Israel's Crimes Against Humanity

dante · Dec 29, 2008

TheMontashu said:
Not true, most Palestinians want Israel destroyed.

As a note to all involved in this discussion, can we knock off the blanket statements, generalizations, or anecdotal evidence? Certainly some Palestinians want to push Israel off the map, and some right-wing Israelis (notably those in the settlements) want to eliminate any chance of a state called "Palestine", but unless you can come up with some evidence beyond people you know / have talked to, please don't extrapolate from them to try to gauge the interests and desires of millions of people.

Thank you. :cheers:

dante · Dec 29, 2008

Samirol said:
Wrong, civilians are being targeted because of Hamas rocket attacks. They are being collectively punished, a war crime, for something they didn't do.

Palestinians are plain civilians being targeted and collectively punished, they are people, not subhuman.

Israel is in control of the Gaza strip, they aren't independent by any means. They are a walled off ghetto.

So, uh, you have proof that civilians are specifically being targeted in this assault? You might want to bring that before the UN, then, since no one else has that type of information. All current evidence is that Israel is targeting Hamas and that civilians are collateral damage. If you're going to talk about the ramifications of civilians being killed, don't try to claim to know Israeli intent unless you have far greater evidence than is being put out by anyone else right now.

Secondly, controlling the borders != controlling what is going on in Gaza. Hamas is in control of the Gaza Strip, and Hamas, the PA, and Israel all agree on that aspect.

Silver · Dec 29, 2008

dante said:
So, uh, you have proof that civilians are specifically being targeted in this assault? You might want to bring that before the UN, then, since no one else has that type of information. All current evidence is that Israel is targeting Hamas and that civilians are collateral damage. If you're going to talk about the ramifications of civilians being killed, don't try to claim to know Israeli intent unless you have far greater evidence than is being put out by anyone else right now.

Would you consider blowing up a busy shopping mall in America because it had a couple of murderers in it justified?

What about a plane that had Henry Kissinger flying on it? Surely a little of the expected collateral damage is worth killing a war criminal, right?

TheMontashu · Dec 29, 2008

Samirol said:
I don't think declaring war against Israel was the right solution, but it basically amounted to stealing land.

Israel was given the land where there were Jews, the Arabs areas became Palestine. It was of course the PALESTINIANS that refused the partition plan, and the Arab world that thusly invaded. Israeli boarders have only expanded after a war that they didn't start until 1967, which was still a preemptive strike (not preventive like we are doing in Iraq but preemptive, so they were about to be invaded.) Israel has also tried to return on several occasions, to give up control of the west bank and gaza.

TheMontashu · Dec 29, 2008

Samirol said:
By dropping bombs in areas where they know there will be massive civilian casualties, they are intentionally killing civilians. Also, hitting a university is completely unacceptable.

Israel controls imports, exports, power, food, fuel, etc., they have massive control over the welfare of the civilians in the Gaza strip.

In 7 years of Qassam rocket attacks, only 29 people have died. Massive threat to national security there

While Qassams have ONLY killed 29 people, they have injured many more. Not to mention the HUNDREDs of innocent people that have died in suicide bombings.

Oh and last time I checked, blowing yourself up on a bus full of school children is a hell of allot worse than blowing up a bomb making facility and killing civilians as an after effect. Not saying the collateral damage is O.K. but having innocent people die as collateral damage is a hell of allot better than having your intent to kill innocent people.

dante · Dec 29, 2008

Silver said:
Would you consider blowing up a busy shopping mall in America because it had a couple of murderers in it justified?

What about a plane that had Henry Kissinger flying on it? Surely a little of the expected collateral damage is worth killing a war criminal, right?

Re-read my post, and note the word TARGETED.

If you want to have a discussion that debates the merits of an operation vs the damage that is done to the civilian populace, fine, it's an excellent debate to have. It brings up who is responsible for collateral damage when militants put military hardware near civilian structures, and whether the target is worth the cost. That is NOT the same as claiming Israel directly targeted civilians.

