<<Otherwise reasonable people might begin to get the impression that the civilian deaths are a deliberate policy of the Israeli government.>>
I cannot debate some hypothetical “reasonable people,” Squink, but I’d be happy to debate you. That’s what this board is for.
Do you assert that the civilian deaths are a deliberate policy of the Israeli government?
Ah the venom the floweth from these challis ‘…
Earlier this evening I stumbled upon a television interview with the Israeli satirist Ephraim Kishon on one of the prime German television channels. He is an extremely popular author here in Germany. As a Jew who escaped the Nazis he is quite revered for his biting tongue that scathes sharply and yet ventures to explain even extremely complex matters like post WWII German Israeli relations. One of the things that has enabled him to be thus is that he says; “Everything that was before Israel; I have forgotten.”
Predictably the interviewer asked Mr. Kishon how he felt about the present situation in Israel. I was quite surprised to hear him speak up and sound like a slightly less offensive version of a december OP. At first I was appalled at amongst other things his saying that criticism towards Israel was tantamount to anti-Semitism. The interviewer let that slide; the man is after all a living legend and over 80 years old. Kishon didn’t though; he ventured to explain himself. Basically he likened the situation with the recent bomb strike against Hamas gone awry to the miss-targeted US attacks in Afghanistan. Her clearly agreed that it was unacceptable to kill civilians. What he didn’t agree with was the discrete criticism that the US was afforded while Israel gets flamed in the world press. Although I still disagree with Kishon’s support of Sharon and support of hawkish policy he has a point here.
I am not saying that anyone has made unfair comparissons of that sort in here, all I am saying is that it’s more fair to compare Israel to her peers than to her foes, and I do get the feeling that Kishon has a certain point in what he says. It struck me as a much more fair way of tackling december’s problem. The question should not be how anyone can support the Palestinians while condemning some of the practices that their leadership is involved in and all of the terror perpetrated by extremists in their name. The question should be how anyone can be strongly outspoken against Israeli tactics to contain terrorism while tacitly supporting the coalition against terror’s right to pursue the same, but on an even larger scale.
When Kishon had answered the question the interviewer asked the old time humorist if this was a matter that he couldn’t be humorous about. He just looked her straight in the eyes; “There is nothing funny about your relatives and friends dying prematurely. I have sons.” Her retort was to ask him if he found age to be a laughing matter. He ambled on in affirmative humoring manner and ended with; “There is at least one thing I am certain of; I will not die young.”
To sum it up:
december, I suggest that you compare apples with apples in the future instead of oranges, it might lead to more fruitful debate.
Sparc
I wasn’t aiming for eloquence, Izzy. I just wanted you to know you’re a fuckwad.
Oh, and as for following december around the boards? Cite, please.
The cause of peace in Israel won’t be advanced by debating the likes of me. If you want peace, you need to convince the palestinians that the civilian deaths are not a deliberate Israeli policy.
Yep, sure. Nice and cosy and without meaningful accountability. Except political and, presumably, Sharon paid that price when he ‘resigned’ the following year on the back of the Kahane Commission Report – no evidence but, given the furore, I tend to assume he ‘resigned’ with some encouragement…(continuing below)
(And) also except for the new-ish international legal accountability structure. Different elements, different angles but beginning to form a framework of international accountability that wasn’t present when Sharon went on his frolic: War Crimes Trib at The Hague, International Criminal Court, Belgium War Crimes Legislation (which impinges on Sharon directly and he is currently contesting)…a form is beginning to take shape.
One also feels obligated to note that despite the non-legal characterisation (by the Kahane Commission) of Sharon’s behaviour in West Beirut, a criminal charge of Negligence would not have been unreasonable based on that evidence. This is, I contend, a reasonable position and reflected in international judicial opinion. Yet no charges have been ever been forthcoming.
Still, that takes us away from the original question raised: When is a war not a war and how might one characterise a non-sanctioned, Ministerial level military action in pursuit of a personal agenda ?
I know of no precedent (yet) but, one assumes, if these new International Courts are given their head, precedent will emerge – perhaps exceeding a political mandate in pursuit of a personal agenda (such as Sharon’s in 1982) might be seen as evidentially weighty when measured against the specific charges ?
At present, I rather assume the legal position is akin to the ‘war on terrorism’ – it’s (as Xeno characterised my observations in another thread) a fluid set.
I believe that to be unacceptable. It never has been yet ‘we’ – the International community – are only just getting around to addressing that error. Largely, it must be said, with the active - lets be kind here - dissatisfaction of the US.
Sorry, by way of further reference (to the emerging International framework) I should also have mentioned the Pinochet extradition proceedings in both the Spanish and UK courts:
No need for explanations - I was quite aware of your intentions. I was also quite aware of your lack of integrity and your hypocrisy, hence my comments.
Can’t be bothered, at this time. If you specifically deny having attacked december’s debating tactics in previous threads, I will go back and search for examples - meanwhile I assume you are playing games again.
London_Calling, I don’t think it is reasonable to go back and retroactively apply codes of war that are only now beginning to emerge, years after the event. And certainly to selectively apply these new codes to political opponents.
Your statement that “a criminal charge of Negligence would not have been unreasonable based on that evidence” is nothing more than a statement of opinion, at least until it is backed by a more comprehensive treatment of the prevailing standards that are conventionally followed in such circumstances.
