Skip to main content

View Diary: Israel's 4 yr. Blockade of Gaza unravels as Egypt opens border crossing (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Was going to say much the same as you (14+ / 0-)

    But you beat me to it. My thoughts exactly. Wouldn't be surprised if the decision is reversed or tighter restrictions are imposed at the insistence of Israel and the US. Isolating the Palestinians via blockade and security walls is an intentional tactic to weaken and silence them, no doubt about it. This would be a major blow, and I can't imagine Israel will sit back and let it happen without a fight.

    •  I never did figure out what the security issue was (15+ / 0-)

      about the spices, no on something like cinnamon, yes on another, but Israel did have a list that someone got on the equivalent of FOIA, and it had that sort of plainly arbitrary stuff.

      •  Have you ever (27+ / 0-)
        I never did figure out what the security issue was
        about the spices.

        accidentally gotten cayenne in your eye? It's more debilitating than pepper spray. You can't be too cautious when it comes to spices. Mrs. Dash seems innocuous enough but has anybody ever seen or heard from Mr. Dash? I rest my case.

        •  I think it was more about keeping the quality of (34+ / 0-)

          life so low, as a punishment, and inducement to influence the Gazans to reject Hamas.

          But, if became a "Fixes that Backire" systems archetype, because Hamas was the only source of social services in many areas, including most of Gaza.

          Israeli, and US heavy handedness here, produced exact opposite of the results "we" hoped for.

          The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by HoundDog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:07:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

            •  No cayenne pepper (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TakeMeOutOfMyMissouri

              constitutes a war crime?

              •  Collective punishment to force regime change of a (37+ / 0-)

                democratically elected government, by withholding foodstuffs, construction material, etc, yes, if a violation of the Geneva Conventions.  

                For those that favor the international rule-of-law, this is a bigger deal than it may appear.  

                The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

                by HoundDog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:01:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  All war is "collective punishment" (4+ / 0-)

                  What the hell was the bombing of Dresden?  The nuking of Hiroshima?

                  Give me a break.  If Israel is committing a "war crime" by responding to hundreds of missiles fired from Gaza between 2006-2008, then America is, indeed, The Great Satan.

                  The standards Americans bring to bear on Israel is unbelievable.  We should try looking in the mirror at the fact we let W. Bush invade Iraq before we say word-one to the Israeli government about their military response to actual provocation.

                  What Israel did in Gaza was horrifying, but lets not pretend it came out of nowhere.  If Mexicans had been shooting missiles into Texas, you can be sure as shit our "war crimes" in response would make Israel's look like a candy bar.

                  •  Robert McNamara who participated in the (20+ / 0-)

                    planning for both the bombing of Dresden, the Fire Bombing of Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Hiroshime, and who was considered to be one of the key military hawks driving our expansion of the Vietnam War surprised many when after a lifetime of reflection, announced in his book, the Fog of War, that he now believes all were war crimes, and had we lost the war we would have justly, been prosecuted and found guilty.

                    This is not an American Standard, but the standard of international rule-of-law, signed and acceptec by 194 countries.  

                    The same, and only rule of law, under which we can properly indict and prosecute war criminals such as OBL, and Rativan.

                    If we bombed, or retaliated against Mexico city, in response to a few criminals or terrorist shooting missles across the border from Northern Mexico, yes, it would be a war crime, and I would oppose it.

                    Hello, we have drug dealers shooting and kidnapping innocent American citizens, and US law enforcement officials every day.  

                    This would not justify, a blockade, and restriction of food, construction materials, medical supplies to Mexico city.

                    This is called "collective punishment" and it is specifically, prohibited, in detail.  This is not even controversial, elsewhere in the world.

                    If you do not adhere to the International Rule of Law then you have no credible way to differentiated between freedom fighters, and terrorists.

                    Your argument legitimizes OBL point of view, and is why Iran wants nuclear arms, -- in a Might-Makes-Right world, it is the essence of power, and being able to establish "facts-on-the-ground."

                    Here are some Wikepedia artilces you should read:

                    Today, it is considered by most nations contradictory to the modern concept of due process, where each individual receives separate treatment based on his or her role in the crime in question. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically forbids collective punishment.

                    Collective Punishment defined in Wikepedia

                    Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behavior of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. Historically, occupying powers have used collective punishment to retaliate against and deter attacks on their forces by resistance movements (e.g. destroying whole towns and villages where such attacks have occurred).

                    Artilce 33 of the Forth Geneva Convention

                    Your an my opinion about it don't matter WinSmith, it is the explicit law of the globe, and you can read it word for word.  The following is just a summary.  The actual treaty goes into great detail. Ignorance is not excuse.  Saddam Hussein wasn't asked if he agreed with it.

                    But, I'll admit, we've allowed double standards, where we have not applied the law to ourselves.  But, you can't accuse me, or others, of this double standard, as I spend most of my time here during the Bush administration demanding that he obey these rules, and be impeaced, for violating our own Constitution, and other aspects of International Law, and Just War Theory.

                    This is just one, of many reasons, I disagree with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and one reason even General Petreaus suggests that the perception in many parts of the world, that the US is empowering Netanyahu to continue these activities, is damaging US National Security.

                    It is a big deal.  

                    Collective punishments
                    Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

                    Pillage is prohibited.

