So when Hamas blows up a school bus full of children, or Al Qaeda flies a plane into a building, your only criticism (if you have any) is that their action is strategically unsound? You don’t have any moral criticism per se?
Notice, by the way, that I differentiated my argument between the ‘rocket launcher in a basement’ scenario and hitting a hospital when there is a single rocket launcher there, for instance, on the roof. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
The Rome Statue states that only actions which are “clearly” excessive are forbidden. Bombing an entire hospital full of people for one unused rocket launcher fits the bill. But a hospital that’s housing biological weapons? Or if, as I stated, the launcher can be hit on the roof and isn’t in the basement, and can thus be taken out without blowing up the entire hospital?
Then things aren’t so clear.
Before I answer, I’d like to point out that you challenged me on some claims in another thread and claimed I’d promised cites when I’d only said I’d try to find you some. When I dug up an E-book and gave you cites, I didn’t hear another word from you. It took you about a day after I said I’d try to find a cite to ask for one and say that you’d share your information and your perspective. That was four days ago. Care to revisit that thread?
With that being said, I’m not sure why you’re confused .Obviously the PA is not the Israeli government, which makes it a separate government. Likewise, the land of Palestine is not a sovereign nation, but is the Palestinian Authority administrated territory and has not been annexed by Israel. As such, it would be false to facts to refer to it as the same nation, although I will grant that the term ‘nation’ is a bit sticky, but it also seems the most accurate. The PA administrated territory (and Hamas’ administrated territory) are distinct geographically bound entities with distinct cultures, institutions, legal systems, ruling governments, and so on.
I see no point in these debates to get bogged down into or diverted into “points of view”. The fact is that the occupation conforms to the standards set down in the Fourth Geneva Convention. While it may be interesting to point out various narratives/myths every now and again, 9 times out of 10 when someone’s “point of view” gets mentioned in one of these threads, someone is bound to argue that it’s as legitimate as the facts.
Case in point:
Not that you are arging, but some might use the ‘different viewpoint’ tactic to argue that this is accurate.
Except Hamas’ goal is the “liberation” of Israel from the Israelis, which is not liberation but conquest.
And talk about ‘victims’ is not going to help either, as we’d just start playing Victim Bingo and tallying up the grievances and provocations. In objective terms, rejecting a ceasefire and attacking is an act of aggression. Likewise, wanting to destroy a sovereign nation is not an act of liberation.
It’s not Orwellian doublespeak to note that PA territories are not sovereign. It’s factual.
Further, it is Orwellian doublespeak to claim that the government of a region, like Gaza, is not the government.
No. There is a difference between a nation, and a sovereign nation.
Likewise, there is a difference between a government, and a government of a sovereign nation.
There is no other accurate term that can be used to describe how Hamas acts in its role in Gaza but “government”.
Not if their viewpoint is that the Israeli invaded their country in the first place - which is not that out there when you think about it. Massive, organized immigration is at its heart something of an aggressive move. Non-violent, but aggression nonetheless.
It may well be a bullshit point now, of course (since the influx of Jews to Israel is pretty much done and over with as I understand it), but even if it is, it’s a bullshit point based on a kernel of validity.
Of course it is an extraordinary claim.
You should realize by now that the ‘Hamas Charter cite’ is propaganda. I’ll walk you through the key problems. Does the Charter call for the killing of all Jews? We need extraordinary evidence to make out that proposition.
The Charter is a long document. Yet, the entirety of evidence put forward is:
This is not extraordinary evidence. It is not clear why this passage of the Koran is quoted there. The context suggests its mention is to support the belief in a preordained victory of Hamas over zionism. However, even at its most prejudicial it does not rise to the level of extraordinary evidence needed to make out the proposition.
While it takes allusion and inference to make evidence out of the passage cited, the Charter addresses the relationship of Hamas to other religions in language that is clear and unambiguous: In Article 31, The Members of Other Religions The Hamas is a Humane Movement: the Charter states:
Accordingly, to make out the claim as to the Charter’s intent it is necessary to overcome 2 consequent obstacles:
- When the Koranic passage is read in the context of the entire document it tends to defeat the proposition; and
- The plain language of Article 31 clearly does not admit and directly contradicts the proposition.
In the light of these considerations and the need to adduce extraordinary evidence, the proposition faces problems that are, in my opinion, insurmountable.
Bullshit, Sevastapol.
“By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine.”
You’re leaving out the entire cultural context.
The line is in there for a reason. The plain language of Article 7 is there for a reason. The language of article 31 has nothing to do with Israel. Just Judiasm.
Nonetheless, I am pointing out that I have evidence, and your call that it is an extraordinary claim is thus denied.
Actually, there is a good term for that viewpoint: Deluded. It’s wrong. It was never their country. It was the Ottoman’s. Then it was the British’s briefly.
Yes. They *were *the Ottomans. That’s the point. Nominally they were under the yoke of Turkey, that much is true, but in practice the local government had a good deal of autonomy.
And it had been a predominently Muslim region, part of this or that Muslim empire, for over 13 centuries (until the British pulled their patented “Oi, you, you and you, FUCK OFF ! We’re having tiffin.”) which is sort of an important point to a, y’know, Muslim ;).
Gah, missed the edit window.
Think about it this way : if Tibetans in exile organized a massive exodus to Texas, in order to establish a demographic majority. Then, when they have achieved said majority, declared Texas a Buddhist sovereign nation and no longer part of the U.S.A. ; Wouldn’t the rest of the God-fearing USA be a tad miffed ? And the non-Buddhist Texans as well ?
