Speaking of Israel...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

This thread is so lovely. Too many people on their high pedestals. I guess it sounds too cool to be all wise and smart about people dying else where.. they're just animals killing each other, at the end of the day. Never mind you could very well be in these people's shoes, if it weren't for your "lucky" place or time of birth.

I particularly enjoy the "only possible solution" suggested by one of the members.

In short, get real. 10 is not the same as 1, no matter how you spin it. You can't just take things from people, that's called stealing, and if you do, you better expect they won't be happy about it, and never will be. Kill them? Well if this was a few hundred years ago that would probably slip just fine [think Amerika?], but no, your civility denies that doesn't it? Unless stealing things is fine, or killing people is fine if they're not fine with you stealing their possessions.

Keep going though, I'm feeling enlightened and intellectually bettered, by the post.

---

War is stupid - I don't think anyone here is defending the utter foolishness that led to this situation - and I don't think even frags is defending the wholesale slaughter going on right now.

Maybe you should, you know, read​ some of these posts?

So we are approaching/past the point where more civilians have died then in the Malaysian Airliner.

[HOPPING ON PEDASTAL] Could we please stop reporting deaths as though they were ball-scores? I grew up with that in the '60s. It was silly at best and vile at worst then...and hasn't improved. [/PEDASTAL]

Collatoral damage implies:
(1) The target was military ie emplacement, communications, bunker etc
(2) That care was taken to minimize civilian casualties.
(3) That there is a miltary advantage to doing so in proportion to the act.

As a posed to a political advantage through civilian deaths which would be an act of terrorism.

Quote:

---

The problem is with political conduct, not military conduct.

---

Sure, but, uh, if anyone had problems with the American interventions in the region, it's difficult to imagine them not being at least as displeased with the Levantine situation.

So speaking of proportion misses the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

How's that related?

---

Israel deliberately destroyed the infrastructure in Lebanon "we will bomb them back to the Stone Age". Lebanon was a functioning pluralistic democracy, Sunni, Shia, Christian, Druze...

sure, they made accommodations with Hamas, but it was still the Hamas military wing - not Lebanon's army - that was attacking Israel. By destroying the Lebanese military and political structure Israel made Hamas stronger in the long term for what was, frankly, a very limited short term advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Israel deliberately destroyed the infrastructure in Lebanon "we will bomb them back to the Stone Age". Lebanon was a functioning pluralistic democracy, Sunni, Shia, Christian, Druze...

sure, they made accommodations with Hamas, but it was still the Hamas military wing - not Lebanon's army - that was attacking Israel. By destroying the Lebanese military and political structure Israel made Hamas stronger in the long term for what was, frankly, a very limited short term advantage.

---

AFAICS this is just another good old punitive campaign to demonstrate Israel's overwhelming military power and willingness to use it, in order to cow the other side into submission or at least a quiet period. Nothing wrong with it if that's the way you roll. Us western powers moved away from that by mid-20th century at the latest, but Israel isn't a western power. They're more westernised than most middle eastern countries, but they're a middle eastern country and they operate by those rules.

Israeli snipers shoot people looking for dead/injured relatives. Then repeatedly shoot a down and injured man:

http://youtu.be/sBakqLUBWP0

Grim, brutal and evil.

Don't know about you but I bleed when I get wounded, not at war of course we don't have any here, but I certainly bleed more after losing a kickboxing match and riding pony's

Palywood, cynical, false, not be be considered considering earlier pallywood exploits. He wasn't even shot there are no wounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

AFAICS this is just another good old punitive campaign to demonstrate Israel's overwhelming military power and willingness to use it, in order to cow the other side into submission or at least a quiet period. Nothing wrong with it if that's the way you roll. Us western powers moved away from that by mid-20th century at the latest, but Israel isn't a western power. They're more westernised than most middle eastern countries, but they're a middle eastern country and they operate by those rules.

---

I am glad we of the effete West care about such things -- I think it represents an improvement in human governance and the use of power. I am happy that my country could no longer countenance the tactics employed without hesitation and with full official support in World War 2 or the intervention in Korea. I am happy that analogous actions taken during the Vietnam intervention, Gulf 1, Gulf 2 and the War on Terror [not what I would have called it] rarely have official sanction and have been in a number of cases successfully prosecuted as crimes. But nothing can make warfare humane.

Warfare probably started as a ritual clash between bands of hunter-gatherers which were more symbolic than violent. We still have vestiges of such rituals like the Inuit song duels to teach us of this.

When resources expanded following agriculture and metallurgy, war assumed its basic form. To wit: Defeat your opponents, kill the warriors who oppose you, kill the old or the young who will be a burden, take all of their valuta, acquire the younger women and breed them from your own men so that their maternalism binds them to your group thereafter. The defeated are thereby destroyed and cannot pose a renewed threat. Civilians v military; public v private property -- all such distinctions are irrelevant to war in its basic form. There are variations, but that is the essential character of war -- Clausewitz notwithstanding.

If warfare is less brutal than this model, then somebody is attempting to restrain or "limit" war -- usually for moral purposes. But there are always those for whom any such restraints are themselves wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I particularly enjoy the "only possible solution" suggested by one of the members.

---

Yeah, someone reads my posts!

The only way to stop the incessant fighting over this particular patch of desert (as seen in the excellent "This Land Is Mine" vid) is to make the land uninhabitable. Neither side wants peace, so to replace the constant war/low level terrorism endless cycle, there are two options:

• Complete genocide
• Denial of territory

I'm open to others if you have them.

I don't understand how you treat the two parties as equal. There are two aspects where I find this flawed.

First, at root, to me, this is a problem of legitimacy. Some people legitimately own all those lands, and have owned it for a very long time. Suddenly, others took over it, colonized it, and have been there de facto for the last what 90 years? Do you truly believe they both have equal right to the lands in dispute?

