Israel admits organs theft

The Saint

Boston wrote: »

So they weren't POWs as you implied, they died in raids.

I didn't imply that they were POW's. I made the POW comment as a comparison of the applicability of international law. You must have misinterpreted it.

However, it does not detract from applicability of international law in this case.

Boston

As a solicitor specialising in International Law, I'll take your word for it.

The Saint

Fair enough.

wes

Boston wrote: »

Do you not see the Irony here, you likewise cannot know what the opinion of the Israeli people is on this issue. I'd imagine most are appalled. You say no one has defended the behaviour in Ireland while ignoring the fact that a report which could have brought those responsible to justice was suppressed by the Irish government.

I was talking about people on this thread specifically, and not the Irish government, but nice try all the same.

I did not condemn every single Israeli btw, nor did I assume I knew what the majorities opinion on the matter is. My criticism is specifically against the Israeli government, which get up to all sorts of nonsense on a regular basis, while calling all and sundry a racist, as someone kind of absurd defense.

Boston wrote: »

Demonstrates the hypocrisy which is now synonymous with these Israeli threads.

What hypocrisy? Was anyone on this thread involved in suppressing the report in question? Does anyone support this suppression? You are really going to have to do a lot better than accusing people of hypocrisy, perhaps actually accuse people based on thing they actually support and not stuff that imagine they do.

Sorry, but this is the same old tactic used by Israel apologists. Try and change the subject and make it about someone or something else.

The Saint

Just to clarify the legal basis of this under international law, the International Committee of the Red Cross states in it's list of customary international law:

Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited.

Link

A further overview of the treatment of the dead in international law can be found in this publication by the ICRC from pages 406-420, particularly pages 408-9. (Note: Some pages are missing.)

BlaasForRafa

This thread is just another one where the usual suspects have a pop at Israel.

Its also ironic and somewhat sad that this thread is already longer than the one a few months ago about the government of Sri Lanka shelling the crap out of Tamil civilian refugees, but then any mention of Israel in the news always brings out a typical storm of condemnation.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

You know, on a fundamental level, I don't really see the problem. It's not as if the dead person needs them any more.

Should someone really be allowed to die or suffer because the next of kin of a compatible donor corpse isn't able to be found to give permission?

NTM

While normally Im a big fan of Military Pragmatism: thats taking it a little too far.

The vast majority of countries (to my knowledge) are opt-In; not opt-Out, for very good reasons which I am weary to get into here. You can find Organ Donor debates in AH though. Lots of them.

This thread is just another one where the usual suspects have a pop at Israel.

I dont care who it is: its just wrong.

Its also ironic and somewhat sad that this thread is already longer than the one a few months ago about the government of Sri Lanka shelling the crap out of Tamil civilian refugees,

Nobody wants to upset the Cricket Leagues, see.

The Saint

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

This thread is just another one where the usual suspects have a pop at Israel.

Here's an idea. Why don't you contribute with the substance of the thread rather than coming in and throwing you're usual rubbish around about "the usual suspects"? If you have a point on the subject why not engage with the topic instead of dragging the thread off topic?

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its also ironic and somewhat sad that this thread is already longer than the one a few months ago about the government of Sri Lanka shelling the crap out of Tamil civilian refugees, but then any mention of Israel in the news always brings out a typical storm of condemnation.

Well funnily enough, when I did a search on the Sri Lanka/Tamil issue I found two threads. One was started by Wes and the other was started by Nodin (who I presume you were referring to in you snide little "usual suspects" dig). Both of them contributed to both topics. Funnily enough I didn't see any post from you on either thread.

All you seem to want to do is come on to these threads, make stupid accusations, drag the thread off topic and not engage with the subject matter at hand.

Zambia

1: I think that when a organ is harvested the host body is beyond Life but not actually dead.

2: Assuming the dead in enemy cases are Muslim its a bit of a big thing to them to defile a dead body.

I would be of the opinion if I could save one of my side by harvesting the opposing forces organs so be it.

