There are also the Geneva Conventions.
But the US government agrees with all the principles you’ve listed. When has anyone in the government suggested, say, that Palestinians do not have the right to exist? You’re fighting a straw man.
Or at least, you are if you still keep to the arguments you were making in the OP. It’s getting hard to tell.
And if you’re arguing that we’ve taken sides in the conflict, by giving more aid to Israel…Well, Palestine receives billions of dollars of aid from the International community, many of whom give less, or no aid to Israel. Much of the developed world is a legitimate target for Israeli aggression by your reasoning.
Well, and a jillion other international treaties. The scope of the Geneva Conventions is very limited.
…
Which you keep ignoring or citing even when they explicitly debunk your silly claims.
Repeat your chosen untruth all you want, but the 4th GC specifically allows for targeted strikes against military targets regardless of the presence of civilians.
And:
Respectfully, I have to disagree. The 45h, for example, specifically covers situations like the Israeli military occupation and blockade, and IDF strikes against militants who use their countrymen as human shields.
Unless the Jews currently living there are really old, I don’t see how this point’s relevant, either.
Who cares whose ancestors arrived where? Israel deserves to exist because it does and its people will it so. It needs no more justification than that.
Very much interested to read justification on today’s school casualties.
I have to admit the lengths some people here are ready to go to rationalize these war crimes is astounding.
At the same time can’t help but wonder if there will be a time in future when people will look back and feel ashamed for writing this stuff.
Simply as a point of fact, the region was never rendered Judenrein.
And:
So you have information to know if there was a military target at the location, if an Israeli munition went off course, or if Israeli deliberately targeted it knowing that it had no military value (if in fact it didn’t?)
No?
Curiouser and curiouser.
Yet again, I’ve already cited to you how what Israel is doing is specifically legal under the GC.
So please stop pretending that there are “war crimes” going on.
I don’t know. Will you feel shame for characterizing the codified laws of international warfare as “war crimes?”
Exactly what I was saying. Innocent people die in scores yet if it is “explainable” it’s alright.
But let me be more elaborate.
#1: Constructing the web of questions and sub-questions with clarifications and elaborations does not hide the fact that ful force army is attacking pretty much defenceless people. No amount of justification can hide the fact that occupation of people is utmost crime. Further on, expecting people to “behave” while occupied is the greatest delusion of all.
#2: Your interpretaion of GC is self-serving and Israel can do this not because of GC but because it can. Once you realize that is why is this happening there may be achance it wont happen again.
#3: I feel nothing but pity for you and people who think like this.
The point is that a state of nationhood is not perpetual or even particularly long term. Moreso in the middle east, which has an especially fluid history.
Not sure of the relevance of your second comment, but as this thread discloses Palestinians were the significant majority until the recent immigration.
The belief that Israel will not exist in the near future is reasonable. Surprisingly, that does not necessarily make it ‘my’ belief. Nonetheless it is easy to identify a number of trends currently working in a manner that is adverse to the continuation of the Israel experiment. Aside from the obvious, one less discussed but key, is the growing availability of evidence and free, testable discussion. The stories and representations put about on behalf of Israel are likely to wither. Similarly, the population that been duped becomes sceptical, even cynical and hostile to Israel when that deceit is discovered. Will there be riots in the main streets?
Before your very eyes some of those representations have evaporated, eg:
- Israel is the only / first democracy in the middle east,
- The Arabs / Palestinians / Hamas intends genocide of the Israelis / Jews
- Israel is the strongest military ally of the US in the middle east.
Taken together then, there is a reasonable belief it will sink back into history.
No. If it is explicitly justified by the international laws of war, it is alright.
:rolleyes:
Because every time Israel has put boots on the ground, the Palestinians have offered up pretty much no defense at all. House to house fighting, in fact, is pleasurable.
No amount of bombast can hide the fact that the occupation of a people is explicitly legal under the international laws of war, and calling it a crime is a fabrication.
The fact of the matter is that the GC specifically allows for occupations of populations, specifically allows for internment of populations and specifically allows for the destruction of military targets regardless of the presence of civilians. That, and more.
newcomer and FinnAgain, I really do not see either of you mking much progress except toward a goal of expressing your personal hostilities in a fashion that will violate the forum rules.
You might want to agree to disagree at this point, (perhaps with a grumpy, "I knew he didn’t get it." as a parting shot), and drop it before one or both of you have aneurisms.
If either of you have something truly new to provide, feel free to do so, but it looks like you have entered the vicious cycle portion of the debate.