This isn't even a matter of politics to me. Say an old man owned half of Haifa, and was forcefully expelled from Haifa, but still has all the legal documents which prove he owns half of Haifa. Isn't it his right then to want his land back? What say does anyone in the world have to "rightfully" take over his land?

Second, does proportion even matter at all? For example, is it sound to paint all people who kill with the same color without looking into the details? I think doing that is a very superficial way of weighing things, it reflects absence of reality and too much book-reading. The devil is in the detail.

What's also truly disturbing is the hypocrisy the civilized modern world shows when dealing with this crisis in comparison to others. What happened, I don't get it.. How did I miss the world-wide convention on founding a country in some innocent people's land, expelling the original people, and then basing that country on a strictly racist hierarchy, and turning a blind eye to whatever evil shit that country does from then on?

Also, let's stop kidding ourselves. The country in question probably has the most allies in the region, contrary to the popular stigma, which goes "oh they're backed against the wall etc., poor them."

Excuse my deficiency of expression. My last post was unfair to most of the posters here, but then I really didn't address most of them with it. Sorry about that misunderstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I don't understand how you treat the two parties as equal. There are two aspects where I find this flawed.

First, at root, to me, this is a problem of legitimacy. Some people legitimately own all those lands, and have owned it for a very long time. Suddenly, others took over it, colonized it, and have been there de facto for the last what 90 years? Do you truly believe they both have equal right to the lands in dispute?

This isn't even a matter of politics to me. Say an old man owned half of Haifa, and was forcefully expelled from Haifa, but still has all the legal documents which prove he owns half of Haifa. Isn't it his right then to want his land back? What say does anyone in the world have to "rightfully" take over his land?

Second, does proportion even matter at all? For example, is it sound to paint all people who kill with the same color without looking into the details? I think doing that is a very superficial way of weighing things, it reflects absence of reality and too much book-reading. The devil is in the detail.

What's also truly disturbing is the hypocrisy the civilized modern world shows when dealing with this crisis in comparison to others. What happened, I don't get it.. How did I miss the world-wide convention on founding a country in some innocent people's land, expelling the original people, and then basing that country on a strictly racist hierarchy, and turning a blind eye to whatever evil shit that country does from then on?

Also, let's stop kidding ourselves. The country in question probably has the most allies in the region, contrary to the popular stigma, which goes "oh they're backed against the wall etc., poor them."

Excuse my deficiency of expression. My last post was unfair to most of the posters here, but then I really didn't address most of them with it. Sorry about that misunderstanding.

---

Some of us have an even less hypocritical and less high pedestalled position than yourself. You complain about taking stuff from people and you call it stealing. Fair enough, but then what's your position on taking stuff back from the Israelis in order to restore it to the Palestinians? At what stage does taking and giving become righteous and principled in your eyes? Who decides what to give and what to take, and who enforces it to your satisfaction? If you're not just riding a high horse, but have a practical position, please answer these questions.

As for me, I care not who has what nor who kills whom. They're not me and mine, what they do doesn't affect me. I only wish there was an even lesser chance of what they do affecting me. I put forward a position earlier considering international law, but only as an academic point since, as I said, I care not enough to enforce it. If you want us to take a position of principle, explain why we should care enough to do so.

Just so you can have a point of reference and something to accuse me of, I'm a Brit, so you can drag up all the stuff about us illegally giving the Jews what wasn't ours to give. And you know what? I don't care that we did. I didn't do it, nor anyone in my generation. It's long past the stage where it's in our power to do anything about it, and since we can't do anything about it, why should we be bothered? The question is, what's in it for us now that we should back one side or the other? I don't think Israel offers anything that we don't already have, and Palestine offers even less. And if anyone tries the guilt argument on us, that's just an argument for us to care even less. We've done worse elsewhere, and if we can't be bothered to feel guilty about them, there's even less chance that we can be bothered to feel guilty about a patch of sand where everyone hates us anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I don't understand how you treat the two parties as equal. There are two aspects where I find this flawed.

First, at root, to me, this is a problem of legitimacy. Some people legitimately own all those lands, and have owned it for a very long time. Suddenly, others took over it, colonized it, and have been there de facto for the last what 90 years? Do you truly believe they both have equal right to the lands in dispute?

This isn't even a matter of politics to me. Say an old man owned half of Haifa, and was forcefully expelled from Haifa, but still has all the legal documents which prove he owns half of Haifa. Isn't it his right then to want his land back? What say does anyone in the world have to "rightfully" take over his land?

---

The Arabs who owned (or more properly perpetually leased from the sublime porte) the land only really did so since 1858 or 1873 (when the Ottoman empire enacted a series of land reforms). Before that land was held collectively by a village in a very medieval sense of by custom rather than legality. Also don't forget that old chestnut, possession in 9/10th's of the law. So whom ever has it now has more right.

Who has the right? The legitimate government that controls Haifa, namely Israel. And Israel has passed 4 laws (The Absentees’ Property Law, 5710- 1950, Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law, 5713-1953, The Absentees’ Property (Amendment No.3) (Release and Use of Endowment Property) Law, 5725-1965, The Absentees’ Property (Compensation) Law, 5733-1973 ) saying that any Arab who abandoned his land (whether by their own choice or a gun to their heads), left any claims behind with it. Save for some sort of financial compensation, once a final peace deal is reached. So realistically his papers would be better used wiping his ass.

And let's be real here. For every Arab who fled Mandatory Palestine in 1948, a Jew left his home in North Africa or the Arab country. Guess where they ended up?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Israel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

First, at root, to me, this is a problem of legitimacy. Some people legitimately own all those lands, and have owned it for a very long time. Suddenly, others took over it, colonized it, and have been there de facto for the last what 90 years? Do you truly believe they both have equal right to the lands in dispute?

