Gas pumped into Gaza tunnels

[Eddie Dane]

Why don't we hear about this in the media?

Why is there no outrage, no demonstrations no.....Oh wait.

It's done by Egypt. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1133749.html)

Never mind.

[Darth Rotor]

Why don't we hear about this in the media?

Why is there no outrage, no demonstrations no.....Oh wait.

It's done by Egypt. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1133749.html)

Never mind.

The Egyptians have an interest in those illicit tunnels not being usable. A novel approach to their security problem.

[geni]

Why don't we hear about this in the media?

Why is there no outrage, no demonstrations no.....Oh wait.

It's done by Egypt. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1133749.html)

Never mind.

They are useing gas on their own teritory in a law enforcement situation and therefor their actions are legal under international law.

[Skeptic]

But if Israel did the exact same thing in from its own territory people here won't be saying, "oh, it's their own territory, never mind". They would be saying that the fact that it's from Israel's territory is just a legalistic, typical zionist excuse to cover up their horrific crimes by the evil nazi-like (using gas, for God's sake!) thugs of the zionist entity.

[Thunder]

I hold Israel to a much higher standard then I do Egypt.

[Darth Rotor]

I hold Israel to a much higher standard then I do Egypt.
Will somebody get me a facepalm?

:bwall

You just bit on the lure, and the hook is now embedded securely in your cheek.

[WildCat]

Tin Foil Timothy, before he got banned here, claimed Israel broke a cease-fire by destroying a tunnel that went from Gaza into Israel.

The mind boggles...

[Skeptic]

This is why I sometimes think the "anti-zionist" stuff, at least among some people, is mostly not antisemitism, but anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bigotry: they expect real people, like the Jews, to act according to a high standard. But Arabs and Muslims? Meh. They're animals anyway, can't expect civilized behavior from them in any case, so there's no point of getting excited over yet another massacre or oppression or whatever.

[Thunder]

You just bit on the lure, and the hook is now embedded securely in your cheek.

Israel is a western-style liberal Democracy. there is a strong division between the three branches of government. Israel receives billions of $$ in yearly aid from the USA, and justifies this by reinforcing our shared values and ideals.

therefore, I hold Israel to the same standard that I do the USA, Canada, Britain, France, and Germany.

is there something wrong with this?

[Darth Rotor]

Israel is a western-style liberal Democracy. there is a strong division between the three branches of government. Israel receives billions of $$ in yearly aid from the USA, and justifies this by reinforcing our shared values and ideals.
Egypt also gets billions per year in aid from us, and you can thank Camp David. They are not a model democracy, but we are engaged with them with hope that they'll reform over time.
therefore, I hold Israel to the same standard that I do the USA, Canada, Britain, France, and Germany.

is there something wrong with this?
Your hypocrisy is more extensive than I thought. The UN has over 170 nations in it. I want to understand your rationale for your global double standard, beyond arrogance and a bit of possibly bigotry thrown in.

DR

[TriskettheKid]

Israel is a western-style liberal Democracy. there is a strong division between the three branches of government. Israel receives billions of $$ in yearly aid from the USA, and justifies this by reinforcing our shared values and ideals.

therefore, I hold Israel to the same standard that I do the USA, Canada, Britain, France, and Germany.

is there something wrong with this?

Yes.

You don't include Egypt, who also gets billions from the US. Something on the order of only a few hundred million less than Israel.

[geni]

But if Israel did the exact same thing in from its own territory people here won't be saying, "oh, it's their own territory, never mind". They would be saying that the fact that it's from Israel's territory is just a legalistic, typical zionist excuse to cover up their horrific crimes by the evil nazi-like (using gas, for God's sake!) thugs of the zionist entity.

Err Isreal has made significant use of tear gas against West Bank targets. However since Isreal has not ratifed the Chemical Weapons Convention and thus it's actions remain legal.

[WildCat]

This thread is a great illustration of how Israel is facing war crimes accusations that no other nation would face if they did the exact same thing.

Because they are being "held to a higher standard", you see.

Don't look for Goldstone or anyone like him to accuse Egypt of war crimes. You'll get nothing but a big yawn from the UN.

[geni]

This thread is a great illustration of how Israel is facing war crimes accusations that no other nation would face if they did the exact same thing.

Because they are being "held to a higher standard", you see.

Don't look for Goldstone or anyone like him to accuse Egypt of war crimes. You'll get nothing but a big yawn from the UN.

Egypt is not currently involved in anything that under international law be considered a war. Bit hard to commit war crimes under those conditions.

[Darth Rotor]

The smuggling industry is so institutionalized that tunnel operators purchase licenses from the Rafah municipality, allowing them to connect to electricity and water. Hamas has also been ensuring no children are employed in the tunnels, and is taxing all smuggled goods.
If I am to believe the linked article, Hamas is openly condoing unlawful commercial activity: smuggling. I guess they are smart to tax one of the few industries that makes a profit in Gaza. (They really need to relook their position on porn, from a balance of payments perspective ... )

DR

[geni]

If I am to believe the linked article, Hamas is openly condoing unlawful commercial activity: smuggling. I guess they are smart to tax one of the few industries that makes a profit in Gaza. (They really need to relook their position on porn, from a balance of payments perspective ... )

DR

It's not illegal under Gazan law. So strictly speaking they are simply levying import duties.

[Almo]

But if Israel did the exact same thing in from its own territory people here won't be saying, "oh, it's their own territory, never mind".

But which territory is theirs is in dispute. Egypt's is not.

[WildCat]

Egypt is not currently involved in anything that under international law be considered a war. Bit hard to commit war crimes under those conditions.
So gassing people in tunnels or collapsing them on people is just a normal thing countries do?

[Darth Rotor]

It's not illegal under Gazan law. So strictly speaking they are simply levying import duties.
OK ... internally, that is consistent. Since it crosses international borders, I am not so sure your "strictly speaking" is correct.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

So gassing people in tunnels or collapsing them on people is just a normal thing countries do?

While the use of various sorts of gas may be an issue of interest, the defense of one's border is a legitimate exercise of any sovereign nation. Collapsing the tunnels under your border from outside is certainly a legitimate counter. If they were real bastidges, they'd set up land mines in the tunnels ... ;) or claymores triggered by vibration sensors ... you can argue that it is more humane to collapse the tunnels than to leave them open, and observed, and simply kill anyone invading the your nation via these tunnels.

DR

[geni]

So gassing people in tunnels or collapsing them on people is just a normal thing countries do?

I can't at short notice think of a comparable situation. The closest would be those under the Berlin Wall but they were far fewer in number.

[Darth Rotor]

I can't at short notice think of a comparable situation. The closest would be those under the Berlin Wall but they were far fewer in number.

Korea, without the gas.

[Thunder]

Yes.

You don't include Egypt, who also gets billions from the US. Something on the order of only a few hundred million less than Israel.

Egypt doesn't run around the globe, or have their wanna-be expatriates running around the world, declaring how democratic and wonderful they are.

[TriskettheKid]

So you hold Egypt to a different standard.

Got it.

I guess Russia, too. And I assume Somalia, Sudan, etc. all have different standards.

[Thunder]

So you hold Egypt to a different standard.

Got it.

I guess Russia, too. And I assume Somalia, Sudan, etc. all have different standards.

yes. i do not expect as much from authoritarian and Islamic extremist regimes, as I do from western democracies.

and neither should you.

[TriskettheKid]

yes. i do not expect as much from authoritarian and Islamic extremist regimes, as I do from western democracies.

and neither should you.

