Interesting day for Palestine

Sand

pablo128 wrote: »

It appears that the Yanks and Israelis are sh1tting themselves. The big bullys are being called out and they don't like it one bit.

It should help rein Israel in from seizing more land and indisciminately killing Palestinians for a while at least.

If the ICC investigate war crimes in Palestine, the clear and away losers will be the Hamas government which deliberately carried out indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian populations, using their own civilian population as a human shield. Both of which are war crimes.

The Israelis actually have a lot less to fear from an investigation, assuming its objective. Firstly, given the measures they take to avoid civilian casualties it will take a great deal of imagination to hold them as war criminals. Secondly, their opponents and a large degree of the world already view them as evil, inhuman monsters. Even if the ICC report against them, its not going to do any significant harm. The US will still protect them.

The ICC move could end up backfiring on the Palestinians and their supporters as it removes any legitimacy they might have as "freedom fighters" and instead brands them war criminals.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

If the ICC investigate war crimes in Palestine, the clear and away losers will be the Hamas government which deliberately carried out indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian populations, using their own civilian population as a human shield. Both of which are war crimes.

Israel also did this on a larger scale.

The Israelis actually have a lot less to fear from an investigation, assuming its objective. Firstly, given the measures they take to avoid civilian casualties it will take a great deal of imagination to hold them as war criminals. Secondly, their opponents and a large degree of the world already view them as evil, inhuman monsters. Even if the ICC report against them, its not going to do any significant harm. The US will still protect them.

The ICC move could end up backfiring on the Palestinians and their supporters as it removes any legitimacy they might have as "freedom fighters" and instead brands them war criminals.

So why did they try to block the Palestinians from joining?

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Israel also did this on a larger scale.

And you're free to believe that, but it doesn't change the validity of my point. It will backfire on the Palestinians.

So why did they try to block the Palestinians from joining?

Probably for the reasons that they stated - recognition of Palestine as a state is an important "concession" they can make in negotiations. If Palestine is widely recognised as a state then that concession loses its value. They're challenging that Palestine is not a state, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to join. The ICC membership undermines that position.

I should point out - no one is really afraid of the ICC. Its had what, three trials and 2 people sentenced? The US will still protect Israel from it, rightly or wrongly.

JRant

Sand wrote: »

If the ICC investigate war crimes in Palestine, the clear and away losers will be the Hamas government which deliberately carried out indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian populations, using their own civilian population as a human shield. Both of which are war crimes.

The Israelis actually have a lot less to fear from an investigation, assuming its objective. Firstly, given the measures they take to avoid civilian casualties it will take a great deal of imagination to hold them as war criminals. Secondly, their opponents and a large degree of the world already view them as evil, inhuman monsters. Even if the ICC report against them, its not going to do any significant harm. The US will still protect them.

The ICC move could end up backfiring on the Palestinians and their supporters as it removes any legitimacy they might have as "freedom fighters" and instead brands them war criminals.

The Isreali's target civilians and have done for years. They see them as legitimate targets.

See The Dahiya doctrine.

http://electronicintif...eting-civilians-gaza

The Palestinian's have a lot less to fear from the ICC then Isreal.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

If the ICC investigate war crimes in Palestine, the clear and away losers will be the Hamas government which deliberately carried out indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian populations, using their own civilian population as a human shield. Both of which are war crimes.

The Israelis actually have a lot less to fear from an investigation, assuming its objective. Firstly, given the measures they take to avoid civilian casualties it will take a great deal of imagination to hold them as war criminals. Secondly, their opponents and a large degree of the world already view them as evil, inhuman monsters. Even if the ICC report against them, its not going to do any significant harm. The US will still protect them.

The ICC move could end up backfiring on the Palestinians and their supporters as it removes any legitimacy they might have as "freedom fighters" and instead brands them war criminals.

Firstly, happy days if Hamas are called out for their BS. Secondly, the Israelis obliterated entire towns in a matter of less than an hour (there are time lapse videos to back this up) in clearly indiscriminate bombardments, I highly doubt there's any way this can be justified under international law. Thirdly,the main issue (as I see it) for the ICC is the settlements, rather than the Gaza war, and fourthly, even with US protection, isolating Israeli officials from being able to travels in most of the civilized world is going to do them a massive amount of diplomatic damage. How anyone can claim otherwise is beyond me. If they're happy to occupy a cosy little corner of the world with only the US and its puppets for company then fair enough - we can only hope that the decline of the latter's influence on the rest of the world's policies continues at about the pace it has been.

Skylinehead

Sand wrote: »

I should point out - no one is really afraid of the ICC. Its had what, three trials and 2 people sentenced? The US will still protect Israel from it, rightly or wrongly.

How can the US protect Israel from the ICC when neither are members?

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

And you're free to believe that, but it doesn't change the validity of my point. It will backfire on the Palestinians.



Probably for the reasons that they stated - recognition of Palestine as a state is an important "concession" they can make in negotiations. If Palestine is widely recognised as a state then that concession loses its value. They're challenging that Palestine is not a state, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to join. The ICC membership undermines that position.

I should point out - no one is really afraid of the ICC. Its had what, three trials and 2 people sentenced? The US will still protect Israel from it, rightly or wrongly.

It may protect Israel the country but it won't protect any Israeli found guilty of war crimes if they choose to travel to a country they could be arrested in. Face it at the moment Palestine (due to Israeli policy) is nothing more than a jail for it's people. The sooner the world recognizes Palestinian state and starts sanctions against Israel the better for the millions of innocent Palestinians who suffer at the hands of the Zionists on a daily basis.

Sand

JRant wrote: »

The Isreali's target civilians and have done for years. They see them as legitimate targets.