---

I'm very sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, more so than I ever used to be. However, while I agree with you that the root issue here is legitimacy (as it applies to land ownership by a political body, sovereignty), I disagree with your supposition that one side has it and the other doesn't. We can trace who took what from whom all the way back to our pre-historic days.

I suppose before we can discuss who has legitimate claim to ownership, we have to define legitimacy and sovereignty. From whence do the rights come? How are they established? Are they transferrable? If I buy a property in good faith, and then I sell my property to a buyer, yet down the road it is revealed that my deed to the property had another claimant and my deed was in dispute... what then? ~:confused:

The more I think about this, the more I'm coming to believe that Chief Seattle may have been correct... You cannot "own" land, the Earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the Earth.

This forum always depresses the shit out of me. I remember the Iraq war threads and the Afghan war threads. All the dehumanising of the enemy. The callousness and casual uninterest in civilian death. The blithe faith that the established media truth and the actions and decisions of our leaders were the natural and best course of action.

When we read through history we come across injustices and crimes that at the time went largely unchallenged. There is no reason our era should be different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

This forum airways depresses the shit out of me. I remember the Iraq war threads and the Afghan war threads. All the dehumanising of the enemy. The callousness and casual uninterest in civilian death. The blithe faith that the established media truth and the actions and decisions of our leaders were the natural and best course of action.

When we read through history we come across injustices and crimes that at the time went largely unchallenged. There is no reason our era should be different.

---

Israel possesses nukes. They're willing to spread their joy a bit if it comes to the crunch. So all the sermonising about injustices will amount to nothing. It's terrorism in its pure form, but by heck it's effective. If you disapprove of Israel, then the most we can do is the course I favour, which is to isolate ourselves from them as far as is possible. Not that I approve of what the Palestinians do either, except to acknowledge the legal injustice of the West Bank settlements. I think they're within their rights to do whatever they see fit to expel the Israelis from those areas of the West Bank which the Israelis have agreed to be Palestinian as per the last agreement. But it's up to them to use this right to expel the Israelis. If they can't do it themselves, c'est la vie.

If this sort of thing had happened say 500 years ago, I guess the problem wouldn't be as complicated. One side would exterminate the other, and the notion of owning a land would become irrelevant. That's not the case here though. So long the "true owner" lives, they will have a right to what they own. I realize the words between quotations are disputed and may sound controversial to some of you, especially if you start going all Plato, but to make things more simple:

Try imagining what would happen if the scenario would be repeated now, say with part of Britain (or anywhere, really). Say Obama promised Armenians a home in England.. As far as I'm concerned those people living in England now will be the rightful owners of their lands, even if for 100 years they're still fighting back for it, so long they still exist.

Again touching on the notion of legitimacy, I guess it's most similar to the right of the crown. Sure, you can "steal" that right, but ironically history has shown that you have to exterminate the rightful heir to become so yourself. This time around, the rightful crown prince is still alive, and you only killed the king. I guess history repeats itself for a reason.

Sadly I'm painting the same tragic picture most of you do.. One side has to exterminate the other, it is an existential conflict, but as far as what I think, I will side with the Palestinians on this, because well, I do think they are "rightful" until they do not exist. Of course this is not the only way to go. The other way to go about this is to try and altar the existential nature of the conflict, which requires integration efforts the involved parties are clearly not spending. This also, IMO, falls on the stronger party. The strong integrates the weak.

Dear brit friend, I welcome the notion of you not caring about anything. Indeed your country has done the world enough favors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

This forum always depresses the shit out of me. I remember the Iraq war threads and the Afghan war threads. All the dehumanising of the enemy. The callousness and casual uninterest in civilian death. The blithe faith that the established media truth and the actions and decisions of our leaders were the natural and best course of action.

When we read through history we come across injustices and crimes that at the time went largely unchallenged. There is no reason our era should be different.

---

You refuse to vote - so you're pretty depressing too.

And anyway, maybe you should look at the posts where we're at least trying to be civil and even handed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

If this sort of thing had happened say 500 years ago, I guess the problem wouldn't be as complicated. One side would exterminate the other, and the notion of owning a land would become irrelevant. That's not the case here though. So long the "true owner" lives, they will have a right to what they own. I realize the words between quotations are disputed and may sound controversial to some of you, especially if you start going all Plato, but to make things more simple:

Try imagining what would happen if the scenario would be repeated now, say with part of Britain (or anywhere, really). Say Obama promised Armenians a home in England.. As far as I'm concerned those people living in England now will be the rightful owners of their lands, even if for 100 years they're still fighting back for it, so long they still exist.

Again touching on the notion of legitimacy, I guess it's most similar to the right of the crown. Sure, you can "steal" that right, but ironically history has shown that you have to exterminate the rightful heir to become so yourself. This time around, the rightful crown prince is still alive, and you only killed the king. I guess history repeats itself for a reason.

Sadly I'm painting the same tragic picture most of you do.. One side has to exterminate the other, it is an existential conflict, but as far as what I think, I will side with the Palestinians on this, because well, I do think they are "rightful" until they do not exist. Of course this is not the only way to go. The other way to go about this is to try and altar the existential nature of the conflict, which requires integration efforts the involved parties are clearly not spending. This also, IMO, falls on the stronger party. The strong integrates the weak.

Dear brit friend, I welcome the notion of you not caring about anything. Indeed your country has done the world enough favors.

---

Would we complain if another country claimed a right to the land we lived in? Have a look at the English language. It's one of the more irregular European languages, with several sets of rules each governing its own vocabulary. It's the result of this land having been conquered and occupied by different peoples through its history. The original Brits got pushed back into the mountains in the west, where they preserve their Welsh language. The Anglo-Saxons who took over endured numerous incursions from the Norse, who've left their mark especially in the north. However, it was the Norse's French-speaking cousins who left a more lasting mark. They were never expelled, but eventually identified themselves along with the general population as a unified English people. This reminder of how many times the area we call England has been invaded and conquered is now the most widely spoken language in the world. Do we complain about the injustices inflicted on us? No, we're grown ups and we call this process history.