                    Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

                    Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. Additional concern also addressed the United States' atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, in turn, caused death and disease to millions[citation needed] of Japanese civilians as well as their decedents[sic][citation needed]. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

                    Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33 is the one more commonly quoted.

                    Section III. Occupied territories

                    Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49).

                    Article 49 - Population transfer [show]

                    Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

                    Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

                    The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

                    The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
                    The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

                    The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
                    Article 50 - Care and education of children [show]
                    Art. 50. The Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children.

                    The Occupying Power shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parentage. It may not, in any case, change their personal status, nor enlist them in formations or organizations subordinate to it.

                    Should the local institutions be inadequate for the purpose, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements for the maintenance and education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children who are orphaned or separated from their parents as a result of the war and who cannot be adequately cared for by a near relative or friend.

                    A special section of the Bureau set up in accordance with Article 136 shall be responsible for taking all necessary steps to identify children whose identity is in doubt. Particulars of their parents or other near relatives should always be recorded if available.
                    The Occupying Power shall not hinder the application of any preferential measures in regard to food, medical care and protection against the effects of war which may have been adopted prior to the occupation in favour of children under fifteen years, expectant mothers, and mothers of children under seven years.

                    Article 53 - Destruction of property [show]
                    Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
                    Article 56 - Medical services [show]

                    Art. 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.
                    If new hospitals are set up in occupied
                     territory and if the competent organs of the occupied State are not operating there, the occupying authorities shall, if necessary, grant them the recognition provided for in Article 18. In similar circumstances, the occupying authorities shall also grant recognition to hospital personnel and transport vehicles under the provisions of Articles 20 and 21.
                    In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory.

                    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

                    by HoundDog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:53:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The 4th Geneva Conventions was negotiated (13+ / 0-)

                    in 1949 in response to the atrocities committed in WWII.

                    "We" didn't let George Bush invade. "We" protested in the hundreds of thousands, which is a hell of a lot more people than are protesting Israel's actions with respect to the Palestinians.

                    That's all it takes, really...pressure and time.

                    by Flyswatterbanjo on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:55:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We are Americans, right? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      volleyboy1, DeeDee001, yaque

                      Then we are as responsible for Bush's actions as the Palestinians are for the actions of Hamas in Gaza.

                      Israel did not just "attack Gaza."  I know this simple narrative of Israel being evil and violent and the Palestinians being innocent and oppressed is very enjoyable for some around here, but it is not the truth.

                      War is messy.  War is ugly.

                      America has committed tons of sins in our history. I don't see you advocating we give Texas back to Mexico, do you?  Or any of the other land we won in wars.

                      Or the land we stole from the Native Americans.

                      Yet you self-righteously thunder your lectures to the people of Israel on what they should do.

                      The hypocrisy is rank.

                      •  Let me see if I have this straight. If any leader (13+ / 0-)

                        of a country ever did any immoral or unjust act in the history of the country, then no one in that country ever again has the right to expect anyone else in any other country to avoid doing something immoral or unjust?  I'm afraid your support for Israel has blinded you to both sense and justice.

                        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                        by gustynpip on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:46:30 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  If the UN had judged those actions to be illegal (10+ / 0-)

                        and ordered us to withdraw, I would have.

                        I wasn't born yet at that time.  

                        But, I believe our treatment of the American indians was wrong.  

                        And, your quick accusation to accuse me of hypocracy, is done apparently, without data, nor having read my writing.

                        I have frequently denounced our history, with regard to the Native American Indians, including pointing out regularly, to the distress of many of my fellow Democrats here, that the US is the only country to have used chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare agents against civilian populations.

                        Although, the early colonialist settlers who gave smallpox infected blankets to the American Indians, leadignt to the largest proportional genecide in human history that I know of, were British at the time.

                        In an effort to be as agressive in judging our own aciton, as others, I have included this on my list.  Along with our deliberate infection of black prisioners with syphylus to watch how it affected people over decades.

                        These were all hideous crimes I have criticized, Winsmith.

                        Please, show me an example of a hypocracy I have committed.  I think u r blaming me for offenses of someone else.  which interetingly enuf is what u appear to do with Gaza.  

                        I just pointed out that every atrocity u measured I would agree was a war crime.  R u listening r reciting a script in your mind?  

                        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

                        by HoundDog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 09:27:12 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Of course it is because they are PEP (13+ / 1-)

                        that (Progressive Except for Palestine). They support a one-sided narrative that denies the legitimate right of Jewish people to self-determination.

                        Further, they call for a boycott of Israel, yet the polity that they support voted a religious/fascist group into power (Hamas in 2006) that supports suppression of women's rights, religious freedom, gay rights and political expression. The second place finisher in this election (over 85% of the electorate voted for these two parties), makes it a capital offense to sell land to Jewish people, arrests and holds political prisoners, engages in torture of said prisoners and also suppresses political and religious freedoms.

                        At the same time while complaining that even though the facts presented here reflect the will of over 85% of the voting Palestinian electorate, we should not judge that electorate by those facts. All the while they condemn every Israeli Jew and want to subject them to boycott for the actions of the Right Wing Likud coalition even though that coalition represents a far smaller majority.

                        And the folks here in the U.S. - we all live in Occupied land but you notice not one of these "human rights advocates" (heh) call for the return of the land to Native Americans.