So it makes it "ok" for them to do certain things?

What kind of sense does that make?

[geni]

Korea, without the gas.

Korean tunnels are smaller in number (almost certianly) and not being used for active movement of people and goods on a day to day basis.

[Captain.Sassy]

Those poor Gazans.

I guess Egypt's taking such a hard tack because they don't recognize Hamas as the legitimate gov't of Gaza?

[WildCat]

Those poor Gazans.

I guess Egypt's taking such a hard tack because they don't recognize Hamas as the legitimate gov't of Gaza?
No, it's because they recognize that Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist group and that international law makes it illegal to materially support a recognized terrorist group.

Now, since the Gazans unfortunately elected said terrorist group as their government it is illegal to trade with the government of Gaza.

Thus, all goods flowing into Gaza must go to people, groups, and organizations not controlled by Hamas.

Who'd of thought there could be consequences for electing an internationally recognized terrorist group as your government? :rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

Korean tunnels are smaller in number (almost certianly) and not being used for active movement of people and goods on a day to day basis.
For the past fifty plus years, I'll agree on your statement in re commercial goods, but as to people, like NK spec ops, well, they are people moving via tunnel.

Frequency? I'll guess you are right, it squares with the small amount I know on that matter.

DR

[Skeptic]

I want to know what I need to do for parky to not expect anything from me, since apparently it means he then thinks I can do anything I want.

[geni]

No, it's because they recognize that Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist group and that international law makes it illegal to materially support a recognized terrorist group.

Now, since the Gazans unfortunately elected said terrorist group as their government it is illegal to trade with the government of Gaza.

Thus, all goods flowing into Gaza must go to people, groups, and organizations not controlled by Hamas.

Who'd of thought there could be consequences for electing an internationally recognized terrorist group as your government? :rolleyes:

It's more electing an internationally recognized terrorist group who's ideology is rather close to Hosni Mubarak's most significant internal oposition groups.

[FireGarden]

Why don't we hear about this in the media?

Why is there no outrage, no demonstrations no.....Oh wait.

It's done by Egypt. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1133749.html)

Never mind.

Why aren't you outraged?

I've criticised Egypt on this forum, including when they shot at Palestinians fleeing Gaza during the war.

Mubarak is a bastard. The sooner he dies the better.

[Darth Rotor]

Why aren't you outraged? I've criticised Egypt on this forum, including when they shot at Palestinians fleeing Gaza during the war.
They were justified then as well, as a sovereign nation, to defend the penetration of their borders by unwelcome intruders.
Mubarak is a bastard. The sooner he dies the better.
When he dies, who or what do you expect will replace him?

Please be realistic.

Do you wish to see the Camp David accords overturned? That is a possible outcome if the Muslim Brotherhood reaches significant political power in Egypt. Not a certainty, but one possible way for things to play out.

This extended play "cult of the victim" farce played out, on the international stage, by the Pals, has in a large part been made possible by the cessation of fighting between Israel and Egypt (and to a lesser extent Jordan). Specific to the case of Gaza, which Israel ceded (albeit reluctantly, I think) to the Pals, the Pals have fared better than under the rule of the Egyptians, who did NOT release control of that strip of land. Again, it has been to the benefit of the Pals that Israel is at general peace with its neighbors (Syria being an oddball case) such that the Pal issue can bubble to the forefront as a matter seeking resolution. The Pals can take no credit for any of the initiatives that set this stage: reduced tension between Israel and its neighbors. Indeed, the Pals actually act as a catalyst for further tension between Israel and its neighbors.

They are still beholden to others, and have little to offer at a negotiation table.

Pretty sad position to be in.

DR

[Thunder]

I want to know what I need to do for parky to not expect anything from me, since apparently it means he then thinks I can do anything I want.

nice strawman.

I hold Egypt to a much lower standard then I do Israel. I also believe that Egypt should get little to NO foreign aid, due to this.

I see no reason to give one dollar of American money to authoritarian regimes. we are basically bribing Egypt not to attack Israel. this is pathetic.

[geni]

They were justified then as well, as a sovereign nation, to defend the penetration of their borders by unwelcome intruders.

Egypt ratifed the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees back in 1981.

[Pardalis]

nvm

[Darth Rotor]

Egypt ratifed the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees back in 1981.
You appear to assume that anyone crossing the border is a refugee, by default, it seems.

Wrong, again.

The Egyptians were not born last week, ya know.

DR

[geni]

You appear to assume that anyone crossing the border is a refugee, by default, it seems.

Wrong, again.

The Egyptians were not born last week, ya know.

DR

No but you are meant to check before shooting them.

[theprestige]

No but you are meant to check before shooting them.
No you're not, any more than the refugees are "meant" to present themselves formally at your ports of entry and wait patiently in line for you to permit or deny them entry.

[Skeptic]

Why aren't you outraged?

Because Gaza is a terrorist hell-hole ruled by a genocidal Jihadi bunch of murderers, and if the Egyptians are not willing to have their smugglers spilling over into their territory, good for them.

[a_unique_person]

Why don't we hear about this in the media?

Why is there no outrage, no demonstrations no.....Oh wait.

It's done by Egypt. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1133749.html)

Never mind.

I haven't heard of it. The use of gas is illegal, and Egypt should be held accountable.

[theprestige]

I haven't heard of it. The use of gas is illegal, and Egypt should be held accountable.
You seem to have some interesting theories about what laws are, who is held accountable to them, and by what authority.

[geni]

I haven't heard of it. The use of gas is illegal, and Egypt should be held accountable.

The use of gas is only illegal in external conflicts (if you have signed the relivant treaties). The use of gas for interal law enforcement purposes as long as such use falls below the level of crimes against humanity is entirely legal.

[Skeptic]

To the point, my snarky comment above notwithstanding, it depends WHAT gas. Is it nerve gas or tear gas? Nerve gas would be illegal, tear gas would not.

[GreNME]

Will somebody get me a facepalm?

:bwall

You just bit on the lure, and the hook is now embedded securely in your cheek.

I'm going to have to agree with this. From the original post, it was an obvious lure to trick someone into trying to justify it. Very dumb move.

If true, then I'm appalled by the act now that I've heard of it. However, I find the presentation of the act in the context of this thread to be disingenuous at best, outright baiting at worst. If the intention was to make the conversation about Israel, just say so. The act is bad enough on its own, and unless there is some kind of proof that there is an effort to suppress or ignore the story-- which isn't mentioned in the link given by the OP-- due to it being Egypt and not Israel, the rhetoric in the first few posts is not only lame, but dishonest (and akin to conspiracy theory).

[geni]

To the point, my snarky comment above notwithstanding, it depends WHAT gas. Is it nerve gas or tear gas? Nerve gas would be illegal, tear gas would not.

Would it though? Egypt hasn't signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, there isn't a state of war and the legal status of gaza with regards to the convention is unclear.

[Eddie Dane]

I'm going to have to agree with this. From the original post, it was an obvious lure to trick someone into trying to justify it. Very dumb move.

If true, then I'm appalled by the act now that I've heard of it. However, I find the presentation of the act in the context of this thread to be disingenuous at best, outright baiting at worst. If the intention was to make the conversation about Israel, just say so. The act is bad enough on its own, and unless there is some kind of proof that there is an effort to suppress or ignore the story-- which isn't mentioned in the link given by the OP-- due to it being Egypt and not Israel, the rhetoric in the first few posts is not only lame, but dishonest (and akin to conspiracy theory).