BTW, if you want to talk about injustices and atrocities, the north of England, probably an area equivalent to Palestine as defined by the UN circa 1950, suffered a systematic depopulation that's far worse than anything the Palestinians have suffered. Not as bad as the Jews in WWII, but still pretty bad, with most of the population in the area killed or starving to death in the wake of a campaign by the Norman conquerors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

This forum always depresses the shit out of me. I remember the Iraq war threads and the Afghan war threads. All the dehumanising of the enemy. The callousness and casual uninterest in civilian death. The blithe faith that the established media truth and the actions and decisions of our leaders were the natural and best course of action.

---

Iraq you have a point because the Iraqi's were innocent bystanders caught up in US foreign policy. This conflict between the Palestinians and Israeli's is perpetuated wholeheartedly by both sides. Decades of peace talks have only resulted in bribing Egypt and Israel with millions of foreign aid. If anyone really had such a bleeding heart over deaths in the Gaza, they would advocate for total withdraw of foreign aid and presence in the region and let either the Arab states or Israel fight until total hegemony is established by one side or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Any serious military scholar would tell you that Israel is doing all of these things. Hamas hides rockets in schools, so... :shrug: As Brenus so often likes to bring up, NATO bombed a hospital in Kosovo and that was considered acceptable, if tragic. And that wasn't even a military target, it was just error. We've seen both kinds of collateral damage from Israel so far in this one, and its not anything beyond the pale honestly. Your objections, while both valid and agreeable, are 100% political. That might seem nitpicky, but I don't see it that way. The problem is with political conduct, not military conduct.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So far... ya never know, ugh :wall:

---

My three points are essentially a summary of the Rome Statue which goes on to say what crimalises an act of war:
" Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;"

Warfare in that part of the world is very old, as are attacks upon civilians. Massacres in Palestine ; massacres in Palestinian territories; massacres in Israel. Perhaps the acknowledged beauty of the area is due to its overly rich fertilization. ~:mecry:

I study conflict. I have a degree in it. I have watched young Palestinians and Jews argue/attempt to resolve this conflict as part of a laboratory in Second Track (Burtonian) conflict resolution. The continuance of this conflict is such a cultural idee fixe for both parties that it beggars description. It makes Ireland during the Troubles look like a community with a few "issues."

For too many, on both sides, this conflict and their opposition to the "other" has ceased to be a part of what it means to be an Israeli or a Palestinian...it has become integral to their identity -- it is central to who they are. And none of us gives up readily on who we conceive ourselves to be.

Perhaps there will come an event some day in the future...like the two moms from different factions in Ireland who said "enough" and who were the catalyst for change...but I fear this will come only after a far longer series of horrors than any of us hope to see. For most in Israel/Palestine, I fear that only Plato's definition of peace will prove to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You take a far more merciful interpretation of that and the laws of war in general than the Israeli or even Australian Army does, if you think civilians who happen to be near rockets that are actively being used for strategic warfare are totally off limits. The israelies have taken meaures to limit collateral damage, and are in accordance with international law so far.

Thats really important. Its cool to emotionally disagree with what Israel has historically done to the palestinians, but that is quite separate from what the Israeli military is doing now. So far.

---

It's not my opinion it is in quotes from the article:
"Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b)."

So you must be pro-Iraq War? Yet you're not...

What gives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Its a vague article, and that is your opinion. Is it excessive to go after the missile sites, even if civilians are around? The Israel Army says no. Most western Armies say no. Either the Israelis haven't signed on to that article, in which case who cares? Or they take a radically different interpretation, which should not be surprising given how vague the writing is. Under the laws of war, when an enemy is raining rockets on your cities, what constitutes excessive retaliation, proportionality, and anticipated military advantage (that's a big one!) are very subjective. There's a reason most nations who actually use their Armies don't even sign on to half of these stupid declarations. :shrug:

---

The Rome Statue has an interesting background. One of the interesting outcomes is that the ICC prosecuter cannot determine if Palestine is a State and therefore cannot sign it.

So Palestine which was once a functioning province of an Empire was take. Partially/fully over when the Zionists took it over to remake Israel.

Problem is most invaders by becomming the ruling class have an obligation to the ruled.

The Palestinians like the Lebonese are not a single ethnic/religious group. Their are Muslims and Christians of many different sects amongst them. Hamas doesn't have the backing of every single Palestinian.

Collective punishment is an extreme form of prejudice to say the least. Proportionality is settling/stealing people's lands in another country and then killing over a hundred to one when they fight back. This isn't 1950's stylised Cowboys vs Indians is Boer War/apartheid SA.

The latest invasion is in response to several escalations on both sides.

The most news worthy was the three youths who were murdered and the revenge murder of another.

Now Israel has launched a campaign to get back at the perpartrors of the first and have arrested the perpartrors of the second.

So given that this is essentially an attempt to right the wrongs of three murders is it proportional to kill a hundred civilians for each?

Are the homes of the second set of murderers bulldozed and their families evicted from their lands? The suspected ones of the first were. Surely the same punishment should be metered out to both?

Should policeman be counted as military for the purposes of death tolls?

Was Timothy McVeighs bombing therefore 100% military casualties and collateral damage as it was a Federal building? If not why not?

This might be of interest to some: How Politics and Lies Triggered an Unintended War in Gaza.

Israeli operations constitute war crimes.

The position is simply that both, though distinct in the manner, are unacceptable. Nothing is being conflated except in your position.

