rich, white, British school boys' society into a factional power struggle and violent chaos.

The Israeli Zionist charter is the imposition of European territorialism upon Palestine. If the corporate media and exploitive forces find themselves losing the Israel/Palestine narrative , which always conflated acts of terrorism with the Palestinian struggle, and their remedy employs a media blackout, maybe an examination of IDF motives and tactics will have to be adjusted if it no longer insulates the benevolent motives of Zionist leaders.

Edited to add:

The IDF and Netanyahu knew.

It is the corporate media and exploitive forces (you might consider naming these forces, so there is no ambiguity about WTF you mean), and not acts of terrorism that conflate the Palestinian struggle with acts of terrorism. It's as if corporate media and... forces, and not the well-subsidized program of indoctrinating the militants into the violence of martyrdom culture, which compels the Palestinian militants to commit acts of terrorism.

And if there is anyone who is losing the Israel/Palestine narrative, it is the antisemitic halfwits protesting "imposition of European territorialism upon Palestine", whatever the hell THAT means, who ignorantly spew genocidal slogans at random Jews, largely because they are getting exactly what they want: extensive coverage in the corporate media.

Yet, there are things they have in common.

with the exception of those suspected of crimes committed against Israel and its citizens.

And that would be something Israel has in common with other democracies.

This includes formally annexed areas.

And Israel's jurisdiction over parts of east Jerusalem, as well as that of Jordan, is codified in various international treaties.

One doesn't negate the other.

family living there is one perspective. What I witnessed myself in my 10 or more visits over the years is only my exposure. What I’ve read in books and articles of both Israeli and Palestinian authors is another. And like most of us, while I try to understand different perspectives, I gravitate to reading that which probably strengthens my initial perspective.

So, in all honesty, since I know we disagree on how but probably want the same things I’m curious where you how you form your perspective and can say with such finite words that Gazans are not subject to Israeli jurisdiction.

From what I know (which could be flawed) Israel controls the borders (other than the Egyptian border) and Gazans cannot exit Gaza without Israeli permission. Israel controls water rights. Israeli forces in Gaza control the ground around critical water facilities. Israeli forces control the area around a desalination facility and sewage treatment plant, and much of the water is undrinkable. Israel controls the ocean and Gazans are only allowed certain areas for fishing. The Oslo Accords stipulate a range of 20 nautical miles (about 37 km) off the Gaza shoreline, but Israel has never allowed fishing farther than 12 nautical miles out to sea. Over the years, Israel has gradually narrowed the fishing zone, sometimes to three nautical miles only, and currently between six and nine. Israel controls the air space. As part of the blockade, Israel prohibited travel in and out of Gaza, the import of goods into Gaza – including restrictions on food items, toys and paper – and export to Israel, the West Bank or foreign countries.

There’s so much more and much can be read on the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, B’Tselem as well as other places.

So I’m not sure it’s accurate to say Gazans are not subject to Israel’s jurisdiction. In ma y areas, they certainly are.

What you know lacks nuance, but is essentially correct. So is what I know. Israel disregards a whole number of agreements reached in Oslo and elsewhere. Individual Israelis do too, with apparent impunity. The same can be said about PA, Hamas, as well as individual Palestinians. The relative degree of culpability among these parties is up for debate, especially considering how much clout various players outside of Palestine have in promoting their own interests in the land of Palestine, and I don't find engaging in such debates particularly rewarding.

What I was addressing in my post was the irrelevance of the post I responded to. Israel's jurisdiciton does not extend to Gazans. Here, jurisdiction over the people is very different from control of the territory. As a direct response, I was arguing the former, rather than the latter. Israel's jurisdiction, as in administration of legal matters, is very limited with respect to Gaza and is non-existent with respect to Gazans. They are subject to their own institutions and laws, which is very tragic indeed.

There are probably legal definitions but I don’t know them. To me, if a country dictates if I can move, work, travel only with their permission - that’s jurisdiction. But maybe not in the way you mean. To me, if a country dictates where I can work, go to school - that’s jurisdiction. And if a country dictates to me how I can access water and electricity, where I can seek medical treatment - that would be jurisdiction. But again, perhaps that’s not the legal definition.

