Israel - Palestine Conflict. **Mod note in OP - updated 1st August**

RustyNut

end of the road wrote: »

how lovely of them, their government and military is still no better then isis

Indeed both are willing to slaughter innocent men women and children in order to secure what was promised to them by some fictional character in some fictional book or other.

Son Of A Vidic

Manic Moran wrote: »

The blockade may be unfair, it may be excessive, it may be a political liability.... but it's legal and has been for centuries.

Centuries? Thankfully, we are living in the 21st century now. But judging by the psychotic disregard the IDF tends to have for innocent civilians. I've no doubt the IDF would prefer to exist during the Middles Ages. Because all these pesky monitors, observers and people with their cameras & iphones, do kinda mess up things up for them.

Regarding the blockade being legal? Well I'm afraid not. Since 2007, Gaza has been placed under a land, sea and air blockade by successive Zionists governments. Since then, an illegal and unlawful collective punishment has been placed on the civilians of Gaza. This blockade even predates the first Gaza 'war' (or the first mass indiscriminate killing spree, of mainly civilians).


The very nation you fight for, also recognises a blockade as being an act of war.....

Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:

– surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces;

– measures to isolate an enemy;

– encirclement and besieging;

– preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

– an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/blockades-acts-of-war/9866


So the blockade and siege of Gaza, has been an effective act of war, enacted by the Israeli State since 2007. But it is important to note, the collective punishment inflicted on the Gaza population by successive Zionist regimes. Is also a flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention...

Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 50 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible

Geneva Convention III
Article 26, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III states: “Collective disciplinary measures affecting food are prohibited.”
Article 87, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides that “[c]ollective punishment for individual acts” is forbidden

Additional Protocol II
Article 4(2)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “The following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever: … collective punishments”

UN Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict

Paragraph 5 of the 1974 UN Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict provides:
All forms of repression … of women and children, including … collective punishment … committed by belligerents in the course of military operations or in occupied territories, shall be considered criminal

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule103

17 April 2014 – On his first official visit to the Gaza Strip, the new head of the United Nations agency assisting Palestinian refugees across the Middle East underscored the need to lift the seven-year Israeli blockade and end the “illegal collective punishment” unleashed on the population there.......

........“The first thing of course you see of Gaza is the fence around it; a reminder of the blockade, which as my predecessor pointed out recently, has lasted as long as some of the most infamous sieges of contemporary history, such as the siege of Leningrad. It amounts to an illegal collective punishment and I join UN officials and world leaders in calling for it to end.”

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47604#.U-uVBfldVSI


The International Criminal Court states the following RE: Crimes Of Aggression...

What is a crime of aggression?
As adopted by the Assembly of States Parties during the Review Conference of the Rome Statute, held in Kampala (Uganda) between 31 May and 11 June 2010, a “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.

The act of aggression includes, among other things, invasion, military occupation, and annexation by the use of force, blockade of the ports or coasts, if it is considered being, by its character, gravity and scale, a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

The perpetrator of the act of aggression is a person who is in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State.

http://icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/Pages/14.aspx"]http://icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/Pages/14.aspx

Unsurprisingly the likes of Israel, have chosen not to join, participate, or subject their actions to the scrutiny of the ICC. And the reason for such reticence is pretty self-explanatory. Presently the Palestinians are seriously considering joining the ICC, largely to protect themselves from future IDF war crimes. No doubt some militants would be exposed to the court. But it would be a drop in the ocean, when compared to the long litany of murder suspects and the war crimes inflicted by the IDF on the Palestinian people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-palestinians-consider-joining-icc-to-prosecute-israelis-for-war-crimes-9662806.html


But no amount of sugar coating or military bias can hide the facts. That the siege of Gaza and the collective punishment inflicted on the people there, is unlawful and illegal. So there is no justification, for the IDF war dogs to open fire on fisherman going about their daily chores. Especially since the besieging forces should not be there.

Son Of A Vidic

My name is URL wrote: »

claiming that Israel is a bastion of personal freedoms, equal human rights and democracy.. it should always be pointed out that it's bull**** of the highest order.