You can't honestly think that people who consider the Iraq War to have been a crime against humanity due to its conduct would not recognize the current invasion as such...

Anyway, it's not even a moral position, necessarily. There's nothing ambiguous about these human rights, and if "not being signatory" is the best you can put up, well...

Quote:

---

The Israeli invasion is strictly to control the rockets, both presently and in the future. They have that right, under international law, no matter how much you don't like it.

---

But, again, that's not the point...

Quote:

---

based on the laws of war as practiced and understood by the nations that actual go to war.

---

The fact that international laws and norms of war are outdated and apply best to national wars between national states is another topic entirely. The point is that according to the letter and spirit of these aforementioned, the Israelis are mucking things up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's far from the best I've come up with. I'm out, done with this one. My position is non-partisan, and based on the laws of war as practiced and understood by the nations that actually go to war. Invading Iraq could be a war crime, given that it was based on false evidence knowingly given--but even so, the president gets a pardon and the UN has absolutely no authority to enforce such a thing. If Bush is a war criminal, he will be convicted in an American court. Since that will never happen, its a moot point. The Israeli invasion is strictly to control the rockets, both presently and in the future. They have that right, under international law, no matter how much you don't like it.

---

I think you are confalting a (hypothetical) war crime and its ability to be prosecuted. Just because a criminal could get away with a war crime does not extinguish the war crime. All it means is that justice/law cannot be served.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Also not true. The laws of war have been updated internally by the nations that still go to war. Under the US Laws of Land Warfare, (so far) the Israelis are doing nothing wrong strictly regarding the conduct of this invasion to control Hamas' ability to launch rockets. If you're trying to say that Israel is breaking international law as a few very stuffy European signatories understand it, then that's a very disingenuous and political argument. Your problem is with international law, and the ability of nations to opt in and opt out. So make that argument. :shrug:

---

You realize the US, Israel and Sudan are still signatories to this set of laws even though they have said they are stepping away from them to join the likes of Russia and China.

Yeah might makes right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The Israeli invasion is strictly to control the rockets, both presently and in the future. They have that right, under international law, no matter how much you don't like it.

---

Sure targeting missile platforms. But not everyone thinks these are the only things being targeted and some of them are not the norm for a military target.

Do police count as civilian or military casualties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I could say literally anything and you'd find a way to make it political. Whatever.

---

Well stop making political rhetoric :p

Surely the Palestinians if they are a state can evict invaders too?

It's astounding that you would claim there is nothing political to the international adjudication of military laws, and that it is purely a military matter. Of course such disingenuous compartmentalization of literally the most political aspect of a military's existence makes our statements unacceptable to each other.

But you know, as they say, the truth of the crime lies not with the victim but with the witness...

Quote:

---

I'm making the least controversial claims in this entire thread

---

Empirically the opposite.

Quote:

---

and I have no idea what you're going on about.

---

I gathered. :no:

Quote:

---

The US State Department basically takes the exact same line I've been pushing for the last few pages.

---

Kim Jong Un could claim that his people are well-fed and happy. So? Perhaps might makes right, but does incest make right?

Quote:

---

Israel has a right to defend itself. What part of that are you arguing with, and why?

---

As laid down by international bodies, the manner in which Israel is defending itself is criminal. Very simple.

Think of Martin and Zimmerman: let's say Martin sought Zimmerman out (even as Zimmerman was doing the same) and threw a punch. Florida law being much less "merciful" than international law tends to be, Martin's subsequent shooting death would be considered lawful. But if Martin had run off to his own house to throw rocks at Zimmerman from the windows, and Zimmerman had responded by setting Martin's house on fire, he would rightfully face a very long prison sentence, even in Florida.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The US State Department basically takes the exact same line I've been pushing for the last few pages. Its a humanitarian shame, but Israel has a right to defend itself. What part of that are you arguing with, and why?




:juggle2:

---

Nobody believes they're just targeting missile sites.

The extent of the ground bombardment - against an enemy lacking serious AA capability - and the number of Palestinian dead make it look like a punitive campaign.

Aside from that - Hamas is part of the Palestinian Government, if Israel is going to invade it should have formally declared war - attacking another state without a formal declaration of war is a war crime.

Having said that, the US conducts illegal operations in Pakistan, so Israel's key ally has set the bar very low.

Can you give an example? Preferably one that doesn't just mention that the Israelis are indeed conducting military operations in Gaza?

Eyewitness reporting from the scene, or a source with a source in the IDF or Knesset?

Again, does incest make right?

You just did what I asked you not to do.

'They say they're trying to limit collateral damage'

'Civilian casualties are inevitable'

'Tunnels pose a threat'

Did you honestly think this added anything to the discussion? :inquisitive:

The fact that you still have no idea what I'm even talking about makes me sad.

:strawman1:

:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

So, the problem is that people believe rumors instead of what's reported by reliable sources? Like I said, I'm not speculating. I'm giving a simple analysis of what's been reported by reliable news sources so far, which is actually quite a lot. For example, the tunnels are apparently more extensive than previously thought, and much of the fighting is taking place in densely populated urban areas that house these tunnels, used by Hamas (allegedly). If true, that's legit for the IDF to attack, and you can expect a lot more civilian casualties, sadly. Hopefully 'ol Kerry can get them to agree to a humanitarian cease-fire or something. :sweatdrop:

---

The death toll of Civilians has passed 500 in a few days - that looks punitive against the number of Israeli dead - compare to the (relatively) low civilian casualties in Ukraine and the much higher casualties among the Ukrainian army.

Lets just reflect on how sad it is for a moment that we have those two to compare.

Now, even assuming that the fact the tunnels are in Urban areas is the reason for higher casualties it still begs the question of why this is so. Given the low Israeli casualties we know they aren't fighting in them, which suggests they might (for example) be using Ground Penetrating RADAR to map the tunnels and then using bombs to flatten them.

