Quantcast

Israel's War of Aggression; where are the Christians?

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
LOL!!!


Where are the Christians?
Posted: July 18, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.

First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.

Now, Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon – smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads and the occasional refugee convoy – has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.

The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its airstrikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.

What Israel is up to was described by its army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."

Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.

Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.

Then, Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for the elections and for the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.

The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting, and Hamas militants began launching Qassam rockets over the fence from Gaza into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza and demanded a prisoner exchange.

Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.

Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.

But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.

But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?

When al-Qaida captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why then is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this?

Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?

Britain's diplomatic goal in two world wars was to bring the naive cousins in, to "pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies.

That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.

Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?

Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?

How much must America pay for the education of this man?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?

Because the rest of them are hoping that this is the prelude to the Rapture.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
LordOpie said:
What would that make Tony Blair to Israel?
Irrelevant.

He can't go to the Middle East, Bush won't let him. He's sending Condi, sometime, maybe, once she gets done doing whatever important stuff she's doing. Sitting somewhere scowling, I imagine.
 

spincrazy

I love to climb
Jul 19, 2001
1,529
0
Brooklyn
LordOpie said:
wow, I didn't know America was Israel's lap-dog.

What would that make Tony Blair to Israel?
well, now you know..in case you needed it spelled out for you. Your support of Israel and general disdain for the Palestinians is much like N8's support of the pres just because he's republican. Tony Blair is the US's lapdog.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
spincrazy said:
well, now you know..in case you needed it spelled out for you. Your support of Israel and general disdain for the Palestinians is much like N8's support of the pres just because he's republican. Tony Blair is the US's lapdog.
wow, reading comprehension escape your elementary skill set?

A. I was joking. Israel is America's ME pitbull (as opposed to lap-dog). No way does America take orders from anyone. BOOYAH!

3. You can search, but will never find a post by me that disdains palestinians. I have always been sympathetic to the average Palestinian who's caught in the crossfire. I do hate terrorists and some Palestinians are terrorists, so ya know, reading comprehension.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,261
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas.....
what´s up with that recurring argument??
the washington sniper didnt get jail for being black, he got jail for the sniping thing....
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
ALEXIS_DH said:
what´s up with that recurring argument??
the washington sniper didnt get jail for being black, he got jail for the sniping thing....
Actually the whole EU is punishing the Palestinians for democraticaly electing Hamas to government.
All aid from the EU is held in until Hamas recognizes Israel as a state. There has at the same time been no pressure on Israel to recognize Palestine.
Israel is withholding Palestinian tax incomes from exports through Israeli ports (because they're not allowed their own air/ports) of about 50milion dollars monthly.

When facts are presented about this conflict, it shows how rediculously biased the western world is towards Israel..
 

goofy

Monkey
Mar 20, 2004
472
0
olney md.
rockwool said:
Actually the whole EU is punishing the Palestinians for democraticaly electing Hamas to government.
All aid from the EU is held in until Hamas recognizes Israel as a state. There has at the same time been no pressure on Israel to recognize Palestine.
Israel is withholding Palestinian tax incomes from exports through Israeli ports (because they're not allowed their own air/ports) of about 50milion dollars monthly.

When facts are presented about this conflict, it shows how rediculously biased the western world is towards Israel..
What he is saying is that the Palestines elected Hamas
(an open terrorist group that doesn't care how many civilians it kills on either side, it's own or Isreals) and because of this the Palestinians have lost favor with most governments around the world to get alot of aid that was going their way stopped.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,261
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
rockwool said:
Actually the whole EU is punishing the Palestinians for democraticaly electing Hamas to government.
not for electing hamas. its for electing a group that keeps criminal action.

All aid from the EU is held in until Hamas recognizes Israel as a state. There has at the same time been no pressure on Israel to recognize Palestine.
that is not true. its been covered in the oslo accords, thru letters of recognition.
then, the later camp david 2000 where palestinian sovereignity was recognized again, and later, with the gaza pullout.

When facts are presented about this conflict, it shows how rediculously biased the western world is towards Israel..
are you sure about that bias???
you have made some commentaries that make me wonder on your "unbiased sources".
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
ALEXIS_DH said:
you have made some commentaries that make me wonder on your "unbiased sources".
He posts his opinions, unsupported atnd completely false... like Israel not recognizing Palestine. It's obvious that he's got some hate in him and he's just pushing his agenda.

