The US up to March 2009 was providing humanitarian food assistance to North Korea. In the short year of 2009 they provided 170 metric tons of food. In Mar of that year North Korea stopped accepting food from the US because we monitor its distribution. The US has never restricted food imports by North Korea or any other country. The Geneva Convention permits any entity engaged in a conflict to elect to be protected by its provisions. The Geneva Convention also requires any signatory(Israel is a signatory from 1951)to comply with its provisions in a conflict. If Israel was boycotted it is a virtual certainty their entire high tech industry would move to the US. Most of it is funded by the US and many of its largest employers are US based like Intel.

The Palestinian Authority at the time leveled what was literally Israeli villas not apartment houses. If you simply looked at what Israel paid the settlers they displaced, the percapita average was far higher than the cost of of normal West Bank settlements. In terms of the legality of WB setlements, a 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice labeled them illegal and in violation of article 49 of the Geneva Convention. It also said the same thing about the annexations. There are 9 UNSC resolutions that say the same thing. Theodor Meron counsel to the Foreign Ministry told Levi Eshkol the then Israeli PM in 1967 that building WB settlements would violate the Geneva Convention. Barak Obama said the same thing in a recent UN speech. Of the 162 countries that recognize Israel none maintains an embassy in Jerusalem.

You are wrong. The United States and South Korea impose a complete and total embargo on North Korea. That is why millions have died in the famine. Duh.

No. But even if true, 170 metric tons of food is a drop in the bucket. Israel provides twice that to Gaza WEEKLY! 170 metric tons of food would take up about one-quarter of a 40-foot container. The Geneva Convention is an exclusive club, restricted to sovereign states. Do you realize the patent absurdity of your comment? Don't you think that the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq and Iran would have sought protection under the Geneva Convention if they could? Not to mention ethnic minorities throughout the world who are persecuted, and these, sadly, are huge in number. And all of the patents are registered to Israeli companies. Just think how prohibitive the license fees would be. Put simply -- would YOU want to pay $15,000 for a very simple mobile phone? Doubtful. So, when it comes to your rather hopeful noises about imposing an economic boycott of Israel -- I would say to you be careful what you wish for. You may get it, and you probably won't like it. And take REALLY good care of yourself physically. Watch that prostrate and colon. The chemotherapy protocols which predominate treatment for cancers in both were -- you guessed it -- developed and patented in Israel. Hope you never need an MRI ...... Israel could yank the licenses at a moment's notice. MRIs are already expensive. You'd have to tack on a few more zeroes. Stop talking stupidly. Do you really think the people of the United States would go along with an economic boycott of Israel? You may have forgotten September 11, but most Americans haven't. Most remember all too well the videos of the raucous rejoicing in the West Bank and Gaza. And the solemn, tearful faces of Israeli Jews lining up for hours to donate blood, back when we hoped that people might be pulled from the rubble alive. Economic boycott indeed. Dream on!

Here is a link that will put paid to your claims that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria, and the settlements, are illegal. http://www.globalpolitician.com/24388-israel-jerusalem Although you would benefit from reading the treatise in its entirety, feel free to skip down to the section titled "Law on Israel's Takeover of 1967 Lands." Read both subparagraphs 1 and 2 -- the first examines the issue under Security Council Resolution 242 (and confirms that SCR 242 is neither binding nor enforceable, as it was issued under Chapter Six of the United Nations Charter, and not Chapter Seven). The second section discusses Acquisition of Non-Sovereign Land in a Defensive War and concludes that international law does not preclude Israel from retaining AND settling Judea and Samaria and, in fact, fully supports Israel’s right to do precisely that.

The highest judicial body in the world , the International Court of Justice in the Hague, ruled in 2004 that Israeli settlements in the West Bank violate article 49 of the Geneva Convention. In the same ruling they stated that Palestinians, although not signatories to the Geneva Convention, are "protected persons" as a defined term because the initial conflict was between two contracting parties Jordon and Israel. The same logic would apply in Gaza because both Israel and Egypt were signatories.Under article 93 of the UN charter member states are required to abide by rulings by this court. The binding nature of UN resolutions (under chapter 6 rather than 7) is a result of threats of or actual US vetoes. It is irrelevant in terms of the legality of the settlements since acquiring territory as a result of a conflict has been illegal under international law since the 1928 Kellogg Briand treaty. Further it is is also illegal under the UN Charter. The entire UN General Assembly took the unprecedented step in 1983 of condemning the US for its use of vetoes to allow Israel to violate international law. Your treatise holds no standing in international law and Israel argued their position before the World Court in 2004 and lost on every point including the claim that the Palestinians were not signatories and hence were not protected under the Geneva Convention.