                        I live in Occupied Mexico, (California, which the U.S. stole in a war of aggression) ... Where are the calls to return CA to Mexico? Where are the five diaries daily asking for a return of Manhatten to the Native Americans who were swindled out of their land by our ancestors?

                        Wait there are none? Hmmm I wonder why?

                        DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

                        by volleyboy1 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 09:51:54 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  HR'd for this LIE: (2+ / 2-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Euroliberal, poco
                          Hidden by:
                          Red Sox, JNEREBEL
                          They support a one-sided narrative that denies the legitimate right of Jewish people to self-determination.

                          "They"?  Who - exactly - are "they"?  I want names, Volley.  Am I a "they"?  Is Flyswatterbanjo a "they"?  Who are "they" who would support stripping the Jewish people (world-wide, I can only assume - since you didn't say "Israelis") of their right to self-determination?

                          Nobody I've encountered on this website would deny the Jewish People (or even only the Israelis) the right to self-determination.  But, we're not discussing the Jewish People here.  We're discussing the actions of the government of Israel taken against Palestinians of the WB and Gaza Strip.  Israel is still 20% Arab and the last time I checked in with the pro-Israel folks around here, the phrase . . .

                          "Israel" does not mean "Jews"

                          . . . is still the rule.  Of course, this seems to apply only when Israel has done something blatantly condemnable.

                          What you're conveniently forgetting is that Israel is and has been for 44 years denying the Palestinian People their legitimate right of self-determination.

                          Calling for an end to the Occupation and for a sovereign Palestinian nation does not constitute what you're claiming.  It constitutes support for Palestinian self-determination.

                          Finally, the UN Charter forbids annexation of territory by use of force.  Israel is a signatory to the UN and freely bound itself to the UN Charter.  There was no UN when the US took over much of the American southwest.  There is a UN now.  Stalin annexed much of Eastern Europe by force, but that didn't make it right.

                          END: Explanation of HR

                          Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                          by Celtic Merlin on Thu May 26, 2011 at 02:01:42 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Really now.... That is the biggest bullshit HR (10+ / 0-)

                            written on this site:

                            What do you call soysauce's call for a One State Solution:

                            Nobody I've encountered on this website would deny the Jewish People (or even only the Israelis) the right to self-determination.

                            What the hell is that? You do know what a One State Solution is, do you not? I means no more Jewish State.

                            What you're conveniently forgetting is that Israel is and has been for 44 years denying the Palestinian People their legitimate right of self-determination.

                            Oh really.... then I guess you haven't read a FUCKING. THING. I. HAVE. EVER. WRITTEN.  Of course you forget that I completely support the Palestinians very legitimate right to self determination in the form of a two-State solution. I write diaries on that subject. Just because you are too dumb to read them doesn't mean that I don't do that. Here let me enlighten you with this comment I wrote to soy yesterday...

                            ....So let's set the record straight.. I support a true two State resolution (unlike you soy) where both the Palestinian People and Jewish people can realize their legitimate rights to self governance (again unlike you).

                            I believe that both people need these homelands in light of historical denials to self rule. Further, I support the same favorable immigration policies for both Israel and the future State of Palestine.

                            Feeling TEH STOOPID YET.

                            Finally, the UN Charter forbids annexation of territory by use of force.  Israel is a signatory to the UN and freely bound itself to the UN Charter.  There was no UN when the US took over much of the American southwest.  There is a UN now.  Stalin annexed much of Eastern Europe by force, but that didn't make it right.

                            Congrats you are now pathetic.

                            So because the U.N. says something that magically makes it all better. Good to know.

                            DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

                            by volleyboy1 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 02:37:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Interesting, though. (7+ / 0-)
                            Of course, this seems to apply only when Israel has done something blatantly condemnable.

                            So when something is not blatantly 'condemnable', we can blame all Jews. It's a difference of degree, not kind.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Thu May 26, 2011 at 04:23:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  IOKIAOTIDI (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, volleyboy1, hikerbiker

                            Its OK If Anyone Other Than Israel Does It.

                            One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision -- Bertrand Russell

                            by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Thu May 26, 2011 at 05:18:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't read things inside-out and attribute (0+ / 0-)

                            the stupidity you create to me.

                            If you feel that way yourself, state it as your own thoughts and feelings.  What you typed is stupid and the result of some twisted, inside-out reading of my statements.  You own that, not me.

                            Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                            by Celtic Merlin on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:27:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, believe me (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            volleyboy1

                            I think you have more than enough stupid for all of us.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:23:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, yes! Really. Now and for always. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Euroliberal, poco

                            You cite soysauce's alleged desire for a "One State Solution" but I believe that soy has called only for RoR.  Even if soy HAS advocated for the One State, she is joined by many Zionists who campaign for a Greater Israel - "from the Med to the Jordan."  This is also a One State Solution.  Are these Zionists advocating for stripping the Jewish People of their right to self-determination?  It would seem so!

                            The problem with your citation is threefold:
                            1.  I asked you who "they" are.  You're claiming that one person advocating for the One State is "they".  Nope.

                            2.  You further claim that the One State means the end of Israel.  This is not a foregone conclusion at all - except maybe in your head.

