Israel seem to be executing quite a few Palestinians from what I see on the BBC. Past the 130 mark now. Around 26 kids too. It's fucked beyond belief.

I'll tell you the most fucked up bit of it. Nobody seems to recognise palestine as a country, so Isreal can retaliate however they want. It can't be a war and therefore governed by the rules of war because you can't be at war with somwhere that doesn't exist. At least that's alll I've managed to figure out.

Yeah think it's only a matter of time before there's a ground assault

I'm not sure a government that executes it's rivals and uses fear and propaganda to control it's populace is strictly legitimate.

I'm not pro- or anti- any nation, I just don't believe Hamas at all has the interests of its people at heart.

Pictures of people executed (by Hamas) being dragged through the street behind motorbikes last night, place has gone to hell, which is ironic when it's the "holy land"

The difference between Ireland and Gaza is the Irish government wasn't supporting terror attacks. Which was my original point you cunted me off for last week - when the government and paramilitaries are one and the same, it ceases to be paramilitary action and becomes an act of war.

Bear in mind also that pretty much every rocket Hamas fires is blindly aimed at a general civilian target. If Hamas had Israel's military hardware do you think they'd use it: a) more responsibly b) less responsibly or c) blow the fuck out of anything they could see?

Yes Israel could be more discriminate with it's attacks. But Hamas defends blowing up buses as a righteous action of God, so don't act like there's no wrongdoers in this situation.

unfortunately the immediate recognition of a palestinian state would not solve any of the current problems. independence before tackling the issues of refugees, right of return, status of jerusalem, settlements would be bad for the palestinians because it would essentially take the conflict off the world stage and set new parameters before sorting those that are fundamental to the problem. Without sorting the refugee problem those left outside the west bank would be left stateless. i say only the west bank because i think people under estimate the schism between the palestinian authority there, and the hamas leadership in gaza. the fractious nature of their relationship remains glaringly obvious - not only do they hate each other, they don't agree on who would lead a unity government; they take completely different ideological stances; and they disagree on how a future palestine should look. so any palestine state would essentially be 40% of the west bank under the pa. the fayyad state building plan was proving pretty successful, but fayyad's position was sacrificed for the un bid earlier in the year.

you're right in saying a lot of international humanitarian law doesn't apply to the conflict (this is what you're saying, right?), but the answer isn't simply to call on statehood so it does. this problem exists is all struggles for 'national liberation'. the conflict is extremely tricky in legal terms because, strictly, it is not an occupation / invasion. people may like to assume it is, but under the law it is not. there is some IHL applicable to national liberation movements (third geneva convention and additional protocol 1), most of which evolved during the 60s 70s as colonies become independent and traditional state on state war subsided. the main problem here though is in how to define palestinian fighters (hamas et al), and whether they can be considered combatants according to the relevant provisions. hamas don't meet many of the requirements necessary for combatants in the traditional sense, so are they civilians taking part in hostilities? all this had a huge effect on how israel are allowed to act and you can usually bend the law to suit your agenda. there is also customary international law, which applies to all international and non international armed conflicts. regardless, the provisions in additional protocol 1 relating to wars of national liberation isn't considered customary.


this is a half truth that is constantly brought out without any explanation. hamas entered into a coalition in 2006 with fatah, forming the national unity government (or mecca accord as it is sometimes called). so yes, hamas were elected to the ruling government. what people then fail to mention is the bloody conflict that then took place in gaza between hamas and fatah, killing nearly 120 people and injuring 500. hamas essentially took part in a coup - they captured and killed fatah members, hung their dead bodies from bridges, and declared themselves to be the sole leadership in gaza. so no, i'm not surprised the US hasn't been a little more supportive of their rule.

and israel aren't 'executing' children, don't be silly.

Last point. What are they dying of then? the mumps? There's something like a million and a half Palestinians living in Gaza which as you'll know is a very small area. They know exactly what they're doing. It's mass murder. end of. anyway…

?

of course it is

israel controls the borders, airspace and the port

article 42 of the hague regulations pertaining to occupation - "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

gaza is not under the authoritative control of israel. also, gaza is not a sovereign state - it could not be 'occupied' even if israel did take authoritative control. this is the law.