Are you really that stupid? Frankly, I hadn't thought so. You have disappointed me. As long as the ICJ in the Hague does not recognize Kurds as "protected persons," "Basques" as protected persons," or anyone else as "protected persons," they are an illegitimate entity. What about the Christians in Banda Ace, tens of thousands of whom have been murdered by Indonesian Moslem troops? Are they "protected persons?" It would appear that your vaunted ICJ thinks not. So I guess -- according to the ICJ -- that makes it okay to murder them. Apply that logic, John. Shall we now chat about the carnage going on in the Congo? How about Sierra Leone? Or the Ivory Coast. Oh, wait! I know! Let's chat a bit about what is happening to the Christians and Animists in Sudan! Huh? From the ICJ? NOT A WORD. NOT A SINGLE, BLOODY WORD. Take your ICJ and stuff it, John. You're fiddling while Rome burns. Tell me -- is your real name Ayyub? Ahmad? Mahmoud? You're no American, that's for sure. I cannot figure out if you are condemning the United Nations or singing its praises. If the former -- be a little more clear. If the latter -- get a grip. Go back on your meds. You, sir, are a pluperfect idiot. But I suggest that you vote with your feet. If you feel all that strongly about the Palestinians -- why not move to Gaza? Huh? Huh? Really! Why not?

The 170 metric tons was the US contribution in 2009. China gives far more food aid to North Korea. Up to 2009 South Korea was actually giving food aid. Do you believe the US has a military blockade on the border of China and North Korea and it is stopping food? Do you believe America is bombing North Korean food production facilities and bulldozing chicken farms? America is no longer giving humanitarian food aid because North Korea will not accept it, the US is not blockading food from reaching North Korea. As to the exclusive Geneva Convention club, it addresses conflicts between waring states who are signatories and does not address civil wars. That does not mean civilians cannot qualify as protected persons under the convention as evidenced by the 2004 International Court of Justice ruling which labeled Palestinians as "protected persons" as a defined term under the Convention. In that case, the Court concluded that the proximate cause of the conflict was between two contracting parties, Jordon and Israel and that West Bank Palestinians were in fact protected. The same logic would apply to Gazans since Egypt and Israel were at war in 1967. On your patent issue, if an embargo was instituted against Israel the State of Israel doesn't own the patents the companies own them and license them. Almost a third of Israel's high tech industry has already moved to the US and were an embargo to be instituted you would simply accelerate the balance. As to your tearful 9/11 speech, the 9/11 report concluded that the mastermind for the attack was motivated by his violent objection to America's imbalanced foreign policy between the Palestinians and Israel. Gen Petraeus recently testified that the perception of that imbalance was used as a recruitment tool for the militants who are fighting us in two wars. That Israel is violating the Geneva Convention , the UN Charter, the Kellogg Briand treaty and over 60 UNSC resolutions is not in dispute. As to the US agreeing with the rest of the world to stop it with an embargo is merely a matter of time unless Israel changes her behavior.

The surprisingly alacritous debate here between Sarah B. and John R. has taken a familiar turn after Sarah’s post at #65. Two months ago, in April, Sarah B. and John R. engaged in a similar intense tête-à-tête on the thread for the opinion piece “Avoid the ‘Peace’ Trap” (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3873883,00.html), where Sarah’s post at #68 on that thread is exactly the same as her post here at #65, and John’s response there was in the same vein as his response here. Both sets of threads also mention Israel’s patents, protocols, etc… seems kind of weird. Now, being a cynical sceptic who doesn’t believe in coincidences, well… golly-gosh, what’s the chances, eh? [By the way, US food aid to North Korea for the financial year 2008-09 was 500,000 metric tons - not that Korea has anything to do with innocent people suffering because of Israel’s punishing blockade of Gaza.]

2009 was a partial year for food shipments to North Korea since they rejected US shipments staring early in the year. I do not dispute your 2008-09 figures.