My intention was to highlight media bias and bias in public reaction.
I thought the "but there were no Jews involved, so nobody cares" meme is so strong on this board that everybody would recognise it as such.
For all practical purposes I did say openly that the discussion was to be about Israel. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

To be fair. The Dutch Volkskrant newspaper (left-leaning publication) put the story on the front page. They based their story on the article I linked.

Still, I think the reaction is different to the Egyptians using this method, than the reaction the Israelis would receive. There would probably be more media coverage and reaction would be more emotional.

This despite the fact that Israel is effectively at war with Gaza and tunnels going into Israeli territory are more likely meant to export terrorism than to import medication.

For the record:
I'm critical of many Israeli policies and I oppose the ongoing expansion into occupied territory. And I'm exactly a big fan of Egypt's current government either, but as DR already pointed out, this is what we're stuck with at the moment.

On a practical/tactical note: why do the Egyptians use gas? If they just dynamite the tunnels, the smugglers are kept busy digging new ones rather then waiting for the gas to clear.
I won't take long before they figure out that they can use captured Fatah rivals as canaries to test for gas in the tunnels.

[FireGarden]

They were justified then as well, as a sovereign nation, to defend the penetration of their borders by unwelcome intruders.

We've had this conversation before. I thought you were merely playing devil's advocate, but those hopes are dashed.

Having the right to defend your borders doesn't negate the responsibility to care for refugees from a warzone.

When he dies, who or what do you expect will replace him?

Sadly, his son. But that's part of the problem called "Mubarak".

ElBaradei would stand in an election. If it was free and fair:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8395752.stm

About as likely as Kasparov's political success.

[Eddie Dane]

We've had this conversation before. I thought you were merely playing devil's advocate, but those hopes are dashed.

Having the right to defend your borders doesn't negate the responsibility to care for refugees from a warzone.



Sadly, his son. But that's part of the problem called "Mubarak".

ElBaradei would stand in an election. If it was free and fair:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8395752.stm

About as likely as Kasparov's political success.

LOL. I remember seeing footage of the last Egyptian election.

This woman came out of the voting booth, smiling and beaming. The interviewer asked her who she voted for. She enthusiastically said 'Mubarak'.
He then asked is she had considered voting for another party. She suddenly got a puzzled look and said 'other parties'?

There is only one party.

[GreNME]

My intention was to highlight media bias and bias in public reaction.
I thought the "but there were no Jews involved, so nobody cares" meme is so strong on this board that everybody would recognise it as such.
For all practical purposes I did say openly that the discussion was to be about Israel. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

To be fair. The Dutch Volkskrant newspaper (left-leaning publication) put the story on the front page. They based their story on the article I linked.

But you didn't provide any proof of the media bias in this case, which kind of makes it a bit of a red herring. I'm aware of the meme you're talking about, and I think it's stupid histrionics trying to make a victim (out of Israel) without there actually being one. Israel is under enough real, clear, and present threats that it doesn't need conspiracy theories about media bias or how all the mean-old Euro Libruls are in cahoots with Islamic Jihadists to marginalize Israel (which is a paraphrase of an actual claim I've read here at JREF).

You know what impression I get when I see these threads? Varied degrees of Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim sentiments, and not just from gullible baited posts like parky's in this thread. There are several pages (in the Swiss thread on banning minarets) of criticism against open anti-Muslim or anti-Mid-Eastern sentiment, but I see low, barely-subtle sentiments expressed here all the time, particularly whenever an argument about Israel pops up. The actual meme that seems to be at play whenever Israel is in the discussion is "Israelis act in self-defense and are the good guys; criticism against Israel is wrong for reasons ranging from naivete, stupidity, or malice of the critic, and that means the critic supports terrorists, jihadists, and maybe even Hitler." Discussions involving Israel are poisoned from the start around here, and the manner in which the OP here was presented is a perfect example of this. The most likely voices to really chime in on the discussion in earnest beat the chances for actual discussion into a pulp with this either/or trap that demands everyone take one side or the other and stick to it with a practically jingoistic bent.

In short: I understood the intention, but the trend behind the intention is such that I'm really not inclined to take part beyond pointing out that 1) I'd not heard of this act (by Egypt) previously, and 2) I also think it's wrong. I'm put off any more discussion by the implications that are automatically attached to the topic, because those discussions never go well and lead into the type of hyperbolic language Skeptic and WildCat brought into the thread dominating the discussion by sheer volume, and that lessens the intellectual honesty of the debate (intentionally or not).

[Darth Rotor]

No but you are meant to check before shooting them.
Not when they don't use the official and legal border crossing sites, no. Wrong again.

[Darth Rotor]

We've had this conversation before. I thought you were merely playing devil's advocate, but those hopes are dashed.
While I was indeed mostly doing that, I don't think the Egyptian government is bound to honor any illegal border crossing as other than intrusion, to be repelled by such means as they find appropriate.
Having the right to defend your borders doesn't negate the responsibility to care for refugees from a warzone.
You are now being false. Is Egypt a warzone now? That is what they are tying to prevent! It is not reasonable to presume legitimate refugee status by persons illegally entering a country at other than the legal border crossing points. No, I do not accept that this figleaf is in any way, shape, or form legitimate. There is a reason for that. The persons who are not legitimate refugees can use them as cover to illegally enter Egypt, and I see no rational reason, nor rule, that requires Egypt to allow that either. There are legal border crossing points. Care to tell me why they are not used? What further excuse do you offer for deliberate illegal intrusion into Egypt? There is more than one "rule" in play here.
Sadly, his son. But that's part of the problem called "Mubarak".
Aye. And I agree, sad but true.

By the way, Firegarden, the IDF incursion into Gaza is over, has been for some months now. Do you have some phantom war that these "refugees" are fleeing from that has not made the news? Please share.

DR

[FireGarden]

Not when they don't use the official and legal border crossing sites, no. Wrong again.

Have you ever heard of the concept "panic"?

And you seem to be confused, as this question illustrates:

You are now being false. Is Egypt a warzone now?

Err, no. I was talking about last year, during the war in Gaza. Gaza was a warzone during that war in Gaza. Palestinians tried to leave, a few times. They were shot at, some were injured.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LS331475.htm

Bursts of gunfire were audible by telephone from Rafah as the Egyptian police tried to frighten the Palestinians off. Gaza hospitals said they were treating 10 people wounded by Egyptian police shooting at Rafah.

The Palestinians returned fire and injured/killed one Egyptian. I can't remember for sure and don't have the time to google.

There are legal border crossing points. Care to tell me why they are not used?

Because they are often shut. And people don't like to queue during an air-raid.

What further excuse do you offer for deliberate illegal intrusion into Egypt?

Wanting to live rather than die in an airstrike.

In summary:
The case I was talking about, during the war last year, didn't involve people going through tunnels. It involved breaching the wall with a bulldozer and running away from a warzone. I thought you'd know that, considering I referenced the previous conversation.

Incidently, our previous conversation happened on this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4305559


By the way, Firegarden, the IDF incursion into Gaza is over, has been for some months now. Do you have some phantom war that these "refugees" are fleeing from that has not made the news? Please share.

DR

In my first post, I reffered to "during the war". You seem to have missed that or interpreted it as something other than "at the time the war was still happening."

[Darth Rotor]

Because they are often shut. And people don't like to queue during an air-raid.
Sorry, FireGarden, but with this little piece of sarcasm you insinuate that the IAF were conducting air strikes on the border between Gaza and Egypt, and on persons waiting to get into Egypt. No sale.

