Israeli Defence Forces

Sparks

After watching the video footage from this evening's "Dispatches" on Channel four, the first question that comes to mind is "Who's going to stop them?" And I thought "Hang on, Israel signed the Treaty of Rome, so why not use the International Criminal Court!" And then I found this on the ratifications status page :

On 28 August 2002, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel, the following communication: ".....in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on 17 July 1998, [...] Israel does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, Israel has no legal obligations arising from its signature on 31 December 2000. Israel requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."

.

Is it just me or are things going from worse to god-awful in terms of international law?

mike65

International law is like sunny weather, we all like to see it but its usually raining...I would'nt say things are getting worse, if anything states are more accountable now than at any point previously, its just that it does'nt feel like that as we are now acutely aware of events that in the past would have passed us by or been know about only through the "misty" lens of newsreel footage/reportage from "far flung places". Now its in your face as it happens and we demand instant redress, so we're set up for a dissapointment.

Mike.

Sparks

I'd have thought that increased accountability would have led to changes

donnie_darko

We are in a terrible period for international law. The neo conservatives in the White House with their Project for a New American Century are setting the geo-political agenda. They will do what they please when they please as do the IDF and there is sweet all we can do about it. Speaking of the IDF, did anyone catch the sickening program on CH 4 last night highlighting the way the IDF murdered some UK journos? Mind you what do you expect from a pig but a grunt?!! Oh dear, they wont like that metaphor - They''l probably bulldoze my house, disappear my family in a measured response to my outrageous comments!!!!

donnie_darko

Sorry Sparks - just heard it was Dispatches I saw last night

Trebor

That was a very good program.

here's an idea why don't the governments all sanction Isreal until they cooperate, but do it outside the UN so America can't veto it

sanvean

I would say that it would need a hell of a lot of power, especially in economic terms. also, the will to back it up. America's emargo of Cuba is done along these lines, with punishments on countries (as far as i know those not members of the EU) that don't fall in line. Not sure how the embargo against South Africa (which was ignored by Israel, quelle surprise) worked, but maybe something along these lines?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Here's why- the US sees Israel as a long-standing traditional ally, and it would be diplomatic suicide to pressure Israel in such a way. It would threaten half a dozen diplomatic initiatives currently on the table, not least the current peace process.

More to the point- the only truly significant trade partner Israel has is the United States- a couple billion dollars in aid and several million dollars in trade. Weapons contracters in the US view Israel as a prime meal ticket, so it's unlikely any real action will be taken. Especially not by a President who doesn't want to rock the boat just a year from asking the electorate to confirm his currently shaky mandate. Taking the nation to war on this scale is a big deal no matter what people think- his advisors are far too shrewd to allow him to stick his neck out any further than he's already done in the course of foreign affairs. He remembers the lessons of his dad- ignoring domestic issues is perilous, and easy to do after successful foreign policy adventures. Given the lack of a challenger, I think we can all expect four more years of Bush- the Democrats have been in disarray for some years now, don't see them getting their act together much.

Hairy Homer

Good Panorama program on BBC last night about the neocons and their influence in the White House at the moment.

Made the point that many of them came from liberal/left wing backgrounds and have brought all that self-righteous presumptuous zeal with them as they cross over to the far-right libertarian point of view.

They sound just like the ex Stickie Eoghan Harris. Or the ex Labour party minister Conor Cruise O'Brien.

Bloody clones.

Corben Dallas

didnt see that programme.

Israel should get out and STAY THE HELL OUT of Palestine. Just yesterday Shar-ron cancelled a Road map to peace meeting(i think in the US?) after the latest suicide bombing to return and plan their retribution for the attack.

And this will prob take the form of Bull Dozing the Bombers Family house (probably housing innocent civilians) and maybe shell a random Palestine area and throw a few in the direction of Yassers Gaff.
<< this is like locking up your entire family and all your relatives for a crime that yur brother committed>>

But what the demolition of those house does (and what Israel doesnt seem to grasp) is that this creates a whole bunch and entire families of suicide bombers who have nothing to live for anymore

The US shoud 'yank' < the Isreali chain and bring them back in line or just cut off all funding from the US.

Interesting thought - ppl think that the UK has pumped a lot of money in Northern Ireland over the years but this is probably a drop in the ocean compared to the Billions if not Trillions pumped into the Isreali state by the US.

vorbis

honestly, what is the point of taking sides in the israeli dispute? Both sides are as bad as each other. Incidentally it was the palenstinians which scuppered this latest peace effort with the suicide bombings. Israel will probably respond with its usually heavy handed tactics. To get a peace process to start there, both sets of allies (America + Syria,Iran) etc will need to bully the sides into agreement.

sanvean

Originally posted by vorbis
Incidentally it was the palenstinians which scuppered this latest peace effort with the suicide bombings.