That's not OK, nor is any variation of that strategy.

If this was genuinely a Police Action targeting Hamas then the IDF would sweep through the area, stopping up tunnel entrances as they go and hope to flush the Hamas fighters out, then pour concrete into all the tunnels.

I realise America uses it's fire-power to suppress local resistance in a big way but in Europe and the West that's not usually considered a legitimate use of resources. One of the biggest criticisms of British Forces in Iraq was that they had started adopting these "American tactics" due to a lack of manpower.

Where are you getting the 600 civilian deaths number from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Its an important distinction to make, between Israeli policy towards Gaza, and Israeli conduct during this invasion. I've said it as thoroughly and in as many ways as I can, so whatever. Go on confusing the two if you want, I'm just trying to steer the discussion in a direction that's less painful to read.

---

Gelcube:

You are operating with a different frame of reference in mind regarding legitimacy in military targeting.

They view the use of any weapons that could harm non-combatants as a war crime. Artillery, rockets, crew-served weaponry of any kind...all of these have margins of error during normal use that virtually guarantee civilian casualties in densely populated areas such as Gaza (which is, of course, exacerbated by the positioning of equipment near or within civilian concentrations). As such, your "opposition" would view ANY such weapons use as wrong and would argue that the Israelis should refrain from counterfire.

They would probably -- in terms of the morality of the specific act, NOT the implied policy -- accept the deployment of military personnel to effect a direct response using small arms after specific identification of the militancy of the target has been confirmed using mark one eyeballs. Even then, I suspect they would expect these soldiers to show the same restraint a police force would for the potential of collateral casualties during such a "shoot."

Please note, even if they accept that such a military response would be moral in its limitation of civilian casualties, they view the policies and behavior of Israel within Gaza as inherently criminal and tyrannical.

I hope I am summarizing this clearly -- that is my read of things based on the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

...was American policy in Iraq for the last two years, despite the fact that far more (up to what the Israelis are currently doing) would have been legal under our own laws of warfare. The cost and manpower required to do it that way is prohibitive, and nobody should be expecting Israel to do it that way from a practical and realistic military (or even legal) point of view. Would I like to see them try? Absolutely. But I don't expect it, and neither should you. :shrug:

---

I do not.

Earlier I noted that war in its most basic form -- at least past symbolic/ritual conflict -- was ghastly and makes no distinction between civilian and military.

While saddened, I am not surprised when I read of incidents involving brutality/civilian targeting -- I am surprised that it does not happen more than it now does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

was American policy in Iraq for the last two years, despite the fact that far more (up to what the Israelis are currently doing) would have been legal under our own laws of warfare. The cost and manpower required to do it that way is prohibitive, and nobody should be expecting Israel to do it that way from a practical and realistic military (or even legal) point of view. Would I like to see them try? Absolutely. But I don't expect it, and neither should you. :shrug:

---

Militarily, the cleanest way for Israel to sort out Gaza and Hamas would be to remove all settlements from the West Bank so as to bolster Fatah's position, do whatever else to strengthen Fatah's position, eg. giving it economic aid to be spent on the West Bank (Europe and the US would probably be glad to contribute to this), give them some form of military aid that would never put them within a million miles of threatening Israel's existence, but would be enough to sustain them through a small scale civil war, then let them loose on Hamas in Gaza. All the losses and atrocities would be the business of other Palestinians, not the Israeli state, whose only contribution in this is the benign support of the legitimate Palestinian government.

No chance of that happening though. Rabin demonstrated that Israeli leaders who make peace with Palestinians are killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Gelcube:

You are operating with a different frame of reference in mind regarding legitimacy in military targeting.

They view the use of any weapons that could harm non-combatants as a war crime. Artillery, rockets, crew-served weaponry of any kind...all of these have margins of error during normal use that virtually guarantee civilian casualties in densely populated areas such as Gaza (which is, of course, exacerbated by the positioning of equipment near or within civilian concentrations). As such, your "opposition" would view ANY such weapons use as wrong and would argue that the Israelis should refrain from counterfire.

They would probably -- in terms of the morality of the specific act, NOT the implied policy -- accept the deployment of military personnel to effect a direct response using small arms after specific identification of the militancy of the target has been confirmed using mark one eyeballs. Even then, I suspect they would expect these soldiers to show the same restraint a police force would for the potential of collateral casualties during such a "shoot."

Please note, even if they accept that such a military response would be moral in its limitation of civilian casualties, they view the policies and behavior of Israel within Gaza as inherently criminal and tyrannical.

I hope I am summarizing this clearly -- that is my read of things based on the above.

---

I won't speak for the others, but my problem is the huge number of casualties.

What is the end goal here?

If it was to neutralise the rocket launchers, surely that could have been done with counter-battery fire - there would have been collateral damage but it would have been localised. What we have seen, though, are punitive strikes against the homes of Hamas "commanders", intel we mostly have to rely on Israel for, and strikes on populated areas.

The 2006 War in Lebanon and previous strikes into gaza have been primarily punitive - the local populace are ground into the dust to drive home the fact that opposing Israel is worse than opposing the militants.

Quick question for you all, so I was having a debate with an acquaintance on Facebook about this conflict, and she kept bringing up how the rest of the world isnt paying nearly enough attention to "(insert crisis here)" and saying how it was antisemitism how much everyone was concentrating on Israel. I said she was practicing a classic case of Whataboutism, to which she denies the claim, saying that can only be leveled at the USSR (ignoring how she was appealing to hypocrisy). Is that a valid claim or not? I think that its perfectly valid to say its Whataboutism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I won't speak for the others, but my problem is the huge number of casualties.

What is the end goal here?