If a live enemy threatened my guys I would shoot them. Is it too much of a stretch to use a dead enemy to save the same guy if his organs where failing.

None of this makes it right.

Manic Moran

AARRRGH wrote: »

The problem with your way of thinking is where do you draw the line?

Should wig companies be allowed take their hair?

Should jewellers be allowed take their gold teeth?

Necrophelia...?!

A common, and I think, reasonable, level when dealing with major issues is to save 'life, limb or eyesight'. Something pretty permanent and important. I don't think wigs, jewelery or sexual gratification would come particularly close.

You have to respect people's rights and dignity. As the moderator of the military forum -- and obviously someone with an interest in acts of war -- it is very sad that you can't understand this.

As someone with a participation-level interest in acts of war, I've also seen what happens when people lose life, limb or eyesight, and I really don't think people should be required to sacrifice any of the above if there are viable alternatives. This is not military-specific, and can apply to anything from industrial accidents through natural causes.

On a fundamental level, you should imagine somebody killing a member of your family and stealing his or her organs. Would you say it's OK?

This does not seem to have been the case, here. The source bodies were already dead/on-the-way out, according to the article, from most any cause except military action.

If I have any concerns, it wasn't the practise itself as much as the fact that it wasn't announced. It seems to me that the most pragmatic approach is to reverse the more common 'donor card' thing, and to instead have a public policy that your desire to help others is a given by default unless you are carrying evidence to the contrary. Maybe with a tax/license fee to opt out, though I can see legal reasons against that. Saves lives, and if people think that some ideal of bodily integrity for simple belief grounds is more important than allowing others to live better lives, well, they can follow that belief. (Though my personal opinion of such a belief is not complimentary)

NTM

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

If I have any concerns, it wasn't the practise itself as much as the fact that it wasn't announced.

Can you imagine doing this on your tour in Afghanistan? Distributing leaflets to the locals telling them that the American army will harvest their organs for the exclusive use of American life’s if they do not opt out of the practice?

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote: »

It seems to me that the most pragmatic approach is to reverse the more common 'donor card' thing, and to instead have a public policy that your desire to help others is a given by default unless you are carrying evidence to the contrary.
NTM

Yeah i think a lot of people would agree. But the fact remains that it wasn't the policy, at least it wasn't a Public policy.
There are countries that do this, like France.
However i'm not sure if they automatically harvest non-residents.
For example, say you were a US tourist visting the Eiflel tower and dropped dead. Would they automatically slice you up for organs?
I doubt it.

They would probably have the respect and civilty to ask your next of kin.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

This thread is just another one where the usual suspects have a pop at Israel.

Odd that you complain about those who condemn this repulsive practice, and don't offer any condemnation of it.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its also ironic and somewhat sad that this thread is already longer than the one a few months ago about the government of Sri Lanka shelling the crap out of Tamil civilian refugees, but then any mention of Israel in the news always brings out a typical storm of condemnation.

Well, I was posting in that thread as well, but the main difference between that thread and Israel/Palestine ones, is that very few people go to the same lengths in defending the Sri Lankan regime, as those who defend Israel, and as such why these threads tend to be much longer.

Your own post is a perfect example of this. Bring up something that has nothing to do with the thread, as there really is no other way to defend Israel's actions in this instance.

gerry28

I would be banned if i stated what i really think of that country so i will only say: it doesn't surprise me one bit and its utterly disgusting.

Boston

gerry28 wrote: »

I would be banned if i stated what i really think of that country so i will only say: it doesn't surprise me one bit and its utterly disgusting.

This here is why its Anti-Semitic. Using something like this as another reason to condemn Israel and the Israelis is like using the infant organ retention scandal as a reason to put down the Irish.

Nodin

The Saint wrote: »

Here's an idea. Why don't you contribute with the substance of the thread rather than coming in and throwing you're usual rubbish around about "the usual suspects"? If you have a point on the subject why not engage with the topic instead of dragging the thread off topic?