I think you're making a slight generalisation here. 'The Palestinians'? Who? Hamas? Palestinian Authority? Or maybe it was the Hezbollah coming down from Lebanon.

I don't think it's really a case of taking sides, although it is hard not to do so. What Sharon really really needs to do is
(a) stop making demands which he knows full well the Palestinian Authority could never accept
(b) stop forming governments with radical right-wing zionists (who call the occupied territories the Territories of Samaria, Judea and Gaza)
(c) Allow the new guy (can't remember his name, he has two, right?) some time to actually consolidate power and allow him to form a police force with unrestricted movement to actually be in the position to stop suicide bombers.

So then we'd have a situation where the Palestinian Authority would be able to control suicide bombers, possible make some arrests on Hamas, and the situation would at least calm down, to allow for the possibility of actual peace talks.

Captain Trips

I don't think part (c) above has a hope in hell. For all intents and purposes, it would be akin to Tony Blair blaming Bertie Aherne (and yeah, he is to blame for a lot of ****!) for the IRA.

The groups like Islamic Jihad, etc., are not in power. They quite pparently at independently for there own purposes, right or wrong. What is scary is that the link between the neocons and Israel is so obvious from how Israel tars all Palestinians with the same brush akin to the Neocon Administration's branding any country with a terrorist organisation as "harboring" them (I dropped the U just in case any Americans were reading).

However, this link is very interesting:
http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-11/reg/katsav_says_israel.htm or have a look at Breaking News today in the Irish Times (it was on GPRS/WAP earlier).

As to whether the US regards Israel as a longstanding ally in the ME? I doubt it - if anything, all except the neocons would IMHO regard it as a massive liability. They have done more to rupture any chance of peace in the ME and to stir anti-US sentiment than anything the CIA/OSS has or have done in the past 50 years.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
Israel should get out and STAY THE HELL OUT of Palestine.

Do you mean Palestine as in the West Bank and Gaza or Palestine as in the West Bank and Gaza and Israel itself, which is what the Arabs consider to be Palestine?

Originally posted by vorbis
honestly, what is the point of taking sides in the israeli dispute? Both sides are as bad as each other.

Wrong, the Israelis are morally superior to the Arabs. This is because Israel is being attacked and is fighting a defensive war. It is because the Arabs deliberately target civilians and the Israelis don’t.

To get a peace process to start there, both sets of allies (America + Syria,Iran) etc will need to bully the sides into agreement.

Agreement is not possible when one side is only interested in destroying the other.

You know, I can never understand why it’s so hard for lefties to accept that the Jews aren’t willing to march obediently to their deaths this time around.

Sparks

Wrong, the Israelis are morally superior to the Arabs. This is because Israel is being attacked and is fighting a defensive war. It is because the Arabs deliberately target civilians and the Israelis don’t.

Sorry, but anyone doing what the IDF is doing cannot claim moral superiority.

Agreement is not possible when one side is only interested in destroying the other.
You know, I can never understand why it’s so hard for lefties to accept that the Jews aren’t willing to march obediently to their deaths this time around.

Actually, what's being asked for is not a second holocaust - it's for the IDF not to trundle through the West Bank and Gaza in tanks, shooting the place up with cannon and .50cal's, building illegal settlements and stateing that they will not accept any peace plan that grants palestine soverignty.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
You know, I can never understand why it’s so hard for lefties to accept that the Jews aren’t willing to march obediently to their deaths this time around.

Biffa - I'd like some solid reasoning behind your use of the word "lefties" here. I'd like you to show that there is a direct correlation between people's political ideals and which side they support in the conflict in hand.

Otherwise you're just trolling....and I'm pretty sure you dont want me to come to that conclusion.

jc

sanvean

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Wrong, the Israelis are morally superior to the Arabs. This is because Israel is being attacked and is fighting a defensive war. It is because the Arabs deliberately target civilians and the Israelis don’t.

If he's not trolling, I'd like him to answer (a) how the Israelis are morally superior to the 'arabs', and (b) explain how he can come to the conclusion that the Israelis don't deliberately target civilians. It's akin to saying that the suicide bombers don't target civilians as the 'Jews' are all illegal occupiers :rolleyes:

Agreement is not possible when one side is only interested in destroying the other.

True. Unfortunately, this problem exists in some areas on both sides.

Corben Dallas

Do you mean Palestine as in the West Bank and Gaza or Palestine as in the West Bank and Gaza and Israel itself, which is what the Arabs consider to be Palestine?

i mean the West bank and Gaza strip and all other agreed areas that fall under Palestinian control. The will have to be a Irseali state but there also must be an Independent and self autonomous Palestine

BlackFlag

Originally posted by vorbis
honestly, what is the point of taking sides in the israeli dispute? Both sides are as bad as each other. Incidentally it was the palenstinians which scuppered this latest peace effort with the suicide bombings. Israel will probably respond with its usually heavy handed tactics. To get a peace process to start there, both sets of allies (America + Syria,Iran) etc will need to bully the sides into agreement.