Care to try again? Are you aware that the bulk of the land surface area in Gaza was NOT under air attack during that little fracas? The camera can fool you.
In my first post, I reffered to "during the war". You seem to have missed that or interpreted it as something other than "at the time the war was still happening."
Yes, I did, thanks for clearing that up. :)

DR

[FireGarden]

Sorry, FireGarden, but with this little piece of sarcasm you insinuate that the IAF were conducting air strikes on the border between Gaza and Egypt, and on persons waiting to get into Egypt. No sale.

With this dodge, you imply that people who have had their homes bombed will give a fig about the legal method of getting out of a warzone. Queue at the border? I wouldn't have.

So I don't agree with your interpretation. There is no need for an airstrike on a queue of people waiting to get into Egypt for people to not feel like queing to get out of a warzone.

btw,
Do you have a link to Egypt letting out any Gazan, other than some of the wounded? I think you needed more than a visa to get out of Gaza and into Egypt -- even during a war.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053171.html

Mognie and a colleague, both part of the Greek organization Doctors for Peace, came to Rafah four days ago, loaded with instruments and medical supplies. Egyptian border guards turn them back daily.

Mognie, who said he has worked in conflict zones such as Iraq, Angola and Somalia, added that he understood worries over security but that he was willing to take the risk to help the people in Gaza.

[...] Although Egypt allowed two Norwegian doctors into Gaza on Dec. 31, the majority of physicians are frustrated at their inability to get in.

[...] On Monday, at least 18 Palestinian patients were brought to Egypt, according to Mohammad Arafat, a Palestinian representative in Rafah. The wounded included a man missing both legs and another who lost his eye and fractured his skull.

[a_unique_person]

Not when they don't use the official and legal border crossing sites, no. Wrong again.

I don't think you would advocate illegal mexican immigrants to the US.

[theprestige]

I don't think you would advocate illegal mexican immigrants to the US.
I can't speak for DR, but I certainly don't "advocate illegal mexican immigrants to the US".

I also don't "advocate gassing illegal mexican immigrants to the US", which I think is probably what you meant.

But I do think that illegal immigrants who bypass ports of entry aren't entitled to much in the way of tolerance from the country they're trying to sneak into. Certainly they're not entitled to the rights and privileges reserved for citizens of that country. Nor are they entitled to the courtesies reserved for asylum-seekers and other immigrants who present themeselves at legal ports of entry and petition for entry through legal means.

The only reason I don't advocate gassing (or shooting) illegal immigrants to the US is because I don't see how they pose any major threat to national security or civic order. Obviously the Egyptian government feels differently about its own illegal immigrant situation. And that's there prerogative.

Indeed, securing its borders by whatever means it chooses is, I think, one of the fundamental principles of being a nation-state. Prohibiting border crossings is pointless if the prohibition isn't enforced. And enforcement is pointless unless, you know, it actually solves the problem you're trying to solve.

The Egyptian government is under no obligation to permit unlimited entries from Gaza. The Egyptian government is under no obligation to spend resources managing Gaza's social crises or sustaining Gaza's displaced citizens. The Egyptian government's only obligation is to sustain its own citizens and mitigate its own social crises.

If Gazans want to force the issue, they're entitled to do so, but by the same token Egypt is entitled to use force as well. What Gazans aren't entitled to do is make their problems Egypt's problems against Egypt's will. Stopping that kind of thing from happening is another fundamental principle of being a nation-state.

So, yeah. Just because I don't advocate gassing illegal immigrants in every case, that doesn't mean I want to see the option banned.

[Wildy]

Do we know if they are pumping gas into the tunnels at regular intervals?

It would seem to me that they are trying to stop people from using the tunnels so they can get their steel barrier in place.

[theprestige]

With this dodge, you imply that people who have had their homes bombed will give a fig about the legal method of getting out of a warzone. Queue at the border? I wouldn't have.
And this is Egypt's problem how?

So I don't agree with your interpretation. There is no need for an airstrike on a queue of people waiting to get into Egypt for people to not feel like queing to get out of a warzone.
So even when there's no imminent threat to life and limb, Egypt should still go easy on them, just because they don't feel like standing in line?

btw,
Do you have a link to Egypt letting out any Gazan, other than some of the wounded? I think you needed more than a visa to get out of Gaza and into Egypt -- even during a war.
Egypt should, in fact, be more generous to people who don't feel like following the rules than they are to people who do? How does that work, exactly? Can we extend this principle to other places? Maybe instead of suspending people who breach the MA, our forum moderators should suspend those that don't, and give the rest a free pass?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053171.html[/QUOTE]

[Darth Rotor]

With this dodge, you imply that people who have had their homes bombed will give a fig about the legal method of getting out of a warzone. Queue at the border? I wouldn't have.
Then you are willing to risk getting shot rather than bombed. Good for you.
So I don't agree with your interpretation. There is no need for an airstrike on a queue of people waiting to get into Egypt for people to not feel like queing to get out of a warzone.I agree with your assessment on that practical matter.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think you would advocate illegal mexican immigrants to the US.
Why should I advocate criminal acitivity? Please share. Have you any clue how much human trafficking attends this illegal immigration?

DR

[FireGarden]

And this is Egypt's problem how?

No man, let alone a nation, is an island. (or something!)

So even when there's no imminent threat to life and limb, Egypt should still go easy on them, just because they don't feel like standing in line?

Darth understood that paragraph. Maybe you should reread the context: where airstrikes hit/didn't hit during the war.

Egypt should, in fact, be more generous to people who don't feel like following the rules than they are to people who do?

How do you get that?
One criticism is that Egypt was barely generous at all. They let out people with the most serious injuries and no-one else. Did they even let children out of a warzone?

And then... They shot at people fleeing a warzone. This is to be characterised as "less generous"? "Generous enough" maybe? You've got to be kidding.

Indeed, securing its borders by whatever means it chooses is, I think, one of the fundamental principles of being a nation-state.

The people I like have more responsibilities than merely looking out for number one. The same goes for nations I like.





Here's more of Egypt shooting people at borders -- this time while they try to LEAVE Egypt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091211/wl_time/08599194686100

As the group approached the fence, recalls Beyene, she heard warning shouts from Egyptian border guards and then shots. Terrified, she kept running and jumped over the fence with her youngest son, 7-year-old Mulugeta. As she turned around, she saw that 21-year-old Iskender and his 3-year-old sibling Rosa, whom he was carrying on his back, had been shot. "I shouted for Iskender to jump over the fence and he did. That's when the Israeli soldiers took them to hospital. After four days, my son died," Beyene says. Rosa, who reveals a bullet-wound scar the size of a large coin on her right leg, looks on mutely. Her mother says she has hardly spoken since that night 18 months ago.

[...] In Europe, coast-guard patrols might try to turn back boats full of refugees and asylum seekers, or detain people only to send them home later. The luckiest ones may end up being accepted for asylum and then dispatched around Europe.


In Egypt, the response can be more immediate.

How do you spell "euphemism"?

Nongovernmental organizations such as the Hotline for Migrant Workers and the African Refugee Development Center say that Egyptian border police have shot dead several hundred migrants seeking to cross the border into Israel for work and asylum over the past few years. "From both Israeli soldiers and refugees who crossed the border we can tell for sure that the Egyptians almost always shoot, they shoot to kill and very often they hit the asylum seekers," says Sigal Rozen of Hotline, an independent group that helps asylum seekers in Israel. At the Israeli cemetery in Hazor, Rozen points to 25 graves marked "Anonymous." "These were asylum seekers," she says, "who were shot by the Egyptians and died from their wounds in Israel."