All of which conveniently overlooks the fact of course, that it is an ethnically cleansed, gerrymandered bastion of so called democracy.

bodhrandude

Just spotted this in my Facebook feed today. Israel Unleashes Death Ray on Gaza http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/11/israel-unleashes-death-ray-on-gaza/

Reports, including photographic evidence reveal that Israel is using an energy weapon to attack targets in Gaza. The destructive beam, thought to be a high energy laser, is emitted from a plane identified as a Boeing KC707 “Re’em,” originally configured for Electronic Warfare. Those observing the attacks cite a beam from a 4 engine jet hitting a target which immediately turns “white hot.” After these attacks, the target area is then hit with either bombs or artillery to destroy evidence of the use of an American designed and built energy weapon illegally given to Israel.

BlaasForRafa

bodhrandude wrote: »

Just spotted this in my Facebook feed today. Israel Unleashes Death Ray on Gaza http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/11/israel-unleashes-death-ray-on-gaza/

I think you need a new tinfoil hat.

Nodin

bodhrandude wrote: »

Just spotted this in my Facebook feed today. Israel Unleashes Death Ray on Gaza http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/11/israel-unleashes-death-ray-on-gaza/

Sounds more like a laser for guidance purposes, with a bit of imagination adding the heated up bit.

Manic Moran

Gringo180 wrote: »

"Ayyash said Israeli naval forces had been preventing fishermen from fishing in the area, even within the "authorized fishing zone."

So how did it break the blockade when they were fishing in an authorized zone?

Different blockade. Check the Notices to Mariners.

The rules change when you're involved in a conflict. Israel and Gaza have been in a state of mutual hostilities for a couple of weeks now. As Corvus correctly points out, a full blockade is an act of war. Note that the Notice to Mariners starting mid July from Israel after the shooting started changed from the previous status to "Closure of area". We're not talking about whether or not sufficient calories or cement have been let into the country, we're talking about an honest-to-god shooting war. Well, since that's what Hamas and Israel are involved in, who wouldn't expect to see a closure? This is not the same standing blockade from 2010 (and opinions as to that one's legality vary: eg The UNHCR report found it illegal, the UN Secretary General's report found it legal), this is a "this is a battlefield" blockade, and Israel (understandably) seems to make no attempt to link the two.

Don't know if anyone posted this yet, it looks pretty real to me and pretty damning, if its IDF soliders in Gaza. Maybe our resident army dude MM can verify from uniforms weaponry etc... on the zoom in.

No reason to think they're not Israeli. I have no way of telling who they're shooting at or why.

What I dont understand is how Israel is taking a pick and choose approach to the mechanisms of warfare! Is targeting UN Refugee Centres & Hospitals included somewhere in this legal framework? The blatant targeting of civillians?

I have no idea if they are knowingly breaking the laws, being unacceptably reckless, or if it's just that we notice the effects more because of the modern media. One thing I have noticed, there have been very few instances in this conflict where concluding that Israeli forces are acting unlawfully have gone beyond "inference and subjective interpretation" to "yeah, there's not really any way to explain that one" such as the chap in the green shirt shot when looking for his family. And in the cases which do fit in the latter category, I have not attempted to put forth another perspective as I agree with most on here with their interpretations in such instances.

Look, I'll be amongst the first to say that Israel is screwing up on a policy level. Their position on settlements and continued encroachment on Palestinian land can only bring trouble, and why they won't accept third-party enforcement of the blockade as Hamas has proposed is beyond me except out of bloody-mindedness, but that's not what I've been addressing here. It's not even the topic of this thread, which is the vigorous exchange of opinion which has been going on the last couple of weeks.

Over the past few weeks, I've seen all sorts of statements being repeatedly thrown around which I have not commented upon. "Israel used human shields in 2007" (relevance to today?), "Hamas are evil as they shoot from near hospitals" (I don't see a need to ascribe motivation, if they're evil or not, I don't care), and so on. I'm a soldier, and from my point of view, arguments like that are utterly irrelevant. What matters is the here and now, and actions, not motivations. When you're slinging ordnance at each other, motivation becomes pretty irrelevant. "We got it. You don't like us". And, unfortunately, often times to assess the actions, we are required to have information which is not available to us, either due to lack of access to it (as is usually the case), or lack of willingness to look it up. (How many people know that Israel publicly changed the blockade to a war condition once the shooting started? How many even thought to look it up?)