And again, you're free to believe that but you're going to need a little more than your belief and a link to electronicintifada (link doesn't work for me btw) to prove it in a court.

@hattrickpatrick

Secondly, the Israelis obliterated entire towns in a matter of less than an hour (there are time lapse videos to back this up) in clearly indiscriminate bombardments, I highly doubt there's any way this can be justified under international law.

Eh, dropping an atomic bomb on Japan, twice, led to no war crime convictions. You'd be surprised what can be justified under international law. In war, entire towns are routinely destroyed.

That's why most sane people (and I'm excluding the Palestinians here) avoid provoking a war against a vastly superior opponent.

fourthly, even with US protection, isolating Israeli officials from being able to travels in most of the civilized world is going to do them a massive amount of diplomatic damage. How anyone can claim otherwise is beyond me. If they're happy to occupy a cosy little corner of the world with only the US and its puppets for company then fair enough - we can only hope that the decline of the latter's influence on the rest of the world's policies continues at about the pace it has been.

I really cant see many states risking angering the US by actually enforcing any arrest warrant against any Israeli official convicted. Can you see Germany doing so, with all the baggage that would bring? Even France is sensitive how it deals with Israel. It's telling that the only two figures convicted of war crimes by the ICC so far are essentially politically isolated figures with no allies. The Israelis on the other hand will have the US backing them.

And as I noted, the rest of the world already thinks Israel is some uniquely demonic evil monster. They've got by just fine with just US support for the past 40-50 years.

It will be the Palestinian leadership that find themselves isolated, as while the ICC might, might, might be able to make a case stick against a few Israeli figures, war crime charges will be open and shut for practically the entire Palestinian political leadership.

The sooner the world recognizes Palestinian state and starts sanctions against Israel the better for the millions of innocent Palestinians who suffer at the hands of the Zionists on a daily basis.

I don't see sanctions working whilst the US assists Israel and whilst the course of action demanded of the Israelis is one which they view as risking not just their borders, but the actual survival of their people. I think its very clear if Hamas ever had power over Israel, there would be a second holocaust.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

@hattrickpatrick

For the love of Jaysus this typo always pisses me off more than almost anything

Eh, dropping an atomic bomb on Japan, twice, led to no war crime convictions. You'd be surprised what can be justified under international law. In war, entire towns are routinely destroyed.

I'm pretty sure that dropping an atomic bomb on a populated city now, in 2014, would easily be regarded as a war crime. You're hardly comparing like with like here - you're talking about an incident which occurred more than fifty years before the ICC was founded!

That's why most sane people (and I'm excluding the Palestinians here) avoid provoking a war against a vastly superior opponent.

Provoking. Sure. :rolleyes:

You're veering pretty close to the might is right justification here as well, do you subscribe to it? Israel should be allowed to do anything it wants because it can?

I really cant see many states risking angering the US by actually enforcing any arrest warrant against any Israeli official convicted. Can you see Germany doing so, with all the baggage that would bring? Even France is sensitive how it deals with Israel. It's telling that the only two figures convicted of war crimes by the ICC so far are essentially politically isolated figures with no allies. The Israelis on the other hand will have the US backing them.

I'm not sure if they necessarily will. Even the US knows how bad it will look if it tries to shield people internationally when the opinion of the vast majority of the civilized world is turning against the Israeli regime. The US, in my view, no longer commands the iron fist it once did in international diplomacy. A lot has changed even just over the last five years.

And as I noted, the rest of the world already thinks Israel is some uniquely demonic evil monster. They've got by just fine with just US support for the past 40-50 years.

The ICC didn't have jurisdiction before this year.

It will be the Palestinian leadership that find themselves isolated, as while the ICC might, might, might be able to make a case stick against a few Israeli figures, war crime charges will be open and shut for practically the entire Palestinian political leadership.

Personally I hope it's both.

I don't see sanctions working whilst the US assists Israel and whilst the course of action demanded of the Israelis is one which they view as risking not just their borders, but the actual survival of their people. I think its very clear if Hamas ever had power over Israel, there would be a second holocaust.

Godwin'd.
I call BS on the survival argument anyway. The Israelis are being asked to give civilian land back to the civilians it was taken from by force. They are refusing because their government is made up of greedy right wing eejits who believe that their religious doctrine entitles them to a tangible asset regardless of who they have to hurt in pursuance of it.

Funnily enough, we no longer tolerate such behavior on religious grounds - and rightly so.

Skylinehead

Sand wrote: »

Eh, dropping an atomic bomb on Japan, twice, led to no war crime convictions. You'd be surprised what can be justified under international law. In war, entire towns are routinely destroyed.

In that case, the bombs almost certainly saved more lives than they killed, by making an invasion of Japan unnecessary, in which casualties could have run into the 10s of millions. In the case of Israel, that isn't true at all. How many Israeli civilians died from rocket attacks? 6?

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

And again, you're free to believe that but you're going to need a little more than your belief and a link to electronicintifada (link doesn't work for me btw) to prove it in a court.

The deaths of thousandsof innocent men women and children shod be evidence enough!

@hattrickpatrick


Eh, dropping an atomic bomb on Japan, twice, led to no war crime convictions. You'd be surprised what can be justified under international law. In war, entire towns are routinely destroyed.

There is a massive difference to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end a war that was killing millions and the bombing of Gaza. If you cannot see that difference then i fear there is little hope for you.

That's why most sane people (and I'm excluding the Palestinians here) avoid provoking a war against a vastly superior opponent.

Ah so the Palestinians must be insane to fight for their basic human rights?