He's sofa king we todd ed.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,920
2,886
Pōneke
LordOpie said:
He posts his opinions, unsupported atnd completely false... like Israel not recognizing Palestine.
You -> :nuts: <- Reality

Israel may say they recognise Palestine, but look what they are doing in reality. Oh, I forgot, for some reason you can't do that in this situation. :wonky2:
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,920
2,886
Pōneke
Opie, look at this:

http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3260.jpg

Do you see how all the areas where Palestinians actually live are all completely seperated? Do you see how if the Palestinians need to get anywhere they are forced to cross Israeli check points, queueing for hours at a time and often refused progress for no reason? Do you see that in fact, they live in the equivalent of prison ghettos surrounded by lines of Israeli troops "in their own land"? On top of this Israel regularly imposes day long kerfews on the residents of these areas meaning they cannot even leave their homes.

The 'recognition' of Palestine is a joke. The Palestinians cannot trade, cannot move about with anything close to freedom in their 'own land'. Unemployment is like 60% because business, hell anything approaching normal life is next to impossible, Israel regualarly moves in and demolishes random houses , and basically these people live like sh1t - 'in their own land'.

You've shown again and again your complete lack of understanding of this. It's lame.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
One big thing that a lot of people don't seem to remember is that Hezbollah and Hamas are set up, to my understanding, a lot like the IRA. They have political and military wings.

So when people say, "Why would they elect Hamas?" they apparently have no idea that Hamas is the de facto provider of social services in Gaza and the West Bank. Fatah was funneling off cash at an amazing rate for their own uses, and I don't think Israel is running free health clinics...
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,261
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
Changleen said:
Opie, look at this:

http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3260.jpg

Do you see how all the areas where Palestinians actually live are all completely seperated? Do you see how if the Palestinians need to get anywhere they are forced to cross Israeli check points, queueing for hours at a time and often refused progress for no reason? Do you see that in fact, they live in the equivalent of prison ghettos surrounded by lines of Israeli troops "in their own land"? On top of this Israel regularly imposes day long kerfews on the residents of these areas meaning they cannot even leave their homes.

The 'recognition' of Palestine is a joke. The Palestinians cannot trade, cannot move about with anything close to freedom in their 'own land'. Unemployment is like 60% because business, hell anything approaching normal life is next to impossible, Israel regualarly moves in and demolishes random houses , and basically these people live like sh1t - 'in their own land'.

You've shown again and again your complete lack of understanding of this. It's lame.
that is a consequence of the insecurity of the region, that dates back not to 67, but from before 48....
you speak like if that was a non-issue, or a negligible concern.....

the documentary and you talk like if israel one day decided, out of nothing, to merrily enter the west bank and started popping roadblocks for the kicks, and that was the beggining of everything...

do you think israel would spend what it spends to "block palestinians from walking from A to B for no good reason"???
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
goofy said:
What he is saying is that the Palestines elected Hamas
(an open terrorist group that doesn't care how many civilians it kills on either side, it's own or Isreals) and because of this the Palestinians have lost favor with most governments around the world to get alot of aid that was going their way stopped.
The US and Israel calling Hamas terrorists is like Son of Sam cursing a drunk driver for beeing a killer.

ALEXIS_DH said:
not for electing hamas. its for electing a group that keeps criminal action.

that is not true. its been covered in the oslo accords, thru letters of recognition.
then, the later camp david 2000 where palestinian sovereignity was recognized again, and later, with the gaza pullout.

are you sure about that bias???
you have made some commentaries that make me wonder on your "unbiased sources".
Yeah, like an occupation by its selfe isn't a criminal action. Only allowing about two hours per week of running water, curfues, collective punishment, you name it..

What has been covered in the Oslo accords? That Israel recognized Palestine while the Palestinians didn't recognize them back?
Camp David? Thats a nice example of the Israeli good will.
Here are some of the terms of 2000 Camp David proposal:
*85% of West Bank
*No Control of the Boarders
*No Control of the Airspace
*No Control over the Natural Resourses (fresh water)
*No Dismantling of the Settlements and the Roadsystem that binds them
*West Bank Broken Up to at least 4-5 Pieces
*Still have to Go Through Check Points
*Israel did Not offer Palestinians Unempieded Access to Holy Sites
*Israel did Not offer any Sollution to the 3 million Refugees
*Israel Maintains Strategic Interest over Hilltops, Water, Agricultural Land

The "recognission" Israel gave Palestine was about them having their own national anthem, stamps, flag...y'know the important things in life.
US media reported Camp David as a "generous peace offer" and the refusal of Arafat as an act of violence! Is that were you get your positive and fair view on Camp David from??