Every single Israeli action noted on this thread, it seems, is being taken as an outrage, a war crime, despite lack of evidence that it is one, and the improbability that they -all- are. You don't take a guy to court and say "Your honor, Joe Bloggs should be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter because X was killed as a result of being hit by his car, and all his friends are scum". You can't even say "Your honor, Joe Bloggs is guilty of vehicular manslaughter given that person X was killed as a result of being hit by his car, and his scum friends both were guilty of vehicular manslaughter last week."

Further, as we all are aware, we're pretty much only seeing the 'end result' part of the equation. That's hardly confined to warfare. You may recall several police incidents in the US in recent years, such as "Video shows unarmed man being shot as he runs away from police", or "Protests after man dies in police custody from gunshot wound", only to have later discoveries that, well, another dashcam caught the incident and he had actually just shot at the cop, or the release of cell footage which showed that the prisoner wasn't searched upon arrest, drew his own .45, and shot himself.

It is possible, I'd say probable, that a number of the incidents I have actually commented upon were, in fact, war crimes. That does not make them all so. It does not make any particular one so. I have never once said, as far as I can recall, "This was not a war crime," as such a statement requires the same missing information which would be necessary to determine that it was one. But I do put forward explanations why they may not be so, and believe people are not taking a dispassionate view of things.

For whatever reason, and I really don't care why, a lot of people on this thread are emotionally vested towards the Palestinians and a few towards the Israelis. I don't care. I have very rarely commented upon jus ad bellum issues. I've never said that Israel were correct to attack Gaza last month, or that Hamas do or don't have a justification for armed resistance. Jus in bello is far more my lane and I will comment equally dispassionately upon both Palestinian and Israeli actions as they're brought up. Just seems Israeli actions are coming up in discussion far more around here.

Incidentally, in the application of this, I seem to differ from many of my colleagues. I'm currently taking a staff officer's course, and we have a couple of ethics blocks. As we were discussing terrorism, I observed that we are being far too loose with the word these days, and that, for example, the Beiruit bombing was, in my eyes, legitimate. And that even sitting as we were in the classroom, paid, uniformed soldiers, we were legitimate targets under the laws of war. I appear to be in the minority viewpoint on this, most of my colleagues would categorise it as terrorism.

pedro1234

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Centuries? Thankfully, we are living in the 21st century now. But judging by the psychotic disregard the IDF tends to have for innocent civilians. I've no doubt the IDF would prefer to exist during the Middles Ages. Because all these pesky monitors, observers and people with their cameras & iphones, do kinda mess up things up for them.

Regarding the blockade being legal? Well I'm afraid not. Since 2007, Gaza has been placed under a land, sea and air blockade by successive Zionists governments. Since then, an illegal and unlawful collective punishment has been placed on the civilians of Gaza. This blockade even predates the first Gaza 'war' (or the first mass indiscriminate killing spree, of mainly civilians).


The very nation you fight for, also recognises a blockade as being an act of war.....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/blockades-acts-of-war/9866


So the blockade and siege of Gaza, has been an effective act of war, enacted by the Israeli State since 2007. But it is important to note, the collective punishment inflicted on the Gaza population by successive Zionist regimes. Is also a flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention...





http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule103



http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47604#.U-uVBfldVSI


The International Criminal Court states the following RE: Crimes Of Aggression...


http://icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/Pages/14.aspx"]http://icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/Pages/14.aspx

Unsurprisingly the likes of Israel, have chosen not to join, participate, or subject their actions to the scrutiny of the ICC. And the reason for such reticence is pretty self-explanatory. Presently the Palestinians are seriously considering joining the ICC, largely to protect themselves from future IDF war crimes. No doubt some militants would be exposed to the court. But it would be a drop in the ocean, when compared to the long litany of murder suspects and the war crimes inflicted by the IDF on the Palestinian people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-palestinians-consider-joining-icc-to-prosecute-israelis-for-war-crimes-9662806.html


But no amount of sugar coating or military bias can hide the facts. That the siege of Gaza and the collective punishment inflicted on the people there, is unlawful and illegal. So there is no justification, for the IDF war dogs to open fire on fisherman going about their daily chores. Especially since the besieging forces should not be there.

Unfortunately this case needs to be made every few pages. It's a sad state of affairs when people ignore this. I, and others, laid out the case detailing how Israel's occupation is illegal from the get-go, and against the Geneva convention.

Thank you for adding to this with concrete examples. I was hoping people would take the time to look into it.

I think this thread has shown some people will stand by their viewpoint until it kills them because they don't know anything else and refuse to see the bigger picture or alternative points of view.