[...] On Nov. 26, in comments on an ongoing case before Israel's high court, UNHCR said that Egypt is not safe for asylum seekers. It mentions the regular imprisonment by Egypt of asylum seekers; "numerous" reports that Egypt deports some asylum seekers back to their home countries in breach of international law; and the "disturbing" shootings at asylum seekers, as reasons for Israel to stop hot return.

Go on... Defend away.
Be sure to mention international law and sovereignty.

[theprestige]

No man, let alone a nation, is an island. (or something!)
All the more reason for nations bordering on failed states to take border security seriously. (Or something.)


Darth understood that paragraph. Maybe you should reread the context: where airstrikes hit/didn't hit during the war.
If airstrikes aren't targeting (or even accidentally hitting) refugees at legal ports of entry, then what's the justification for trying to cross the border illegally?

How do you get that?
One criticism is that Egypt was barely generous at all. They let out people with the most serious injuries and no-one else. Did they even let children out of a warzone?

And then... They shot at people fleeing a warzone. This is to be characterised as "less generous"? "Generous enough" maybe? You've got to be kidding.
My mistake. I thought you were arguing that even though the Egyptian government is unwilling to grant entry to most people who try to enter legally, they should nevertheless tolerate illegal entry attempts. Personally, I think that's a stupid argument. Apparently you do, too. I'm glad we're in agreement on at least this point.

The people I like have more responsibilities than merely looking out for number one. The same goes for nations I like.
I imagine the Egyptian people would be glad to know their government isn't concerned with winning a FireGarden Popularity Contest.

Here's more of Egypt shooting people at borders -- this time while they try to LEAVE Egypt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091211/wl_time/08599194686100
I'm sure there's plenty of ways to leave Egypt that don't involve running into prohibited areas while armed guards shout at you to stop what you're doing.

How do you spell "euphemism"?
Here in America, we spell it "undocumented worker".

Go on... Defend away.
Be sure to mention international law and sovereignty.
Done and done!

Now what?

[Eddie Dane]

Because Gaza is a terrorist hell-hole ruled by a genocidal Jihadi bunch of murderers, and if the Egyptians are not willing to have their smugglers spilling over into their territory, good for them.

Yup, that's it.

If I lived in a country bordering on a region like Gaza, I'd want my government to keep the crazy, theocratic loonies on the other side of the line.

I know that the population of Gaze arrived at this point in their history through a long line of very unfortunate occurrences. I know that their decision to give a Hamas a try, after the decades of Fatah failing to produce results, is understandable.

But if I lived in Egypt, understanding Gazans would be way down my priority list. My priority would be keeping these guys away from me.

[FireGarden]

All the more reason for nations bordering on failed states to take border security seriously. (Or something.)

"No man is an island"
"They should try harder to isolate themselves."

What a world.

If airstrikes aren't targeting (or even accidentally hitting) refugees at legal ports of entry, then what's the justification for trying to cross the border illegally?

It's called panic.
Of course, brave guy like you, you'd have stayed put in a warzone. Along with your family. Heck, you wouldn't want to break the law -- even under those circumstances.

My mistake. I thought you were arguing that even though the Egyptian government is unwilling to grant entry to most people who try to enter legally, they should nevertheless tolerate illegal entry attempts. Personally, I think that's a stupid argument. Apparently you do, too. I'm glad we're in agreement on at least this point.

The problem comes with Egypt's style of law enforcement.

I'm sure there's plenty of ways to leave Egypt that don't involve running into prohibited areas while armed guards shout at you to stop what you're doing.

I'm sure there's plenty of ways to control Egypt's borders that don't involve shooting at so many people -- including children. Europe seems to manage.

Done and done!

No, not done.
Where are your points on sovereignty and international law?

0/10 for failing to read the question.





Here's HRW (2007 -- they have more recent articles, too):
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/11/13/letter-egypts-minister-interior-general-habib-al-adli

To shoot and kill migrants attempting to leave your country is an excessive and illegal use of force and out of all proportion to any legitimate interest in maintaining orderly border controls.

Sounds accurate to me.

And, also, the topic is of interest in Israel itself. Because Israel sends back migrants who cross the border, it could be said to be helping Egypt to send them back to danger if they get deported to their original homes without a fair assessment of the dangers they will face.

This is from November:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131611.html

Here's a recent request from HRW watch for Israel to stop sending refugees back to Egypt:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/12/12/israel-court-should-halt-forced-returns-migrants-egypt

Egypt typically detains the migrants who are forcibly returned and sentences them in military courts to one-year jail terms, regardless of whether they had already registered as refugees through the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Egypt also refuses to allow the UN refugee agency access to the refugees and asylum seekers, in violation of international refugee law.

[...] Refugee aid workers say that a large proportion of these Eritrean and Sudanese migrants had registered for asylum with the UN agency, in Sudan and Egypt respectively, before coming to Israel, but that they were willing to risk death on the Egyptian border because of the continuing risk of insecurity there and of being sent back to their home countries, rather than for economic reasons alone.

[...] Egypt forcibly repatriated dozens of Sudanese, including refugees and registered asylum seekers, in April 2008. Egypt also repatriated dozens of Eritreans whom Israel had forcibly returned in August 2008, and up to 1,200 Eritreans in June 2008 - despite warnings that Eritrea was likely to torture or maltreat them.

[Darth Rotor]

The problem comes with Egypt's style of law enforcement.

I'm sure there's plenty of ways to control Egypt's borders that don't involve shooting at so many people -- including children. Europe seems to manage.

Funny, Europe and Egypt have considerably different security environments. Why are you attempting a cookie cutter here?

DR

[theprestige]

. . .
There's a lot here for me to mull over, and mull it over I will.

In the mean time, however, please clarify one thing for me:

Are you claiming that even when they are not being targeted by weapons of any kind--even when legal Egyptian ports of entry are nowhere near any flying bullets or exploding bombs--that Palestians are so thoroughly panicked by being in a "war zone" that they cannot help but rush thoughtlessly through prohibited zones along the Egyptian border?

[FireGarden]

Are you claiming that even when they are not being targeted by weapons of any kind--even when legal Egyptian ports of entry are nowhere near any flying bullets or exploding bombs--that Palestians are so thoroughly panicked by being in a "war zone" that they cannot help but rush thoughtlessly through prohibited zones along the Egyptian border?

You're desperate for a border control justification, aren't you?

Egypt has the right to keep Gazans out of Egypt. Shooting at them while their homes were being bombed oversteps the bounds of decency -- leaps beyond those bounds with the aid of a Saturn V jet-pack, actually.

Do Palestinians still feel the need to leave Gaza, even while their homes are not being bombed? I'm sure that many do. Some will feel enough of a need to cross borders illegally. Good luck to them, I say.

Now justify shooting unarmed people as a method of law-enforcement.

Funny, Europe and Egypt have considerably different security environments. Why are you attempting a cookie cutter here?

DR

Egypt, because of its situation, must send refugees back to Eritrea and Sudan. And so desperate is its need to send these refugees back, that Egypt must shoot them as they try to leave Egypt -- in self-defence, of course, in the name of national security.

Israel -- also wanting to send back some of these refugees; also having security concerns regarding terrorism -- doesn't shoot these refugees as they break INTO Israel.