I repeat: When facts are presented about this conflict, it shows how rediculously biased the western world is towards Israel.
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
LordOpie said:
He posts his opinions, unsupported atnd completely false... like Israel not recognizing Palestine. It's obvious that he's got some hate in him and he's just pushing his agenda.

He's sofa king we todd ed.
LardOpie, whats the bug up your ass? Lost your Prima Nocte nobility rights in Scotland? Stop lashing out negativity around you.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
Israel invaded Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, and did not relinquish control back to their owners (Egypt and Jordan, respectively).

The Israelis have now, for the past 40 years, been settling in the West Bank and Gaza to for their own economic and "religious" good, and they're pushing out and coming into conflict with Palestinians. Hence, Israel ghettomatized the Palestinian people (sound familiar?). It's not a difficult concept to get around, Alexis and Loopie.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,261
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
rockwool said:
Yeah, like an occupation by its selfe isn't a criminal action.
it is not.
whether it is, or not is dependant on the context.
perfectly legal exemptions are accepted for defensive wars (buffer zones), and sometimes as a form of reparation.

Only allowing about two hours per week of running water, curfues, collective punishment, you name it..

What has been covered in the Oslo accords? That Israel recognized Palestine while the Palestinians didn't recognize them back?
Camp David? Thats a nice example of the Israeli good will.
Here are some of the terms of 2000 Camp David proposal:
*85% of West Bank
*No Control of the Boarders
*No Control of the Airspace
*No Control over the Natural Resourses (fresh water)
*No Dismantling of the Settlements and the Roadsystem that binds them
*West Bank Broken Up to at least 4-5 Pieces
*Still have to Go Through Check Points
*Israel did Not offer Palestinians Unempieded Access to Holy Sites
*Israel did Not offer any Sollution to the 3 million Refugees
*Israel Maintains Strategic Interest over Hilltops, Water, Agricultural Land

The "recognission" Israel gave Palestine was about them having their own national anthem, stamps, flag...y'know the important things in life.
US media reported Camp David as a "generous peace offer" and the refusal of Arafat as an act of violence! Is that were you get your positive and fair view on Camp David from??

I repeat: When facts are presented about this conflict, it shows how rediculously biased the western world is towards Israel.
about the camp david offers.
israel got the west bank from jordan in 67, in a war an arab alliance started. that alone grants israel a legal the right to be in the west bank, since it can be rightly argued a war reparation or you can cite the security threats coming from there. jordan relinquished any further claim to the west bank in the 80s.
now, be realistic. why would israel have to let go something it is not obliged to do?? why would it let go something that can turn against its own security?.
you can say, palestinian have a right of self determination. and yes you are right... but when you reject a partition plan (the very same partition plan that gives the borders of a palestinian state they now demand) start a war, you basically put that right up for grabs.
do you know what is the legal status of the green line?

if you want to argue the right of return, we can do it in another thread.
i dont believe there is a "right of return" for palestinians in the "citizenship" kinda way. israeli jus sanguini based immigration laws are perfectly legal and within the same rights exercised by germany, switzerland and countries with similar laws.....
i believe israel liability is limited to reparation on a case per case basis, as deemed by excesses of the absentee property law. and the means to do so, exist since the early 70s in israel, and thousands of people have receive proper compensation. (the number being specially relevant since 1900s palestine was pretty much feudal).
compare that to the "right of return" (or even to proper compensation) of sephardim and mizhari jews fleeing arab countries.
the legal status of that is hard to argue against. basically the right of return, on first instance, from a legal pov, is a no-go. thats without even mentioning the obvious security issues....

you mention the facts and how they are ridiculously biased.. yet you keep making conviniently incomplete statements....
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,920
2,886
Pōneke
Alexis, the history of the region is very complex - any statement one can make can be said to be incomplete. I understand where you are coming from, but I simply think that over the last 50 or 60 years, since the creation of Israel after WW2, Israel has been the agressor for the most part, and largely created the situation it has found itself in today. I've tried to find examples of when they've been genuinely altruistic and I basically can't. Now, starting from the capture of 2 soldiers and the death of 1, we have a situation where Israel has escalled the conflict out of hand (as they often have) and cliams to be defending itself (as it almost always does) but has killed nearly 300 civilians have have absolutely nothing to do with the situation. That's just wrong.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
ALEXIS_DH said:
that is a consequence of the insecurity of the region, that dates back not to 67, but from before 48....
you speak like if that was a non-issue, or a negligible concern.....

the documentary and you talk like if israel one day decided, out of nothing, to merrily enter the west bank and started popping roadblocks for the kicks, and that was the beggining of everything...

do you think israel would spend what it spends to "block palestinians from walking from A to B for no good reason"???
Israel did have good reason to enter the West Bank but as you say that was then. This is now and Israel is refusing to leave; they could have peace with the Palestinians if they left, but they don't want to.