Thanks for your post.

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

(How many people know that Israel publicly changed the blockade to a war condition once the shooting started? How many even thought to look it up?)

Still not getting the relevance WTF Israel decide to call their siege when it is illegal under international law. There is no legal way to enforce an illegal blockade.

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Still not getting the relevance WTF Israel decide to call their siege when it is illegal under international law. There is no legal way to enforce an illegal blockade.

Your first sentence is arguable. Several fairly competent bodies disagree over if the standing blockade is legal. In any case, it's irrelevant, as Israel now has enacted a war blockade. If that war (total) blockade remains in place after the current termed truces get replaced by a longer-term ceasefire, then we can start talking about the moral and legal merits of it.

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your first sentence is arguable. Several fairly competent bodies disagree over if the standing blockade is legal. In any case, it's irrelevant, as Israel now has enacted a war blockade. If that war (total) blockade remains in place after the current termed truces get replaced by a longer-term ceasefire, then we can start talking about the moral and legal merits of it.

Can you name these competent bodies who you believe have a more legitimate claim to decide the legality under international law than the UN who have declared the Israeli blockade of Gaza illegal?
Don't keep obfuscating "it's irrelevant, as Israel has enacted" with whether there is any legal basis for enforcing a blockade on a country as a collective punishment. We know what Israel are doing. It isn't legal, as you for some barmy reason keep insisting it is.

Dan_Solo

bodhrandude wrote: »

Just spotted this in my Facebook feed today. Israel Unleashes Death Ray on Gaza http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/11/israel-unleashes-death-ray-on-gaza/

Why would they bother? The free bombs gifted by the people of the United States of America for slaughtering babies in their sleep in Gaza seem to be doing just fine.

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Can you name these competent bodies who you believe have a more legitimate claim to decide the legality under international law than the UN who have declared the Israeli blockade of Gaza illegal?

Yes, the UN for starters.

I do you the courtesy of reading your posts. Would it be too much to ask you to do the same for mine?

From earlier on this page:

Manic Moran wrote: »

and opinions as to that one's legality vary: eg The UNHCR report found it illegal, the UN Secretary General's report found it legal

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, the UN for starters.

I do you the courtesy of reading your posts. Would it be too much to ask you to do the same for mine?

From earlier on this page:

Unfortunately it takes only the most passing knowledge to smash your biased nonsense out of the ball park. The naval blockade was found by one UN panel to be legal (though the relevance of this to fishing boats in Gaza's internationally recognised territory renders this entirely irrelevant yet again to Israel's most recent violation of international law). All blockade of goods traffic by land has been found illegal repeatedly.
You know this of course and are distracting/diverting. Yet again.
Any chance you'd do us all the courtesy of not cherry picking irrelevancies to the debate as if they won't be found out in milliseconds?

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, the UN for starters.

I do you the courtesy of reading your posts. Would it be too much to ask you to do the same for mine?

From earlier on this page:

BTW

In the September 2011 Palmer Report, the UN investigative committee for the 2010 Flotilla to Gaza said that the Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal under international law, but that "the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view."[22][194]

Same panel that you claim ruled the blockade was legal actually said they couldn't make any such claim.
Rumbled. Again.

TommyKnocker

Have just come across this on my FB page and haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but thought other might also be interested

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2014/08/gaza-road-war-201481116153170870.html

Also this is a good initiative in the US

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/us-activists-block-israeli-cargo-mass-shutdown-west-coast-ports

bumper234

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your first sentence is arguable. Several fairly competent bodies disagree over if the standing blockade is legal. In any case, it's irrelevant, as Israel now has enacted a war blockade. If that war (total) blockade remains in place after the current termed truces get replaced by a longer-term ceasefire, then we can start talking about the moral and legal merits of it.

So have Israel officially declared war on the people of Palestine or are you just using these buzz words to make the illegal blockade and siege of innocent people sound credible?

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Because Israel's supposed "Western-ness" has been used repeatedly in this thread to attempt to ascribe some sort of moral superiority compared to Palestine which is supposed to make us side with them for some reason.
Phew. Now they're only racist and not homophobic. Progress, eh?

Just as usual, I'd prefer that lies weren't being used in this (or any) debate.