                            3.  None of this proves that anybody wants to take away the rights of any Jews - anywhere.
                            .

                            Now, on to your next bit of fluff:

                            Of course you forget that I completely support the Palestinians very legitimate right to self determination in the form of a two-State solution.
                            And for that, I applaud your conviction, VB.  But, your conviction does not change the fact that I presented and which you quoted.  That being:
                            What you're conveniently forgetting is that Israel is and has been for 44 years denying the Palestinian People their legitimate right of self-determination.
                            The State of Israel isn't paying any attention to your conviction and hasn't been doing so for over 40 years.  Your support for anything changes nothing about Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.
                            .
                            Feeling TEH STOOPID YET.
                            Yes, it comes through in every word you type.
                            .

                            And now, the coup de grace:

                            Congrats you are now pathetic.

                            So because the U.N. says something that magically makes it all better. Good to know.

                            The UN Charter - the document to which all members pledge adherence in order to be admitted as members - is not something that the UN simply "says".  It is a set of rules and principles (Hey, Israel!  Check it out - principles!) which must be followed.  This is much more important than a GA or SC Resolution.  The UN Charter carries more weight than anything else the UN "says".   It carries more weight than even UNGA Resolution 181.  Israel committed itself to following that document - all of it - when it became a member state.

                            No magic.  Not pathetic.  International Law.  Law that Israel has committed itself to following, but isn't.

                            This means that your question, "Where are the calls to return CA to Mexico?" has been answered.  You wouldn't be asking that question if you didn't want Israel to keep the West Bank.  Since you asked, you obviously DO want a Greater Israel from the Med to the Jordan.  Else, why make that argument at all?

                            So!  Let's try this again, shall we?

                            1.  Who are "they"?
                            2.  How are "they" going to strip the Jewish People of their right to self-determination?
                            3.  Why can't Israel let the Palestinians have what the Israelis (well, most of the Israelis) already have - the right to self-determination and a nation of their own?

                            Please address these 3 issues.  Real, direct answers - simple or complex - will be appreciated.

                            Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                            by Celtic Merlin on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:21:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You know I thought of ragging here and then (0+ / 0-)

                            decided to address your points straight up:

                            soy's support for One State is not alleged. Here is a diary she just wroteand a passage from the introduction:

                            Palestinian community leader, Mazen Qumsiyeh, sent out the following appeal today calling for people of conscience around the world to support efforts to create real justice and equality in Palestine and Israel through a one-state initiative.

                            I agree that she is joined by many Zionists who want this on the Right as well... though they think they can have what would become an Apartheid state for permanent. I oppose this meme completely.

                            You further claim that the One State means the end of Israel.  This is not a foregone conclusion at all - except maybe in your head.

                            How is the One State solution NOT an end to Israel as a Jewish State. On what planet, in what Galaxy, in what Universe does this not resonate with you. Are you actually serious in this question?

                            None of this proves that anybody wants to take away the rights of any Jews - anywhere.

                            In the real world the one State solution takes away the right of the Jewish people's legitimate right of self determination. Even soy admits that though she does State that she feels that the Jewish right of self-determination can't come at the expense of another people's rights. Of course, she refuses to address the converse of that but that is for another argument.

                            What you're conveniently forgetting is that Israel is and has been for 44 years denying the Palestinian People their legitimate right of self-determination.

                            This is just a throw away comment. I am well aware that the Palestinian People have their rights to self determination denied, but, that is not all Israel over history. It is a alot of things including themselves. However, in the here and now, Israel plays a major role in this.

                            No magic.  Not pathetic.  International Law.  Law that Israel has committed itself to following, but isn't.

                            All I can say about this is find me ten nations outside of Andorra, Luxemborg, and Monte Carlo that follow International Law. Hell, find me one governing entity of the Two in the Palestinian polity that follow international law.

                            Like it or not the world doesn't always follow international law. You just ragged on me because what I support is not happening yet you then harp on this issue? Seriously?

                            You wouldn't be asking that question if you didn't want Israel to keep the West Bank.  Since you asked, you obviously DO want a Greater Israel from the Med to the Jordan.  Else, why make that argument at all?

                            Simply put here Two Things: A. Don't tell me what I believe and B. Don't be Dumb.

                            I asked because it's a hypocritical or worse argument to insist on one thing but not another. That is my point and you should know that. Now, I happen to NOT believe in a One State Israel solution, so just cut this shit out right now.

                            And despite your blathering in that last comment I will answer your questions:

                            1. Who are they: Just to name a few, soysauce, sortalikenathan, weasel, daud, Prob Stat, callmecassandra, Aunt Martha....

                            2. How are they going to strip peoples rights? They aren't. But they advocate that.

                            3. Why can't Israel let the Palestinians have self determination? I don't know, I advocate for it but I am not Israeli nor am I part of the Israeli government. You will have to ask them - you are asking the wrong guy.

                            DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

                            by volleyboy1 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 10:43:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This one is no shorter than the others. (0+ / 0-)
                            soy's support for One State is not alleged.
                            Yes, that diary was clear.

                            .

                            How is the One State solution NOT an end to Israel as a Jewish State.
                            Because the people with the guns, tanks, artillery, fighter jets, and attack helicopters will ensure the establishment of a blatantly-Apartheid state.  Period.  End of sentence.  And you know this is what will happen - don't try to deny that.  After all of the fighting over the last 60 years, the Jewish Israelis are gonna just roll over, give up all they fought for, and not continue to oppress the Palestinians into remaining in their role as second-class citizens?  Don't make jokes like that.  They're not funny.