Lastly, do you have evidence of what percentage of innocents vs militants were killed, and the value of the targets being destroyed? I certainly don't, at least not from a credible source. Israel will claim 7 militants, 1 rocket launcher, and one old donkey, while the Palestinians will claim that a busload of Girl Scouts were hit on their way home from Sunday School.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xdvaKhaCBZA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xdvaKhaCBZA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

(according to the IDF) - This shows an underground Qassam launcher, located right next to a civilian building. You see the target arrow, you see the explosion, and the circle shows a misfired Qassam rocket that is launched by the explosion.

So debate the worthiness of this attack, and the possible collateral damage it caused to the people in the building next to the rocket launcher, along with whether Hamas / IJ bears some responsibility for putting military hardware next to a civilian building, but lets knock off the sweeping generalities and BS-non-provable statements like "Israel is targeting civilians". There's more than enough actual debatable parts to this situation without resorting to 8th-grader mentality.

:cheers:

edit: arrows and circles...

TheMontashu · Dec 29, 2008

Samirol said:
It wasn't given by the people living there, it was given by people thousands of miles away without any Arab input.

Israel wants to give up control because they took all the water out, they already squeezed out the resources that they wanted.

In 1948 the places that had more at the time had more Jews, were given to the Jews, not places that would in the future have more Jews. I also feel ZERO pity that the Arabs didn't give there input, and you know damn well the Arabs refused to send a delegation to the UN and you know damn well that there input was asked for.

Source the whole water taking thing, I have never even heard that claim be made and sounds a bit absurd to me

TheMontashu · Dec 29, 2008

Samirol said:
Oops, mixed up West Bank and Gaza strip water theft, but those address the water issues with Israel.

The King-Crane Commission found that 90% of Palestine's inhabitants didn't want a Jewish state in Palestine. What you are saying is similar to dividing up parts of Texas because they have a high population of Hispanics.

The Arab League gave their input, and it was discarded.

Again another poor analogy trying to oversimplify the situation. Most of the Hispanics are in Texas cause they want to be part of the US, and there is no one running around screaming about how they need to be there own country.

I really don't see your fundamental problem with Israel, the country was pretty segregated when the partition plan was created, it wasn't a great solution but it did give the Arab's there land and the Jews the land that they were on. Not to mention the fact that Arabs living in Israel have the same rights and freedoms as a Jew, as well as having more rights than in any Arab nation on earth.

The reason the Arab's opinion wasn't heard is because one, they REFUSED TO SEND A DELEGATION TO THE UN, they are the ones who voted to create the state of Israel, had the Arabs made there case to the Voting body things might not have gone the way they were. You have to remember the creation of Israel did not pass with a huge majority vote.
Second, the Arabs were asking for all the Jews to be kicked off the land (regardless if they had been there for 50-100 2 thousand years) and have it all to themselves. That was at the time and continues to be a totally unreasonable demand.

Silver · Dec 29, 2008

dante said:
Re-read my post, and note the word TARGETED.

If you want to have a discussion that debates the merits of an operation vs the damage that is done to the civilian populace, fine, it's an excellent debate to have. It brings up who is responsible for collateral damage when militants put military hardware near civilian structures, and whether the target is worth the cost. That is NOT the same as claiming Israel directly targeted civilians.

Are you aware of the population density of the Gaza Strip? Dropping bombs on a building is GUARANTEEING civilian casualties. What Israel does is no different from a gangbanger hitting an innocent kid during a drive by. They weren't aiming at the kid, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

TheMontashu · Dec 29, 2008

Silver said:
Are you aware of the population density of the Gaza Strip? Dropping bombs on a building is GUARANTEEING civilian casualties. What Israel does is no different from a gangbanger hitting an innocent kid during a drive by. They weren't aiming at the kid, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

It's still better than aiming at the little kid like the Arabs do.....

Silver · Dec 29, 2008

TheMontashu said:
It's still better than aiming at the little kid like the Arabs do.....

That reminds me of the Abu Ghraib rationale...just because you're doing something that may not be quite as morally odious as the next guy doesn't mean that you're a good person. You're still a murdering asshole, y'know?

ALEXIS_DH · Dec 29, 2008

Silver said:
Are you aware of the population density of the Gaza Strip? Dropping bombs on a building is GUARANTEEING civilian casualties. What Israel does is no different from a gangbanger hitting an innocent kid during a drive by. They weren't aiming at the kid, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

wouldnt shooting rockets and carrying other aggressive military actions FROM such areas be pretty much using human shields???