It seems that you, and others, seem to have a problem with lies being challenged, if these lies happen to support what you see as "your side" :rolleyes:

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

BTW
Same panel that you claim ruled the blockade was legal actually said they couldn't make any such claim.
Rumbled. Again.

You do realise that UNHCR - the UN body who called the blockade illegal - also do not have the power/authority to declare anything legal or otherwise.
They can only offer their opinion - the same as the panel who conducted the Palmer report.


That said, I personally believe the blockade to be illegal, and I'd expect that the US is currently putting some fairly heavy pressure on Israel to lift or at lease ease the blockade (behind closed doors obviously - they wouldn't want the Republicans to see evidence of "weakness towards Hamas" :rolleyes:).

RustyNut

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your first sentence is arguable. Several fairly competent bodies disagree over if the standing blockade is legal. In any case, it's irrelevant, as Israel now has enacted a war blockade. If that war (total) blockade remains in place after the current termed truces get replaced by a longer-term ceasefire, then we can start talking about the moral and legal merits of it.

In your opinion when does a population who are living under a "war blockade" and defacto foreign military occupation get the right to resist by all means possible?

shedweller

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I think you need a new tinfoil hat.

The laser exists alright. In the past it was deemed to costly and complicated to operate and was shelved. Doesn't mean it will always stay that way. I'll keep an open mind on this if thats alright with you because nothing surprises me with these israelis.

shedweller

RustyNut wrote: »

In your opinion when does a population who are living under a "war blockade" and defacto foreign military occupation get the right to resist by all means possible?

I think, after all is said and done, that it depends on who is doing the blockading and who the blockadee is, if you catch my meaning.

brimal

shedweller wrote: »

Thats because they are biased in the extreme. Like all media outlets.
When the fcuk are we going to wake up and actually do something here? Its no use on my own? What was that barcode from israel again? They like money so lets pull the plug on that one. Boycott the fcukers.

Good morning shedweller, can you please explain this bolded part, third time of asking.

Thanks.

bumper234

brimal wrote: »

Good morning shedweller, can you please explain this bolded part, third time of asking.

Thanks.

I'm sure he means that the Israeli government enjoy having money come into the economy, I'm sure he means Israeli farmers and manufacturers like to get money for their produce but I'm also 100% sure you are trying to make it out to be something else so you can scream blue murder/anti semetism etc.

brimal

bumper234 wrote: »

I'm sure he means that the Israeli government enjoy having money come into the economy, I'm sure he means Israeli farmers and manufacturers like to get money for their produce but I'm also 100% sure you are trying to make it out to be something else so you can scream blue murder/anti semetism etc.

I understand you are so invested in this thread that you will jump to the defence of anyone on your 'side', but I would like a reply from the poster I asked thanks.

It's a simple question, no accusations, I just find it a bit odd and out of place to say that. I mean, who doesn't like money? Why is there a need to say it?

bumper234

brimal wrote: »

I understand you are so invested in this thread that you will jump to the defence of anyone on your 'side', but I would like a reply from the poster I asked thanks.

It's a simple question, no accusations, I just find it a bit odd and out of place to say that. I mean, who doesn't like money? Why is there a need to say it?

Lol at being "invested" in any thread on a forum :rolleyes:

I just find it funny that people like yourself choose to see slurs where non are meant. Anything to tar the pro Palestinian side i suppose. Carry on good man.

brimal

bumper234 wrote: »

I'm sure he means that the Israeli government enjoy having money come into the economy, I'm sure he means Israeli farmers and manufacturers like to get money for their produce but I'm also 100% sure you are trying to make it out to be something else so you can scream blue murder/anti semetism etc.

Spare me the 'anti-semitism' waffle.

I do not use that phrase lightly, and only call people out on it when there actually is anti-semitism and/or stereotypes thrown around, which unfortunately happens here. Nodin can vouch for me if you want someone from your 'side' to back me up.

bumper234

brimal wrote: »

Spare me the 'anti-semitism' waffle.

I do not use that phrase lightly, and only call people out on it when there actually is anti-semitism and/or stereotypes thrown around, which unfortunately happens here. Nodin can vouch for me if you want someone from your 'side' to back me up.

I don't need character references thanks very much :rolleyes:

brimal

bumper234 wrote: »

I don't need character references thanks very much :rolleyes:

That's good.

I'm sure you find anti-semitism as abhorrent as I do. No 'character references' needed from me either.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

Just as usual, I'd prefer that lies weren't being used in this (or any) debate.