[a_unique_person]

The issue of refugees is one that is going to grow over the years. Both political and economic. I don't see the world as a whole coping with it humanely.

[Darth Rotor]

The issue of refugees is one that is going to grow over the years. Both political and economic. I don't see the world as a whole coping with it humanely.
Says he whose nation is surrounded by H2O.

Care to elaborate on your meaning of "coping with it humanely" in this matter?

[FireGarden]

The issue of refugees is one that is going to grow over the years. Both political and economic. I don't see the world as a whole coping with it humanely.

I honestly don't know what to say, other than to call that defeatist. (I know... That also sounds defeatist!)

[Darth Rotor]

You're desperate for a border control justification, aren't you? Nothing related to desperate. Your borders are valid only if you enforce them. PERIOD. Border control is what nations do to control, patrol, and enforce their borders. Simple, routine work, in some cases rougher than others.

Are you aware why there are lines on the maps you read?
Egypt has the right to keep Gazans out of Egypt. Shooting at them while their homes were being bombed oversteps the bounds of decency
Wait, were they shooting into Gaza during the latest war, at the homes of people in Gaza? :confused:
Do Palestinians still feel the need to leave Gaza, even while their homes are not being bombed? I'm sure that many do. Some will feel enough of a need to cross borders illegally. Good luck to them, I say.

I see, you excuse criminals, for your own private reasons. Crossing a border illegally is illegal.

Thanks for alerting me of your apologia for criminals.
Egypt, because of its situation, must send refugees back to Eritrea and Sudan. And so desperate is its need to send these refugees back, that Egypt must shoot them as they try to leave Egypt -- in self-defence, of course, in the name of national security.
This has what to do with the Pals? I also find your "in the name of national security" to be a caricature, and thus dishonest. As to them shooting refugees when they try to leave Egypt: this makes no sense to me, but might if you refer me to the story you are referencing in that vignette. Do you have a link to the story you are referring to? (Beware, derail).
Israel -- also wanting to send back some of these refugees; also having security concerns regarding terrorism -- doesn't shoot these refugees as they break INTO Israel.
The Israelis are welcomed to assume their risks as they see fit. Likewise the Egyptians. Their country. Their border. If they don't enforce it, it is rendered null and void. Apparently, they are not interested in that, as they might believe that good fences can make good neighbors.

Your appeal to some altruistic ideal must account for reality. In this case, it does not.

DR

[FireGarden]

I see, you excuse criminals, for your own private reasons. Crossing a border illegally is illegal.

Thanks for alerting me of your apologia for criminals.

I'm a naughty boy. Spank me, Darth! Spank me!
If I see people breaking a law and, at the same time I think I might do the same in their shoes, then I wish them luck.

Sometimes the law is an ass -- it needs spanking, too!

This has what to do with the Pals?

It has to do with Egypt. And how far you're willing to defend the shooting of unarmed criminals.

Should an unarmed thief be shot? Or just unarmed refugees?

As to them shooting refugees when they try to leave Egypt: this makes no sense to me, but might if you refer me to the story you are referencing in that vignette. Do you have a link to the story you are referring to? (Beware, derail).

No derail. I referenced it above in posts 63 and 66. It fits in quite happily with the topic of Egypt not getting enough stick for some of the things it does.

The Israelis are welcomed to assume their risks as they see fit. Likewise the Egyptians. Their country. Their border. If they don't enforce it, it is rendered null and void. Apparently, they are not interested in that, as they might believe that good fences can make good neighbors.

The Israelis enforce their borders. Just differently. You seem to have a problem with me having a preference for one method of enforcement over another. I'd like to know why.

Your appeal to some altruistic ideal must account for reality. In this case, it does not.

Your defence of shooting unarmed criminals needs more than pointing our that laws need to be enforced. Or claiming I am too idealistic.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm a naughty boy. Spank me, Darth! Spank me!
Find a nice young lady for that, I'm married. :D
Sometimes the law is an ass -- it needs spanking, too!
Only if between consenting abstractions. :)
Should an unarmed thief be shot? Or just unarmed refugees?Wrong question. Should the invader cross your borders unmolested? Border crossing is a different category of problem than simple misdemeanor or felony theft.
The Israelis enforce their borders. Just differently. You seem to have a problem with me having a preference for one method of enforcement over another. I'd like to know why.
THe only problem I have is that you don't allow that the Egyptians wish to enforce their borders. You have some idea that you are better than they are, and look down on them for how they protect their borders. I'd like to know why.
Your defence of shooting unarmed criminals needs more than pointing our that laws need to be enforced. Or claiming I am too idealistic.
Since you are attempting to move the goal posts, to mundane criminal process versus protecting your borders, not wasting my time with that one. There are legal ways to cross most borders, including Egypt's. Use them. Or face the risk that Egypt cares more about its border security than you do.

A dog is not a chicken. Please don't pretend it is.

DR

[FireGarden]

Wrong question. Should the invader cross your borders unmolested? Border crossing is a different category of problem than simple misdemeanor or felony theft.

No. It's not the wrong question. And I'm not trying to move the goalposts or equating theft with border crossing. I'm trying to find out where you draw the line.

According to you: Some criminals can be shot -- even if they are unarmed. I'm interested in which criminals you think it is alright to shoot -- even if they are unarmed.

THe only problem I have is that you don't allow that the Egyptians wish to enforce their borders.

That can't be the problem you have, because I'm perfectly happy for the Egyptians to enforce their borders. I accept they have such a right -- in posts 49 and 69. And again in this post.

You have some idea that you are better than they are, and look down on them for how they protect their borders. I'd like to know why.

I look down on them because they shoot unarmed people.

Does that make me an elitist? -- Well so's your president, so don't knock it! :)

[theprestige]

If I see people breaking a law and, at the same time I think I might do the same in their shoes, then I wish them luck.
Fair enough, but it seems kind of strange on the one hand to knowingly choose to risk your luck, and then complain when your luck happens to run out.

I mean, you choose to put yourself at odds with Egypt's border enforcement policies. By the time you run afoul of those policies, it's a little late to pretend like you had no choice in the matter and it's all Egypt's fault.

Sometimes the law is an ass -- it needs spanking, too!
Fair enough, but don't set out to spank the law and then come crying to me when the law spanks you back.

Personally, I wish Gazan refugees the best of luck in making a better tomorrow for themselves. Just like I wish the Egyptian government the best of luck in safeguarding its territory against the unpleasant effects of bordering on a failed state.

It seems like the Egyptian government has considered all the tradeoffs, and decided that the best policy is to deny entry in all but the rarest of cases, and to enforce that policy with extreme prejudice.

And it seems like some Gazan refugees have considered all the tradeoffs, and decided that the best policy is to risk Egyptian border enforcement anyway, even if it means risking a bullet in the face.

I think the situation in Gaza is a bad situation. It seems to me that both parties (Egyptian government and refugees) are making the best of a bad situation. I don't blame the Egyptian government for shooting illegal border-crossers any more than I blame the border-crossers for putting themselves in the line of fire. Nor do I blame them any less.

And since you seem to have abandoned your argument that the Israeli army was using bullets and bombs to herd Gazan refugees against their will into Egyptian kill zones, I don't see what the problem is.

You don't want to shoot illegal immigrants? Don't shoot them. Fine. You don't want to get shot for being an illegal immigrant? Don't put yourself in the sights of someone who shoots illegal immigrants. Fine.