Well funnily enough, when I did a search on the Sri Lanka/Tamil issue I found two threads. One was started by Wes and the other was started by Nodin (who I presume you were referring to in you snide little "usual suspects" dig). Both of them contributed to both topics. Funnily enough I didn't see any post from you on either thread.

All you seem to want to do is come on to these threads, make stupid accusations, drag the thread off topic and not engage with the subject matter at hand.

QFT

wes

Boston wrote: »

This here is why its Anti-Semitic.

That didn't take long. First everyone is a hypocrite and now people are Anti-Semites. I wonder what accusation you will come up with next?

Boston wrote: »

Using something like this as another reason to condemn Israel and the Israelis is like using the infant organ retention scandal as a reason to put down the Irish.

Condemning the state of Israel is perfectly reasonable (as would condemnation of any other state doing anything similar) and no one here has condemned every single last Israeli as you insinuate, with your predictable accusation of Anti-semitism.

Even the post you quote specifically condemns the "country" and not every single Israeli or Jew, so you are once again reaching here, just like your accusations of hypocrisy, this one, once again falls flat on its face.

Boston

wes wrote: »

That didn't take long. First everyone is a hypocrite and now people are Anti-Semites. I wonder what accusation you will come up with next?

Find for me where I said everyone. You seem to have a problem determining which posts of mine are directed at you and which arn't

Condemning the state of Israel is perfectly reasonable (as would condemnation of any other state doing anything similar) and no one here has condemned every single last Israeli as you insinuate, with your predictable accusation of Anti-semitism.

Hypocrisy.

wes wrote: »

Even the post you quote specifically condemns the "country" and not every single Israeli or Jew, so you are once again reaching here, just like your accusations of hypocrisy, this one, once again falls flat on its face.

The country of Israeli didn't do anything. The country is a geographical location. When making references to Israel in the context quoted, you're actually talking about the people of Israel. You are a hypocrite, having ignored the fact Ireland did the same thing. In fact selling the organs of babies to the highest bidder is worse in my book.

wes

Boston wrote: »

Find for me where I said everyone. You seem to have a problem determining which posts of mine are directed at you and which arn't

Your accusations are pretty vague most of the time actually:

Boston wrote: »

This here is why its Anti-Semitic. Using something like this as another reason to condemn Israel and the Israelis is like using the infant organ retention scandal as a reason to put down the Irish.

The langauge used above is very vague and seemed to apply to the entire thread and not to a specific poster. Seems to me that your issue is with the thread in general.

Boston wrote: »

Hypocrisy.

Lol, there you are again with you accusation. What I said isn't hypocrisy. You do realise that throwing out accusation at random, doesn't work, right?

Boston wrote: »

The country of Israeli didn't do anything. The country is a geographical location. When making references to Israel in the context quoted, you're actually talking about the people of Israel.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. This is how people refer to countries all the time. Having to type the "state of Israel" or lets say the "state of Saudi Arabia", all the time would be cubersome, and I think you will find that no one does that for any country, but nice try all the same.

Boston wrote: »

You are a hypocrite, having ignored the fact Ireland did the same thing. In fact selling the organs of babies to the highest bidder is worse in my book.

I didn't ignore anything actually:

wes wrote: »

Ah alright then, well that doesn't make any sense. You can't possible know people opinions on organ theft in this country, and no one here expressed any defence of similar behaviour here in Ireland.

Just to be clear, I do of course condemn stealing people's organ's regardless of who is doing it.

However, this is a thread about Israel doing it and not about Ireland, so I personally didn't feel the need to condemn organ theft in every country in the world, where it is practiced, as that would just lead to really long posts, that have nothing to do with the topic. I am sure other didn't do so for similar reasons.

**EDIT**
So how can you accuse anyone of hypocrisy, when you couldn't possibly know people feelings on the organ theft in Ireland?

Seems to me that you are inventing a position to argue against imho.
**END EDIT**

As can be clearly seen above I acknowledge organ theft in this country (in fact all countries) and condemn it and point out that your accusations are ridiculous as you can't possibly know people position on organ theft in this country, and then I point out that this thread is about Israel, and chances are peoplen't aren't going to discuss what went on in Ireland due to thread title being what is and all.