If it was to neutralise the rocket launchers, surely that could have been done with counter-battery fire - there would have been collateral damage but it would have been localised. What we have seen, though, are punitive strikes against the homes of Hamas "commanders", intel we mostly have to rely on Israel for, and strikes on populated areas.

The 2006 War in Lebanon and previous strikes into gaza have been primarily punitive - the local populace are ground into the dust to drive home the fact that opposing Israel is worse than opposing the militants.

---

There is no endgame. These are punitive strikes with limited tactical objectives as the frontpieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Quick question for you all, so I was having a debate with an acquaintance on Facebook about this conflict, and she kept bringing up how the rest of the world isnt paying nearly enough attention to "(insert crisis here)" and saying how it was antisemitism how much everyone was concentrating on Israel. I said she was practicing a classic case of Whataboutism, to which she denies the claim, saying that can only be leveled at the USSR (ignoring how she was appealing to hypocrisy). Is that a valid claim or not? I think that its perfectly valid to say its Whataboutism.

---

MH17 is dominating the headlines far more than Gaza, which is what some people have accused the West of being 'biased' of. "Oh look, another plane, lets ignore what Israel is doing again". I am sure I even read a post somewhere which a person pointed at the casualty list complaining about Gaza not receiving the same coverage.

You get these incidents on both sides of the fence. Some people 'want more' others 'want less'. Depending on the proximity of the incident has a massive bearing. I have a feeling Chinese news has Gaza on a footnote somewhere in comparison.

I bet the Glasgow Commonwealth games wished people gave them more attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Quick question for you all, so I was having a debate with an acquaintance on Facebook about this conflict, and she kept bringing up how the rest of the world isnt paying nearly enough attention to "(insert crisis here)" and saying how it was antisemitism how much everyone was concentrating on Israel. I said she was practicing a classic case of Whataboutism, to which she denies the claim, saying that can only be leveled at the USSR (ignoring how she was appealing to hypocrisy). Is that a valid claim or not? I think that its perfectly valid to say its Whataboutism.

---

You're probably right, but you should take her up on how she does apparently not deny Israel's wrongdoing and only complains about the amount of attention it gets. There is probably some antisemitism involved but using that to distract from the actual issues is not a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I think we need a new thread about not voting. It's an interesting topic, where I am right and you are all wrong.

---

You can start a new topic if you look forward to being proven wrong, but with your attitude it seems either pointless or it will hurt even more when you finally have to admit your mistakes.

The UN apparently sees some basis for possible war crimes. The article focuses on Israel, but does mention Hamas.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/0...058635836.html

It is unclear whether the focus on Israel is a product of the UN or the reporting.

BBC provides the same information; apparently the focus on Israel is part of the UN report:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28437626

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I think we need a new thread about not voting. It's an interesting topic, where I am right and you are all wrong.

---

That's just stupid.

You live in a democracy but do not even bother to vote - then you say you love democracy.

Back to Israel - supposedly lots of Israelis disagree with the settlements - but they keep voting in settlement-orientated governments.

why's that?

Well, mostly I think it's because most Israelis aren't actually that bothered - in theory they don't like the settlements but in practice they're more interested in keeping the militants down, and they don't know any way to do that other than beating the Palestinians like mangy dogs.

Basically - the whole area is brutalised and nothing short of a 100-year UN mandate has any hope of ever fixing it.

I dont think a UN mandate would fix anything nowadays. I mean where in the world has a UN mandate actually had a positive change?

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/op.../success.shtml

Quote:

---

Since 1948, the UN has helped end conflicts and foster reconciliation by conducting successful peacekeeping operations in dozens of countries, including Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mozambique, Namibia and Tajikistan.

UN peacekeeping has also made a real difference in other places with recently completed or on-going operations such as Sierra Leone, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Timor-Leste, Liberia, Haiti and Kosovo. By providing basic security guarantees and responding to crises, these UN operations have supported political transitions and helped buttress fragile new state institutions. They have helped countries to close the chapter of conflict and open a path to normal development, even if major peacebuilding challenges remain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You can start a new topic if you look forward to being proven wrong, but with your attitude it seems either pointless or it will hurt even more when you finally have to admit your mistakes.

---

Joke dude! There would be no point in debating otherwise.

I must have been wasted when I wrote that last bit. I don't remember it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I dont think a UN mandate would fix anything nowadays. I mean where in the world has a UN mandate actually had a positive change?

---

When it was what the US was going to do anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

When it was what the US was going to do anyway.

---

Which in the case of Israel/Palestine is very apt as the US will veto anything not in Israel's short term interests.

US is an enabler both in voting and money for what Israel does.

Fair enough.

Anyways, there was a pro-Israel rally held today in my town, and when I refused to go (since its a waste of my time) I got reamed by a bunch of people for basically being morally reprehensible for not going to a rally. Yes, I am a terrible evil human being for not wanting to go to a rally.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Fair enough.

Anyways, there was a pro-Israel rally held today in my town, and when I refused to go (since its a waste of my time) I got reamed by a bunch of people for basically being morally reprehensible for not going to a rally. Yes, I am a terrible evil human being for not wanting to go to a rally.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Well if the reason you gave was that is was "a waste of my time", then I can see why they might have got a bit upset! You should have just said you were morally opposed to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Fair enough.

Anyways, there was a pro-Israel rally held today in my town, and when I refused to go (since its a waste of my time) I got reamed by a bunch of people for basically being morally reprehensible for not going to a rally. Yes, I am a terrible evil human being for not wanting to go to a rally.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

I had always read that most guys went to rallies more because the gals would be there than for the putative cause of the rally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I had always read that most guys went to rallies more because the gals would be there than for the putative cause of the rally.

---

Every good leftie demonstration always ends up at the bar.

Drop a few Simone de Beauvoir quotes, and you're set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Every good leftie demonstration always ends up at the bar.

Drop a few Simone de Beauvoir quotes, and you're set.