I'm sure the IJC would like to protect many people in the world. Unfortunately it can only issue rulings which are solicited by the UN or contracting parties to international treaties in which a conflict has occurred between contracting parties. As I indicated civil wars do not fall under that category nor do human rights violations within a country. They (the IJC) is empowered to adjudicate international law not national law. I am singing the praises of the UN, the IJC, Amnesty International , Doctors without Borders and the Red Cross ,all of whom have weighed in on this conflict and concluded that no peace will ever be achieved absent respect and adherence to International law.

How can you sing the praises of any organization that has consistently ignored the carnage in the Congo (five million dead and climbing); the massacres of animists and Christians in the Sudan (it's up to 80,000, I believe); the massacres of civilians in the Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone (no idea what the body count is, but I'm fairly certain it is quite high); the unrelenting persecution of Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Iraq (some estimates are as high as 250,000); the destruction of both the Baha'i community and the Zoroastrian community in Iran (best estimates are 30,000-40,000); the murder of over 10,000 Christians in Banda Ace .... et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum. How can you sing the praises of any organization that willfully ignores the devastating famine in North Korea that has claimed millions of lives? How can you sing the praises of any organization that completely disregards the shocking situation in Myanmar? Oh -- but 1,300 dead Gazans, 90% of whom were terrorists -- well, that rates all kinds of attention. Of course, 20 years of suicide bombings and eight years of unrelenting missile barrages don't even rate a mention. And you wonder why Israel does not consider itself bound by the decrees and resolutions of any of the organizations you mentioned? Do you REALLY wonder? Are you truly that obtuse?

The slick dialogue here between Sarah B. and John R. with its comparison, sometimes word-for-word, to a similar dialogue from a previous thread at “Avoid the ‘Peace’ Trap” somehow has the feel of a set piece. It’s fishy and maybe has the whiff of a Hasbara rat somewhere in there… maybe not. Speaking of rats - has anyone seen my fellow countryman Tony Resnick? We haven’t forgotten you, mate, still want to talk to you… about loyalty, and stuff. [US food aid to North Korea for 2009 was about 170,000 metric tons, being the remainder of that 500,000 MT after about 330,000 MT was delivered in 2008. Not that Korea has anything to do with… ah, what’s the use.]

Amnesty International , the Red Cross and the UN all deal in selective cases of genocide or human rights violations but only where they can actually affect an outcome . You apparently want a world policeman that doesn't and never will exist. When Jews violate both international law and Jewish law in all cases they do themselves no service. To say 90% of the Gazans who died in Cast Lead were terrorists or treat 1.5 million human beings like we were treated in the Ghettos and to claim land the entire world says is through illegal appropriation is the type of thinking that has made Israel the largest fort in the world. Both demographics and world public opinion will cause her to either change or lose her identity as a homeland for Jews everywhere. My hope is that Israel does the former and opens its mind enough to know they cannot be an island in an interdependent world. You represent Israel's past and I can only pray, not its future.

Did you even bother to read the content of your post? What drivel! "Selective" cases of genocide? What's going on in the Congo is genocide. What's going on in the Sudan is genocide. What's happening to the Kurds is genocide. Cast Lead was a response to armed aggression against Israel's civilian population. Hamas deliberately used Gazan civilians as human shields. How many countries in the world can you think of that would leaflet areas comfortably in advance of taking military action to warn that a particular area was going to come under bombardment, and that all civilians should leave the area? NATO certainly did not do that in the Balkans, and they sure aren't doing it in Iraq, Afghanistan and Waziristan. Hamas refused to allow the civilians to leave. How is that Israel's fault? Israel has had to fight six wars it never wanted, and has had to deal with over sixty years of terror on an unprecedented scale. That HAS to count for something, international opinion be damned. The Palestinians have historically never quite managed to take advantage of opportunity. Three rejected two-state solutions. Thirty-odd Palestinian organizations, each of whose charters call for the destruction of the State of Israel and the extermination and/or expulsion of the Jewish people. The Jewish people happen to be the world's ranking experts in extermination and expulsion. We take such existential threats very seriously. Our history is a very compelling motivator. Make no mistake. Israel was never intended to exist, let alone thrive. It was a bone tossed to the Jews by a somewhat repentant world which were shocked and stunned by the Holocaust and -- more practically -- didn't really want to absorb Jewish refugees who had no place to go. No one expected Israel to survive the onslaught of five Arab armies one day following Israel's declaration of modern statehood. But Israel did. It hasn't changed the fact that most of the world hates Jews and despises Israel. But that is something that the world will have to come to grips with, and sort out for themselves. And not at Israel's expense, either. Israel is here to stay. Whether the world likes it or not. If you want to align yourself with terrorists and jihadists, go right ahead. But do me a favor? Don't talke about "we." You, sir, are no Jew.