I really cant see many states risking angering the US by actually enforcing any arrest warrant against any Israeli official convicted. Can you see Germany doing so, with all the baggage that would bring? Even France is sensitive how it deals with Israel. It's telling that the only two figures convicted of war crimes by the ICC so far are essentially politically isolated figures with no allies. The Israelis on the other hand will have the US backing them.

You seem to think that the world is afraid of the US? They can posture and whinge all they like but the law is the law and if they are not happy with a war criminal being arrested then that's their problem, the USA needs the world more than the world.needs the USA.

And as I noted, the rest of the world already thinks Israel is some uniquely demonic evil monster. They've got by just fine with just US support for the past 40-50 years.

If the hat fits.......

It will be the Palestinian leadership that find themselves isolated, as while the ICC might, might, might be able to make a case stick against a few Israeli figures, war crime charges will be open and shut for practically the entire Palestinian political leadership.

That has yet to be decided.

I don't see sanctions working whilst the US assists Israel and whilst the course of action demanded of the Israelis is one which they view as risking not just their borders, but the actual survival of their people. I think its very clear if Hamas ever had power over Israel, there would be a second holocaust.

Utter horse ****, more sensationalist clap trap from the pro Israeli side.

JRant

Sand wrote: »

And again, you're free to believe that but you're going to need a little more than your belief and a link to electronicintifada (link doesn't work for me btw) to prove it in a court.

@hattrickpatrick


Eh, dropping an atomic bomb on Japan, twice, led to no war crime convictions. You'd be surprised what can be justified under international law. In war, entire towns are routinely destroyed.

That's why most sane people (and I'm excluding the Palestinians here) avoid provoking a war against a vastly superior opponent.



I really cant see many states risking angering the US by actually enforcing any arrest warrant against any Israeli official convicted. Can you see Germany doing so, with all the baggage that would bring? Even France is sensitive how it deals with Israel. It's telling that the only two figures convicted of war crimes by the ICC so far are essentially politically isolated figures with no allies. The Israelis on the other hand will have the US backing them.

And as I noted, the rest of the world already thinks Israel is some uniquely demonic evil monster. They've got by just fine with just US support for the past 40-50 years.

It will be the Palestinian leadership that find themselves isolated, as while the ICC might, might, might be able to make a case stick against a few Israeli figures, war crime charges will be open and shut for practically the entire Palestinian political leadership.



I don't see sanctions working whilst the US assists Israel and whilst the course of action demanded of the Israelis is one which they view as risking not just their borders, but the actual survival of their people. I think its very clear if Hamas ever had power over Israel, there would be a second holocaust.

No need for belief, the facts are there if you want to find them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/israel-s-assault-on-gaza-is-an-expression-of-the-dahiya-doctrine-1.1902934

Will direct quotes from an Isreali general be okay?

hatrickpatrick

JRant wrote: »

No need for belief, the facts are there if you want to find them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/israel-s-assault-on-gaza-is-an-expression-of-the-dahiya-doctrine-1.1902934

Will direct quotes from an Isreali general be okay?

I suspect the answer to that question will be similar to Obama's treatment of people who leak classified documents. It'll be ok if it makes their side look good, otherwise it's obviously not ok.

Timberrrrrrrr

JRant wrote: »

No need for belief, the facts are there if you want to find them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/israel-s-assault-on-gaza-is-an-expression-of-the-dahiya-doctrine-1.1902934

Will direct quotes from an Isreali general be okay?

No reply for 2 days, probably waiting for instructions from head office in Ballsbridge.

JRant

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I suspect the answer to that question will be similar to Obama's treatment of people who leak classified documents. It'll be ok if it makes their side look good, otherwise it's obviously not ok.

Exactly, one just has to look at the PKK to see how absurd it is. On one side of a mountain they're "freedom fighters" yet on the other they're terrorists. Doublespeak at it's finest.

Sand

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that dropping an atomic bomb on a populated city now, in 2014, would easily be regarded as a war crime. You're hardly comparing like with like here - you're talking about an incident which occurred more than fifty years before the ICC was founded!

It wouldn't necessarily be considered such, and it hasn't been considered such. And it would be a tough case to make: everyone remembers the atomic bombs, but they always forget that the USAAF dropping incendiary bombs on Japanese cities where homes were made primarily of wood and paper killed vastly more civilians than the atomic bombs did. An atomic bomb is just a very big bomb. Turkeys voting for Christmas is a phrase that comes to mind when one considers states convicting war-criminals on the basis of statistical death tolls.

Basically, my point is warcrimes are defined within the context of war. Where large numbers people are brutally and unjustifiably killed by any definition that would apply in peace.

You're veering pretty close to the might is right justification here as well, do you subscribe to it? Israel should be allowed to do anything it wants because it can?

I'm veering pretty close to taking a more than Student Union politics view of responsibility for the well-being and prosperity of those I am responsible for. The Palestinian strategy for at least the last 20 years has been to provoke a war with a military power, lose it badly, and complain that the war has led to suffering for their people. Rinse and repeat.

That's either really dumb, or utterly, callously cruel.

Either way its not a winning strategy for the Palestinian people.

I'm not sure if they necessarily will. Even the US knows how bad it will look if it tries to shield people internationally when the opinion of the vast majority of the civilized world is turning against the Israeli regime. The US, in my view, no longer commands the iron fist it once did in international diplomacy. A lot has changed even just over the last five years.

Yeah, they will. Israel has been an international pariah for decades, the US still backed them. The US has backed Israel relentlessly, even when facing nuclear armageddon with the Soviet empire. Right now, even while Obama despises the Israeli leadership, the US is still backing Israel.

Backing Israel is just one of the political constants of the modern era - even when it is against US interests to do so. It is not yet quite clear what it will take for their to be a breach between the US and Israel...