Since we’ve gotten to the parting shots part of the program I think I’ll make this my final, um, contribution. After that hopefully Tom will do us all a favor and shoot this thread in the back of the head so that it can be safely buried where it belongs.
The same would go for the other nations in the region. In fact it that would be more the case for the other nations in the ME since they are all mostly constructed powers and regions, cobbled together by our European buddies and usually granted to whoever was either the biggest thug or biggest suck up at the time of their formation.
And yet for some odd reason you want to focus on the supposed tenuous nature of Israel.
Only if one looks at the facts in a slightly skewed manner…with one eye closed and hopping on one foot. What was shown is that there was a significant ARAB majority in the region, composed of several different tribes and sects. However, it was also shown that there was a significant Jewish population in the region prior to the formation of the Israeli state, with Jews living in the region the entire time and serious immigration of Jews to the region starting in the 1800’s.
Not that any of this matters. What ACTUALLY matters is that the Jews of Israel managed, despite long odds, to win their independence and carve out their own nation. And despite the fantasies of some they have and will continue to maintain that nation for the foreseeable future.
Belief that the world is flat, that evolution is just a theory, that space aliens drag down unsuspecting ships in the southern Atlantic or mutilate cattle or abduct hapless humans for fun and profit, that Obama is a closet Muslim and Bush was a decent president…these are all as ‘reasonable’ as your own assertion.
Will there be riots in the streets? Perhaps…and perhaps monkeys will fly out of your bottom too. One never knows…
With that I will bid you ado. I’d say it’s been fun but talking to you on this subject leaves me feeling in need of a bath.
-XT
Parting shot… would you use GC if the situation was reversed… if the side currently doing the killing people is held occupied ghetto-style and killed-off over a period of time?
Oh wait… please, don’t answer.
So if both sides are equal, why do you keep saying Israel needs to the one to offer concessions? Let Palestine match the concessions that Israel has already made and then maybe there will be some progress.
I think what he’s trying to say is that what Israel is doing SHOULD be considered a war crime.
i.e. that international law should forbid military action which poses a significant danger to the lives of noncombatants.
If you didn’t want the answer you shouldn’t have asked the question. The difference between what happened in Nazi Germany and what’s happening now is that Jews were never a threat to Germany and never attacked Germany. The Palestinians are a threat to Israel and have attacked Israel.
Simply for the record, I have and only intend to attack the quality of an argument that calls acts which are specifically allowed under the law, “crimes”.
There’s no personal hostility and my blood pressure certainly isn’t up. It’s actual rather comedic.
I’d hope that clearing up factual errors is still within forum rules.
Speaking of which:
As nobody in the conflict is being “killed-off”, immediately or over a period of time, the analogy is counter-factual.
Be that as it may, if the Palestinian militants focused their attacks on IDF bases and such, I’d happily admit that it was fully justified by the laws of international armed conflict. That’s why it’s called international law and not international Calvinball.
Fair enough… but that amounts to making war, itself, a war crime, since it’s impossible to conduct a war against targets in a civilian area without collateral damage.
And, of course, it has the direct result (and, I’d wager, intentional result) in situations like this of making any and all Israeli military response to attacks from groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, verboten.
The other difference is that the Israelis, unlike the Nazis, aren’t engaging in planned genocide. The Israelis are attacking a paramillitary terrorist organization. They’re not being as discriminate in their attacks as they probably should be, and civilians who are in the vicinity of Israeli targets are dying. But the Israelis don’t want to kill all the inhabitants of Gaza or wipe out the Palestinians…just to break up Hamas’s organization and prevent Hamas from attacking Israel.
The Nazis, on the other hand, deliberately set out to kill civilians. Their goal was the extermination of the Jews in Europe, and they took action to kill civilian populations. The Jews who died in the Holocaust didn’t die because they were near combatants and the Nazis felt the only way to kill the combatants was to kill the civilian Jews. They died because the Nazis deliberately targeted the civilian Jewish population, with the intent of destroying it.
I’m honestly curious here, but how do you propose any nation in general or Israel in specific could hit military positions that are shielded by civilians in a manner that is more discriminate?
Ground forces would entail house to house fighting and tanks in the streets. Commandos wouldn’t be able to get the job done. And, to my knowledge, there exist no superior guided munitions capable of taking out the targets we’ve seen in this conflict. I am aware of certain missiles that do purely kinetic damage and do not have explosives in them at all, but even then the transfer of energy is massive enough to cause collateral damage.
How do you propose that Israel be more discriminating in their choice of targets/weapons/tactics?