Izzy I’m sure minty’s capable of answering this himself, but you accused him of 'following **december ** from thread to thread etc, and that’s what he’s demanding proof of.
and I agree. I almost posted this when you first made that accusation, it’s a serious one.
I’ve frequently questioned december’s debate style (as have others, including minty) but that’s a lot different than trolling the boards looking for him.
Well to the extent that it is, I retract that particular angle - I don’t know if he was specifically looking for him.
Point stands.
“Hypocricy” too, Izzy? Cite, please. That is, if you can “be bothered” to provide any evidence for these allegations you’ve started spewing against me here. Or should I just chalk the whole thing up to you getting pissed about me pointing out the absurdity of the “It was a war” excuse for the intentional slaughter of civilians?
Thanks wring. The ridiculous stalking/trolling allegation is precisely what I was angered about.
Ooh, minty, I’m so disappointed. I thought you cared about me. I felt wanted and needed. I was another Jodie Foster.
But, now you say you just happened to run into me? I’m devastated! 
oh, you two, get a room
minty,
At no point has it been my position that a war justified the commission of any and all atrocities. But I do insist that a wartime actions have their own standard, and cannot be judged - as you did - based on standards that apply in peacetime or civilian circumstances. (And, in a larger sense, that the mere fact that Sharon was to an extent negligent in not fully considering the potential danger of his actions cannot in and of itself be used as proof of his moral and criminal standing, unless it is considered in the context of wartime circumstances).
You did not reply to this point. But London_Calling suggested that due to the nature of Sharon’s “mandate” to fight the war, it might not be considered as a war, and thus wartime standards might not apply. To which I responded (among other things) that “In any event, as a practical matter it was a war”, meaning that wartime standards do indeed apply. This was not an attempt to suggest that anything goes in a war, which has not been my position at any point, and was not the subject of my discussion with London_Calling.
Your reponse was "Wait, where have I heard that before? Was it William Calley, or Yasser Arafat, or Heinrich Himmler, or . . . ". This has absolutely no connection to anything I’ve been discussing - the guilt of these people is not dependent on denying that wartime standards apply - rather on the fact that even under such standards they were found to have transgressed. Your post was an attempt to suggest that my position was that anything goes in a war - the position which would absolve those people as well.
I don’t think it is at all likely that you’ve genuinely misunderstood the discussion here. Rather, you deliberately chose a reponse that misrepresented my position because it enabled you to score a cheap point with what you considered to be a pithy retort. This is a sleazeball tactic.
It has been my position with regards to december that while many of his debating tactics are open for criticism, they do not differ greatly from those of many others - including many of his critics. I don’t think you are alone in your hypocricy. But as you directed your remarks at me, I thought I’d point this out.
The “stalking/trolling allegation” was not central to my criticism and I threw it in as a rhetorical flourish - I did not consider the distinction significant in context - my apologies (for that particular remark).
I’ll prove to you how much I care, december!
:packs bags to go shoot Ronald Reagan:
Fine, Izzy. Even by the standards of wartime, Sharon is still responsible for the slaughter of civilians that occurred in those camps, precisely as the commission report concludes.
Are you trying to absolve Sharon of responsibility (whether moral or legal) under those wartime standards you insist must be applied? And if not, why the heck do you keep bringing up the obvious fact that there was a war on?
Given your apparent support for applying conventional, domestic legal principles in the international arena (and in particular with regard ‘war crimes’ – used generically), do you support the application of law as retroactively utilised in the (ad hoc constituted) Nuremberg Trials as well as that of Adolf Eichmann in Israel (Israel not being in existence when the crimes were committed) ?
It is. As are all views until tested in court (and the innocent walk free). Unfortunatley, until that happens, the victims have no remedy.
It’s only a sleazy tactic if, in fact, I did deliberately misrepresent your position. In fact, I did not. I understood you to be arguing that Sharon was not responsible for the massacre because there was a war on. If I had recognized that your argument is more subtle than that–and I confess, I still don’t see that it’s much different from that easy formulation–then I would not have made the easy criticism of it.
I have no problem with december when he’s actually debating. My criticisms have been largely directed at his trolling-with-news-stories and his willingness to misrepresent the contents of those news stories. And you’ll find that I’d critique anybody for that, though nobody does it with such regularity as december.
Gladly accepted, and mine offered to you in kind. Are we cool?
I couldn’t say for sure what degree of responsiblity he had. The commission concluded that he had some, as you note. And I am no expert on wartime standards. But it appears to me that his actions were at least somewhat in line with those of many others who have not been criticized nearly so harshly, as previously noted. So I think the degree of responsiblity and moral culpability that he bears has been blown greatly out of proportion for political reasons.
It seems obvious to me, but it did not seem that it was obvious to you, when you applied US criminal law standards to the situation. This occasioned my remarks.
In general, my point has not been that it is not possible that Sharon would be found by unbiased experts in war crimes to have committed such. Rather, that in order to establish this, one has to consider the context and make this case. This has not been done. And from a moral perspective as well, it is possible that he may have failed in that instance, but the in considering the degree one must consider the context and the standards that areapplied to such circumstances. This angle has been ignored by you and possibly other posters.
Not sure what this means.
I don’t see this as a technical legal issue. In the case of Eichmann, his actions fell outside the pale of acceptable actions - in any context - at the time that he comitted them. The problem I have is with actions that are within aceptable boundaries at the time being retroactively redefined as crimes.
Very. 
grienspace–I called ** december** out saying that according to him, all Arabs must die. He essentially agreed.