It seems that you, and others, seem to have a problem with lies being challenged, if these lies happen to support what you see as "your side" :rolleyes:

You and other seem lies blah blah.
Look mate either contest the facts or you can keep your lame meta-analysis.

bumper234

brimal wrote: »

That's good.

I'm sure you find anti-semitism as abhorrent as I do. No 'character references' needed from me either.

Real anti-semitism is truly abhorrent but i find lately that it (like terrorism/terrorist) is an oft overused buzzword used as an excuse to shoot down any dissent to what's happening over in Gaza.

hju6

brimal wrote: »

That's good.

I'm sure you find anti-semitism as abhorrent as I do. No 'character references' needed from me either.

So you are against the atrocities being waged on Palestine by Israel ?

Semite, Person speaking one of a group of related languages, presumably derived from a common language, Semitic (see Semitic languages). The term came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, some Ethiopians, and Aramaean tribes including Hebrews. Semitic tribes migrated from the Arabian Peninsula, beginning c. 2500 bc, to the Mediterranean coast, Mesopotamia, and the Nile River delta. In Phoenicia, they became seafarers. In Mesopotamia, they blended with the civilization of Sumer. The Hebrews settled at last with other Semites in Palestine.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/534157/Semite

shedweller

brimal wrote: »

Good morning shedweller, can you please explain this bolded part, third time of asking.

Thanks.

They like money. Like anyone else does. Get it?? Dont be jumping the gun. Jeez!!!

hju6

Manic Moran wrote: »

Different blockade. Check the Notices to Mariners.

The rules change when you're involved in a conflict. Israel and Gaza have been in a state of mutual hostilities for a couple of weeks now. As Corvus correctly points out, a full blockade is an act of war. Note that the Notice to Mariners starting mid July from Israel after the shooting started changed from the previous status to "Closure of area". We're not talking about whether or not sufficient calories or cement have been let into the country, we're talking about an honest-to-god shooting war. Well, since that's what Hamas and Israel are involved in, who wouldn't expect to see a closure? This is not the same standing blockade from 2010 (and opinions as to that one's legality vary: eg The UNHCR report found it illegal, the UN Secretary General's report found it legal), this is a "this is a battlefield" blockade, and Israel (understandably) seems to make no attempt to link the two.



No reason to think they're not Israeli. I have no way of telling who they're shooting at or why.



I have no idea if they are knowingly breaking the laws, being unacceptably reckless, or if it's just that we notice the effects more because of the modern media. One thing I have noticed, there have been very few instances in this conflict where concluding that Israeli forces are acting unlawfully have gone beyond "inference and subjective interpretation" to "yeah, there's not really any way to explain that one" such as the chap in the green shirt shot when looking for his family. And in the cases which do fit in the latter category, I have not attempted to put forth another perspective as I agree with most on here with their interpretations in such instances.

Look, I'll be amongst the first to say that Israel is screwing up on a policy level. Their position on settlements and continued encroachment on Palestinian land can only bring trouble, and why they won't accept third-party enforcement of the blockade as Hamas has proposed is beyond me except out of bloody-mindedness, but that's not what I've been addressing here. It's not even the topic of this thread, which is the vigorous exchange of opinion which has been going on the last couple of weeks.

Over the past few weeks, I've seen all sorts of statements being repeatedly thrown around which I have not commented upon. "Israel used human shields in 2007" (relevance to today?), "Hamas are evil as they shoot from near hospitals" (I don't see a need to ascribe motivation, if they're evil or not, I don't care), and so on. I'm a soldier, and from my point of view, arguments like that are utterly irrelevant. What matters is the here and now, and actions, not motivations. When you're slinging ordnance at each other, motivation becomes pretty irrelevant. "We got it. You don't like us". And, unfortunately, often times to assess the actions, we are required to have information which is not available to us, either due to lack of access to it (as is usually the case), or lack of willingness to look it up. (How many people know that Israel publicly changed the blockade to a war condition once the shooting started? How many even thought to look it up?)

Every single Israeli action noted on this thread, it seems, is being taken as an outrage, a war crime, despite lack of evidence that it is one, and the improbability that they -all- are. You don't take a guy to court and say "Your honor, Joe Bloggs should be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter because X was killed as a result of being hit by his car, and all his friends are scum". You can't even say "Your honor, Joe Bloggs is guilty of vehicular manslaughter given that person X was killed as a result of being hit by his car, and his scum friends both were guilty of vehicular manslaughter last week."