No, it's called consistency, Kiwi. People keep raising the same issues, which elicit the same responses. It's not a "set piece." I'm way too intelligent and articulate for that (forgive my immodesty).

Besides the strong similarities and comparisons of the two exchanges between Sarah B and John R, here on this thread and at “Avoid the ‘Peace’ Trap” (ATPT) on April 13, it also appears that these two threads are the extent of John R’s contribution here on Ynet. Sarah B’s post with the link here at #65 is exactly the same as the post at ATPT#68 and John R’s responses, at #66 and ATPT#72 & #75, are the same. Both here at #64 and at ATPT#54 Sarah B mentions Israel’s patents on chemo protocols, facial recognition, cell phone technology etc, and John R’s responses on both threads, here at #68 and ATPT#56, are also the same… In fact, the whole style of these two posters seems very similar, like two sides of the same coin. There are other connections between these exchanges but just these two instances’, added to the fact that I can’t find on Ynet anything else from John R, gives it all a fishy, ratty smell. Now, if I could only find, or be directed to, another thread where John B, er… I mean R, has posted comments, preferably from before April 13, I would then dismiss all this as just something cooked up in my own suspicious mind. But until then…

Sir, Sara B,however misguided she is, happens to be pouring her guts out on something she believes in. I am doing no less. People who read the exchanges can take the information at face value, analyze it and formulate their own conclusions. I would normally address you by your first name but I don't know what it is. You did provide information in the past which was enlightening . Stick to that rather than applying mysterious motives to me or anyone else. The purpose of the author soliciting comments was to create public debate not to feed the imagination of someone writing a mystery novel.

Indulge your paranoid self to your heart's delight, Kiwi. By the way: - the warships were not deliberately left at Pearl Harbor while the carriers sent safely away - there was no second shooter on the grassy knoll - Sirhan Sirhan was not a "Manchurian candidate"

I note that John R hasn’t indicated if he has made comments on any other thread except this one and one from two months ago. Given his stated passion for the subject of Israel’s legal right to occupy and blockade etc, it’s surprising he hasn’t put forth his excellent views more often. The reason the international community does not support Israel’s occupation, etc, is because of the good legal arguments against. Lawyers for Israel have what they claim is legal justification for everything from the occupation of land to piratical boarding on the high seas, and Israel has been concerned about getting those arguments out for the world “to formulate their own opinion”. I think that was the purpose of these two threads, a Hasbara effort to put Israel’s legal arguments out there. I expect to see John R back in another two months, and I expect to see Sarah B not far to behind, with all the same arguments as expounded on the only other two threads where John R has appeared. [Sarah at #78, address me as k1w1, or kiwi, as you have always done.]

I always address you as kiwi. I have just always assumed that k1w1 was intended to be precisely that. If it offends you, I will stop. It is so much easier to type than k1w1, which is why I do it. Moreover, I did not author the post at No. 78. Cheeribye. Have a great day in G-dzone.

I don’t know what I was thinking! I thought I was being a clever-dick but really I was being a dick-head. My sincerest apologies to Sarah B. and John R. for the ridiculous, stupid comments I’ve made here at #69, 73, 77 & 80. I hope you both can forgive my stupidity. Sarah, I’ve always admired your contribution to these threads (even if I don’t always agree with your views) and although your style may be somewhat acerbic, you have always been respectful towards me - and your immodesty is justified, you are leagues ahead of most posters here. And you can call me what you want… just don’t call me late for dinner. John, you are very well informed, and your arguments here on Ynet are comprehensive and convincing. I appreciate that you’ve poured your guts out, and I hope you’ll contribute here more often. Again: I hope you both can forgive me. I am embarrassed, and I deserve to be horse-whipped. [I will post this apology elsewhere, in case you don’t read it here.]

No need to apologize. I think any forum benefits from the contributions of articulate and well-informed participants. It wouldn't be much fun if everyone agreed with one's point of view, would it? The best any of us can hope for is to learn from the contributions of others. One is never too old to learn .... Thank you, K1W1. Your retraction and apology means more to me than you can know. No horse-whipping necessary. Take good care.