What nuance am I missing that you can provide? I do like to know more and if I’m being flip or naive I certainly don’t mean to be. It’s why I read so much. I like to know the depth of what I’m missing so point me to a more in depth analysis to give me the nuance. It might fill out the history I’m familiar with.

Peace.

In the case of Gaza, there is a difference between being governed and being controlled. Government constitutes institutionalized control from within and is guided by internal rules imposed on the governed. Invasions, occupation and blockades constitutes interference in internal government and are governed by the international rules imposed on the occupier.

Gaza has a government. Hamas, as the governing entity, is free to impose whatever rules it wishes, and enforce them in any way it wishes. Israel, as an occupier, is far more restricted in its options, and they only have the power to enforce these options in occupied areas that are no longer subject to being administered by Hamas. There is a whole list of rules and conditions outlined in the Geneva conventions that set these rules in great detail, and I am only familiar with a few of them. This is where much of the nuance is, and unfortunately I am nowhere near to being a halfass reliable guide through this maze.

Here is what I can discern from the very little that I know:

Israel may not and does not dictate where anyone can move, work, travel or go to school within the Gaza borders. It cannot and does not dictate whether access water and electricity, or where one can seek medical treatment (I am not sure what Israel's, or Hamas' responsibilities are about telecommunications infrastructure, since it involves private companies). For obvious reasons, Israel controls all of the above outside of the Gaza borders.

Where Hamas is present, Hamas is in charge of facilitating all of that. If I remember correctly, the flow of water and electricity from Israel to Gaza is determined by the Oslo accords, which have the status of a treaty and not of international law, and treaties are commonly broken and even annulled in times of war. Israel may only take over these functions when Hamas is no longer there to carry them out. Israel may declare areas of military operations and inform civilians with that regard, but it cannot displace civilians by force. The civilians are left in charge of the decision to remain in the military zones or to flee. There is a whole bunch of rules and laws (I believe much of them are in the Hague Conventions) that guide the separation of civilians from military targets, and outlines the obligation by Hamas to facilitate the movement of civilians due to war, but Hamas doesn't follow any of them, and was known to prevent civilians from moving out of declared military zones. In fact, Hamas openly declared their intention to abandon Gaza civilians to their own devices.

Whew, that's a lot of stuff, and I haven't even began to scratch the surface. It gets more complex when we start talking about war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are written into international law and have very strict legal parameters.

By comparison, making moral judgements is far easier, but they risks being completely inaccurate when compared to international laws and rules of war.

The same is likely true for foreign nationals crossing from Israel, but I am not sure.

what can pass through, etc.

[link:https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231103-the-gaza-egypt-rafah-crossing-explained-it-is-not-a-normal-border|]

Also Gazans typically don’t have passports. This info from B’Tselem is not completely up to date but has lots of information you may want to read. [link:https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/stateless|]

I don't need to be insulted because I don't think it's right for Israel to murder thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

August 2023

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-finance-minister-suspends-funds-arab-towns-east-jerusalem-2023-08-08/

Israeli finance minister suspends funds to Arab towns, East Jerusalem

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has frozen funds for Arab towns and Palestinian education programmes in East Jerusalem, citing crime and safety fears and prompting accusations of racism.

Smotrich, a key member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's nationalist-religious government, said on Monday some of the budget funds meant for Arab local councils were a political pay-off by the previous cabinet that could end up in the hands of "criminals and terrorists".
———
The oppressed will always fight back.
How did this RW lunatic become Finance Minister?

But you know this wouldn't be an honest assessment.

How much do you know about Israel's parliamentary election system?

actual response or argument otherwise.

Which government responded in such circumstances that met your standards?

The underlying false assumption is that democracy is always inherently good. Yet, we had witnessed by the numerous and continued human rights violations by Israel before the terror attack and the war crimes that were committed after the attack that democracy in and of itself is not inherently good or holding the moral high ground

We witnessed something similar a hundred and fifty plus years ago in the United States with slavery

The answer is there is none.