Further, as we all are aware, we're pretty much only seeing the 'end result' part of the equation. That's hardly confined to warfare. You may recall several police incidents in the US in recent years, such as "Video shows unarmed man being shot as he runs away from police", or "Protests after man dies in police custody from gunshot wound", only to have later discoveries that, well, another dashcam caught the incident and he had actually just shot at the cop, or the release of cell footage which showed that the prisoner wasn't searched upon arrest, drew his own .45, and shot himself.

It is possible, I'd say probable, that a number of the incidents I have actually commented upon were, in fact, war crimes. That does not make them all so. It does not make any particular one so. I have never once said, as far as I can recall, "This was not a war crime," as such a statement requires the same missing information which would be necessary to determine that it was one. But I do put forward explanations why they may not be so, and believe people are not taking a dispassionate view of things.

For whatever reason, and I really don't care why, a lot of people on this thread are emotionally vested towards the Palestinians and a few towards the Israelis. I don't care. I have very rarely commented upon jus ad bellum issues. I've never said that Israel were correct to attack Gaza last month, or that Hamas do or don't have a justification for armed resistance. Jus in bello is far more my lane and I will comment equally dispassionately upon both Palestinian and Israeli actions as they're brought up. Just seems Israeli actions are coming up in discussion far more around here.

Incidentally, in the application of this, I seem to differ from many of my colleagues. I'm currently taking a staff officer's course, and we have a couple of ethics blocks. As we were discussing terrorism, I observed that we are being far too loose with the word these days, and that, for example, the Beiruit bombing was, in my eyes, legitimate. And that even sitting as we were in the classroom, paid, uniformed soldiers, we were legitimate targets under the laws of war. I appear to be in the minority viewpoint on this, most of my colleagues would categorise it as terrorism.

Did you ever consider that Israel is doing the most action, killing the most people, using the most weapons, and illegally blockading 1.8 million people.

If we spoke of no warhead rockets landing in open spaces, israeli deaths, this thread would be a lot shorter.

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You and other seem lies blah blah.
Look mate either contest the facts or you can keep your lame meta-analysis.

I did contest the facts - I posted a link to an actual report, instead of repeating lies that were spouted on reddit as fact - yet you seem to have a problem with that because it didn't suit "your side"

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

I appear to be in the minority viewpoint on this, most of my colleagues would categorise it as terrorism.

Do you not see this as an extremely troubling and fundamental problem in the US military?

What is being done about it?

It's interesting because I recently saw an American friend on facebook call rioters (not sure what state but I'm sure you will know the reference) terrorists and called for them to be treated as such.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

I did contest the facts - I posted a link to an actual report, instead of repeating lies that were spouted on reddit as fact - yet you seem to have a problem with that because it didn't suit "your side"

Funny that, haven't seen you once disprove anything I have said. Care to repeat one?
Or does it make things easier for you to understand if it's just "sides"?

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Funny that, haven't seen you once disprove anything I have said. Care to repeat one?
Or does it make things easier for you to understand if it's just "sides"?

The post I responded to wasn't one of yours - but yet YOU still decided that you had a problem with facts being posted to contradict lies.

I've tried to be balanced throughout this whole thing, but yet you seem to insist on trying to shout down and silence anyone who doesn't blindly agree with whatever you decide. Stay classy

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

The post I responded to wasn't one of yours - but yet YOU still decided that you had a problem with facts being posted to contradict lies.

I am so sorry other people answering your posts upsets you so much. Generally we refer to a post you don't want other people to express an opinion on as a "PM".
Again, are there any facts/corrections you posted which I have contested or are you just on a hot air venting exercise?

Dan_Solo

brimal wrote: »

Spare me the 'anti-semitism' waffle.

I do not use that phrase lightly, and only call people out on it when there actually is anti-semitism and/or stereotypes thrown around, which unfortunately happens here. Nodin can vouch for me if you want someone from your 'side' to back me up.

OK so, did you make any attempt at guessing what he meant by "they love money" before making an issue of such an innocuous statement? What came to your mind first, now you are claiming it wasn't anti-semitism?

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I am so sorry other people answering your posts upsets you so much. Generally we refer to a post you don't want other people to express an opinion on as a "PM".
Again, are there any facts/corrections you posted which I have contested or are you just on a hot air venting exercise?

