, must send refugees back to Eritrea and Sudan. And so desperate is its need to send these refugees back, that Egypt must shoot them as they try to leave Egypt -- in self-defence, of course, in the name of national security.

Israel -- also wanting to send back some of these refugees; also having security concerns regarding terrorism -- doesn't shoot these refugees as they break INTO Israel.

 

[a_unique_person]

The issue of refugees is one that is going to grow over the years. Both political and economic. I don't see the world as a whole coping with it humanely.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The issue of refugees is one that is going to grow over the years. Both political and economic. I don't see the world as a whole coping with it humanely.

Says he whose nation is surrounded by H₂O.

Care to elaborate on your meaning of "coping with it humanely" in this matter?

 

[FireGarden]

The issue of refugees is one that is going to grow over the years. Both political and economic. I don't see the world as a whole coping with it humanely.

I honestly don't know what to say, other than to call that defeatist. (I know... That also sounds defeatist!)

 

[Darth Rotor]

You're desperate for a border control justification, aren't you?

Nothing related to desperate. Your borders are valid only if you enforce them. PERIOD. Border control is what nations do to control, patrol, and enforce their borders. Simple, routine work, in some cases rougher than others.

Are you aware why there are lines on the maps you read?

Egypt has the right to keep Gazans out of Egypt. Shooting at them while their homes were being bombed oversteps the bounds of decency

Wait, were they shooting into Gaza during the latest war, at the homes of people in Gaza?

Do Palestinians still feel the need to leave Gaza, even while their homes are not being bombed? I'm sure that many do. Some will feel enough of a need to cross borders illegally. Good luck to them, I say.

I see, you excuse criminals, for your own private reasons. Crossing a border illegally is illegal.

Thanks for alerting me of your apologia for criminals.

Egypt, because of its situation, must send refugees back to Eritrea and Sudan. And so desperate is its need to send these refugees back, that Egypt must shoot them as they try to leave Egypt -- in self-defence, of course, in the name of national security.

This has what to do with the Pals? I also find your "in the name of national security" to be a caricature, and thus dishonest. As to them shooting refugees when they try to leave Egypt: this makes no sense to me, but might if you refer me to the story you are referencing in that vignette. Do you have a link to the story you are referring to? (Beware, derail).

Israel -- also wanting to send back some of these refugees; also having security concerns regarding terrorism -- doesn't shoot these refugees as they break INTO Israel.

The Israelis are welcomed to assume their risks as they see fit. Likewise the Egyptians. Their country. Their border. If they don't enforce it, it is rendered null and void. Apparently, they are not interested in that, as they might believe that good fences can make good neighbors.

Your appeal to some altruistic ideal must account for reality. In this case, it does not.

DR

 

[FireGarden]

I see, you excuse criminals, for your own private reasons. Crossing a border illegally is illegal.

Thanks for alerting me of your apologia for criminals.

I'm a naughty boy. Spank me, Darth! Spank me!
If I see people breaking a law and, at the same time I think I might do the same in their shoes, then I wish them luck.

Sometimes the law is an ass -- it needs spanking, too!

This has what to do with the Pals?

It has to do with Egypt. And how far you're willing to defend the shooting of unarmed criminals.

Should an unarmed thief be shot? Or just unarmed refugees?

As to them shooting refugees when they try to leave Egypt: this makes no sense to me, but might if you refer me to the story you are referencing in that vignette. Do you have a link to the story you are referring to? (Beware, derail).

No derail. I referenced it above in posts 63 and 66. It fits in quite happily with the topic of Egypt not getting enough stick for some of the things it does.

The Israelis are welcomed to assume their risks as they see fit. Likewise the Egyptians. Their country. Their border. If they don't enforce it, it is rendered null and void. Apparently, they are not interested in that, as they might believe that good fences can make good neighbors.

The Israelis enforce their borders. Just differently. You seem to have a problem with me having a preference for one method of enforcement over another. I'd like to know why.

Your appeal to some altruistic ideal must account for reality. In this case, it does not.