Silver · Dec 29, 2008

ALEXIS_DH said:
wouldnt shooting rockets and carrying other aggressive military actions FROM such areas be pretty much using human shields???

It's not like they can leave, is it?

$tinkle · Dec 30, 2008

Samirol said:
By dropping bombs in areas where they know there will be massive civilian casualties, they are intentionally killing civilians. Also, hitting a university is completely unacceptable.

i see.
so all one has to do is set up shop near a uni or hospital & voila! - instant immunity from military reciprocity; i could have sworn someone brought up geneva convention & as it relates to the law of armed conflict. i truly hope that wasn't you.

Samirol said:
In 7 years of Qassam rocket attacks, only 29 people have died. Massive threat to national security there

interesting that you find israel guilty of crimes against humanity for - among other things - psychological warfare, but qassam rocket employment (3,000+ to date) should be shrugged off.

do you not see that as inconsistent?

Samirol said:
It wasn't given by the people living there, it was given by people thousands of miles away without any Arab input.

similar to india & pakistan.
still "outraged"?

Silver said:
It's not like they can leave, is it?

as egypt has reminded them

and they need to in order to get any use of their latest legislation:

On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari'a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.

Hamas's endorsement of nailing enemies of Islam to crosses came at the same time it renewed its jihad. Here, too, Hamas wanted to make sure that Christians didn't feel neglected as its fighters launched missiles at Jewish day care centers and schools. So on Wednesday, Hamas lobbed a mortar shell at the Erez crossing point into Israel just as a group of Gazan Christians were standing on line waiting to travel to Bethlehem for Christmas.

source

but, by all means: give them a state

rockwool · Dec 30, 2008

First, it might be in its place to point out that I support the Jews in their right to live in the holy land, both two peoples belong to this area, and nobody should be in the sea.

Then I'd like to point out a few key things:

The U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, former Princeton University law professor Richard Falk, calls what Israel is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza “a crime against humanity.” Falk, who is Jewish, has condemned the collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza as “a flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” He has asked for “the International Criminal Court to investigate the situation, and determine whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders responsible for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law.”

* Nobody should be above scrutiny of their actions, specially not those who boast of being a democratic state.
* Considering Falk's position with the UN and his backround as a law proffessor and a jew, his words should count for something.

Article 33 that R. Falk refered to:

"terrorism

Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to collective penalties or any other measures of intimidation or terrorism. (Convention IV, Art. 33)"

and

"intimidation

Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to collective penalties or any other measures of intimidation or terrorism. (Convention IV, Art. 33)"

The Palestinians are occupied, the Isrealis are not, so therefore the situations of the two are not comparable.

Conserning:

"area bombardments

Area bombardments occur when a number of clearly separated military objectives are treated as a single military objective, and where there is a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects. ( Protocol I, Art. 51 , Sec. 5a)

Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. ( Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)

An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)"

Conserning:

"civilian population

The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 2)

The civilian population is protected under the Geneva Conventions and these protections are not affected by the presence of combatants in the population. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 3)

These protections include the right to be free from attacks, reprisals, acts meant to instill terror, and indiscriminate attacks. Civilian populations must not be used as civilian shields. (Protocol I, Art. 51)"

"civilian property

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military property and attack only military property. (Protocol I, Art. 48)"

Clearly, civilians live in those areas which means that they and their property mustn't be bombed. They aren't shields, they live there. In this situation, a ground attack is Israels only sollution to a just act of war.

Conserning:

"collateral damage

Weapons, projectiles and methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering are prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 35, Sec. 2)"

Grave Breaches taht Israel is currently or constantly doing:

Grave breaches of the Conventions and Protocols are war crimes.

Attacking a person who is hors de combat. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)

Practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4)

Unlawful transfer, deportation or confinement of civilians, willful killing, hostage taking and torture. (Protocol IV, Art. 147)

Attacking cultural objects when they’re not located near a military target or used for the war effort. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4D)

Depriving civilians who are under the control of an enemy power of the right to a fair trial (Convention IV, Art. 147)

Depriving combatants, prisoners of war, refugees, or medical or religious personnel of a fair trial. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4e)

Bombed mosque's, 10.000 prisoners of whom non or only a few have been trialed, and don't forget that the master plan of the Israelis being the Transfer; ethnic clensing.

Conserning:

human shields

Prisoners of war may not be used as human shields, to protect points or areas from attack. (Convention III, Art. 23)

In international conflicts, civilians may not be used to protect areas from military operations. (Convention IV, Art. 28 and Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 7)

Conserning:

"humanitarian aid

Relief consignments, equipment and personnel must be able to pass rapidly and freely if the assistance is meant for the civilian population of the opposing side. This includes medicines, religious items, food and clothing. (Convention IV, Art. 23; Protocol I, Art. 70, Sec. 2)

Conserning:

legitimate military targets

Legitimate military targets are those which make an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction, capture or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. (Protocol I, Art. 52. Sec. 2)

If there is any doubt as to whether a place of worship, house, school or other civilian object is used for military purposes, then it will be presumed not to be a legitimate military target. (Protocol I, Art. 52, Sec. 3)

Thus, the university was not a legitimate target.

Conserning:

"medical supplies

In an occupied territory, the occupying power has the responsibility of assuring adequate medical supplies for the population. (Convention IV, Art. 55)

If there is a lack of medical supplies, the occupying power must agree to and support relief efforts by states or humanitarian organizations. (Convention IV, Art. 59)

Conserning:

relief organizations

Military authorities must allow relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, to collect and care for the wounded or sick of any nationality. However, this does not relieve the occupying power of its obligation to care for the wounded and sick. (Convention I, Art. 18)

Relief organizations must receive all necessary facilities for visiting prisoners of war and for distributing relief supplies. The special position of the International Committee of the Red Cross in this field must be recognized and respected at all times. (Convention III, Art. 125)

Relief organizations must be allowed to visit civilians in all areas of international conflict (Convention IV, Art. 30) including internees (Convention IV, Art. 142) and civilian populations of adverse parties (Protocol I, Art. 70, Sec. 2).

Conserning:

war crimes

War crimes are againt the customary laws of war which are applicable in any conflict, regardless of whether the country in question is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. They include the rights listed in the common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Convention I, Article 3) and the basics of human rights law – freedom from torture, mutilation and rape, slavery, and willful killing. Customary law also forbids genocide, crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes.

www.genevaconventions.org

I also want to ad that,
* The blockade that has been going on ever since Hamas was democraticly elected, for 17-18 months now, is an act of war and a Cassus Belli for Palestinian retaliation.

Notice that the rethorics and actions of Israel and the US are the same as those of the Galactic Empire; calling blockades for embargos, et al, when they debate it at the senate, as well as in other scenes in the film.

* It should be undisputed for every one on both sides that Israeli actions in Palestine are breeding hate, as shown in the article in post #1.

* Open up the occupied and Israeli controled territories for scrutiny by organizations and the media, and help both sides take their **** to an international court by impeaching them.

$tinkle · Dec 30, 2008

Samirol said:
One is an act of resistance, the other is an act of oppression, there is a moral difference. There is also a difference in the amount of deaths, suffering, and damage.

i see.
so hamas & co are justified in targeting civilian areas w/ over 3,000 qasaam rockets. in fact, if they improved their weapons to possess guidance systems & started a body count in earnest, they would still be justified, right?

seems to me the good guy to you is the one who has the lesser body count. so if iran handed hamas a nuke & took out tel aviv, would only then hamas be the bad guys?

you do get the whole targeting -vs- collateral (esp wrt human shields or basing military ops from blatant civilian areas, like a university), right?

to be totally ridiculous, let's say various native american tribes had a coordinated uprising & started terrorist activities here in this country based out of their reservations (or mexicans in the sw, or inuits in ak, etc.). is this analogous to gaza? of course it isn't. what do you find makes a distinction with a difference in gaza which insulates us from the charge of hypocrisy?

Samirol said:
They targeted the university, it wasn't collateral damage.

aren't you the least bit curious as to why they did this? don't make me do your homework for you. [hint: the islamic uni was more than just a reading room, halal cafeteria, & prayer rug storage facility]

Samirol said:
Of course I don't like how the UK exploited India and caused millions of deaths, but that isn't for this thread. Being outraged about that is a bit pointless as it is in the past, while Israel's exploitation is going on now.

so beyond lip service, you'd be ok w/ a rape that's already taken place, but not an ongoing one. "sorry your cunt got wrecked far beyond what's happening now, but that's in the past; move along"
interesting.

Samirol said:
Hamas is the representative government, so of course they are in civilian centers.

as are our air bases, barracks, ship yards, etc. i do not follow what you're trying to dismiss.

Samirol said:
I'm against all forms of war except resistance against oppression, which the Palestinian people are currently in.

the japanese weren't oppressing us nor our allies in the '40s. was our participation in wwii as a direct result of their attack on pearl harbor justified?

Samirol said:
edit: I know how you thought that the idea of multiple young children on a hospital bed wasn't likely, but Gaza is completely overwhelmed.

you know damn well my post was to illustrate once again how propaganda - in this case taking the form of staged pictures - is being used to tar israel as blood-thirsty baby killers.

don't front.

JohnE · Dec 30, 2008

This thread will go on longer than the conflict in the middel east...if that is possible.

$tinkle · Dec 30, 2008

Samirol said:
They are justified in striking back, yes. I didn't say that the lesser body count is good, I was pointing out that Israel is doing the oppressing.

history has shown that without exception, when their "oppressive grip" is loosened, it results in suicide & rocket attacks, i.e., terrorism. while it may be less than desirable to "oppress" the palis, to leave their own open to guaranteed lethal assaults is an affront to their own. the gazan gov't (fwiw) is hellbent on the destruction of their own people through their own thick-headedness. you poke the bear, you get the jagged, dry, double-ender

Samirol said:
Where did I even hint that I was okay with the actions done to India, I'm honestly curious. I've reread what I typed multiple times, and I cannot see how you got the idea that I'm fine with it.

"beyond lip service", i wrote. you give the perfunctory "that sucked", but lack any demonstration of passion on similar scale to the gazan conflict. it's not so much a comment to you, but that other kid who dropped in to say that israel didn't have the right to exist. you appeared to piggy-back on it by stating that israel was stood up by a non-arabic 3rd party (britannia), who also was instrumental in the separation of india & pakistan.

i've beat that horse, but as johne pointed out, there's plenty of beating left over israel/palestine.

and in keeping w/ rm tradition, i like to watch.

Samirol said:
I support Native Americans getting more land and independence from the U.S.

but i put the question to you if you'd support violence as a means to an end, and you seem to avoid answering that specific question. re-engage if you care to change my mind about what i believe your double standard. kinda like blacks & same-sex marriage and as it relates to civil rights.

see what i did there? kidwoo does.

Samirol said:
If they wanted to improve their explosives, they would just have to smuggle in a chemistry textbook from the 80s. It was a major cultural symbol of the area, and the bombing only served to crush Gazan moral.

they issue diplomas in anti-israel rocketry. they have pride marches with all the garish displays of "might" attained through their training & assembly at the islamic u

Samirol said:
Japan threatened our assets gained through massive imperialism, so we embargoed them, froze their assets, etc. It wasn't justifiable for us to hold those assets, and it wasn't justifiable for Japan to take those assets. We provoked them through economic warfare, and they responded militarily.

you didn't answer the question. as such, the same assumption holds as previously stated until you state otherwise

Samirol said:
I don't know if it was staged, I don't think it was, but it is a highly probable situation because of the massive hospital overcrowding

why would so many (seemingly) uninjured children be at the hospital? obviously, their parents/guardians took them there; but why? could it be they believe they were safer there? if so, that must mean even gazans have a trust of the israelis certainly not reciprocated. if it's for the purpose of creating human shields, that's a new level of child abuse.

rockwool: geneva convention? really? why does it seemingly apply one way?

$tinkle · Dec 30, 2008

u2b now caving: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/48462

other military videos with similarly scaled carnage still available, however.

rockwool · Dec 30, 2008

Two voices:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7801641.stm

Finally, a month and a half before the elections, Israel takes some action.

I definitely see this as linked, but it's OK, better late than never. What's been happening in Gaza is fantastic. I feel very bad about the man killed in [the Israeli town of] Netivot.

We usually like to vote for someone quite right wing and who actually does something, so definitely not Kadima, and not Labour. So that probably leaves Likud. It's unfortunate that we have to choose by a process of elimination.

The other day my daughter arrived at school in tears. It's only a six minute walk to school, and it was nice weather, but during that walk she had six rocket warnings.

The Arabs are reminding us again that they don't think we have a right to Sderot and they want us out.

Mechi's husband David:

Whenever human life is taken, it's tragic, but when we're talking about murderers who are trying to kill us, it's a big relief.

On the other hand we're convinced that the innocent people who were killed, this is totally the fault of Hamas who use them as human shields.

We believe all life is sacred, so the Hamas regime is at fault.

and

This is a black day in Gaza's history. Never, ever have we had airstrikes of this intensity and not since 1967 have we had this number of victims.

I was holding a workshop for NGO workers on conflict transformation and non-violence, when the strikes began.

We went to the balcony to look; we saw women running in the street, heard screams everywhere, we saw people carrying parts of human beings. It went on and on.

The attack happened as schools were changing shifts, so children were arriving and leaving. My children were evacuated from their school and they're OK, although one of their classmates was hurt.

They saw the blood and screams of other children, so they have had a very difficult time which they won't forget.

We must work together, Hamas and Fatah. The only way to face what is happening is to be united. I didn't ask anyone in the street today "Are you Fatah or Hamas?". Our blood was mixed.

Westy · Dec 30, 2008

JohnE said:
This thread will go on longer than the conflict in the middel east...if that is possible.

I'm sure everyone involved in this thread will accept all the rational points someone else makes and in due time everyone will all come to the same conclusion.

:bonk:

Silver · Dec 30, 2008

$tinkle said:
rockwool: geneva convention? really? why does it seemingly apply one way?

Gaza and the West Bank aren't states.

Why do the mudpeople have the expectation of the obligations of statehood with none of the benefits of it from you while the white people have all the benefits of that statehood with none of the apparent obligations to live up to treaties?

Defenestrated · Dec 30, 2008

Samirol said:
Oh, and of course, flash games!

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/476393#

I managed to kill 54 Palestinians for every Israeli I lost!

dante · Dec 30, 2008

Silver said:
Gaza and the West Bank aren't states.

Why do the mudpeople have the expectation of the obligations of statehood with none of the benefits of it from you while the white people have all the benefits of that statehood with none of the apparent obligations to live up to treaties?

So one side has to follow the GC and one side doesn't? Is this like handicapping a golf game in order to make it fair? One side is more powerful, so we need to relax the rules for the underdog to even things out? Israel can't kill civilians, but Hamas can hide weapons in civilian homes to ensure that they're not destroyed? Hamas can target civilians with rockets, but as long as they do it from population centers Israel can't strike back? Are you serious?

Transcend · Dec 30, 2008

dante said:
So one side has to follow the GC and one side doesn't? Is this like handicapping a golf game in order to make it fair? One side is more powerful, so we need to relax the rules for the underdog to even things out? Israel can't kill civilians, but Hamas can hide weapons in civilian homes to ensure that they're not destroyed? Hamas can target civilians with rockets, but as long as they do it from population centers Israel can't strike back? Are you serious?

That's international law. The only groups bound to the geneva conventions are the nations that signed it. Duh? It is what differentiates a nation state from a rag tag group of terrorists.

Unless of course you are implying Israel is a group of terrorists, in which case, i'd be close to agreeing at this point given their behaviour and their goals.

Silver · Dec 30, 2008

dante said:
So one side has to follow the GC and one side doesn't?

Quite simply, yes. The Palestinians don't have a state, so it's not fair to treat them like they have one when you have obligations that state actors are supposed to fulfill and then fault them when they don't live up to the expectations.

Realistically though, Israel isn't living up to the expectations that I have for a civilized state, and they are killing many more civilians, so in my opinion they are acting worse than a bunch of murderous religious terrorists.

edit: what Transcend said...

dante · Dec 30, 2008

That's funny, because according to the Geneva Convention:

Common Article 2

Article 2 specifies which parties are bound, and under what circumstances.

* That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered;
* That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party";
* That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

ie - if Hamas doesn't abide by the Convention, Israel doesn't have to either. But what's a little international law between friends?

dante · Dec 30, 2008

Silver said:
Quite simply, yes. The Palestinians don't have a state, so it's not fair to treat them like they have one when you have obligations that state actors are supposed to fulfill and then fault them when they don't live up to the expectations.

Realistically though, Israel isn't living up to the expectations that I have for a civilized state, and they are killing many more civilians, so in my opinion they are acting worse than a bunch of murderous religious terrorists.

edit: what Transcend said...

Show me where the GC specifies "State" or "Nation"? It's all about "Parties" that are either signatories to the Convention, or abide by it. You don't automatically get GC protection just by becoming a state. If you want protection under the GC, you have to at the very least abide by it. Claiming one side has to follow it while the other doesn't is blatantly, 100% false.

Silver · Dec 30, 2008

dante said:
Show me where the GC specifies "State" or "Nation"? It's all about "Parties" that are either signatories to the Convention, or abide by it. You don't automatically get GC protection just by becoming a state. If you want protection under the GC, you have to at the very least abide by it. Claiming one side has to follow it while the other doesn't is blatantly, 100% false.

"Parties" are the groups that are signatories on the agreement. Find me a non-nation state that has signed the Geneva Conventions. I don't claim to be a lawyer well versed in International Law, but I think that your claim that the Geneva Conventions apply to individuals is extremely radical.

The point is that the Palestinians aren't bound by the Geneva Convention because they don't have a way to sign it. They aren't considered a state, remember. Israel is.

Or, more simply, Israel can't have it both ways.

dante · Dec 30, 2008

Silver said:
"Parties" are the groups that are signatories on the agreement. Find me a non-nation state that has signed the Geneva Conventions. I don't claim to be a lawyer well versed in International Law, but I think that your claim that the Geneva Conventions apply to individuals is extremely radical.

The point is that the Palestinians aren't bound by the Geneva Convention because they don't have a way to sign it. They aren't considered a state, remember. Israel is.

Or, more simply, Israel can't have it both ways.

Re-read what I posted. If Hamas abides by the GC, Israel has to as well. If Hamas chooses not to abide by it, Israel isn't bound by it either. To claim that for some reason Hamas doesn't have to follow it but Israel does is false.

It wasn't meant to handicap some armies while allowing others to act as they please, it was meant to protect both sides. This is the same reason why the US Supreme Court ruled that the Taliban (being a non-signatory, but following the GC) were entitled to the protection of it. Technically the Taliban were not a recognized government (by anyone other than Pakistan), and therefore they were not a "state". They're similar to Hamas, whose government isn't recognized by anyone either.

In June 2006 the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the applicability of the Geneva Conventions and in particular Common Article 3 to a Guantánamo detainee, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was facing trial on a charge of conspiracy before a special military commission.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762529232_3/geneva_conventions.html

The Bush Administration argued that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were groups and not "states", and therefore not eligible for protection. The Supreme Court disagreed.

I'm just floored that some of you will go out of your way to condone targeting of civilians by one side, and condemn the targeting of military assets (purposely placed in civilian areas) of the other. So far, according to UN figures, out of the 374 killed...

AP said:
Most of the Palestinians killed since Saturday were members of Hamas security forces but the number included at least 64 civilians, according to U.N. figures.

Yes, it's "at least" 64 civilians. But to hear people on here talk, you would think that Israel was actually aiming at the 64 civilians and just happened to hit 310 militants as collateral damage. Israel is doing what it can to avoid civilian casualties, but it still has to protect itself.

Israel's Crimes Against Humanity

Unabomber

Turbo Monkey

Unabomber

Turbo Monkey

find me a tampon

Pourly Tatteued Jeu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu

Unabomber

Turbo Monkey

Pourly Tatteued Jeu

Turbo Monkey

Pourly Tatteued Jeu

find me a tampon

Pourly Tatteued Jeu

find me a tampon

Tirelessly Awesome

find me a tampon

Expert on blowing

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Expert on blowing

Turbo Monkey

filthy rascist

Expert on blowing

Expert on blowing

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

the teste

Turbo Monkey

find me a tampon

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Unabomber

My Nuts Are Flat

find me a tampon

Unabomber

Unabomber

find me a tampon

Unabomber

Turbo Monkey