(maybe Texas is not a good example 
)
No, they were subjects of the Ottoman empire. The Ottomans were up a bit and in a different area.
Also, big war, the Ottomans lost, how wars go, tra la. I still blame the Brits for screwing everything up, but blaming the Israelis is not logical.
Also, “Over 13 centuries?” Hell, I can trace my family back further than that, without trying hard.
For that matter, how does 2008-1291 equal 13 centuries?
Oh, come on. Tibetans? Now, Mexicans, maybe. You’re ignoring the significan indigenous population.
Besides, there’s precedents for Tibetians in Texas.
For that matter, for your analogy to be accurate… well, actually… hm. It’s more like Russia conquered a whole bunch of countries, then fell apart, partially because of a giant war that they weren’t that much in, but kind of allied with the wrong side on. Mostly because they were sick and ailing to start with. Then the new countries were formed in an area renowned for massive conflict, then broke apart, then three tried to invade one, then got thrown out…
You know, the Palestinians sound like those darn Chechens now.
Do you have a cite for this (a legal interpretation)? I’ve read several versions of the GC and this seems to me to be a gray area. Actions by Israel seem to bear this out since they aren’t, afaik, being criticized or otherwise brought up about what would be massive violations of the GC if your statement above is correct. The only thing I know of that Israel is currently being investigated about is their possible use of WP as a direct weapon (as opposed to their use of WP for things like smoke).
Again, do you have a cite backing up this opinion? My own reading of the GC, which I presume would be the basis for any such assertion, is that this is a gray area and is certainly open to interpenetration by the countries engaged in the actual fighting. As far as I know (and I admit I could be missing something here), there is no such provision for proportional response getting to the level of ‘if they only have one rocket launcher over the hospital though shalt not attack it’ (or any like scenario). I could dig up the latest GC, but I’m more interested in seeing what provisions you are reading that leads you to the conclusions you are asserting here…and also seeing if there is a consensus from a legal perspective for your interpenetration.
-XT
… while a typo, I’d like to say that I think XT’s use of ‘interpenetration’ is highly appropriate in this instance.
lol…YOU try typing on an iPod Touch! 
-XT
1291 ? Try 620, when Islam got going. To the local Muslims, the Crusaders were just that - invaders, who had no right to be there in the first place, and who got their ass kicked out. Like the British, who… weren’t exactly kicked out, not as such… but they left, didn’t they ?
But while your Chechen analogy is interesting (isn’t America and the rest of the Western world rooting *for *the Chechens ? Or did I get the wrong memo again ?), you could also consider the Palestinian viewpoint akin to the Native American viewpoint : they didn’t exactly own the land, not by deed anyway, they just happened to live there, and have lived there for, oh, 'bout thousands of years… and then those dang Pale Faces come and just keep on coming. I don’t think anyone feels the European settlers were on strong ethical ground in conquering N.America and pushing them further and further out, until they were parked in cramped reservations. Divine Providence is all well and good but…
(and yes, I know Mexicans were more likely in my hypothetical - I wanted to leave any possible racism out of the equation. AFAIK, apart from the Chinese, everybody loves Tibetans :))
What are you talking about? Are you claiming that there wasn’t a Jewish population in that area the entire time as well? Also, you were aware, weren’t you, that the inhabited by many different tribal groups during the period you mentioned…not continuously by some mythical group of ‘Palestinians’…right? It was also a fairly poor backwater for much of that period with really not very many people interested in it until it started to become more productive in the last few centuries.
-XT
Huh ? Where did I claim that ? I’m saying there was a massive wave of Jewish immigration during the last century, with an explicit goal of creating a Jewish state there.
What’s your point then? Jews lived there the whole time. Recently more immigrated with the intention of having their own independent state. Arabs (of several different tribes and religions/sects) lived there the whole time. Recently (in the last few centuries) they also increased their immigration into the region with the intention of having THEIR own independent state (well, several groups had different goals and different views of what an independent state constituted and for whom, but then I’m glossing over a lot here).
What point are you trying to make with your statement exactly?
-XT
Eh, so? It’s still 1099-1291, two hundred years in the middle there that it didn’t belong to anyone but Europeans. And why are you arguing about what ‘the muslims’ think? It’s not like they ran the country. That’s like arguing that the US is a Christian nation because the christians think so.
Also, what, you’re going “Okay, it counts when the Caliphate is there, and when the Mamluks are there, but not any other time?” Bulldoggies. That’s like counting the British and the Americans as the same thing.
Not for those terrorists sons of bitches, no. Why would you think that?
Yeah, I know, I know, the Jews lived there for thousands of years, till the pale faces threw them out… wait, why are you arguing my point again?
But doing so completely ignores any relationship to reality, and the existing undercurrents. You want an analogy, you look to the Balkans and the dying Soviet Union. It just doesn’t work for the US.
Actually, to be exact, a lot of the arabs migrated the hell away, were refused entry to other countries, then got shoved back, or just got stuck in camps. Remember the Jordanian refugee camps?
http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/jordan.html
Technically, there was a few hundred years the Romans threw the Jews out for, and the Christians killed a lot of them, too. Funny how previous to '45, the jews and the arabs got along pretty decently.
I’m talking about prior to the formation of Israel. The Ottoman Empire moved around a lot of the tribes and there was an influx into the region by Arab’s (as well as Jew’s) after the land started to become more productive (in no small part due to the Jew’s migrating into the region and investing the capital into more modern farming practices and such). All this was fairly recent (oh, say the last hundred plus years before the formation of Israel).
-XT