Godwin'd.
I call BS on the survival argument anyway. The Israelis are being asked to give civilian land back to the civilians it was taken from by force. They are refusing because their government is made up of greedy right wing eejits who believe that their religious doctrine entitles them to a tangible asset regardless of who they have to hurt in pursuance of it.

Funnily enough, we no longer tolerate such behavior on religious grounds - and rightly so.

If you say so - my point remains. Israel and the Israelis see themselves as fighting for their own survival against pretty much all their neighbours who wish to "drive them back into the sea" as the saying goes. They don't see it as greed - they see it as a simple matter of survival against enemies like Hamas which proudly boast their ambition to wipe out Jews.

Tell me, taking on that perspective, at what point would you yield to sanctions if you believed it that it would cost the lives of your children and family? At what point would you offer up your children to the mercy of an enemy that hates and despises you?

Never? Yet you think the Israelis love their families less than you love your own. Sanctions wont work without trust being built.

Skylinehead wrote: »

In that case, the bombs almost certainly saved more lives than they killed, by making an invasion of Japan unnecessary, in which casualties could have run into the 10s of millions. In the case of Israel, that isn't true at all. How many Israeli civilians died from rocket attacks? 6?

Tens of millions of American soldiers? No. You're justifying the dropping of the bomb, killing Japanese civilians with the assumption that conventional military action would have killed *more* Japanese civilians. Therefore the dropping of the atomic bombs was an overall win for the average Japanese civilian. Right?

By the same argument, you could argue that Israeli actions against the Palestinians have saved more lives than they killed, by making an invasion and occupation unnecessary - in which Palestinian casualties could have run into the tens or hundreds of thousands. Therefore Israeli military actions have been an overall win for the average Palestinian civilian. Right?

I don't think you'll agree to either statement, so instead we could both agree that the logic you've attempted to employ is flawed. Right?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The deaths of thousandsof innocent men women and children shod be evidence enough!

Not necessarily. See above.

There is a massive difference to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end a war that was killing millions and the bombing of Gaza. If you cannot see that difference then i fear there is little hope for you

You so brutally disregard the suffering of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are Japanese lives worth so much less to you than Palestinian lives that the death of 2,000 Palestinians is a much greater crime than the death of almost 250,000 Japanese?

I am deeply saddened by how quickly human suffering becomes a footnote in history for some.

Ah so the Palestinians must be insane to fight for their basic human rights?

No clearly, the best strategy is to die gloriously in great numbers for no clear purpose or plan.

Jaysus - people so easily see the incompetence and corruption of Fianna Fail, yet so stupidly believe that the Palestinian leadership have the Palestinian peoples best interests at heart.

I have no words.

You seem to think that the world is afraid of the US? They can posture and whinge all they like but the law is the law and if they are not happy with a war criminal being arrested then that's their problem, the USA needs the world more than the world.needs the USA.

The law is the law? You say that in relation to *international* law?

Let me break it down for you. The law depends on the state. The state depends on violence. That's right - you don't pay your taxes? Violence. You don't hail to the chief? Violence. You blaspheme? Violence. You offend? Violence. It's built on the very strong principle that the many outweigh the few.

The whole structure of the state, and the law, is based on violence. Implied or explicit. The law is built on violence: police to enforce the law, judges to impose it, prisons to punish lawbreakers.

Now: the US spends more on violence than the next 30 or 40 countries combined. Who is going to impose violence on the US, exactly?

JRant wrote: »

No need for belief, the facts are there if you want to find them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/israel-s-assault-on-gaza-is-an-expression-of-the-dahiya-doctrine-1.1902934

Will direct quotes from an Isreali general be okay?

Quotes where he states they will counter attack sites where they are attacked from?

No, I don't think that is going to secure a conviction of a warcrime in any objective court.

Indeed, as a poster noted above, a disproportionate response to an attack from a foe which has a capability to issue a disproportionate response should logically discourage attacks on them. Saving lives in the long run.

Being better at war is not a warcrime.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No reply for 2 days, probably waiting for instructions from head office in Ballsbridge.

And who do you get your instructions from, exactly?

JRant

Did you even read the article?

Quote
"What was needed was more ruthlessness, Eizenkot declared. Time to take the gloves off. “What happened in the Dahiya district will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on . . . We will apply disproportionate force and cause great damage and destruction. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases.”"

Now apply this to an area like Gaza and Cast Lead and other operations make perfect sense. The Isreali army are targeting and killing civilians en mass in Gaza, which is most definitely a war crime.

Manach

International law is large field which is complex because of the interplay of both customary law that has evolved organically and that of treaties between states which impose obligation only on the signatory nations. Hence there are great stretches where interpretations from certain points of view would suggest difference resultant judgements from other. Saying that and focusing on the statement Mr Eizenkot, that while civlians in war do not have many rights, there still is both an obligation on a counter-insurgency operative force to differeniate between them and active insurgent combatants* and it would be a stretch (given the developments of post-war II jurisprudence) to target them and their infrastructure by means of military action. Thus this statement is a breach of international war law norms.

* "The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars"

Skylinehead

Sand wrote: »

Tens of millions of American soldiers? No. You're justifying the dropping of the bomb, killing Japanese civilians with the assumption that conventional military action would have killed *more* Japanese civilians. Therefore the dropping of the atomic bombs was an overall win for the average Japanese civilian. Right?

Tens of millions of people, I wasn't differentiating. But yes, as horrible as it was, it's undeniably better than Operation Downfall would have achieved. We saw from the kamikazes that the Japanese were fanatical and would have fought to the death.

Look at Okinawa for an example, and the insane casualties from that battle. Now imagine that on a Home Islands scale. The atomic bombs didn't even come close to what would have happened.