                            .

                            In the real world the one State solution takes away the right of the Jewish people's legitimate right of self determination.
                            In the real world, Jewish-Israeli domination of that region continues unabated and with full US financial, economic, military, and diplomatic support.  The Palestinians would never receive fully-equal rights in all respects.  Who are you trying to kid?

                            Secondly, If "Israel" doesn't mean "Jews" (as I've seen here so many times), why is it that you seem to be making the argument that Arab control of Israel would mean the end of self-determination for "the Jewish People" - as in "all Jews world-wide"?  Are not Jews living outside of Israel still members of that group, "the Jewish People"?  I've always thought they are such members.

                            .

                            What you're conveniently forgetting is that Israel is and has been for 44 years denying the Palestinian People their legitimate right of self-determination.

                            This is just a throw away comment.
                            No, this is not a "throw-away comment."  That is a statement of factual reality.

                            Your attempt to blame the victims of oppression for their own oppression . . .  

                            It is a alot of things including themselves.
                            . . . sounds like something Bibi would say.
                            However, in the here and now, Israel plays a major role in this.
                            In your ability to understate this, you are truly gifted.

                            .

                            All I can say about this is find me ten nations outside of Andorra, Luxemborg, and Monte Carlo that follow International Law.
                            "Johnny does it, why can't I?"  "That other fellow over there is jaywalking, why should I obey any of the laws, officer?"  The US is about the worst offender.  So, your solution is to flush International Law and just pry the lid completely off?  Nice.

                            .

                            You just ragged on me because what I support is not happening yet you then harp on this issue? Seriously?
                            I said that DESPITE your support, Israel doesn't give a rat's ass.  PART of that problem is that they refuse to follow the laws that they pledged to follow.  Break one of those Int'l. Laws against Israel, though, and I'd bet bucks against bagels (plain or egg only, please) that they'll scream like a scalded cat.  But that UN Charter thing about conquest of land?  Don't bug them about it.

                            Re:  The giving back of Calif. to Mexico: You brought it up as some example of why Israel should keep the WB for their own.  I told you why it is wrong in today's world since 1945.  Don't use examples like that if you can't support them or you WILL look like you're arguing in favor of militaristic land grabs.  This is why I'm trying to teach you about the UN Charter.  It applies now.  It didn't exist in the 1800's.

                            Simply put here Two Things: A. Don't tell me what I believe and B. Don't be Dumb.
                            A. Don't present arguments which contradict what you say you believe.  B. Stop with the ad hom - this is your second "stupid" and "dumb" against me.  If you can't argue facts, don't resort to personal attacks.  Just quit instead.
                            I asked because it's a hypocritical or worse argument to insist on one thing but not another.
                            That's wrong.  As the societies of the world mature, we outlaw things.  Burning at the stake, genocide, hacking off of limbs, and acquisition of land by military conquest.  Giving the WB to the Palestinians is not hypocritical just because the US kept Calif.

                            .
                            Finally, you list the names of people who you claim want to see the Jewish People be stripped of the right of self-determination.  Without clear statements from each of them which show this to be true, you can't make this claim about them.  You certainly can't make this claim against a generic "they".  That's broad-brush, and you know it.  This is why your got an HR and why it stands.

                            The "they advocate for it" claim also cries out for evidence.

                            Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                            by Celtic Merlin on Fri May 27, 2011 at 01:18:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is silly and you are spinning like a 78 (0+ / 0-)

                            but listen, you are within your rights to HR me whenever you like. You actually broke the rules by engaging me but honestly, I am glad you did engage me so at least I could see what you were thinking and how far that thought process is divorced from reality.

                            Anyway, on one side note - ask yourself this... Do you think that if I broke the rules of HR'ing your folks wouldn't be screaming bloody murder? I can show you instance after instance where that is exactly what they did. However, in this diary and this comment thread, not a peep. Interesting how that works - isn't it.

                            Anyway, I am taking off for the weekend so by the time you see this I will be gone until Monday. Respond or not, that is up to you, but, I thought you should know that I will not be around to respond should you chose too.

                            DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

                            by volleyboy1 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:58:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your capitulation is graciously accepted. [n/t] (0+ / 0-)

                            Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                            by Celtic Merlin on Sat May 28, 2011 at 08:43:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so annexing land taken by force is acceptable to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Celtic Merlin

                            you then. At least, that's how I interpreted your final three sentences.

                            How about if we annexed Iraq? I mean, sure, we signed and ratified the UN charter and made ourselves part of the this funny collective security system, but hey whatever.  All the cool kids are doing it?

                          •  Wow.... no (0+ / 0-)

                            I am a solid opponent of our involvement in Iraq.

                            Why to take that comment to some other dimension though. Kudos.

                            DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

                            by volleyboy1 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:59:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  an opponent, I'll take you at your word (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Flyswatterbanjo, Celtic Merlin

                            But right or wrong, good war/bad war, since we are there, would it be within US rights to annex land that it occupies by force?  Can it fly in US citizens to colonize Iraqi land occupied by US forces.

                            This is not an issue of whether you agree with our invasion and occupation of Iraq; it is about whether you fundamentally agree on whether a nation has the power, post-1945 (age of the UN Charter) to annex and colonize land it occupies by force.