You're welcome to decry Egyptian border control policy all you like. But as long as your objections fail to recognize the complexities of the Egyptian situation, and as long as they fail to recognize that Gazan refugees are choosing to run afoul of that policy, you're not going to get very far.

[FireGarden]

Fair enough, but it seems kind of strange on the one hand to knowingly choose to risk your luck, and then complain when your luck happens to run out.

I mean, you choose to put yourself at odds with Egypt's border enforcement policies. By the time you run afoul of those policies, it's a little late to pretend like you had no choice in the matter and it's all Egypt's fault.

So when I see someone who's between a rock and a hardplace, I should just keep quiet? -- even if the hard place doesn't need to be so hard?

I disagree.

And since you seem to have abandoned your argument that the Israeli army was using bullets and bombs to herd Gazan refugees against their will into Egyptian kill zones, I don't see what the problem is.

I never made that argument.

You don't want to shoot illegal immigrants? Don't shoot them. Fine. You don't want to get shot for being an illegal immigrant? Don't put yourself in the sights of someone who shoots illegal immigrants. Fine.

You're welcome to decry Egyptian border control policy all you like. But as long as your objections fail to recognize the complexities of the Egyptian situation, and as long as they fail to recognize that Gazan refugees are choosing to run afoul of that policy, you're not going to get very far.

I've recognised every complexity. You've not explained why it's okay to shoot at unarmed criminals. So I'd like to ask you the same question as Darth: which unarmed criminals is it okay to shoot? Please make the list as exhaustive as possible.

And don't forget that Egypt's policy of shooting criminals isn't limited to Gazans entering Egypt during a time of war -- it includes shooting Eritreans trying to LEAVE Egypt.

[theprestige]

So when I see someone who's between a rock and a hardplace, I should just keep quiet? -- even if the hard place doesn't need to be so hard?

I disagree.



I never made that argument.
If you never made that argument, then where's the rock, and how are the Gazan refugees caught between it and a hard place?



I've recognised every complexity. You've not explained why it's okay to shoot at unarmed criminals. So I'd like to ask you the same question as Darth: which unarmed criminals is it okay to shoot? Please make the list as exhaustive as possible.
It is okay to shoot any criminal whose criminal acts, in my opinion, put me at an unacceptable risk, regardless of their alleged or apparent lack of armament, especially absent any pressing need for them to be performing those criminal acts.

And don't forget that Egypt's policy of shooting criminals isn't limited to Gazans entering Egypt during a time of war -- it includes shooting Eritreans trying to LEAVE Egypt.
I haven't forgotten. I just don't see how it matters much to Gazan refugees--except, obviously, in the sense that it sure seems like you'd have to be either a colossal idiot or else have some supremely pressing need to cross such ruthless bastards.

Are you sure you don't want to argue that Gazans are forced by circumstances beyond their control to enter Egyptian killing zones against their will?

[FireGarden]

If you never made that argument, then where's the rock, and how are the Gazan refugees caught between it and a hard place?

You'd live in Gaza today? Let alone last year, during the war -- and even during that, I never used words like "herded" I merely called a warzone a warzone.

It is okay to shoot any criminal whose criminal acts, in my opinion, put me at an unacceptable risk, regardless of their alleged or apparent lack of armament, especially absent any pressing need for them to be performing those criminal acts.

So fleeing a warzone isn't a pressing need, in your book. You'd have stayed in Gaza last year, even with your family?

What is the unacceptable risk in arresting a refugee who crosses a border illegally, rather than shooting them?

I haven't forgotten. I just don't see how it matters much to Gazan refugees--except, obviously, in the sense that it sure seems like you'd have to be either a colossal idiot or else have some supremely pressing need to cross such ruthless bastards.

Ruthless bastards who you are defending, remember. And the topic of this thread isn't Gaza so much as how Egypt doesn't get the stick it deserves for some of the things it does.

Are you sure you don't want to argue that Gazans are forced by circumstances beyond their control to enter Egyptian killing zones against their will?

I think this rephrasing of my claims speaks volumes about you. I suspect you appreciate the "pressing needs" you claim are lacked by the criminals you don't mind seeing shot.

[Eddie Dane]

I certainly don't blame people for trying to get out of Gaza. I certainly would.
Skeptic described it correctly as a terrorist hell-hole.
The combination of being ruled by theocratic murderers, closed-off borders, no economic activity, lots of unemployed young men with AK's etc etc. makes for a pretty crappy place.

In all fairness, if I lived there, I'd be tunnelling my way to Egypt myself.

[Darth Rotor]

No. It's not the wrong question. And I'm not trying to move the goalposts or equating theft with border crossing. I'm trying to find out where you draw the line.
I am not as interested in abstractions as you seem to be.
According to you: Some criminals can be shot -- even if they are unarmed. I'm interested in which criminals you think it is alright to shoot -- even if they are unarmed.
According to me, you can defend your borders by armed means. You are trying to move the goal posts. There are legal and illegal means for crossing a border. Using illicit means can be viewed as invasion, or unwanted intrusion. As to shooting criminals, in a generic sense, that's a different matter, and contextually dependent. In some cases, it is a good idea, particularly in cases of invasion.
That can't be the problem you have, because I'm perfectly happy for the Egyptians to enforce their borders. I accept they have such a right -- in posts 49 and 69. And again in this post.
Good. Your desire to dictate their level of compassion is noted, and I join them in rejecting your opinion on that. We both agree that the Israelis have shown a different risk management approach for different requests/attempts to cross their borders. Each case on its own merits. As I noted previously, there is baggage here, significant political baggage with the Pals/Hamas that I don't think warrant being hand waved away to honor an abstraction.
I look down on them because they shoot unarmed people. "Armed" versus "unarmed" is the red herring here. It is IMO irrelevant. If it takes shooting at people to disincentivize them illegitimately attempting to penetrate your frontier, then shoot at them. I'd warn them first, particularly if I can identify what is going on, in an attempt to turn them away rather than simply shooting, but if that doesn't work, then the intention to enforce the border needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise, there is no point in having one.
Does that make me an elitist? -- Well so's your president, so don't knock it! :)
I don't think I charged you with being an elitist. (If I did, seems a strange thing to bring up in this thread, so my bad). I think you are wilfully disregarding the reality of why we have borders -- part of the reason is to keep people out, part of it is organizing who has jurisdiction over what goes on in a particular plot of land, and of course there are other considerations.

The convention is: we have borders, and frontiers, which are defended or opened due to the interests of the nation(s) whose frontier it is. They have the right to deny people entry, and to use whatever means they feel will get that message across to influence the behavior of those attempting to invade/intrude illegally.

There are legal means to cross most borders. Use them, or risk the consequences.
I certainly don't blame people for trying to get out of Gaza. I certainly would.
Skeptic described it correctly as a terrorist hell-hole. The combination of being ruled by theocratic murderers, closed-off borders, no economic activity, lots of unemployed young men with AK's etc etc. makes for a pretty crappy place.
Too bad. You want someone to head into Gaza and enforce a regime change? ;)
In all fairness, if I lived there, I'd be tunnelling my way to Egypt myself.
In all fairness risk the consequences, since you are in a difficult situation. At what point did the Egyptians give up the right to secure their own territory? I must have missed a memo.

DR

[FireGarden]

I am not as interested in abstractions as you seem to be.

Those aren't abstractions, they're concrete questions. Here's an abstraction:

When you advocate a course of action in situation X and somebody says "But you wouldn't do that in situation Y" then saying "X isn't the same as Y" isn't the end of the matter.