Without being blunt m8 you know fvck all about the middle East if you think that both sides are as bad as each other.....who is the war criminal here????....Aerial Sharon is,if he steps foot in Belgium he will be arrested as a war criminal.....go back to Lebannon 1982 and the massacres.


US and Israel are hypocrites/war mongerers/liars...the facts say so as does many independant TV programmes....
If you still don't believe me I will send you the relavent information.

bonkey

Originally posted by BlackFlag
Without being blunt m8 you know fvck all about the middle East if you think that both sides are as bad as each other

And you apparently know fsck all about the rules here concerning people's right to an opinion, and concerning politeness.

As for your stance....if anyone attempts to excuse inhumane acts on either side because of some perceived moral high ground they wish to attribute to one over the other, then I don't think its a stretch to say that the viewpoint is lacking in objectivity.

Here's a little test : picture an event occurring. fail to specify who was on the giving, and who was on the receiving end, or indeed what the event was about.

If you can condemn the event as being a crime against humanity without further information, then further information does not mitigate the crime.....

Both Israeli's and Palestinians are guilty of such unmitigatable crimes....and in pretty equal measure. Thus, its not a stretch to say that one is as bad as the other.

Of course, I'm sure that no end of supporters of one side or another will say "yes, but...." and present arguments why acts of inhumanity on their chosen side somehow don't count.

Take the act "which doesnt count". Reverse who did what to whom. If it still doesnt count, then your viewpoint is objective. If the nature of the act changes from "acceptable" to "unacceptable", then your justifications are lacking in impartiality.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who feels that one side is somehow "better" than the other in this conflict will fail to pass such a test of objectivity.

jc

sanvean

I don't think anyone is claiming that the Israelis haven't done what you claim they have (apart from, maybe, biffa), but there have been attrocities on both sides. that's the point.

BlackFlag

To -JC
Excuse me who said I was a supporter of "one side"
I am going by what I have witnessed since 1982 imbecile :rolleyes:

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
Sorry, but anyone doing what the IDF is doing cannot claim moral superiority.

Even though what the Palestinians are doing is far worse?

Actually, what's being asked for is not a second holocaust - it's for the IDF not to trundle through the West Bank and Gaza in tanks, shooting the place up with cannon and .50cal's, building illegal settlements and stateing that they will not accept any peace plan that grants palestine soverignty.

Wrong. What is being asked for is the destruction of the state of Israel. There is no limit on the number of Jews that they are willing to kill in order to achieve this aim.

Originally posted by bonkey

Biffa - I'd like some solid reasoning behind your use of the word "lefties" here. I'd like you to show that there is a direct correlation between people's political ideals and which side they support in the conflict in hand.

It’s not a question of supporting one side or the other that annoys me about lefties. It’s the way they try to deny Israelis the right to self-defence by consistently attacking any response they make to acts of Arab terrorism.

Originally posted by sanvean
If he's not trolling, I'd like him to answer (a) how the Israelis are morally superior to the 'arabs'…

a. They are the ones who are being attacked.
b. They don’t deliberately target civilians.
c. They are a democrat state fighting an authoritarian, regressive regime.
d. They restrain themselves in terms of what they are militarily capable of doing to the enemy, and what they actually do to the enemy.

…explain how he can come to the conclusion that the Israelis don't deliberately target civilians. It's akin to saying that the suicide bombers don't target civilians as the 'Jews' are all illegal occupiers

Are you suggesting that Palestinian terrorists should be considered to be as much non-combatants as Israeli civilians? Because that’s what is implied by the above statement.

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
i mean the West bank and Gaza strip and all other agreed areas that fall under Palestinian control. The will have to be a Irseali state but there also must be an Independent and self autonomous Palestine

Well therein lies the problem. Because that’s not what the Arabs consider to be Palestine.

Sparks

Even though what the Palestinians are doing is far worse?

Are you seriously going to sit there and assert that every single palestinian is personally responsible for deaths caused by palestinian terrorists? Because, you realise, that that makes every irish citizen personally responsible for the atrocities the IRA have carried out over the last thirty years...

Wrong. What is being asked for is the destruction of the state of Israel. There is no limit on the number of Jews that they are willing to kill in order to achieve this aim.

Actually, you're incorrect:
1) Who is asking for the destruction of the state of israel?
2) Who is "they"?

It’s not a question of supporting one side or the other that annoys me about lefties. It’s the way they try to deny Israelis the right to self-defence by consistently attacking any response they make to acts of Arab terrorism.