By the same argument, you could argue that Israeli actions against the Palestinians have saved more lives than they killed, by making an invasion and occupation unnecessary - in which Palestinian casualties could have run into the tens or hundreds of thousands. Therefore Israeli military actions have been an overall win for the average Palestinian civilian. Right?

I think you might have missed the bit where Israel did indeed invade and occupy Gaza. Multiple times. So no, not right. They're not even remotely comparable.

Sand

JRant wrote: »

Did you even read the article?

Quote
"What was needed was more ruthlessness, Eizenkot declared. Time to take the gloves off. “What happened in the Dahiya district will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on . . . We will apply disproportionate force and cause great damage and destruction. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases.”"

Now apply this to an area like Gaza and Cast Lead and other operations make perfect sense. The Isreali army are targeting and killing civilians en mass in Gaza, which is most definitely a war crime.

I read it better than you did:

“What happened in the Dahiya district will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on . . . We will apply disproportionate force and cause great damage and destruction. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases."

There is nothing wrong with that statement. If you are being attacked from a location, its perfectly acceptable to return fire on that location. It is, practically by definition, a military target once taken and used for military purposes.

Rule 10. "Civilian objects are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they are military objectives."

Actually, attempting to abuse one sides good faith and adherence to the Geneva convention by using the civilian villages as cover to launch attacks is a war crime.

Rule 23. "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives

Again, if the ICC were to look into those cases, the Palestinians will be getting jailed for warcrimes regarding Dahiya, not the Israelis.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

I read it better than you did:

“What happened in the Dahiya district will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on . . . We will apply disproportionate force and cause great damage and destruction. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases."

There is nothing wrong with that statement. If you are being attacked from a location, its perfectly acceptable to return fire on that location. It is, practically by definition, a military target once taken and used for military purposes.

Rule 10. "Civilian objects are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they are military objectives."

Actually, attempting to abuse one sides good faith and adherence to the Geneva convention by using the civilian villages as cover to launch attacks is a war crime.

Rule 23. "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives

Again, if the ICC were to look into those cases, the Palestinians will be getting jailed for warcrimes regarding Dahiya, not the Israelis.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HaKirya

The IDF head HQ is in the center of Tel Aviv, therefore (by your logic) the firing of missiles at Tel Aviv is justifiable.

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HaKirya

The IDF head HQ is in the center of Tel Aviv, therefore (by your logic) the firing of missiles at Tel Aviv is justifiable.

Uh, yes. The firing of missiles at the IDF HQ is permissible in a war, all other things being equal.

JRant

Sand wrote: »

I read it better than you did:

“What happened in the Dahiya district will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on . . . We will apply disproportionate force and cause great damage and destruction. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases."

There is nothing wrong with that statement. If you are being attacked from a location, its perfectly acceptable to return fire on that location. It is, practically by definition, a military target once taken and used for military purposes.

Rule 10. "Civilian objects are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they are military objectives."

Actually, attempting to abuse one sides good faith and adherence to the Geneva convention by using the civilian villages as cover to launch attacks is a war crime.

Rule 23. "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives

Again, if the ICC were to look into those cases, the Palestinians will be getting jailed for warcrimes regarding Dahiya, not the Israelis.

And again, collective punishment is a war crime. If a sniper fires from a crowded area you do not have the right to kill every single person there and flatten it with bombs.

A quick look at the geography of Gaza will show you that it is extremely difficult to find an unpopulated area with it's prison walls.

They was no firing from the main power plant in Gaza, yet it still got flattened. Likewise for the sewage and water treatment facilities.

I really laughed hard at you arguing Isreal are acting with good faith and within the Geneva convention. Surely you are aware of the Isreali army using Palestinian civilians, mostly children, as human shields for years. Tying them to the bonnets of their vehicles. All of which is in direct breach of rule 23.

The facts are all there for you and everyone else to read. Isreal is a rogue state, refuses to sign the non-proliferation agreement and has inprisoned millions of people in the worst possible conditions all for a bit of land.

I have no time for Hamas at all but what do you expect people to turn to when they are treated in such a horrific manner?

JRant

Sand wrote: »

Uh, yes. The firing of missiles at the IDF HQ is permissible in a war, all other things being equal.

It's not a war though, it's an occupation. The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from an occupying force. The Isreali's are the aggressors and can stop this at any time. They have chosen expansion over security and don't care how many Palestinian bodies it takes to get "their" land.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

Uh, yes. The firing of missiles at the IDF HQ is permissible in a war, all other things being equal.

So why is a car bomb in a civilian area considered a terrorist attack but a 500 lb bomb on a civilian area considered a military strike?

In fact why when a Palestinian drives his car into a group of Israeli people it's reported as a terrorist attack?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/driver-plows-into-jerusalem-crowd-in-suspected-terror-attack/

Palestinian Ma’an news agency identified the terrorist as 48-year-old Ibrahim al-Akary from Shuafat in East Jerusalem, a father of five. Hamas’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades tweeted out pictures it said showed the attacker, who it called Akazi, one of which showed him lying on the ground after being shot.

But when an Israeli does it to a Palestinian it barely gets a mention never mind labeled terrorism

http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/21143

A Palestinian man was killed on Thursday after being knocked down by an Israeli settler car near an illegal settlement in the central West Bank, Ma’an news agency reported.

Here's a report where kids aged 5 and 8 where killed by Israeli settlers, they even have a name for these attacks


http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/22094

On September 29, an Israeli settler ran over and injured 6-year-old young Palestinian girl Islam Basim al-Amour in al-Dairat area south of Hebron.

On August 7, an 8-year old Palestinian girl was also run over by Israeli settlers near Hebron and moderately injured.

