Anonymous wrote:As I watch the hate-fest, as I read posts calling for the return of all of Israel to the palestinians (one poster), I think it is worth discussing what Israel fears....that leads directly to understanding Israel's actions (right or wrong). I am not trying to justify wrong doing, but rather try to arise at a common understanding.

First and for most , Israel fears its annihilation; the distraction of the country and more importantly the jewish people. This is the basis for 90% of the conflict: Israel's fear. (when Iran and other entities call for annihilation of Jews; when Hamas call for the destruction of Israel; when the adversaries question the historic events where this occurred, that increases the fear).

Every aggressive action of Israel ties into this fear. Everything, from the over-the-top response to ineffective weapons to Israel's development of a nuclear arsenal.

This does not justify the actions....but when people accuse Israel of intentionally killing children, the Israeli's look at it as survival.

This is what is driving Israel's action.

Anonymous wrote:As I watch the hate-fest, as I read posts calling for the return of all of Israel to the palestinians (one poster), I think it is worth discussing what Israel fears....that leads directly to understanding Israel's actions (right or wrong). I am not trying to justify wrong doing, but rather try to arise at a common understanding.

First and for most , Israel fears its annihilation; the distraction of the country and more importantly the jewish people. This is the basis for 90% of the conflict: Israel's fear. (when Iran and other entities call for annihilation of Jews; when Hamas call for the destruction of Israel; when the adversaries question the historic events where this occurred, that increases the fear).

Every aggressive action of Israel ties into this fear. Everything, from the over-the-top response to ineffective weapons to Israel's development of a nuclear arsenal.

This does not justify the actions....but when people accuse Israel of intentionally killing children, the Israeli's look at it as survival.

This is what is driving Israel's action.

Muslima wrote:Well we don't live in the jungle, and you don't have the right to kill 848+ people, injure 9370+ & demolish 10080+ houses because you're "scared"! One thing is sure, Palestinian children will not forget

Anonymous wrote:"You can't have a country based on a religion.". Tell that to most of the Arab countries in the mideast who don't permit other religions.

Anonymous wrote:The end of Israel as a Jewish state is inevitable.

I never understood why the USA would support the founding of Israel as a Jewish State. You can't have a country based on a religion or an ethnicity because it violates the civil rights of the people who are not part of this religion or ethnic group. The US has the separation of church and state for an important reason.

Moreover, you can found a religious state in an area where the majority of people are not part of that religion or that ethnicity.

We need to be working toward one secular Democratic State.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Well we don't live in the jungle, and you don't have the right to kill 848+ people, injure 9370+ & demolish 10080+ houses because you're "scared"! One thing is sure, Palestinian children will not forget

Israel responds harshly because of the fears. Israel would not have attacked Gaza if Gaza had not launched rockets into Gaza.

How Israel attacked is up to debate...but the legality of the response is clear. Israel was allowed to respond. Unfortunately there was collateral damage. That happens in war. However, Israel has a legal right to go after those that attack.

Furthermore, Hamas, using schools, shelters, etc. as tactical spot to store and launch weapons is as guilty of war crimes as anyone.

To equate the two is simply to confuse the legal with the linguistic denotation of the term ”defense.“ Just as ”negligence,“ in law, does not mean ”carelessness” but, rather, refers to an elaborate doctrinal structure, so ”self-defense” refers to a complex doctrine that has a much more restricted scope than ordinary notions of ”defense.“

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, I think you are over interpreting international law. Israel has the right to defend herself. Period.

International Court of Justice rejects Israeli self-defense

Rejecting the Israeli government arguments, the Court first found that the Article 51 right to self-defense “has no relevance” when the attacks on Israel, the occupying power, are from people living under Israeli rule rather than coming from a foreign state. The Court found:

Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. . . Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.

The Court thus concluded that self-defense under Article 51 does not apply to an occupying power with respect to those living under occupation. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israel still controls all aspects of life in Gaza, including air, land and sea borders, and therefore Israel continues to be regarded as an occupying power over Gaza.

The decision that an occupying power cannot invoke Article 51 self-defense is complementary to provisions of the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which self-determination is a principle of international law.

More specifically, the decision is complementary to UN General Assembly Resolution 2649, adopted November 30, 1970, that “affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal.” Resolution 2649 also “considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;” and “condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine.”

The rejection of Israel’s Article 51 argument leaves Israeli forces and their US sponsors at risk of prosecution for the crime of aggression, the subject of another article.

Court Rejects Israeli argument that self-defense trumps international law

The Court also concluded that construction of the wall on occupied Palestinian land was not in conformance with applicable international law because the route of the wall across Palestinian territory was illegal. “The Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.” Thus, the Court established that defending its citizens does not relieve Israeli government officials of their responsibility to observe international law.

International law for an occupying power includes the responsibility to protect civilians living under occupation and their property and to provide for the humanitarian needs of the population living under the occupation. International humanitarian law requires all combatants to protect civilians and civilian property during any armed conflict.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The end of Israel as a Jewish state is inevitable.

I never understood why the USA would support the founding of Israel as a Jewish State. You can't have a country based on a religion or an ethnicity because it violates the civil rights of the people who are not part of this religion or ethnic group. The US has the separation of church and state for an important reason.

Moreover, you can found a religious state in an area where the majority of people are not part of that religion or that ethnicity.

We need to be working toward one secular Democratic State.

Most countries have a state religion....the US is one of the only Countries with no state religion. Other countries might have a religon but offer freedom of religion. Israel actually allows non-jews to be there...it's just that non-Jews can't immigrate there, period, even if they were born there pre-1948 and would actually just be returning home, while any Jewish person or person with a Jewish grandparent from anywhere in the world can immigrate easily.