If you want to discuss organ theft in Ireland, why not start a thread on that topic? I am would happily condemn organ theft in this country inside such a thread. No need to derail this one, when starting a new topic is very easy.

Now, you accusation is even more nonsensical, seeing as I have condemned organ theft in Ireland and I did not ignore it either. All I did was challenge you increasingly desperate attempts to derail the discussion, with your increasingly desperate vague accusations against people.

So, you really should stop accusing people of this that or the other. Doing it again and again, won't make the accusation stick either.

gerry28

Boston wrote: »

This here is why its Anti-Semitic. Using something like this as another reason to condemn Israel and the Israelis is like using the infant organ retention scandal as a reason to put down the Irish.

This anti semitic card is overplayed and quite dangerous. It is called on so often that criticising israel is almost impossible no matter what they do.

America is criticising often, as are russia, france, china etc but if someone dares criticize isreal they are instantly accused of anti semitism.

Its rubbish and the people using this card willy nilly should be ashamed of themselves - they know deep down they are abusing its use in my opinion.

Boston

wes wrote: »

Your accusations are pretty vague most of the time actually:

The langauge used above is very vague and seemed to apply to the entire thread and not to a specific poster. Seems to me that your issue is with the thread in general.

Heres a clue, its the person I quoted. Maybe you had another browser malfunction and didn't see it.

gerry28 wrote: »

This anti semitic card is overplayed and quite dangerous. It is called on so often that criticising israel is almost impossible no matter what they do.

America is criticising often, as are russia, france, china etc but if someone dares criticize isreal they are instantly accused of anti semitism.

Its rubbish and the people using this card willy nilly should be ashamed of themselves - they know deep down they are abusing its use in my opinion.

Any other country you wouldn't blame the illegal actions of a few on the country.

wes

Boston wrote: »

Heres a clue, its the person I quoted. Maybe you had another browser malfunction and didn't see it.

Browser worked fine this time, just looking at your langauge and what you have posted so far, and its clear to me you have an issue with anyone discussing this topic. All in a desperate attempt to stop people talking about the crap Israel pulled.

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

If I have any concerns, it wasn't the practise itself as much as the fact that it wasn't announced.

Well regardless of whether it was announced or not it would have required a law change in Israel in order for it to be lawful to harvest the organs of Israeli civilians. The law was not changed and would have therefore been illegal under Israeli national law.

Manic Moran wrote: »

It seems to me that the most pragmatic approach is to reverse the more common 'donor card' thing, and to instead have a public policy that your desire to help others is a given by default unless you are carrying evidence to the contrary. Maybe with a tax/license fee to opt out, though I can see legal reasons against that. Saves lives, and if people think that some ideal of bodily integrity for simple belief grounds is more important than allowing others to live better lives, well, they can follow that belief. (Though my personal opinion of such a belief is not complimentary)

NTM

Well under Israeli law there is no opt out system and harvesting organs from people who have not consented or whose families have not consented would be illegal.

However, your post does not deal with the issue of harvesting organs from Palestinians. As I have mentioned above, this is clearly illegal under international law regardless of what Israeli law is.

As for the harvesting of organs of foreign nationals, this would be illegal under Israeli law as far as I know and probably a breach of international diplomatic law but don't quote me on that.

gerry28

Boston wrote: »

Any other country you wouldn't blame the illegal actions of a few on the country.

Pedantry.

And another point on the abuse of the anti semitism card.
I think its due the fear of being labeled anti semitic that national governments, newspapers, the media and citizens worldwide feel they can't say what is required in relation to isreal's heavyhandedness and human rights abuses in the palestinian territories.

Israel has a free run at it and if anyone critizes them then the anti semitism card is played and they are silenced again.

AARRRGH

Boston wrote: »

This here is why its Anti-Semitic. Using something like this as another reason to condemn Israel and the Israelis is like using the infant organ retention scandal as a reason to put down the Irish.