In all incidents, witnesses and residents said they believed Israeli settlers deliberately hit Palestinians.

Hate crimes by Israelis against Palestinians, referred to as “price tag” attacks, are common in the West Bank, and are rarely investigated or prosecuted by Israel.

Sand

JRant wrote: »

And again, collective punishment is a war crime. If a sniper fires from a crowded area you do not have the right to kill every single person there and flatten it with bombs.

You have the right to return fire on the sniper in whatever way seems appropriate and does not otherwise breach the convention. If snipers or rocket teams have taken over a village and turned it into a firing position then it becomes a valid military target and loses its protected civilian status. Valid military targets tend to get flattened with the amount of firepower a modern military has to hand.

That is why it is a warcrime for the Palestinians to use villages and civilian areas for military actions. Because it inevitably invites a response, and the rules of war acknowledge that.

The Geneva Conventions and international law is a little more complex than Israel Bad Palestine Good.

@Timberrrrrrrr

So why is a...

Do you think those are my words?

So why do you ask me to explain or justify them to you? And what do they have to do with the thread topic?

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

You have the right to return fire on the sniper in whatever way seems appropriate and does not otherwise breach the convention. If snipers or rocket teams have taken over a village and turned it into a firing position then it becomes a valid military target and loses its protected civilian status. Valid military targets tend to get flattened with the amount of firepower a modern military has to hand.

That is why it is a warcrime for the Palestinians to use villages and civilian areas for military actions. Because it inevitably invites a response, and the rules of war acknowledge that.

The Geneva Conventions and international law is a little more complex than Israel Bad Palestine Good.

@Timberrrrrrrr


Do you think those are my words?

So why do you ask me to explain or justify them to you? And what do they have to do with the thread topic?

Again I point out that the IDF have their HQ in the middle of Tel Aviv so by your reckoning Israel is commiting a war crime by overseeing military actions from this place. As for my other points i am showing how Israel is quick to call Palestinians terrorists (they love that word) yet do not even invest8gate the same crime commited by their own citizens. And then people wonder why the Palestinians strike back.

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Again I point out that the IDF have their HQ in the middle of Tel Aviv so by your reckoning Israel is commiting a war crime by overseeing military actions from this place.

You see how you have to slightly adjust the wording to try make your point work? That is why it doesn't work.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

You see how you have to slightly adjust the wording to try make your point work? That is why it doesn't work.

Ah ok i'll readjust it to suit you so.

Again I point out that the IDF have their HQ in the middle of Tel Aviv so by your reckoning Israel is commiting a war crime by using this city for military actions because it inevitably invites a response.


Anyway


Just another day for the oppressed Palestinian people who are forced to live in the worlds biggest prison and treated like animals by the Israeli government.


http://www.timesofisrael.com/un-accuses-israel-of-illegal-house-demolitions/

homes, UN saysAgency says 77 Palestinians, mostly children, made homeless in East Jerusalem, West Bank in recent days

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ah ok i'll readjust it to suit you so.

Again I point out that the IDF have their HQ in the middle of Tel Aviv so by your reckoning Israel is commiting a war crime by using this city for military actions because it inevitably invites a response.

Are Israel firing rockets, artillery or shooting from their HQ? Or are they doing admin and paperwork?

The former would be military action. The latter is bureaucracy. You see the difference? You can be quite sure that in a world where most military's have bureaucratic HQs in urban areas (Pentagon for example) your interpretation will never stick.

The reality is that if the ICC does carry out any sort of objective investigation, it will be the Palestinian leadership who will be in handcuffs. Because international law is a little more complex than Israel Bad Palestine Good.

Gringo180

Sand wrote: »

Are Israel firing rockets, artillery or shooting from their HQ? Or are they doing admin and paperwork?

The former would be military action. The latter is bureaucracy. You see the difference? You can be quite sure that in a world where most military's have bureaucratic HQs in urban areas (Pentagon for example) your interpretation will never stick.

The reality is that if the ICC does carry out any sort of objective investigation, it will be the Palestinian leadership who will be in handcuffs. Because international law is a little more complex than Israel Bad Palestine Good.

How any human being can defend Israels actions against the Palestinians is always something that baffles and sickens me.

Can you not concede that Israel is the aggressor in this conflict? Even before Hamas came about they were still building illegal settlements?

Sand

Gringo180 wrote: »

How any human being can defend Israels actions against the Palestinians is always something that baffles and sickens me.

Can you not concede that Israel is the aggressor in this conflict? Even before Hamas came about they were still building illegal settlements?

You cant be interested in an actual discussion if the above is your actual view.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

Are Israel firing rockets, artillery or shooting from their HQ? Or are they doing admin and paperwork?

It's a military building which makes it a legitimate target, They may not be firing the rockets from the rooftop but the people who give the orders are doing so from there.

The former would be military action. The latter is bureaucracy. You see the difference? You can be quite sure that in a world where most military's have bureaucratic HQs in urban areas (Pentagon for example) your interpretation will never stick.

If Russia went to war with the USA tomorrow what would be one of the first buildings hit? Do you think the pentagon full of pen pushing bureaucrats would be a legitimate target for them?

The reality is that if the ICC does carry out any sort of objective investigation, it will be the Palestinian leadership who will be in handcuffs. Because international law is a little more complex than Israel Bad Palestine Good.

Ah because any investigation that finds an Israeli guilty of war crimes wouldn't be objective or fair right? :rolleyes:

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It's a military building which makes it a legitimate target, They may not be firing the rockets from the rooftop but the people who give the orders are doing so from there.

If Russia went to war with the USA tomorrow what would be one of the first buildings hit? Do you think the pentagon full of pen pushing bureaucrats would be a legitimate target for them?