Hamas is representative of the savagery in Lord of the Flies. It's not surprising the unfortunate daughter of the article's author has a teacher who gets it wrong though. We need to have a lot more merit-based hiring in education and to pay teachers more (and can about half of the administrators). The same brainpower that it takes to understand Lord of the Flies well would get you twice the teacher's pay as a coder.

it makes perfect sense. It's what's happening.

The GD Sadistic Butchers of HAMAS are the ones who started this War and Won't Agree to the Humanitarian Ceasefire that Israel Offered on December 20. 2023.

Mahalo Lex

He says there will be more months of war, followed by an open ended occupation of Gaza.

It's highly questionable whether Hamas can be fully neutered as an instrument of resistance and terror. Additionally, the wake of the carnage and immense trauma of the Palestinian people may very well spawn the next generation of hardcore committed terrorists.

A lasting peace in this conflict will likely require good faith cooperation with Israel's neighbors. By the time the dust settles over the rubble, what will the death toll be? Israel will be viewed by many in the region as a pariah state and US credibility as an honest broker could be damaged, given our unconditional support for Israel's military campaign. How many women and children were slaughtered by bombs made in the USA?

Was the course chosen by Netanyahu truly the best course to achieve both short and long term security for the state of Israel?

attack rag, The Jewish Chronicle. Wallis Simons has been a shill for ages, and this opinion piece is par-for-the-course gaslighting tripe by him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_Chronicle

In September 2014, The Jewish Chronicle published an editorial alleging the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) voted for a "ban on Jews" from the International Union of Architects (IUA) and was, as a result, antisemitic. The RIBA motion had actually called for the suspension of the Israeli Association of United Architects over the building of illegal settlements. Following a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, the Chronicle published a letter of response from David Mond, in which he accused the paper of inspiring "its readers to see antisemitism in every critic" of Israel.

In August 2016, dozens of prominent Jewish activists including Miriam Margolyes, Ilan Pappe and Michael Rosen signed an open letter criticising the paper for what they viewed as its "McCarthyite" "character assassination" of Jeremy Corbyn after the paper published "seven key questions" for Corbyn, including on his alleged ties to and defence of various Holocaust deniers and on his use of the word "friends" for Hamas and Hezbollah.

In December 2019, The Jewish Chronicle published an article by Melanie Phillips which asserted that Islamophobia was a bogus term which provided cover for antisemites. The Board of Deputies of British Jews described its publication as an error, and editor Stephen Pollard acknowledged that "A number of people within the Jewish community, and friends of the community, have expressed their dismay – and anger – at its content."

When The Jewish Chronicle faced closure due to financial problems in April 2020, former ANC politician and anti-apartheid activist Andrew Feinstein stated: "The Jewish Chronicle's equating of antisemitism with criticism of Israel has put back the struggle against real AS & all racism by years." while the freelance journalist Mira Bar-Hillel considered the paper's potential closure to be "the best news of the day" and referred to it as a "pathetic rag".

In July 2021, a letter was sent to the British press regulatory body IPSO requesting a standards investigation into The Jewish Chronicle due to what the signatories believed to be "systemic" failings. The nine signatories were mostly linked to the Labour party and had either been libelled by The Jewish Chronicle or had complaints about factually inaccurate reporting upheld by the regulator between 2018 and 2021. The complainants alleged that the paper's editorial standards were "shockingly low" and stated that "unless standards there improve there will be more victims, while readers will continue to be misled."

Writing in the Byline Times, Brian Cathcart, Professor of Journalism at Kingston University, argued that IPSO had failed to act on "the collapse of journalism standards at The Jewish Chronicle", which he stated had "been found by the IPSO itself to have breached its code of practice 28 times." He suggested IPSO's failure to act was in part due to the regulator's unwillingness to attract accusations of attempting to silence the paper from the Conservative Party, who benefitted politically from the debate around antisemitism in the Labour Party in which the paper was a prominent player. He also identified The Jewish Chronicle's owner Robbie Gibb as an obstacle to an IPSO investigation into standards at the paper.

Lawsuits and rulings

In 1968, The Jewish Chronicle made a claim stating that Labour MP Christopher Mayhew had been making antisemitic comments on a television programme. Mayhew sued for libel, arguing that his comments were anti-Zionist, but not antisemitic. He received a public apology in the High Court. A complaint by Mayhew to the Press Council in April 1971, about the editing of a published letter to the editor, was denied. In 2009, a peace activist accepted £30,000 damages and an apology from the paper over claims that he had harboured two suicide bombers.

In August 2017, The Jewish Chronicle published an adjudication as stipulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) as a result of an article it had published which the court considered breached the Editors' Code of Practice, Clause 9 - Reporting of Crime. IPSO ruled that the JC had published details of the family members of the defendant without valid justification.

In August 2019, the British charity Palestinian Relief and Development Fund (Interpal) received an apology, damages of £50,000 and legal costs after The Jewish Chronicle published "false and defamatory allegations", implying that it had links to terrorist activity. On 23 August, the paper published a full apology, together with an article by Ibrahim Hewitt, chair of trustees of Interpal.

In November 2019, The Jewish Chronicle published a ruling by IPSO that it had breached the Editors' Code of Practice in relation to claims in four articles about a Labour Party member published in early 2019. IPSO also expressed significant concerns about the newspaper's failure to answer IPSO's questions and said it considered that the publication's conduct during the investigation was not appropriate. In February 2020, The Jewish Chronicle acknowledged that they had made untrue allegations, for which they apologised, and agreed to pay damages and legal costs.

In September 2020, The Jewish Chronicle published an apology to a councillor about whom the newspaper had printed numerous allegations. The newspaper asserted that the councillor was involved in inviting an activist, who it deemed to be antisemitic, to a Labour Party event; that the councillor ignored "antisemitic statements" made by a fellow activist; and that the councillor had "launched a vicious protest against Luciana Berger in terms suggestive of antisemitism" and had tried to "improperly interfere with a democratic vote at a regional Labour Party meeting". In addition to the apology, The Jewish Chronicle, its editor Stephen Pollard, and senior reporter Lee Harpin paid substantial libel damages and the legal costs.

In March 2021, The Jewish Chronicle printed an article about political activist and journalist Marc Wadsworth which stated that he was involved in a "conspiracy to intimidate, threaten or harass Jewish activists into silence" in an online meeting of the Labour in Exile Network. In reality Wadsworth had not attended the meeting, had issued no such threats and was not a member of the Labour in Exile Network. The newspaper admitted the story was false in all respects, issued an apology, and agreed to pay substantial damages and legal costs. The presiding judge stated “This was a serious mistake for The Jewish Chronicle to have made.” Following the libel verdict, the Morning Star printed an extract from Wadsworth's statement, in which he said he was "deeply distressed that The Jewish Chronicle did not check its facts or contact me before its article was written."

In August 2021 The Telegraph said that eight complaints to IPSO about the paper had been upheld, two were not upheld, and two were resolved through mediation in the preceding three years, while Brian Cathcart, for the Byline Times, said the paper had 33 breaches of the Editors Code within a similar timeframe.

In November 2022 The Jewish Chronicle published an opinion column by Zoe Strimpel that included a statement that "the Islamic Republic [of Iran] has repeatedly vowed to wipe Israel and Jews off the face of the Earth". In April 2023 IPSO ruled that this was inaccurate, and hence breached Clause 1 of the Editors' Code of Practice. Iran has made such threats against the State of Israel, but not against the Jewish people. IPSO ordered The JC to publish a correction, equal in prominence to the original column.

In April 2023, IPSO upheld a complaint on behalf of Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss about whom The Jewish Chronicle twice (online and in print) wrote a claim of Holocaust denial. The claim had initially been made by Associated Press but was retracted in 2007. The Jewish Chronicle knew this in advance of publication. IPSO upheld complaints under Accuracy Clause 1; they considered the newspaper's behaviour "unacceptable" and reported their "significant concerns" to IPSO's Standards department.

snip