Speaking of Israel...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

[Papewaio]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

[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]

[Papewaio]

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Papewaio]

Any serious military scholar would tell you that Israel is doing all of these things. Hamas hides rockets in schools, so... 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

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;"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

[Papewaio]

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)."

[Montmorency]

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

What gives?

[Papewaio]

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.

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.