                            I'm not quite sure how else to take this:

                            Finally, the UN Charter forbids annexation of territory by use of force.  Israel is a signatory to the UN and freely bound itself to the UN Charter.  There was no UN when the US took over much of the American southwest.  There is a UN now.  Stalin annexed much of Eastern Europe by force, but that didn't make it right.

                            Congrats you are now pathetic.

                            So because the U.N. says something that magically makes it all better. Good to know.

                            How else am I supposed to take those last three sentences?
                             

                          •  Don't bother. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Celtic Merlin

                            He suffers from severe cognitive dissonance.

                            That's all it takes, really...pressure and time.

                            by Flyswatterbanjo on Fri May 27, 2011 at 09:32:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Arguments that annexation has occured in the past (0+ / 0-)

                            so it's legit now totally ignored the big changes that have occurred in the international system, especially after 1945 and the establishment of the UN.  Norms of proper behavior, international laws, and practices have changed; the international system is not as it was even 150 years ago.

                            Sorry, but there is no basis in this day and age to argue that colonizing and/or annexing land taken by force is in any way, shape, or form acceptable or legal.

                            Perhaps there is some heavy cognitive dissonance at work here, Flyswatterbanjo

                          •  HR'd for abuse (4+ / 0-)

                            Sorry, CM, but your rating is abusive and your justification fails. If you see fit to remove your abusive HR of vb1, I'd be happy to remove my downrate of you.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:21:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then you must feel that this statement is true: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Euroliberal, poco
                            They support a one-sided narrative that denies the legitimate right of Jewish people to self-determination.

                            Disgusting.

                            Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                            by Celtic Merlin on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:23:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'd expect that of some others. (0+ / 0-)

                            You - I had higher expectations of you.

                            Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                            by Celtic Merlin on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:24:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm deeply moved (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102, volleyboy1

                            I don't actually share the scope of volley's belief (there are some who I would probably agree with him on). But the idea that his belief is HRable is patently absurd and your HR is clearly abusive. I urge you to remove it.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:28:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Uprated for HR abuse (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Mets102, volleyboy1

                          CM makes some good contributions, and some stinkers. This was one of the latter.

                          These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                          by Red Sox on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:17:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Um, Texas won its independence from Mexico. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Terra Mystica

                        The US, even though it was happy about Texas' results, didn't take Texas from Mexico.

                        Small point, but it's important for them to be one of two independent nations that became part of the US.

                  •  Excuse me?! (7+ / 1-)

                    "The standards Americans bring to bear on Israel is (sic) unbelievable." ??

                    While that's true, it's not for the reasons you think. We continue funneling billions of dollars to them every year while they illegally build colonies in Palestinian land. We veto every condemnation of Israel that comes out of the UN. We look the other way as they commit daily acts of war against Lebanon. The list goes on and on.

                    I want some of what you're smoking.

                    volleyboy1 IS lame

                    by ProbStat on Thu May 26, 2011 at 09:17:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  The "Gaza Diet" constitutes a war crime. (19+ / 0-)

                Have you never heard of the Gaza Diet?  It was explained this way by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2006:

                "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger."

                Also, the website Moral Low Ground is reported a Wikileaks release in January concerning this at this link.

                The Wikileaks release is detailed right here.

                Finally, a partial list of banned items was released in 2010 by Gisha - an Israeli Human Rights organization - and is detailed in this .pdf file.

                Further grisly details are available upon request.

                Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                by Celtic Merlin on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:38:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  This is the same strategy Republicans are trying (19+ / 0-)

            to use against the American public -- keep the standard of living so low under Obama that voters willl beg them to come back. I'm not trying to minimize the conditions in Gaza, and I'm well aware that conditions here don't compare to the horrors the Gazans have had to endure, nevertheless, it's the same strategy.

            Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal

            by RJDixon74135 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 05:54:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, Palestine has been kept under a state of (18+ / 0-)

            siege by Israel.  The cruel joke is over.  The Palestinians survived it, help is now on the way.  Palestine, its people, its land and its water will be restored.

            ....at a table with 12 cookies. The CEO takes 11 and says to the Tea Partier: "Keep an eye on that union guy, he wants your cookie." Ari Paul 'The US: Waking up to class politics' Al Jazeera

            by weltshmertz on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:07:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Second Intifada, 2000-2002 (6+ / 0-)

              How did the Palestinians respond to the Clinton/Rabin peace overtures of the late 1990s, again?  Refresh my memory.  Since this is a "siege by Israel" and all.  

              Anything?

              Pizza stores and school buses being blown up by the hundreds on Israeli streets?

              Anything?

              Bueller?

              •  The first Intifada. Largely non-violent. (13+ / 0-)

                How did Israel respond to it?

                That's all it takes, really...pressure and time.

                by Flyswatterbanjo on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:58:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Your missing the point, that international law (9+ / 0-)

                explicitly forbids collective punishment of people not direclty involved in these criminal, terrorist, or acts of war, however, you wish to define them.

                For example Timoty McVie (sp?) committed an atrocity, by blowing up the Federal building in Oklahoma, I believe.  Apparently, as an ardent Cathlic, he felt abortion was murder etc.

                We arrested him an put him in jail, which is the legal way to do it.