What a ridiculous post.

Do you even know what antisemitism is?

How moronic. LOL.

BlaasForRafa

The Saint wrote: »

Well funnily enough, when I did a search on the Sri Lanka/Tamil issue I found two threads. One was started by Wes and the other was started by Nodin (who I presume you were referring to in you snide little "usual suspects" dig). Both of them contributed to both topics. Funnily enough I didn't see any post from you on either thread.

All you seem to want to do is come on to these threads, make stupid accusations, drag the thread off topic and not engage with the subject matter at hand.

I didn't post on those threads on purpose just to see what the usual suspects would say. I wasn't impressed.

AARRRGH

Boston,

I've just read some of your older posts and I can see you are Jewish. That might explain why you see frequently interpret innocent comments as antisemitic.

You appear to have a victim mentality and as a result aren't thinking clearly and aren't understanding things properly.

Suggesting someone is antisemitic is a very serious accusation, and reading your old posts it seems you are happy to throw this term at people, are you are nearly always wrong with your accusations.

As a result of this I think you need to leave your issues offline, or stop posting in these sorts of threads, as not only are you slandering people but you're also ruining this discussion.

It's irrelevant that Israel is mostly Jewish people. We could be talking about Ireland or Mexico. Religion is irrelevant.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Odd that you complain about those who condemn this repulsive practice, and don't offer any condemnation of it.



Well, I was posting in that thread as well, but the main difference between that thread and Israel/Palestine ones, is that very few people go to the same lengths in defending the Sri Lankan regime, as those who defend Israel, and as such why these threads tend to be much longer.

Your own post is a perfect example of this. Bring up something that has nothing to do with the thread, as there really is no other way to defend Israel's actions in this instance.

Where exactly did I defend it hmmm?

The practice was wrong but this thread seems to be about using a relatively minor occurance to go on and on about the palestinian occupation. I do think its pretty rich that the focus goes (as per usual) on the palestinians rather than on Israeli civilians or IDF personnel.

The Saint

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I didn't post on those threads on purpose just to see what the usual suspects would say. I wasn't impressed.

Well why bitch then? I've read many of your posts also but I won't state what I thought of them here as it has little to do with the topic at hand.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Boston,

I've just read some of your older posts and I can see you are Jewish. That might explain why you see frequently interpret innocent comments as antisemitic.

You appear to have a victim mentality and as a result aren't thinking clearly and aren't understanding things properly.

Suggesting someone is antisemitic is a very serious accusation, and reading your old posts it seems you are happy to throw this term at people, are you are nearly always wrong with your accusations.

As a result of this I think you need to leave your issues offline, or stop posting in these sorts of threads, as not only are you slandering people but you're also ruining this discussion.

It's irrelevant that Israel is mostly Jewish people. We could be talking about Ireland or Mexico. Religion is irrelevant.

I don't think you should be stating who should or should not be posting on thesse threads. While the accusation of antisemitism is pointless and detrimental to the arguement. Anyway, him being Jewish (if he indeed is) should have no bearing on whether he should post and argue in these threads.

BlaasForRafa

AARRRGH wrote: »

Boston,

I've just read some of your older posts and I can see you are Jewish. That might explain why you see frequently interpret innocent comments as antisemitic.

You appear to have a victim mentality and as a result aren't thinking clearly and aren't understanding things properly.

Suggesting someone is antisemitic is a very serious accusation, and reading your old posts it seems you are happy to throw this term at people, are you are nearly always wrong with your accusations.

As a result of this I think you need to leave your issues offline, or stop posting in these sorts of threads, as not only are you slandering people but you're also ruining this discussion.

It's irrelevant that Israel is mostly Jewish people. We could be talking about Ireland or Mexico. Religion is irrelevant.

Antisemitism is a word I don't particularly like, its too broad-brush and implies a racial or rascist viewpoint. Substitute it for "myopic bias against Israel" and his posts would have less confrontational and truer focus.