There is a large difference between self-defence and what the IDF is doing in Gaza.

a. They are the ones who are being attacked.
b. They don’t deliberately target civilians.
c. They are a democrat state fighting an authoritarian, regressive regime.
d. They restrain themselves in terms of what they are militarily capable of doing to the enemy, and what they actually do to the enemy.

a) True - however they're not the only ones being attacked.
b) The evidence (eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence and video footage) says otherwise.
c) Their democratic system of government does not mean that they're a liberal, progressive regieme. Remember that Sharon has a court case in an open court to answer to for his actions, and he's determining policy right now...
d) I've seen restraint - what the IDF are doing isn't restraint. IF they did decide to "cut loose" and attack the palestinians all-out, they would be attacked by every arab state in the region, they would lose whatever world opinion support they have, and it would threaten relations with the US. And it's hard to imagine Sharon not resorting to nukes in case of such an attack (by arab neighbours), so we'd see a nuclear exchange in the Middle East. That is why they wait until nightfall to open up with the tanks in Gaza, not morality.

And if the IDF is so morally pure, why do the refuseniks exist?

sanvean

Originally posted by Sparks

2) Who is "they"?

For people like Biffa, 'they' is that united body of 'arabs', with one thought, who are constantly sitting around crying 'death to israel':rolleyes:

Biffa: a 'democratic' state is more than just where a parliament is elected by the people, at least it has become more than that. if this were the case, Iran would be a democratic state. while it is essentially, well we all know different. Israel doesn't and cannot conform to the principles of a 'democratic' state if it is (a) subjugating a people and (b) defying such principles as continuing occupation of land (which you're not really supposed to do according to the UN). You also have the unaccountability of the IDF, the fact that there prime minister was convicted by a (Israeli) court of being unfit to rule in a ministerial position due to his actions in (i think) 1982. how he's allowed to become prime minister is just astonishing. also, as mentioned above, is the fact that he's wanted to stand against charges of genocide. then there's the problem of Moussad, who are perhaps one of the most brutal secret services in the world at the moment. Their actions aren't confined to suspected Palestinian terrorists, but were indicted (by an Israeli court again) of assisting a terrorist campaign in Baghdad during the fifties, in order to scare the prominent Jewish population to leave and join Isreal (something to do with them wanting a Israel to have the largest Jewish population in the Middle East, as Baghdad was something of a threat to the reason d'etre of Israel).

and so on and so forth.

dathi1

It’s not a question of supporting one side or the other that annoys me about lefties. It’s the way they try to deny Israelis the right to self-defence by consistently attacking any response they make to acts of Arab terrorism.

Biffo,
I don't know were u get the idea that everybody who opposes the illegal and immoral occupation of Palestine is a lefty?

dathi1

have to admit though.....this is what they had Christians / Muslims / Hashimites and Jews had before the Zionists invented the first terror group to establish this new state

dathi1

b. They don’t deliberately target civilians.

jez....no they just shoot 12 yr olds live on TV

c. They are a democrat state fighting an authoritarian, regressive regime.

they are a jewish state for jewish people founded on terrorisim by the Zionist stern gang etc.

bonkey

Blackflag has picked up a one-week ban for issuing personal insults.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Wrong, the Israelis are morally superior to the Arabs. This is because Israel is being attacked and is fighting a defensive war. It is because the Arabs deliberately target civilians and the Israelis don’t.

*Bzzzt* Wrong. But thanks for playing "WTF is really going on".

Israel are targetting civilians. If they weren't they wouldn't leave bombs in public places or drop missiles into crowded markets or drop bombs onto apartment blocks just to kill 1-2 people. Or run over people with bulldozers, or bury them alive in thier house because someone in the neighbourhood may of been a terrorist. Or shoot neutral observers, or blow up red cross buildings because they "thought they saw" someone run into it. Or leaving civillan taxi drivers in the middle of no where without food or water and no paperwork (which under thier law allows them to be shot if they leave that stretch of road).

If anything, Israel have the higher scoreboard for deaths of innocent civilians vs terrorists.

and people wonder why the fuk places like Hamas get suicide bombers lining up?

sanvean

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Are you suggesting that Palestinian terrorists should be considered to be as much non-combatants as Israeli civilians? Because that’s what is implied by the above statement.[/url]

No, I was reversing Arab and Jew to show the facile reasoning behind your reasoning.

Also, while some Arabs believe that Palestine should consist of all of Israel, many Jews do too. It's linked to David's Greater Israel, and their desire (tending to focus on far-right parties, as well as in certain sections of orthodox and Hasidic religious movements) is to encompass the territories of Gaza and 'Judea and Samarria' (ie, the West Bank) into Israel, as well as occupying certain areas in Lebanon, Syria (up to Damascus, if I recall correctly) and much of Western Jordan.