                If we had instead, rounded up all Catholics, anti-abortion advocates, and/or put a blockaide around his home state, and induced a collective punishment, to force them to find him and turn them over to the law, we could be in violation of law.

                And, we are not even an occupying power in this case.  The law is stricter, in the case of occuapation, than what a sovereign nation can do to it's own people.

                This is just one example, of the kinds of perspective, I believe leads many progressive Democrats, and members of the J-Street Jewish communities, to challenge Prime Minister Netanyahu, and his Likud-Shas coalition, even while we profess to support Israel.  This confuses some folks, but, part of the hidden resolution of the seeming mystery is that we are concerned about what this prolonged conflict is doing to our own values, and the priciples of international rule-of-law around the world.

                Both, the US and Israel are becoming more isolated from the rest of the world on these issues.

                Which is playing into the hands of violent extremist in this case.

                Otherwise, few would listen to them.

                This is the other notable aspect of collective punishment WinSmith, it almost never works.  And, in fact, usually produces exactly the opposite consequence than desired by the occupying force.

                Egypt today, announced the end of the Gaza blockage.

                Not only did we not displace Hamas, but Israel has serious damaged, if not lost, it's relationship with Turkey, and has created enough ill will in Europe that many are seriously considering voting for a unilateral UN recognition of Palestine.

                Thes sentiment did not just magically appear.  It is the direct causal consequence of choices and actions by the players in the system.

                Netanyahu shot himself in the foot here.  (I know it was more than Netanyahu, but I am trying to no confuse anyone about the fact, that I am speaking of someone who is pro-Israel, and believe a J-Street - Progressive Democratic approach to this challenge of peace, and the two-state solution, would be better for Israel's national security, than the Netanyahu approach. )

                The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

                by HoundDog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:14:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Second Intifada (7+ / 0-)

                  The Second Intifada was a systemic response by Arafat and the Palestinian people to send hundreds of suicide bombers onto the streets of Israel to kill innocent women and children, to shut down Israeli society under waves of terror, and force Israel to acquiesce to Palestinian demands.

                  The notion that Israel just up and started bombing Palestine in the 00s, because they like to kill people, is ludicrous.

                  "Collective Punishment" is in the eye of the beholder.  What the Second Intifada did to the people of Israel was traumatic on a level that 9/11 doesn't even come close to comparing to.  

                  Imagine the fear of riding a bus.  Or sending your kids to school, only to find a Palestinian dipped nails in rat poison and set off a bomb on his belt sending those nails into the skulls of school children.

                  I can't stand Netanyahu.  I support Obama's push for the '67 borders.

                  But when I read these ludicrous diaries about how Israel is some evil empire and the Palesstinians a band of tortured innocents, it's as puke inducing as any propaganda from the right about how Islam is a "religion of evil."

                  Stop with the cartoons already.

                  •  I believe you are wrong WinSmith (4+ / 0-)
                    "Collective Punishment" is in the eye of the beholder.  What the Second Intifada did to the people of Israel was traumatic on a level that 9/11 doesn't even come close to comparing to.  

                    The law is the law.  The people being collectively punished in Gaza did note directly launch the Second Intifada, and no international legal proceedings, with due process, have found as such.

                    So, regardless, of your, or mine feelings about whatever trauma Israel feels about it, does not warrant violations of international law.

                    As, a Democrat here, I pressume you joined us in denouncing President Bush going to war against Iraq, citing our injuries in 9/11 as the "Causes Bellus."  

                    This was totally bogus, and I denouced it as well.  

                    Supposed OBL had not only taken down the Twin Towers, but vaporized all of Manhatten.  Would you by the same logic support us vaporizing, not only Iraq, but perhap, Iran, Egypt, Palestine, and any other country that had not sufficiently denounced OBL in Bush's eyes?

                    No, those would be war crimes.

                    The fact, that Israelis have sufferred, and been unjustly killed is terrible, and sad.  But, it does not legitimize taking the illegal actions of collective punishment in Gaza.

                    And, taking those actions, although, they seemed to have made you feel better, seem not to have advanced the cause of Israel's security, in any way.  In fact, I cited, the loss of Turkey as an allies, and the radicalization, increase in the perceived legitimacy of the extremists jihadist, in the eyes of many Arab youth, as counter-examples.

                    It didnt' work, it wasn't legal, smart, or effective.  

                    Finding it to be frustrating doesn't legitimize lashing out.

                    Wiser strategy that accomplishes positive goals is a better approach.  With the whole world watching, and 190 countries having a vote in the UN General Assembly, it is worthwhile pretending, at least, that we support international law, as represented in the Geneva Conventions even if sadly, we all do not appreciate it, or support it.

                    My understanding is that 112 countries have already announced intention of supporting the recognition of Palestine as a member state.

                    And, further, while, I may be wrong, as there are contradicitory writings on this, with 150 countries, which they are expected to get, the General Assembly can override the US Secruity Council Veto, in an emergency session under Article 377.

                    Let's be Machievellian about this, at least, of legal arguments, don't sway you.  

                    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

                    by HoundDog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:48:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Collective Punishment is well-defined (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Terra Mystica

                    It is a punishment that applies to people regardless of guilt.

                    There are plenty of people in Gaza who are suffering despite having no role in the Second Intifada.