It would be nice if you could explain why your course of action works in X but not Y. Otherwise, I will conclude that you don't really know and you're just making things up as you go along.

According to me, you can defend your borders by armed means.

I agree. That is totally fine. You can also defend yourself by armed means. Neither of which automatically mean you get to shoot unarmed people.

You are trying to move the goal posts.

I don't think so. I think you are conflating national security issues, like defending against invasion, with dealing with refugees who cross borders illegally. Like you do here:

There are legal and illegal means for crossing a border. Using illicit means can be viewed as invasion, or unwanted intrusion.


[...] "Armed" versus "unarmed" is the red herring here. It is IMO irrelevant.

Being a refugee and being an invader are not the same thing. Wanting to see them as the same is probably why you want to ignore the issue of them being unarmed.

If it takes shooting at people to disincentivize them illegitimately attempting to penetrate your frontier, then shoot at them.

It would also be a deterrent for jay-walking. But I know... You can't explain why some things are good in some situations and not in others. You just want to say "jay-walking is different to being an unarmed refugee!" and leave it at that. Not good enough.

I'd warn them first, particularly if I can identify what is going on, in an attempt to turn them away rather than simply shooting, but if that doesn't work, then the intention to enforce the border needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise, there is no point in having one.

Explain to me why an unarmed refugee can't be detained without shooting them first.

I think you are wilfully disregarding the reality of why we have borders -- part of the reason is to keep people out, part of it is organizing who has jurisdiction over what goes on in a particular plot of land, and of course there are other considerations.

No. I'm not ignoring that. If I were to ignore it I would say something like: "what is the point of borders, anyway?" I haven't said that. I won't say that. I accept the right to have borders and the right and need to defend borders.

The convention is: we have borders, and frontiers, which are defended or opened due to the interests of the nation(s) whose frontier it is. They have the right to deny people entry, and to use whatever means they feel will get that message across to influence the behavior of those attempting to invade/intrude illegally.

We disagree regarding "by whatever means."

[theprestige]

You'd live in Gaza today? Let alone last year, during the war -- and even during that, I never used words like "herded" I merely called a warzone a warzone.



So fleeing a warzone isn't a pressing need, in your book. You'd have stayed in Gaza last year, even with your family?
Appeal to emotion noted.

That said, I might be inclined to try the Egyptian border illegally, but I wouldn't complain if it didn't work. I might also be inclined to camp out at one of the legal border crossings, and try my luck that way.

What is the unacceptable risk in arresting a refugee who crosses a border illegally, rather than shooting them?
I can't speak for Egypt, but based on what little I know of the situation along that border...
An apparently unarmed refugee might turn out to be armed after all, and catch my border guards by surprise.
An apparently unarmed refugee might be wearing a suicide vest.
An apparently unarmed refugee might be a distraction, permitting armed insurgents to cross the border while the garrison is otherwise occupied.
An apparently unarmed refugee might be intending to reinforce insurgent or terrorist groups already established inside the country.

... for starters.

Obviously you want to believe that whatever Egypt's concerns are, they are minor compared to your concern for the lives of people who choose to cross the Egyptian border illegally. And just as obviously, the Egyptian government believes otherwise.

Ruthless bastards who you are defending, remember.
Ruthless bastards whose condemnation I am disputing in this particular case, actually.

And the topic of this thread isn't Gaza so much as how Egypt doesn't get the stick it deserves for some of the things it does.
I think you will find that once we agree on what things Egypt does that deserve the stick, we will also agree that Egypt should get the stick it deserves for doing those things.

But arguing that Egypt deserves the stick in one case doesn't really support the claim that they deserve the stick in some other case.

I think this rephrasing of my claims speaks volumes about you. I suspect you appreciate the "pressing needs" you claim are lacked by the criminals you don't mind seeing shot.
I'd continue this discussion, but I have belatedly realized that your entire argument is an appeal to emotion.

[Eddie Dane]

In all fairness risk the consequences, since you are in a difficult situation. At what point did the Egyptians give up the right to secure their own territory? I must have missed a memo.

DR

Did I claim that? It's just that the interest of states is to control who comes into their country. And the interest of reasonably intelligent people living in failed theocracies is to GTFO.

There is a clash of interests. But regardless, if I lived in Gaza, Somalia, Afghanistan etc. I'd go to great lengths to make my way to a stable liberal democracy with better economic prospects. And as you said, I'd take my chances.

[a_unique_person]

Says he whose nation is surrounded by H2O.

Care to elaborate on your meaning of "coping with it humanely" in this matter?

Australia is already undergoing a huge political debate over the 'boat people', and calls to be tough on them. It's not pretty, and it has resulted in innocent people being locked up and going insane. You have heard of boats, haven't you?

[FireGarden]

I can't speak for Egypt, but based on what little I know of the situation along that border...
An apparently unarmed refugee might turn out to be armed after all, and catch my border guards by surprise.
An apparently unarmed refugee might be wearing a suicide vest.
An apparently unarmed refugee might be a distraction, permitting armed insurgents to cross the border while the garrison is otherwise occupied.
An apparently unarmed refugee might be intending to reinforce insurgent or terrorist groups already established inside the country.

... for starters.

Why not train your border guards for these things?
An unarmed refugee can be surrounded and all necessary precautions taken to keep your guards safe. If they're under-manned, then they should bring more guards to the border.

Who people were intending to join is neither here nor there once you've apprehended them. In fact, if you apprehend them you can question them and find out their intentions. This could be useful infomation -- especially if they WERE intending to join a group of terrorists already established in your country. So it sounds better to catch them rather than shoot them. Heck... it even sounds better to catch them, question them then return them to Gaza than it would be to scare them into returning to Gaza (completely fit and healthy) without questioning.

Obviously you want to believe that whatever Egypt's concerns are, they are minor compared to your concern for the lives of people who choose to cross the Egyptian border illegally.

Nope. Not the case.
My concern if that other countries manage to control their borders without shooting unarmed people as a matter of general policy. It's not that Egypt occassionally thinks it is necessary -- it seems to be Egypt's standard rule of engagement.

Egypt's security situation is not so bad. It is better than Israel's regarding terrorism they have to face. Egypt shoots refugees as they cross into Israel and Israel takes them to hospital -- or buries them if they die.

But arguing that Egypt deserves the stick in one case doesn't really support the claim that they deserve the stick in some other case.

The things is, you've not actually condemned them for shooting refugees trying to leave Egypt either. Until then, your above argument is a bit of a distraction. I am entirely within my rights to point out the things you have not actually given Egypt stick for.

Your last comment on the matter seems to be:

I'm sure there's plenty of ways to leave Egypt that don't involve running into prohibited areas while armed guards shout at you to stop what you're doing.

Then you went to mull things over. But no stick. Or have I missed something?

I'd continue this discussion, but I have belatedly realized that your entire argument is an appeal to emotion.

Arguing that there are ways of apprehending unarmed people without shooting them is an appeal to emotion?

Your argument is nothing but an appeal to law and order, or an appeal to national security -- which are good things, but their needs can be met without shooting unarmed people. In fact, I would think they can be better met by NOT shooting unarmed people. eg: You can't question dead people. You can question those you apprehend.

[Darth Rotor]

It's just that the interest of states is to control who comes into their country. And the interest of reasonably intelligent people living in failed theocracies is to GTFO.
Fair enough.
And as you said, I'd take my chances.