I already said it would be a valid target - in the same way a political HQ or a power station or a factory would be a valid target.

You see how you have to keep moving the goalposts to try make your point? It is because the point isn't very good.

Ah because any investigation that finds an Israeli guilty of war crimes wouldn't be objective or fair right? :rolleyes:

No, not necessarily. Much of Israeli actions have been extremely questionable at best. You haven't been able to actually identify one but that doesn't mean it is not the case.

However, as an organisation that largely holds to and adheres to the Geneva convention and rule of law, they will come out far ahead of the coalition of Palestinian terrorist groups that run the Gaza Strip and Hamas and routinely commit war crimes as a cynical tactic. As I noted already, Israel can count on the protection of the United States - the single most powerful nation on earth. The Palestinians will not be protected by anyone. Certainly no objective investigation will find Israel guilty of war-crimes whilst finding Palestine is innocent. It will be ridiculed and dismissed if they do - giving the US the edge they need to protect Israel.

Like I said, the ICC tactic could backfire badly as the various Palestinian supporters (like yourself I presume) suddenly find they are supporting convicted war criminals...

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

I already said it would be a valid target - in the same way a political HQ or a power station or a factory would be a valid target.

You see how you have to keep moving the goalposts to try make your point? It is because the point isn't very good.

No it wouldn't

http://m.hrw.org/news/2014/08/10/gaza-widespread-impact-power-plant-attack

“If there were one attack that could be predicted to endanger the health and well-being of the greatest number of people in Gaza, hitting the territory’s sole electricity plant would be it,” said Eric Goldstein, deputy Middle East and North Africa director. “Deliberately attacking the power plant would be a war crime.”

No, not necessarily. Much of Israeli actions have been extremely questionable at best. You haven't been able to actually identify one but that doesn't mean it is not the case.

However, as an organisation that largely holds to and adheres to the Geneva convention and rule of law, they will come out far ahead of the coalition of Palestinian terrorist groups that run the Gaza Strip and Hamas and routinely commit war crimes as a cynical tactic. As I noted already, Israel can count on the protection of the United States - the single most powerful nation on earth. The Palestinians will not be protected by anyone. Certainly no objective investigation will find Israel guilty of war-crimes whilst finding Palestine is innocent. It will be ridiculed and dismissed if they do - giving the US the edge they need to protect Israel.

Deliberately bombing power plants and civilian areas is a war crime, you may not want to believe that but it is. As for the US? They are not the power house you think they are, if an Israeli is convicted of a war crime and he is arrested in a country that is a member of the ICC then the Americans wont do or say a thing about it.

Like I said, the ICC tactic could backfire badly as the various Palestinian supporters (like yourself I presume) suddenly find they are supporting convicted war criminals...

Yes i support the innocent Palestinian people who are being treated like prisoners and suffering at the hands of the Zionist regime.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

I already said it would be a valid target - in the same way a political HQ or a power station or a factory would be a valid target.

You see how you have to keep moving the goalposts to try make your point? It is because the point isn't very good.



No, not necessarily. Much of Israeli actions have been extremely questionable at best. You haven't been able to actually identify one but that doesn't mean it is not the case.

However, as an organisation that largely holds to and adheres to the Geneva convention and rule of law, they will come out far ahead of the coalition of Palestinian terrorist groups that run the Gaza Strip and Hamas and routinely commit war crimes as a cynical tactic. As I noted already, Israel can count on the protection of the United States - the single most powerful nation on earth. The Palestinians will not be protected by anyone. Certainly no objective investigation will find Israel guilty of war-crimes whilst finding Palestine is innocent. It will be ridiculed and dismissed if they do - giving the US the edge they need to protect Israel.

Like I said, the ICC tactic could backfire badly as the various Palestinian supporters (like yourself I presume) suddenly find they are supporting convicted war criminals...

Were that the case the colonisation of Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank would not have taken place. In fact Israel specifically refuses to apply the Geneva convention in relation to the occupied territories.

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No it wouldn't

Deliberately bombing power plants and civilian areas is a war crime, you may not want to believe that but it is.

No, its not. The British regularly celebrate the Dam Busters. Only a child has a view of war where only soldiers die and the factories, power and infrastructure that underpins the enemy army is immune.

As for the US? They are not the power house you think they are, if an Israeli is convicted of a war crime and he is arrested in a country that is a member of the ICC then the Americans wont do or say a thing about it.

They are, and they wont be because the country knows they will.

No one will protect the Palestinians.

Yes i support the innocent Palestinian people who are being treated like prisoners and suffering at the hands of the Zionist regime.

Do you support the guilty Palestinian people as well?

@Nodin

Were that the case the colonisation of Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank would not have taken place. In fact Israel specifically refuses to apply the Geneva convention in relation to the occupied territories.

What aspect of the GC and the situation in the West Bank makes you think it is incompatible with the Israeli policy to date?

karma_

Sand wrote: »

No, its not. The British regularly celebrate the Dam Busters. Only a child has a view of war where only soldiers die and the factories, power and infrastructure that underpins the enemy army is immune.



They are, and they wont be because the country knows they will.

No one will protect the Palestinians.



Do you support the guilty Palestinian people as well?

@Nodin


What aspect of the GC and the situation in the West Bank makes you think it is incompatible with the Israeli policy to date?

You talked yourself into a corner here mate, that's ok, happens to us all.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

What aspect of the GC and the situation in the West Bank makes you think it is incompatible with the Israeli policy to date?

The largest would be the movement of Israeli civillians into the area, the provision of incentives to encourage same. A lax attitude towards settler violence, discrimination with regards planning of housing and resource allocation, collective punishment and destruction of property would also, as far as I understand it, be in breach.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

No, its not. The British regularly celebrate the Dam Busters. Only a child has a view of war where only soldiers die and the factories, power and infrastructure that underpins the enemy army is immune.



