No.
It centers on whether or not Hamas is ready/willing/able to negotiate a peace, whether they want a peace or war, whether or not their actions allow Israeli politicians to hold back a military response in the face of rocket attacks, whether Hamas’ tactics are designed to cause maximum loss of life among Gazans, what alternatives the Gazans have to Hamas rule, etc…
By these same standards, the US was definitively wrong to get involved in WWII as there were virtually no US civilian deaths and many, many Axis casualties.
So Israel’s act of self defense should be to buy the Palestinians TV’s.
Actually, quite a few do blame Hamas and wish they were gone, but it’s hard to overthrow a brutal thugocracy. Suffice it to say, your answer as to what acceptable Israeli self defense consists of is “not engaging in self defense.”
That’s at least an honest position, but it’s worth noting that’s what claims such as your generally boil down to.
It’s kind of hard to convince your citizens to turn the other cheek so Hamas can get a good whack at the one they missed when you have a democratically elected government as well.
"My fellow citizens. While it’s true that not a lot of you are dieing from random Hamas rocket attacks, we, your government, feel your pain. However, we have decided to just kick back and suck it up as we feel that any move on our part to defend our citizens would be immoral due to the fact that our enemies hide themselves among the civilian population. Digging them out would cost more Palestinian lives than Israeli, and, well, this means it’s immoral. We asked our accountants to crunch the numbers and they assure us that 1300 is a bigger number than 7, and in the end the bigger number means it’s more immoral…or something. We are sure that you, the citizens of our great nation will understand the position of your government on this. We also assure you that by turning the other cheek and not doing anything, this will suddenly cause Hamas and the Palestinian’s to realize that what they are doing is bad. And they will of course then stop, because people shouldn’t do bad things. It’s, well, bad.
We are also going to give them TV’s, power and World of Warcraft accounts. We are pretty sure this will bring about peace eventually. And we are willing to wait, along with you, our fine citizens, until the joyful day when we can all play happily together in rocket free bliss!
Thank you for your support and understanding my fellow citizens. We know we can of course count on YOUR continued support for us at the election polls…"
I thought it was your position that the Palestinians have a right to be upset at the influx of Jews into there region. I can agree with you that it was not an ideal situation, but it’s not one that the Jews can be blamed for.
Hitler and Britain maybe, but not the Jews.
The blame for the current situation falls squarely on the terrorists in Palestine. Whether or not the citizens of Palestine deserve the blame is now up for debate, but it is my feeling that they don’t. This does not mean Israel can avoid killing them.
The situation boils down to people wanting Israel and moderate Palestinians to end this without any violence, but failing to realize that that is beyond the capabilities of either side.
The best solution would be to strip the terrorists controlling Palestine of their power without the use of force. I would love to see that, but at the same time I know that is impossible for either Israel or Palestine to accomplish on their own.
So you think they all should have went to the US? In hindsight that sounds like a good idea, but I’m sure that the fleeing Jews were not thinking about the geopolitical ramifications of settling in Israel.
Pointing out that many people disagree with a statement which you categorically present as indisputable fact is not “playing a game”. I don’t need to have a personal opinion one way or the other on the truth of your statement in order to notice, and mention, that you are glossing over a non-trivial controversy by presenting one side of the controversial issue as though it were an indisputable fact.
Getting back to the question of whether Israel’s acts in Palestinian territory violate the Fourth Geneva Convention: The position of the International Committee of the Red Cross is that Israel’s severe restrictions of movement of the Palestinians is a failure to fully implement the provisions of that convention:
The International Court of Justice at The Hague has advised that the construction of Israel’s separation wall has produced violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
Notice that I have not stated an opinion of my own concerning whether israel is in violation of 4GC. Not being a specialist in international law, I have not formed an opinion of my own on this matter.
I’ve presented evidence in the past for exactly why I believe it is a clear cut case and there can be no accurate disagreement. If you’re just relating someone else’s position and don’t want to argue it, then ah well. If you’re going to provide disagreements I wish you’d at least provide ones you actually agree with rather than just setting up clay pigeons for me.
There is no such language in the convention. In fact, the occupying power is specifically allowed to dramatically restrict freedom of movement.
The ICJ, further, only issued an advisory opinion, not a ruling on a case.
Further, Article 49 only prohibits a government from transferring its own populace to occupied territory. Transfer is an active act, and not the same as allowing citizens to move of their own free will. Furthermore as for taking control of private land, Article 49 specifically states “Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand.”
Article 53 amplifies this:
“Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited,* except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations*.”
Protecting civilians against sucide bombings is rather obviously a necessary military operation. Especially considering that the terrorists organizations themselves have stated that the barrier has kept them from attacking Israel.
It’s rather obvious what agenda is at work, even in ‘objective’ international organizations, when preventing suicide bombing is not a military necessity if they don’t like the settlements.