---

On this side of the pond I think Gandhi or Guevara quotes would probably get you further -- less philosophy interest -- but you CLEARLY have the general assessment of things entirely on target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

On this side of the pond I think Gandhi or Guevara quotes would probably get you further -- less philosophy interest -- but you CLEARLY have the general assessment of things entirely on target.

---

"Man is defined as a human being and woman as a female – whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male." - Simone de Beauvoir

The point is not to quote leftist icons; everyone will be doing that. No, the point is that you - as a man - quote a feminist icon. Nothing will get those radical feminist knickers off faster. It doesn't really matter if the feminist in question is familiar with de Beauvoir. Her work is so influential that basically every feminist piece can trace its arguments back to her(in particular the second sex, of course), and so such quotes will resonate with her ideology no matter what. The main obstacle will be to seperate the full-blown lesbians from the bi-curios, but in that case the following quote might help:

"In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation." - de Beauvoir, again


What, you think I joined political youth groups because of politics....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well if the reason you gave was that is was "a waste of my time", then I can see why they might have got a bit upset! You should have just said you were morally opposed to it.

---

Saying I was morally opposed is even worse! Saying you dont fall in line with the strictly pro-Israel crowd is basically political suicide. Not that I have political aspirations, but better not to close that door so early.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I had always read that most guys went to rallies more because the gals would be there than for the putative cause of the rally.

---

Yeah, in these kind of rallys the average age for female participation is 50 and they usually have kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

"Man is defined as a human being and woman as a female – whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male." - Simone de Beauvoir

The point is not to quote leftist icons; everyone will be doing that. No, the point is that you - as a man - quote a feminist icon. Nothing will get those radical feminist knickers off faster. It doesn't really matter if the feminist in question is familiar with de Beauvoir. Her work is so influential that basically every feminist piece can trace its arguments back to her(in particular the second sex, of course), and so such quotes will resonate with her ideology no matter what. The main obstacle will be to seperate the full-blown lesbians from the bi-curios, but in that case the following quote might help:

"In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation." - de Beauvoir, again


What, you think I joined political youth groups because of politics....?

---

OH I understood your point about de Beauvoir and "le feminism," but most yank gals wouldn't....hence the more typical leftist/pacifist authors. Your approach reveals a level of sophistication that wouldn't be so well matched on this side of things. Despite being smart, so many of my countrypersons choose ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

OH I understood your point about de Beauvoir and "le feminism," but most yank gals wouldn't....hence the more typical leftist/pacifist authors. Your approach reveals a level of sophistication that wouldn't be so well matched on this side of things. Despite being smart, so many of my countrypersons choose ignorance.

---

I absolutely refuse to believe that your college women are ignorant of basic feminism.

I should go over and verify....

Of course its the civilians who suffer.
If one is "anti-Hamas" they get gunned down as traitors to the cause; if "anti-Israel" they are fair game for "collateral damage"; decide you have no dog in this game? see-"collateral damage"
Actually I am surprised there are not more "suicide bombers".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I absolutely refuse to believe that your college women are ignorant of basic feminism.

I should go over and verify....

---

Do come, do.

Perhaps this conflict is more about "jobs, jobs, jobs!"
Instead of "wasteful spending" on decaying infrastructure at home, America subsidizes continuous creation and destruction of capital in the Middle-East.
Its like a perpetual motion machine of investment.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...sistance-unrwa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Do come, do.

---

I still have a masters to do. If you can guarantee a program cleansed of post-modern BS, I'll book my tickets tomorrow ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I still have a masters to do. If you can guarantee a program cleansed of post-modern BS, I'll book my tickets tomorrow ~;)

---

You make me sad....I didn't think the pun that hard to decipher.


As to a program of study, it is impossible to skip PM entirely....though when I teach it I am careful to remind students that the power of its critique is only matched by the limitations on any real improvements generated to meet said criticisms. Are all of your profs still reveling in deconstruction without actually getting to the part about rebuilding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You make me sad....I didn't think the pun that hard to decipher.

---

Gah! I am ashamed of myself. My only excuse is the excessive heat we have here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As to a program of study, it is impossible to skip PM entirely....though when I teach it I am careful to remind students that the power of its critique is only matched by the limitations on any real improvements generated to meet said criticisms. Are all of your profs still reveling in deconstruction without actually getting to the part about rebuilding?

---

Sounds good, sign me up! Quit those lame business classes and get over to something of real value, ie. education. Something like 'verbal communication in the classroom' or 'history didactic' should do brilliantly.

I don't have any profs any more; I got fed up, quit my program entirely and got back to working full time.

Death toll approaching a thousand civilians. Israel bombs a UN "safe zone" compound and kills 15 despite continuous pleas from the UN over the radio. Thousands injured and homeless. Families huddled frightened with nowhere safe to turn... While in Israel:

http://www.haaretz.com/life/nature-environment/1.607076

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Death toll approaching a thousand civilians. Israel bombs a UN "safe zone" compound and kills 15 despite continuous pleas from the UN over the radio. Thousands injured and homeless. Families huddled frightened with nowhere safe to turn... While in Israel:

http://www.haaretz.com/life/nature-environment/1.607076

---

It hasn't been confirmed as Israeli shelling yet - apparently the UN also reported Hamas rockets hitting the area shortly before so it honestly could be either of them at this point... as always the civilians are caught between both factions

Israel usually deny and obfuscate these events until the news agenda moves on, then the truth is accepted by someone junior during a busy news week a month later.

This article has been circulating my social media lately, comes across as very... oh whats the word, pissy?

He doesn't mention the settlements, they never do, it's as though they just sit in their country and noone is building settlements outside their country on other peoples' land. And they left Gaza, that's like saying they left the chicken's cage, but they don't get why the chicken has gone crazy.