Friday, December 26, 2008

Ladies and gentlemen, your compassionate conservatism in action.


Blogging Tory "Gay and Right" Fred has a quick and dirty solution for all that Mideast bad craziness:

Why does Israel feed its enemies????

Isn't it time to say enough is enough???

And then there’s the issue relating to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza. Lauren Booth, sister-in-law of former British premier Tony Blair, recently entered Gaza aboard a protest boat on August 23 and told Ynet News in Israel that Gaza was "the largest concentration camp in the world today" and a "humanitarian crisis on the scale of Darfur." She was later photographed at a seemingly well-stocked grocery store in the so-called "concentration camp." So, let’s consider how these Israeli “monsters” have behaved. Hamas has declared its intention to destroy Israel and murder every Jew residing there, and has fired over 7,000 missiles at southern Israel. In return, Israel is providing 70% of Gaza’s electrical power and, each week sends tons of food, fuel and humanitarian aid to an enemy whose entire rationale for existence is the extermination or subjugation of every Jew in Israel. During World War II, the Allies firebombed Dresden, obliterated German cities, and dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Israel feeds its enemies!


Mercifully, Fred's first commenter points out a couple awkward details:

People are still starving in Gaza, don't have electricity, but that's another point.

The people in Gaza, have nowhere to go, they are trapped like animals, maybe Israel should just starve all those woman and children to death, not like it would be genocide or anything...

Israel has created it's own enemy in the Palestinian people, it's taken its land, and homes.

Maybe we should praise Israel for providing some Palestinians with the basics to live, kudos. That's very big of them.

Israel is helping the humanitarian crisis it's created.

Oh, and Fred? There's another reason that Israel continues to supply food to the Palestinians. Because not doing so would be kind of a war crime:

Collective punishments

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

In all fairness, Fred can be forgiven for not knowing that. After all, he's a Blogging Tory, which means he's a moron. It kind of goes with the territory.

14 comments:

Noni Mausa said...

"When Israel was in Egypt’s land,
(Let My people go;)
Oppressed so hard they could not stand,
(Let My people go;)
Go down, Moses, way down in Egypt’s land,
Tell old Pharaoh: Let My people go."

[...]

"Oh, let us all from bondage flee,
(Let My people go;)
And in our own land to be free,
(Let My people go.)
Go down, Moses, way down in Egypt’s land,
Tell old Pharaoh: Let My people go."

In another 1000 year's time, I wonder what form the Palestinian situation will take in the new mishnahim? And why no-one that I have heard, has talked about their situation vis-a-vis that pharoah situation.

Noni

Richard said...

You presume that Israel has some sort of obligation (contractual, moral or otherwise)to provide sustenance to those who seek to destroy it. It doesn't.

sooey said...

Whatever. People who blog about the situation in Gaza as if Israel isn't the occupier systematically dehumanizing the Palestinians are just immoral cowards. Who else would pile on with an occupier against a people who have no options? You don't have to have any love for the Palestinian leadership to recognize the IDF's actions as brutal and unnecessary. But there's no reasoning with them - they're fascists.

"misment"

JABbering Stooge said...

You presume that Israel has some sort of obligation (contractual, moral or otherwise)to provide sustenance to those who seek to destroy it. It doesn't.

Let me reprint the part of the post that you apparently couldn't be bothered to read:

Collective punishments

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


In other words, not feeding the Palestinians would be considered an illegal "collective punishment."

Unless you'd like to suggest that the Palestinians sell their children to be food for the Israelis (and I mean for real, not satirically speaking, the way Mr. Swift was).

Go back to your NAMBLA meeting.

CC said...

Dear JS:

Please don't confront NAMBLA Dick with actual facts. They cause his head to hurt, and they make the Baby Jesus cry.

To reiterate, Dick, go back to your NAMBLA meeting. The grownups are trying to talk here.

(Cue Twatsy to show up and say something imbecilic in support of child rape in three ... two ... one ...)

Kevin said...

"Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
Would that not also include firing rockets into the public at large?

CC said...

Actually, Kevin, it wouldn't, since the passage I quoted comes from the Fourth Geneva Convention, which relates specifically to "the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any military occupation by a foreign power."

One can easily make the case that, in this context, the Jews are the occupying power and the Palestinian lands are the occupied. It would be absurd to try to make the opposite case, as I'm sure you would agree.

That's not to say that firing rockets into occupied civilian areas isn't a war crime or a violation of the Geneva Conventions -- it just isn't a violation of that one.

Kevin said...

You are correct CC. Perhaps splitting hairs on the issue as a whole but it appears 33 does not apply in this case.
Rereading the comments, Sooey said "Who else would pile on with an occupier against a people who have no options?". I wholeheartedly reject the notion that there is no other choice but to fire rockets and kill innocent people. To strap bombs to your body and board buses. I also reject the notion that the IDF has no option but to bomb the shit out of whatever they want. Sooey, people always have options. The Palestinians had the option to not vote in a party dedicated to the destruction of it's neighbour, they have the option of not hiding, concealing, feeding and abedding terrorists at large. They choose not to. Same thing on the Israeli side. Anyone who states "they have no other choice" is simply choosing a side and not doing anything for the situation at hand. It's a cop-out answer that requires no critical thinking whatsoever.

sooey said...

Jesus fucking christ - I live in a democracy and I have no control over the incompetent boobs ruining it. You're applying standards to a people living in a cesspool that you can't even apply here.

And dude - the Palestinians have long since lost. It's over for them. You're siding with the victor, that's all. So brave of you.

KEvron said...

"I also reject the notion that the IDF has no option but to bomb the shit out of whatever they want."

it was your obdurate misinterpretation of the geneva conventions what threw me....

KEvron

Krake said...

What's the difference between Israel and Nazi-Germany?
Nothing much, just that in the concentration camp named Gaza, the Israelis use rockets and bombs rather than gas.
Collateral damage, my ass!

And no, I am not anti-Jewish, just anti-Israel. And that doesn't make me a great admirer of the Palestinians, or indeed Arabs, either.

Kevin said...

Sooey, you don't have to have control of the government to say no to living in occupied lands. To reject letting terrorists hide their weapons in your basement. Obviously any change in the region will have to come from the people on both sides and not from the government. Sitting back and throwing your hands in the air and shrugging your shoulders will not get them any closer to peace. Neither will apologists who's knee jerk reaction is always to state "hey, they had no choice". That's akin to gang and bully mentality. I don't think it's a solution to everything but I do think it's a requirement to any meaningful start.

Noni Mausa said...

...you don't have to have control of the government to say no to living in occupied lands...

Your argument essentially leaves the Palestinians the "choice" of quietly going off somewhere, abandoning their ancestral lands. Half of them are in refugee camps already. Where do you suggest the conscientious objectors go to? I imagine Palestinian passports are a bit hard to come by at the moment. Just before WWII Jews had a rough time getting out of Germany and being accepted in the USA, England and other nations -- do you think it would be easier today for the Palestinians?

As for refusing to let terrorists hide their weapons in your basement, I imagine the people who tried that strategy lived to regret it -- or didn't live. If the Hell's Angels showed up at your door on the same sort of errand, and there were no effective police, would you just send them on their way?

Noni

Kevin said...

"would you just send them on their way?".
Yes. Keep in mind the Palestinians voted for this. Just like the Jews did.
"...you don't have to have control of the government to say no to living in occupied lands...
Your argument essentially leaves the Palestinians the "choice" of quietly going off somewhere, abandoning their ancestral lands.".
I was talking about the Jews. Your other points are well taken but irrelevant to my point.