Your defence of shooting unarmed criminals needs more than pointing our that laws need to be enforced. Or claiming I am too idealistic.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm a naughty boy. Spank me, Darth! Spank me!

Find a nice young lady for that, I'm married.

Sometimes the law is an ass -- it needs spanking, too!

Only if between consenting abstractions.

Should an unarmed thief be shot? Or just unarmed refugees?

Wrong question. Should the invader cross your borders unmolested? Border crossing is a different category of problem than simple misdemeanor or felony theft.

The Israelis enforce their borders. Just differently. You seem to have a problem with me having a preference for one method of enforcement over another. I'd like to know why.

THe only problem I have is that you don't allow that the Egyptians wish to enforce their borders. You have some idea that you are better than they are, and look down on them for how they protect their borders. I'd like to know why.

Your defence of shooting unarmed criminals needs more than pointing our that laws need to be enforced. Or claiming I am too idealistic.

Since you are attempting to move the goal posts, to mundane criminal process versus protecting your borders, not wasting my time with that one. There are legal ways to cross most borders, including Egypt's. Use them. Or face the risk that Egypt cares more about its border security than you do.

A dog is not a chicken. Please don't pretend it is.

DR

 

[FireGarden]

Wrong question. Should the invader cross your borders unmolested? Border crossing is a different category of problem than simple misdemeanor or felony theft.

No. It's not the wrong question. And I'm not trying to move the goalposts or equating theft with border crossing. I'm trying to find out where you draw the line.

According to you: Some criminals can be shot -- even if they are unarmed. I'm interested in which criminals you think it is alright to shoot -- even if they are unarmed.

THe only problem I have is that you don't allow that the Egyptians wish to enforce their borders.

That can't be the problem you have, because I'm perfectly happy for the Egyptians to enforce their borders. I accept they have such a right -- in posts 49 and 69. And again in this post.

You have some idea that you are better than they are, and look down on them for how they protect their borders. I'd like to know why.

I look down on them because they shoot unarmed people.

Does that make me an elitist? -- Well so's your president, so don't knock it!

 

[theprestige]

If I see people breaking a law and, at the same time I think I might do the same in their shoes, then I wish them luck.

Fair enough, but it seems kind of strange on the one hand to knowingly choose to risk your luck, and then complain when your luck happens to run out.

I mean, you choose to put yourself at odds with Egypt's border enforcement policies. By the time you run afoul of those policies, it's a little late to pretend like you had no choice in the matter and it's all Egypt's fault.

Sometimes the law is an ass -- it needs spanking, too!

Fair enough, but don't set out to spank the law and then come crying to me when the law spanks you back.

Personally, I wish Gazan refugees the best of luck in making a better tomorrow for themselves. Just like I wish the Egyptian government the best of luck in safeguarding its territory against the unpleasant effects of bordering on a failed state.

It seems like the Egyptian government has considered all the tradeoffs, and decided that the best policy is to deny entry in all but the rarest of cases, and to enforce that policy with extreme prejudice.

And it seems like some Gazan refugees have considered all the tradeoffs, and decided that the best policy is to risk Egyptian border enforcement anyway, even if it means risking a bullet in the face.

I think the situation in Gaza is a bad situation. It seems to me that both parties (Egyptian government and refugees) are making the best of a bad situation. I don't blame the Egyptian government for shooting illegal border-crossers any more than I blame the border-crossers for putting themselves in the line of fire. Nor do I blame them any less.

And since you seem to have abandoned your argument that the Israeli army was using bullets and bombs to herd Gazan refugees against their will into Egyptian kill zones, I don't see what the problem is.

You don't want to shoot illegal immigrants? Don't shoot them. Fine. You don't want to get shot for being an illegal immigrant? Don't put yourself in the sights of someone who shoots illegal immigrants. Fine.

You're welcome to decry Egyptian border control policy all you like. But as long as your objections fail to recognize the complexities of the Egyptian situation, and as long as they fail to recognize that Gazan refugees are choosing to run afoul of that policy, you're not going to get very far.

