Wow... I didn't know that Israel had the capacity to force Egypt to do anything.
I'm sure you do and are just being dishonest but:
Rafah Border Crossing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Rafah crossing was opened on 25 November 2005 and operated nearly daily until 25 June 2006.[1] Since that time it has been closed by Israel on 86% of days due to security reasons"
Tell me: What will Israel do to Egypt, should Egypt refuse to blockade Gaza, and how do you know?
Clearly they will close all the crossings , as they have done so already on numerous times, label Egypt as 'terrorist sponsors' and have the US remove all of Egypts international privileges. And worse I suspect.
The fact that the Egypt/Gazza crossing agreement is signed to by ISRAEL should give an indication on the type of freehand that Egypt has when discussing its borders.
Then you are wrong. Israel doesnt occupy Gaza.
Because you say so or are you going to support your position?
'Occupy' is not solely limited to physical presence - wikidictionary supports my position that those under the control of a foreign military power are occupied.
I see. So, the mere existence of Israel, brought Hamas, et al, into being.
I guess that's why Hamas, et al, want nothing other than the destruction of Israel.
Obviously. Without an Israel in the ME there would be no Hamas in Palestine.
Then you are wrong. Israel doesnt occypy Gaza.
You saying I'm wrong doesn't actually make it so....just to let you know.
Israel has the right to control its own border, including who crosses it when leaving Israel. That Israel will not allow someone to pass from its border doesnt in any way change the fact that Gaza, right now, has the absolute ability to allow anyone it chooses to enter.
It can allow anyone it wants to enter but whether they get there alive or not depends on Israel.
Thus, Gaza has complete control of its border.
It has an ability to say 'yes'. It has no ability whatsoever to make sure that who it wants to come in gets in and who wants out gets out. Thus Gaza has no control of its borders.
The fact that it can say 'yes' to whoever it pleases is completely irrelevant if it cannot facilitate any movements without Israeli approval.
Only because you do not understand what it means to be in control of one's border.
I would have thought the ability to ensure the passage of persons from one side to the other would be the paramount factor. Israel exercises this ability and not the Palestinians so how can you say they are in control?
You have not cited which large chunks of Israel do not belong to it
See earlier. "Anything and everything which was not given to it under the partition or agreed to by neighboring states."
and you have not cited the law that makes this so.
That is because there is no law which makes this land legally part of Israel.
International law dictates that the land does not belong to Israel.
If you cannot do these things, your position is untenable.
My position is the same as the Israeli Supreme Court, The US, the UN and everyone else who has any understanding of the subject. I am happy that my position is correct. You saying it is not does not convince me otherwise.
I see -- any state that does not hold itself to your unspportable idea of how states should do things is a 'rogue state'.
:roll:
"Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction." -
Rogue state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its not MY idea of how states should do things.
I would regard Empire building, occupation and proliferation of WMD as being possible traits of rogue states so Israel would fit the above. Course it is not the only one in the world and the same could be applied to Palestine (if we regarded it as being a nation) quite easily.
News flash: the UN is not the sole originator of International Law.
Interesting. Who else creates international law in your opinion?
That being the case, not every international issue need be addressed by the UN for the resoluton of same to be entirely legitimate.
States cannot pass on international legitimacy for their own actions. What Hitler did was legal in Germany, the rest of the world didn't quite see it that way.
The idea that NOT going the thru the UN confers some sort of 'rogue state' status is laughable.
Israel CANNOT go via the UN and ask it to protect Israel's illegal borders, that would be absurd.
I never called it a rogue state because it did not go via the UN, I'm not sure where you get that from. Its a rogue state as per the above.
This has absolutely nothing to do with using cluster bombs in built-up areas.
? "The general rules of international humanitarian law aimed at protecting civilians also apply to cluster bombs as they do to all weapons."
Cluster bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At this point, you have failed to specify which law prohibits the use of cluster bombs in highly populated civilian areas, and as such your claim to that effect remains unsupported and untenable.
The one I stated earlier. The general rules of international humanitarian law.
So, you -dont- know that the people of Palestine do NOT support the destruction of Israel, and see that as the only acceptable resolution of the issue.
No, and I didn't proclaim to know either. Thats the difference.
And the Palestinian people elected Hamas as their government.
Seems that this supports my position and speaks stronly against its opposite.
Only because you either do not know the difference between eliminating Israel and eliminating all the Jews or purposely pretend otherwise.