They are, and they wont be because the country knows they will.

No one will protect the Palestinians.



Do you support the guilty Palestinian people as well?

@Nodin


What aspect of the GC and the situation in the West Bank makes you think it is incompatible with the Israeli policy to date?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth treaty in 1949

Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorismare prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishment is a war crime.

Art. 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

The dambusters

Before the ratification of the fourth Geneva convention

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise

Operation Chastise was an attack on German dams carried out on 16–17 May 1943 

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory

Israel is not the occupying power in Gaza, or the West Bank for that matter.

And "to the fullest extent of means available to it" an "with the cooperation of national and local authorities" gives them the gap through which to drive a cart and horse. Hamas are the national and local authorities...

Yeah, the people they are at war with.

So not war crime.

The GC are designed to limit the worst aspects of war - they are not designed to offer a cynical shield to terrorist groups whilst they carry out attacks - indeed perfidy is a specific warcrime. They aren't going to fit so well with the Palestinian cause in that regard.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

Israel is not the occupying power in Gaza, or the West Bank for that matter.

And "to the fullest extent of means available to it" an "with the cooperation of national and local authorities" gives them the gap through which to drive a cart and horse. Hamas are the national and local authorities...

Yeah, the people they are at war with.

So not war crime.

The GC are designed to limit the worst aspects of war - they are not designed to offer a cynical shield to terrorist groups whilst they carry out attacks - indeed perfidy is a specific warcrime. They aren't going to fit so well with the Palestinian cause in that regard.

Can Palestinian people enter and leave Gaza when they wish? Israel even put the people on a diet to ensure they were kept weak. Israel is an illegal occupying force who consistently commit atrocities and war crimes against civilians. The sooner the world starts sanctions against them and arresting the people who commit these crimes the better. Don't bother posting more "America wont let them" BS because your hero worship of them is severely misplaced.

Just a little Samba

Sand wrote: »

Israel is not the occupying power in Gaza, or the West Bank for that matter.

The UN, and pretty much every government on earth besides the US, disagree with you.

You're deluded.

FTA69

Sand wrote: »

Israel is not the occupying power in Gaza, or the West Bank for that matter.

.

If Israel aren't the occupying power in the West Bank I'd love to know who those soldiers were who detained me on two occasions in Qalandia and Hebron. The vast majority of the West Bank is controlled exclusively by the Israeli military with the remainder being divided between A and B class areas where Palestinians are given partial or total control. On top of this, the Israeli military retains controls of the roads, presides over Israeli-only roads and also facilitates the continuing flow of illegal settlers.

To try and suggest the Israelis don't occupy the West Bank is simply disingenuous in the extreme to be honest.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

You cant be interested in an actual discussion if the above is your actual view.

Someone states an opinion and you simply attack it without engaging with its content?

Seems pretty obvious who isn't interested in an actual discussion :rolleyes:

Regardless, you seem to support settlement construction / expansion (if I am incorrect about this please correct me) - so how do you justify the displacement of innocent civilians who have nothing to do with conflict by people who do so simply because they have bigger guns and are able to threaten people?

Or do you imagine that East Jerusalem and the West Bank were lifeless wastelands which contained no human inhabitants at all before 1967?

By transferring citizens into these lands and claiming sovereignty over them without first asking for a mandate from the people already living there, Israel acted in an undemocratic manner. It's as simple as that.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Israel is not the occupying power in Gaza, or the West Bank for that matter.

..........

Pull the other one.

Sand

FTA69 wrote: »

To try and suggest the Israelis don't occupy the West Bank is simply disingenuous in the extreme to be honest.

To try and suggest they occupy Palestinian areas "with the cooperation of national and local authorities" as envisaged under the GC is disingenuous. Pointing out that they are actually fighting the "national and local authorities" is just realism.

Like I said, the ICC will be laughed off if it approves the actions of Hamas whilst condemning Israel. So it will be the Palestinians who have the most to fear from war crimes investigations.

Someone states an opinion and you simply attack it without engaging with its content?

The opinion was the content. I engaged with it. If someone is "baffled" and "sickened" by view different to their own, they are hardly of an open mind to discuss or listen to that view. That's my opinion.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

To try and suggest they occupy Palestinian areas "with the cooperation of national and local authorities" as envisaged under the GC is disingenuous. Pointing out that they are actually fighting the "national and local authorities" is just realism.

Like I said, the ICC will be laughed off if it approves the actions of Hamas whilst condemning Israel. So it will be the Palestinians who have the most to fear from war crimes investigations.



The opinion was the content. I engaged with it. If someone is "baffled" and "sickened" by view different to their own, they are hardly of an open mind to discuss or listen to that view. That's my opinion.

If Israel has so little to fear then why did it beg the Americans to intervene and try to stop the ICC from accepting the Palestinians from joining?

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If Israel has so little to fear then why did it beg the Americans to intervene and try to stop the ICC from accepting the Palestinians from joining?

As I mentioned several pages ago, probably because Israel wants recognition of Palestinian statehood to be a concession they can offer in negotiations. So they are against anything which might lead to Palestine achieving recognised statehood outside negotiations?

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

As I mentioned several pages ago, probably because Israel wants recognition of Palestinian statehood to be a concession they can offer in negotiations. So they are against anything which might lead to Palestine achieving recognised statehood outside negotiations?

Well that didn't quite work out to their little plan did it? I thought the all powerful America would always come to Israel's rescue? All they had to do was ask and America would make sure nothing would go against Israel's wishes :rolleyes: