King Netanyahu I has declared there will be no cease-fire.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, whoever, they can stop shooting... but Israel has stated it has no intents to stop its own fire regardless.



The only flaw in the article's title is the "leave" part - Gazans have nowhere to leave to.

But you know, have fun with the victim-blaming. it's the main reason to support Israel, after all.

Right now they are just a co- belligerent in a senseless war.

a single act of violence, without harming the hair on a single Israeli head.

All the Palestinians have to do is:

1) seek a ruling from the ICJ that Netanyahu's declaration that the Israeli army will permanently occupy the West Bank, along with that occupation, is a de facto annexation of the West Bank by Israel;

2) dissolve the Palestinian Authority;

3) demand the right to vote in Israeli elections, and demand that Israel provide government services as is its absolute obligation.

Of course the Israeli rightists believe they can "coax" the Palestinians to leave with enough pressure. They really want ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, but cannot do it directly.

But the Palestinians aren't going anywhere. Israel's only hope is that the US continues to foolishly support the occupation. Once the US comes to its senses and it will eventually, game over for Israel.

capital with that farce.

President Obama would be doing the world and certainly his successor a huge favor by biting the bullet and pulling the plug.

Once he got sand kicked in his face by Netanyahu over settlements, he quickly lost any desire to take on Israel and the Israeli lobby.

I do not expect this to happen but we have done it with other countries so why not Israel (besides the obvious reason)

Any replacement would be a new face on the same policy--expand the settlements, insist on permanent occupation, then pretend to be committed to a two-state solution.

But that does not mean that his actions reflect the consensus in Israel only those who are keeping him in power including the arms merchants.

It's increasingly beholden to its rightwing settler and Haradrim voters. They're the ones having the kids.

The secular ones who believe in treating the Palestinians as human beings are a shrinking portion of the electorate there.

Lets hope the Israeli people wake up and get a government that want true peace soon.

The ICJ does not have that kind of power.

by annexing lands without granting the minimum acceptable political rights to those ruled would certainly help coalesce international opinion around BDS.

At some point, a racist extreme rightwing state like Israel will lose favor with the United States as the US diversifies and liberalizes.

And you think this is the issue that will galvanize the world?

In contentious issues, the ICJ only has jurisdiction if both parties agree before hand. Israel would never accept ICJ jurisdiction.

The UN carefully created the ICJ to ensure it has no true independent power. Remember that many UN members are serial violators of international law and civil rights - those countries had a say in how the ICJ was set up.

The ICJ adjudicates international legal disputes. The ICC prosecutes war crimes.

The ICJ has ruled on Israeli policies before, and no doubt will again.

You are correct, however, that Israel generally does not care what the rest of the world is, just like it does not care about international law. But, it does care about its own economy.

The ICJ can only issue binding decisions with the consent of both parties.

The ICJ is a paper tiger. No real power and no method to enforce non-compliance.

An ICJ declaration that Israel had annexed the WB would constitute a declaration of apartheid, which would accelerate the Boycott/Divest/Sanctions that has begun against Israel.

The US would hold out, just like it did on apartheid South Africa. But, just like it eventually instituted sanctions on South Africa, so too would it eventually turn on apartheid Israel.

The Palestinians cannot ask for an advisory ruling and the ICJ will not adjudicate a contentious issue without the consent of both parties.

Israel's annexation of EJ, where they've essentially done precisely what you're suggesting?

Israel took towards making Zionism and democracy incompatible.

Residents of EJ have the right to apply for citizenship. Should they not have the right to decide for themselves whether they wish to become citizens or not? The fact that so few have applied should indicate just how unpopular an idea abandoning their commitment to an independent Palestine is amongst Palestinians. Yet you support a policy of forcing Israeli citizenship upon them, denying their right to self determination entirely.

If the Palestinians can't have their own state, they will need to peacefully take the whole enchilada. Just by insisting on their fundamental right to vote .

Considering the fact that Israel has previously offered the Palestinians a state on several occasions. As well as formally signed agreements supporting the formation of a palestinian state.

What are you basing your opinion on? Gut feeling?

physical control over the WB?

You see, military occupation means no state.

But since he actually never said that but he HAS agreed to a future palestinian state your argument isn't well supported.

a Palestinian state.

Now we're getting somewhere .

He's pandered to the US government and liberal Jews by pretending he's open to it, but those not wallowing in self- deception know better.

If he's not willing to withdraw the IDF, tell is why John Kerry should waste his time with the phony peace process.

I have no idea what bibi's intentions actually are wrt a palestinian state. Neither do you.

I DO know that he's already formally agreed to the creation of a palestinian state pending negotiations. His conditions for allowing the state are the issue.

with settlement expansion tells exactly what his plans are.

So it doesn't matter what he says because you're capable of reading his policy intent entirely from his actions. You're just the first person on earth who's able to predict middle eastern policy, that's all.

In that case you should simply say that instead of making up fake quotes.

a Palestinian state. His offspring are seething bigots-I wonder where they learned that?

Everything he has done in office has made a Palestinian state less likely.

The only firm commitment he has made is to keep the IDF in the WB.

Bibi will do anything within his power to prevent the creation of a palestinian state. That's who he is. I'm not sure why you think his philosophy would dictate permanent Israeli policy. Back during his first term, when the political climate was different, he signed the wye-river Mem. Because that's what was expected of him then. The idea that he stated the things you're saying though simply aren't true. The reason he was elected was because of the utter failure of the Gaza withdrawal to foment any advancement of peace. That's the reason for his election to office and why he remains there. That's the cause of the utter dissolution of any significant pro peace movement on the Israeli left. It's the cause of Israel's general abandonment of the possibility of long term peace.

Israel's already shown itself to be open to the possibility of a palestinian state. It's been offered already. More than once.

If you expect political will supporting such actions to return then you have to acknowledge why they dissipated in the first place. You don't seem willing to face up to the reality of why the situation is the way it is; or that it was different beforehand.

Abandonment of the possibility that peace is feasible is not the same thing as an unwillingness to support it. Majority opinion in Israel has always supported the land for peace policy. The failure of Oslo and the Gaza withdrawal caused widespread disillusionment that long term peace could be attained through concessions.

But you're clearly reading into that quote quite a bit. If his meaning was specifically that Israel could never end the occupation then why didn't he simply say that??

there is no occupation.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-appointed-panel-israel-isn-t-an-occupying-force-in-west-bank-1.449895

Your evidence is a single document produced by a committee several years ago for political purposes. It bears noting that nothing the panel advised was in any way representative of official Israeli policy nor were any of their recommendations ever enacted.

"Security control" = military occupation for those not playing dumb. Unless you would consent to having the territory of Israel under the "security control" of a Pan-Arab army.

You said he had explicitly stated that the occupation would be permanent. Your quote is far from explicit unless there's some context that otherwise supports your assumption.

is not on the bargaining table.

If Israel were really concerned about security rather than gobbling up land and ground water, it would have stopped settlement expansion instead of accelerating it.

The IDF will stay, to protect the settlers, and to conveniently keep Israel's boot on Palestine's throat.

Land, resources, power. Same agenda as every other colonialist power in history.

He said ending the occupation wasn't on the bargaining table?

Link?

who refuse to see.

But an English language blog dedicated to anti-Zionism. How weird is that?

Seriously. If this is your only evidence all you're doing is destroying your own argument.

He didn't say that, I guess?

You can call me blind for sdisagreeing with you all you like. We're discussing fact here, not speculation. The reality is that bibi simply never said these things you're insisting he "explicitly stated." And your reasons for why he wasn't explicit don't hold any water whatsoever.

On one hand you're accusing him of saying that the occupation is permanent. On the other you're accusing him of pretending to be open to a palestinian state. These are contradictory statements and you lack evidence for either. Can you at least decide which one you believe in first?

to grant the concessions necessary for such a state to exist.

The same prime minister who then neglected to apply any of the panel's recommendations.

Do you have anything besides this that would imply that bibi didn't use the word "occupation" because he denies it's existence?

Because this quote would suggest otherwise.

He agreed that any peace would require giving up part of the WB. Does that not contradict what you just said?

He doesn't tell Israelis that they will have to concede anything. He's promising Israelis that Israel will maintain "security control" of the WB which means as a matter of logic he's promising no Palestinian state.

Israeli like the status quo--certainly they prefer it to any alternative available.

http://mobile.mako.co.il/news-military/politics/Article-77cd5b4ae4b5221006.htm&sCh=3d385dd2dd5d4110&pId=978777604

Is in Hebrew. Where is the translation you're posting from?

Even assuming it all goes as planned, which seems extremely unlikely, AND the Palestinians agree to abandon their right to self determination, how would there be a ruling compelling Israel to grant the Palestinians citizenship or a right to vote? That would violate Israel's right to sovereignty, a cornerstone of international law. States like Lebanon who have long term permanent residents, who were born in-country even, have never been compelled to offer any of them citizenship. It's simply not an accepted tenet of international law. Dozens of states have identical policies.

It's simply unrealistic in the extreme.

Aside from the aspect that Israel would never agree to a single state solution. Which is obviously the main stumbling block.

I do fond it amusing that you think a single statement from a head of state would be sufficient evidence for any court to even attempt to impart the sort of sweeping resolution that you imagine. It's just so ludicrous...

South Africa did. Boycott, divest, sanctions will be the rule, not the exception.

South Africa had sovereignty, but not legitimacy. As their apartheid regime crumbled, so will yours.

because just a moment ago it was entirely justified, from what you were saying.

Make up your mind.

Doesn't mean it will solve anything in the long term.

War is simply violent diplomacy, when you boil it down - you are using violence to reach a political conclusion. To solve something.

If the war isn't going to solve anything - and this is a point you and I agree on, here - then that war cannot be called justified, no matter what sort of stretches and gyrations you engage in. it's simply application of violence for the sake of being violent.

Israel is justified to stop rocket attacks against them. There is a legitimate short term goal.

Israel is using heavy munitions intended for use against field formations and modern military bunkers against sports bars and care homes. Over 120 people have been slain in these bombings, the far majority of them being civilians. It is no longer "self-defense," if it ever was.

Further, Israel has done this almost yearly since 2005. Have the rockets stopped yet?

Just sit back until Hamas runs out of rockets?

Either...

A.) Blow up a fucking lot of civilians with high-powered artillery in a useless paroxysm of rage that will not accomplish a goddamned thing.

or

B.) Just sit back until Hamas runs out of rockets.

You really think that?

So yes, at the moment there are not many other options.

Mass murder or total capitulation?

And it is not mass murder.

Mass murder is not an option.

If it severely damages Hamas militarily and politically than it has accomplished some good. If it were to fatally wound Hamas than it would it would definitely have been worth it.

Israel's been doing the same damn thing with the same damn "goals" in mind for nearly a decade, and it hasn't worked. Now either this is because it's not going to work, or because Israel's actual goals are different from its stated goals. In the interest of avoiding CT territory I'm going with the former - that the chosen course of action will no more stop rockets or degrade Hamas, than has been achieved in the last eight years (and fifteen years prior to that, though without use of missiles.)

So. is there an answer forthcoming?

At least they have honestly stated the destruction of the Jewish state is their goal. Come to think of it, Israel has stated that the destruction go Hamas is their goal. Maybe this time they can accomplish it.

parts for rockets,why isn't hamas smuggling in supplies like food, building roads, infrastructure?

Bibi is on the wrong course, but Hamas wants to destroy Israel, make no mistake about it.

Stop smuggling in weapons Hamas, and actually think about the citizens who live in Gaza for a change.

Israel, make a true effort to negotiate a long lasting peace with the Palestinians, withdraw from most of the west bank (with the exception of the old city of Jerusalem). Let the Palestinians have a chance at building their own country. If they attack you after that, you can declare war on them, do what must be done to avoid future war with them (like what Israel did with Jordan, Egypt in their wars. )

population and the means that Israel used may break with international laws of war.

There are such things as disproportionate use of force to be considered, among other issues.

With the vast majority of strikes not killing any civilians, it is hard to argue that Israel is displaying a callous disregard for civilian deaths. Tactics like "roof knocking" and texting civilians to get out also undercut that argument.

will impress human rights groups that will be examining everything.

Who is actually counting the rockets? I am looking forward to an independent review.

One thing to keep in mind, the time line of events, they'll be examining that as well.

Israeli "Knock on the Roof" bombing technique caught on video.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=202376

HE must be so proud. Remember when he said they needed to wander and not have a homeland? Maybe He knew the chosen ones would turn into a Militant Theocracy.


May God forgive them. They know not what they do.

It just seemed appropriate. And I know.

It's reprehensible when Israel and its supporters try, and it's no better when other people do it.

So just don't.

And???