 

[FireGarden]

Fair enough, but it seems kind of strange on the one hand to knowingly choose to risk your luck, and then complain when your luck happens to run out.

I mean, you choose to put yourself at odds with Egypt's border enforcement policies. By the time you run afoul of those policies, it's a little late to pretend like you had no choice in the matter and it's all Egypt's fault.

So when I see someone who's between a rock and a hardplace, I should just keep quiet? -- even if the hard place doesn't need to be so hard?

I disagree.

And since you seem to have abandoned your argument that the Israeli army was using bullets and bombs to herd Gazan refugees against their will into Egyptian kill zones, I don't see what the problem is.

I never made that argument.

You don't want to shoot illegal immigrants? Don't shoot them. Fine. You don't want to get shot for being an illegal immigrant? Don't put yourself in the sights of someone who shoots illegal immigrants. Fine.

You're welcome to decry Egyptian border control policy all you like. But as long as your objections fail to recognize the complexities of the Egyptian situation, and as long as they fail to recognize that Gazan refugees are choosing to run afoul of that policy, you're not going to get very far.

I've recognised every complexity. You've not explained why it's okay to shoot at unarmed criminals. So I'd like to ask you the same question as Darth: which unarmed criminals is it okay to shoot? Please make the list as exhaustive as possible.

And don't forget that Egypt's policy of shooting criminals isn't limited to Gazans entering Egypt during a time of war -- it includes shooting Eritreans trying to LEAVE Egypt.

 

[theprestige]

So when I see someone who's between a rock and a hardplace, I should just keep quiet? -- even if the hard place doesn't need to be so hard?

I disagree.



I never made that argument.

If you never made that argument, then where's the rock, and how are the Gazan refugees caught between it and a hard place?

I've recognised every complexity. You've not explained why it's okay to shoot at unarmed criminals. So I'd like to ask you the same question as Darth: which unarmed criminals is it okay to shoot? Please make the list as exhaustive as possible.

It is okay to shoot any criminal whose criminal acts, in my opinion, put me at an unacceptable risk, regardless of their alleged or apparent lack of armament, especially absent any pressing need for them to be performing those criminal acts.

And don't forget that Egypt's policy of shooting criminals isn't limited to Gazans entering Egypt during a time of war -- it includes shooting Eritreans trying to LEAVE Egypt.

I haven't forgotten. I just don't see how it matters much to Gazan refugees--except, obviously, in the sense that it sure seems like you'd have to be either a colossal idiot or else have some supremely pressing need to cross such ruthless bastards.

Are you sure you don't want to argue that Gazans are forced by circumstances beyond their control to enter Egyptian killing zones against their will?

 

[FireGarden]

If you never made that argument, then where's the rock, and how are the Gazan refugees caught between it and a hard place?

You'd live in Gaza today? Let alone last year, during the war -- and even during that, I never used words like "herded" I merely called a warzone a warzone.

It is okay to shoot any criminal whose criminal acts, in my opinion, put me at an unacceptable risk, regardless of their alleged or apparent lack of armament, especially absent any pressing need for them to be performing those criminal acts.

So fleeing a warzone isn't a pressing need, in your book. You'd have stayed in Gaza last year, even with your family?

What is the unacceptable risk in arresting a refugee who crosses a border illegally, rather than shooting them?

I haven't forgotten. I just don't see how it matters much to Gazan refugees--except, obviously, in the sense that it sure seems like you'd have to be either a colossal idiot or else have some supremely pressing need to cross such ruthless bastards.

Ruthless bastards who you are defending, remember. And the topic of this thread isn't Gaza so much as how Egypt doesn't get the stick it deserves for some of the things it does.

Are you sure you don't want to argue that Gazans are forced by circumstances beyond their control to enter Egyptian killing zones against their will?

I think this rephrasing of my claims speaks volumes about you. I suspect you appreciate the "pressing needs" you claim are lacked by the criminals you don't mind seeing shot.