Dear David F.,

I never advocated any religious or ethnic coercion, expulsion or the like.

My statement:
"but I consider it legitimate for any group of people owning a contiguous piece of land who unanimously desire sovereignty over that land so that they can pursue their unique lifestyle there, to have that wish fulfilled.”

is general in nature. The group in question could be ethnic or religious, but not necessarily so. All that's required is:
1) A unique lifestyle.
2) Owning a contiguous piece of land (no "holes").
3) Unanimous desire for sovereignty.

This does not describe Israel. Period. In the context of this topic, it could have referred to the lands purchased by the early, pre-1948 Jewish settlers, as per my reply to Julian (Thursday, 9 May 2013 2:47:03AM) - but in no way to the current area of Israel.

While certain ultra-orthodox neighbourhoods in Israel fulfil #1+#2, I suspect that the ultra-orthodox in Israel do not currently want sovereignty for their neighbourhoods because:

1) It would isolate them from the other ultra-orthodox neighbourhoods, as well as from the rest of the world (their areas do not contain air or sea ports).
2) Even now, the state of Israel does not prevent them in any way from observing the Sabbath and all other Jewish laws.
3) They don't want to lose government funds.

If there was a Jewish-orthodox suburb of Melbourne where EVERYONE without exception was ultra-orthodox and EVERYONE without exception wanted sovereignty, then they should have it. They may as a result have no land, sea or air access to the rest of the world; or no sources of water, food, infrastructure, minerals and energy - well, that would be THEIR PROBLEM!

It would only be at the very last resort for the Jews of a Melbourne suburb to demand sovereignty. For that to happen, some horrendous legislation would have needed to be passed, forbidding them for example to observe the Sabbath or to circumcise their boys. If there was any other way around it (such as travelling interstate to circumcise), then they wouldn't go as far.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have noted your most recent post.

To csteele

You state:

""This ( white phosphorous) was a weapon that was banned for use in civilian areas by international law for very good reason."

You may be unaware of the findings of the Goldstone Commission which concluded in paragraph 48 of its Executive Summary:

"48. Based on its investigation of incidents involving the use of certain weapons such as white phosphorous and flechette missiles, the Mission, while accepting that white phosphorous is not at this stage proscribed under international law, finds that the Israeli armed forces were systematically reckless in determining its use in built-up areas. Moreover, doctors who treated patients with white phosphorous wounds spoke about the severity and sometimes untreatable nature of the burns caused by the substance. The Mission believes that serious consideration should be given to banning the use of white phosphorous in built-up areas. As to flechettes, the Mission notes that they are an area weapon incapable of discriminating between objectives after detonation. They are, therefore, particularly unsuitable for use in urban settings where there is reason to believe civilians may be present."

Upon what authority do you rely to substantiate your claim that the use of white phosphorous by Israel was illegal in international law?

Dear David Singer,

The use of white phosphorus is legal under international law. However, it causes great harm and suffering. Did Israel have to use it? Unfortunately my country, the US, has used land mines, depleted uranium and cluster bombs, all of which cause great suffering and do not distinguish between children and other civilians and the military. I condemn both my country and Israel for using such devices. Could Israel have achieved its ends in Gaza without the use of white phosphorus? It is legal but is it right to use it?

Dear David Singer,

I note the quite lawyerly manner in which you have put the question on the legality of the use by the IDF of phosphorus munitions within civilian areas.

Unusually but understandably you have not stated your own position so I imagine you know the answer to the question.

However I also acknowledge the bind you are in. As an Australian you are a citizen of a country which along with 108 nations has signed the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) which is part of the Geneva Convention.

This protocol specifically states in Article 2 that;

“It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.”

and;

“It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.”
http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=14FEADAF9AF35FA9C12563CD0051EF1E

Cont..

Cont..

Israel's position has been that the Geneva Convention does not apply within the Occupied Territories nor is it a signatory to this protocol so if you are also a citizen of that nation you might perhaps consider yourself not being bound by this piece of international law.

Yet the IDF went to great lengths to initially deny its use of this weapon in operation Cast Lead with a spokesperson telling CNN "I can tell you with certainty that white phosphorus is absolutely not being used."
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/12/white.phosphorus/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD

Although I'm not sure how they thought they would get away with it with pictures like this emerging on a daily basis.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45409000/jpg/_45409365_gazaphosphorusafp226b.jpg

However one must acknowledge they at least recognised it was an illegal act otherwise why bother to deny its use for so long.

In the end they admitted to firing over 200 white phosphorus shells into Gaza city and its surrounds. This area is one of the most heavily populated with civilians in the world.

The Israeli Human Rights group B'Tselem put the position quite clearly;

“Israel has not signed the Protocol, but the rule it states is based on two customary principles of international law, which are binding on Israel. The first is the prohibition on using weapons that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians, and the second is the prohibition on using weapons which by their nature cause unnecessary suffering.”

“The use of such a weapon in a densely populated civilian area like the Gaza Strip breaches these two principles, and violates Israel's obligation to take every possible precaution to limit harm to civilians.”

So Mr Singer, do you take the Australian government's position or that of the the Israeli government?