Yes, I know. That’s why I said that it “has advised” that the separation wall violates 4GC, not that it “has found” or “has ruled” so.
Why? What difference does it make to you whether you’re disagreeing with my own personal opinion or with the stated official views of the ICRC and the ICJ?
This sounds like a rather vague, blanket justification. It sounds as though you’re implying that any act that helps protect Israeli civilians against suicide bombings is ipso facto permitted by 4GC.
That seems rather sweeping. There are lots of things that Israel could do to help protect its citizens from suicide bombings that would nonetheless be too harsh on the Palestinians and would violate international law (say, to take an extreme example, rounding up and executing every Palestinian man, woman and child).
It doesn’t seem impossible to me that a reasonable person without an anti-Israeli “agenda” might conclude that the construction of the separation wall falls into the category of “things that are too harsh and therefore not justified under 4GC even if they do provide some protection to Israelis”.
Notice, once again, that I’m not putting forth a personal opinion of my own on Israel’s 4GC compliance. I’m just pointing out the ways in which your attempt to present your own opinion as an undeniable fact seems to me unconvincing.
The cite I gave begins with the following clear and unambiguous statement:
I don’t see how any reasonable and literate person reading that link could fail to recognize that the ICJ was issuing an advisory opinion rather than making a ruling on a case. Which, again, is why I used the wording that the ICJ “has advised” this opinion rather than “has found” or “has ruled” so.
The quote you provided begins with the clear and unambiguous claims that the ICJ “has found” that the barrier was built for the good of the settlements and that they violate the 4th GC and that taking away property violates the 4th GC.
No, I quoted some specifically allowed actions wrt property.
There are others with wrt populations.
It’s a rather massive leap to go from my quoting the GC to claim I’ve endorsed genocide.
Again, the 4th GC says nothing about that. It does specifically mention the destruction of property, moving protected persons off of property as well as interning even protected persons for military/security reasons.
I provided a specific quote showing that military necessity can justify the destruction of property and removing people from property. To argue against its validity, you’d have to do much more than provide hypotheticals where Israel rounds up and slaughters every man, woman, and child.
That which is explicitly authorized by the GC is not against it. And that which is specifically authorized by it is not ‘too harsh’ by its standards.
How can it not be your personal opinion that I’m not reading the convention incorrectly since it seems, to you, an unconvincing reading of it? That seems to be the very definition of a personal opinion, whether or not one personally finds an argument convincing.
What, then, would convince you that explicit allowances for the destruction of property and the transfer of protected persons for military necessity do apply?
Yes, but you haven’t shown that Israel’s construction of the separation wall is a “military necessity”. Militarily useful, undeniably, since it does provide some protection to Israeli citizens. But not everything that is useful or helpful is necessary.
Protecting one’s civilians from direct and deliberate attack is a military necessity.
Under the 4th GC, destruction of property or evacuation of protected persons for reasons of military necessity is allowed.
The Palestinian terrorist organizations themselves have been unable, and confirmed that they are unable, to directly and deliberately attack Israeli civilians due to the barrier.
Thus, it achieves the military necessity of protecting a civilian populace from attack and conforms with the rules and limits of the 4th GC.
Sure, but the point is that you have not shown that the construction of the separation wall itself was a military necessity. It was one way to further Israel’s legitimate security aims, but you have not shown that it was the necessary way.
The ICJ opinion specifically addressed this issue:
No, it was the only way, because every other way had been tried and none were able to prevent suicide bombings. The barrier has accomplished that.
Even if their only complaint is of the ‘specific course’, then what research is that opinion based upon? How many security experts did they interview to determine the ideal configuraiton?
If you disagree, please suggest what other military measures Israel could have taken, that it did not already try, which would have been more effective and/or what route should have been taken to avoid harm coming to Israeli citizens. .
Once again, it’s not that I’m arguing that you’re necessarily wrong. It’s that you’re so categorical about such broad statements, and so dismissive of all opposing opinions, that your arguments come across as overstated and unconvincing.
No, specific and historical.
If you would argue otherwise, please do as I asked and suggest other methods that would be more effective than what was tried.
As for what the ICJ did, it essentially received letters from roughly 40 nations and deliberated for roughly 3 days. You’ll also note four separate HEPG reports and how many examples of an in-depth security analysis discussing the necessity of a certain path over another?
It was a kangaroo court.
In any case, of course I’m arguing for a position. A thorough examination of the facts and the law has led me to my conclusion. I believe that the alternate position is unsupportable on the facts of the matter. If the ICJ disagrees it’s welcome to register someone to post here on its behalf. If you agree with its arguments, you’re welcome to argue for their validity and I’ll happily . But barring that I’m kind of bored with debating the ICJ’s position without anybody actually supporting it. You can have the final word if you’d like and/or we can actually debate the ICJ’s position if you’d like to champion it.
Again with the vague and sweeping.