No issue with anyone answering anyone's posts - generally though people actually respond to the content of what was posted, and don't just try to shout down anything that doesn't blindly agree with them.

Little CuChulainn

Why do people constantly refer to this as a war? Palestine have no standing army, they don't even have a government or connected lands. This is an occupation. Not much different than the English occupation of Ireland. If you wonder why so many Irish seem to stand by Palestine, this is the reason.

TommyKnocker

Israel on Cease fire

http://www.imemc.org/article/68848

shedweller

TommyKnocker wrote: »

Israel on Cease fire

http://www.imemc.org/article/68848

What an abhorrent bunch of scum they are. And to think people think this is ok.

TommyKnocker

Hamas's Tunnels of Terror

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/kindergartens-propaganda-netanyahu.html

http://972mag.com/were-gaza-tunnels-built-to-harm-israeli-civilians/95279/

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

BTW
Same panel that you claim ruled the blockade was legal actually said they couldn't make any such claim.
Rumbled. Again.

Addressed by Blackwhite. The statement stands, opinions vary. The issue has not been decisively settled by any agency with an authority to do so. You can gain an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid

Did you ever consider that Israel is doing the most action, killing the most people, using the most weapons, and illegally blockading 1.8 million people.

If we spoke of no warhead rockets landing in open spaces, israeli deaths, this thread would be a lot shorter.

I agree, but that's hardly my fault. And fewer instances such as the Hamas raids into Israel which are happening are not engendering much discussion.

karma_ wrote: »

Do you not see this as an extremely troubling and fundamental problem in the US military?

What is being done about it?

It's interesting because I recently saw an American friend on facebook call rioters (not sure what state but I'm sure you will know the reference) terrorists and called for them to be treated as such.

I do see it as a problem, but not one exclusive to the military. The general usage of the word "terrorist" has become so broad as to lose its fundamental meaning, from police to politicians etc. It's not the only word, "Weapon of Mass Destruction" was used to describe one of the charges from the Boston marathon bombing, and a recent Supreme Court case in the US held that, no, the federal government cannot charge a woman with using a chemical weapon for creating a paste which makes a rash.

My perspective is that if we are willing to go attack our enemies wherever they are, regardless of if they are undertaking active combat operations or not (and I fully believe it is legitimate to do so), it is rather hypocritical to claim that the enemy attacking US military personnel in the US is a criminal, dastardly act.

Nothing is being done about this trend. The voters seem to go for it. That's something which is way outside of my pay grade, and probably outside the role of the military.

RustyNut

Manic Moran wrote: »

Addressed by Blackwhite. The statement stands, opinions vary. The issue has not been decisively settled by any agency with an authority to do so. You can gain an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid



I agree, but that's hardly my fault. And fewer instances such as the Hamas raids into Israel which are happening are not engendering much discussion.



I do see it as a problem, but not one exclusive to the military. The general usage of the word "terrorist" has become so broad as to lose its fundamental meaning, from police to politicians etc. It's not the only word, "Weapon of Mass Destruction" was used to describe one of the charges from the Boston marathon bombing, and a recent Supreme Court case in the US held that, no, the federal government cannot charge a woman with using a chemical weapon for creating a paste which makes a rash.

My perspective is that if we are willing to go attack our enemies wherever they are, regardless of if they are undertaking active combat operations or not (and I fully believe it is legitimate to do so), it is rather hypocritical to claim that the enemy attacking US military personnel in the US is a criminal, dastardly act.

Nothing is being done about this trend. The voters seem to go for it. That's something which is way outside of my pay grade, and probably outside the role of the military.

Do you accept the Palestinian peoples right to resist the hostile military occupation and blockade?

shedweller

RustyNut wrote: »

Do you accept the Palestinian peoples right to resist the hostile military occupation and blockade?

Shh....don't mention the elephant!

Manic Moran

RustyNut wrote: »

Do you accept the Palestinian peoples right to resist the hostile military occupation and blockade?

Sure, they have the right, but I don't think it's a good idea for reasons which should be rather obvious right now

bumper234

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sure, they have the right, but I don't think it's a good idea for reasons which should be rather obvious right now

Yeah.

Because that hostile occupying military force has no qualms about bombing the **** out of innocent men, women and children and will even stoop as low as shelling designated shelters and hospitals.