                    Imagine the fear of riding a bus.  Or sending your kids to school, only to find a Palestinian dipped nails in rat poison and set off a bomb on his belt sending those nails into the skulls of school children.
                    That's awful, but it doesn't justify killing other schoolchildren.

                    Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

                    by The Red Pen on Thu May 26, 2011 at 10:29:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Gaza is 30+% children. nt (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      The Red Pen, poco

                      "Dega dega dega dega. Break up the concrete..." The Pretenders

                      by Terra Mystica on Thu May 26, 2011 at 02:12:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  No, it is Israeli Security Measures (0+ / 0-)

                      By limiting imports and border access, Israel has reduced the amount of missiles being shot into Israel from Gaza, and reduced the amount of suicide bombings on the streets of Israel.

                      Is this "collective punishment" of Palestinians or "Security Measures for Israel"?  Depends on your point of view.

                      Ask yourself this:

                      Since Israel began bombing the West Bank in 2003-2004, did suicide bombings increase or decrease?

                      When Israel closed the borders and bombed Gaza in 2008, did missile attacks increase or decrease?

                      You say "Punishment."  But Israel has received far fewer suicide bombers and missile attacks since the actions they took, so clearly a self-preservation defense is plausible, too.

                      •  Indian attacks are way down (0+ / 0-)

                        America used to have a problem with Native Americans attacking settlers.

                        Now we don't have one.

                        I guess that makes our solution OK.

                        Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

                        by The Red Pen on Thu May 26, 2011 at 05:15:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm glad you justify terrorism (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          volleyboy1

                          The thousands of Israeli civilians blown up by Palestinian terrorists will be pleased to know that you find that sort of response a justifiable reaction to occupation.

                          Although Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mendela might disagree with you.

                          There are other strategies to occupation/repression.  They don't involve nail bombs exploding by Israeli schoolyards.

                          •  Do you believe that only Israel has (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco

                            the right to defend itself?  That everybody else should allow their country to be trampled on?

                            ....at a table with 12 cookies. The CEO takes 11 and says to the Tea Partier: "Keep an eye on that union guy, he wants your cookie." Ari Paul 'The US: Waking up to class politics' Al Jazeera

                            by weltshmertz on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:19:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you find "Defense" to involve nail bombs? (0+ / 0-)

                            You continue to rationalize the years of Palestinian terrorism under the Second Intifada (2000-2003) as "defense."

                            I suggest you reconsider that premise.

                          •  Don't put words in my mouth (0+ / 0-)

                            Collective punishment is well-defined.

                            It is immoral.

                            Condemning it is not "justifying terrorism," idiot.

                            Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

                            by The Red Pen on Fri May 27, 2011 at 08:58:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No it isn't (0+ / 0-)

                            One political leader's "punishment" is another political leader's "pre-emptive defense."

                            Given the nature of terrorism Israel experienced from waves of suicide bombers and missiles fired from Gaza for years, your argument that this is some clear cut case is ludicrous.

                            Maybe to you, it is.  I suggest you are talking out of your proverbial ass unless you've lived in Israel yourself and know what it's like to be afraid to send your kids to school on a public bus.

                      •  I say it again. What have restrictions on spices (0+ / 0-)

                        and such whchi were imposed got to do with missiles. Cinnamon CANNOT be mistaken for a weapon. Food cannot be mistaken for a weapon.

              •  No GG article at Salon to troll today? (0+ / 0-)

                "It's hard to explain to someone that they are unimportant when it comes to presidential priorities, yet critically important when it comes to showing up at the polls." Dr. Boyce Watkins

                by Uberbah on Thu May 26, 2011 at 09:33:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Was that the one where the Israelis started it by (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lefty Coaster, peggy, Terra Mystica

                marching on the Dome of the Roc and defiling the Muslim holy site in a show of naked power?  I think it was Sharon who led the way, but I'm rusty on some of the names.

          •  Also the only source (7+ / 0-)

            of smuggled 'quality of life' items.

            But whether the tactic worked or not is beside the point; collective punishment is immoral.

          •  I've been saying this for over a week (5+ / 0-)

            Sadly, some of my Jewish friends are major Likudniks, and have insulted me to high hell.  They suffer from major confirmation bias. The way they acted....don't think I'll be talking to them again.  Telling me I can't have an opinion cause I'm not Jewish, that was so far over the line I can't think where to begin.  I actually got an email from another Jewish friend who saw the exchange and APOLOGIZED FOR THEM. Incredible.

            I will respect the Republican Party the day they decide to start respecting all Americans....therefore, I will never respect the Republican Party.

            by wolverinethad on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:10:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  As an Irishwoman I've often thought (9+ / 0-)

            that if the British had reacted the same as the Israelis to terrorist actions they would have bombed Dublin and Belfast to smithereens and blockaded our ports and airports to starve us into submission. I don't think though that the US would have permitted that reaction even if the British chose it so why do they permit it against Palestinians?

        •  Spices (0+ / 0-)

          Ban was lifted a year ago, I think.

          I can't give you a brain, but I can give you a diploma- Wizard of Oz; If you have half a brain you won't need a diploma- Frank Levey

          by weathercoins on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:58:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  What military uses does chocolate have (22+ / 0-)

        to warrant banning its importation?

        A chocolate bomb?

        Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder ~ Bill Moyers

        by Lefty Coaster on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:50:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dune? (6+ / 0-)

        He who controls the Spice controls the universe

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site