That is a cue for you (or Opie) to say "Well, the Palestinians could have had peace at the Camp David accords" and you'd be right but what you would fail to point out (or possible even be aware of) is that the Palestinians would not have got back all of the occupied territories, just the bits Israel did not want. So they are left with a tiny amount of land to call their state.

Sinai and Egypt demonstrate how peace can be achieved, Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon are demonstrations of how it can be avoided.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,261
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
Changleen said:
Alexis, the history of the region is very complex - any statement one can make can be said to be incomplete. I understand where you are coming from, but I simply think that over the last 50 or 60 years, since the creation of Israel after WW2, Israel has been the agressor for the most part, and largely created the situation it has found itself in today.
from 48 and on, (besides 56) i dont believe israel could be considered the "agressor" of the region. as a matter of fact institutionalized warfare between states started when israel was born, almost single handedly by the arab negative over the UN partition plan.

you&#180;d have to account the islamic revolutions and growing islamic fundamentalism/nationalism over the last 50 years also. which does not have a causality relationship with israel.

fluff said:
Israel did have good reason to enter the West Bank but as you say that was then. This is now and Israel is refusing to leave; they could have peace with the Palestinians if they left, but they don't want to.
the reason persists. an unmonitored west bank is still a threat to israel.
besides, israel won the land in a defensive war. legally and morally, it has a right for a compensation for the 67 and 73 wars. hoping israel will renounce a right it has fairly gained doesnt make much sense. specially when jerusalem is inside.

israel wont leave jerusalem unless they get erased from the map, and if that happens, the whole middle east would be rubble anyways... so a palestinian claim over jerusalem is pretty delusional.

and lastly, there are no legal "borders" so to speak. legally, the west bank is still up for grabs. the 47 partition plan (used to base the palestinian claim) was rejected by the very arab side.
you have a side who voluntarily decided to go war to settle borders. and it lost. 3 times. being on the defensive side those 3 times gives israel, legally and morally, all the right to have the upper hand.

it isnt israel the one who should accomodate (just like it werent the allies the ones who had to accomodate). and that is no victors justice. is fair, and full of legal precedents in international law, a defending nation gets reparations following a war.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
ALEXIS_DH said:
from 48 and on, (besides 56) i dont believe israel could be considered the "agressor" of the region.
Just so that we can have a debate where terms are understood, how exactly would you define an agressor?

ALEXIS_DH said:
the reason persists. an unmonitored west bank is still a threat to israel.
You do not need to occupy a land to diminish the threat, otherwise Israel would not have returned Sinai to Egypt.
ALEXIS_DH said:
besides, israel won the land in a defensive war. legally and morally, it has a right for a compensation for the 67 and 73 wars. hoping israel will renounce a right it has fairly gained doesnt make much sense. specially when jerusalem is inside.
Israel started the 1967 war, so you cannot really term that as defensive. At best it was pre-emptive.

By your logic Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to remain in Kuwait.
ALEXIS_DH said:
israel wont leave jerusalem unless they get erased from the map, and if that happens, the whole middle east would be rubble anyways... so a palestinian claim over jerusalem is pretty delusional.

and lastly, there are no legal "borders" so to speak. legally, the west bank is still up for grabs. the 47 partition plan (used to base the palestinian claim) was rejected by the very arab side.
you have a side who voluntarily decided to go war to settle borders. and it lost. 3 times. being on the defensive side those 3 times gives israel, legally and morally, all the right to have the upper hand.
So what we have left is the Israeli desire for Jerusalem and the West Bank
ALEXIS_DH said:
it isnt israel the one who should accomodate (just like it werent the allies the ones who had to accomodate). and that is no victors justice. is fair, and full of legal precedents in international law, a defending nation gets reparations following a war.
Are you seriously suggesting that peace could suddenly break out independent of the actions of Israel? Israel certainly cannot unilaterally bring peace and there are many wrongs perpertrated by her enemies. Peace will take both parties to compromise and (most crucially) stop fighting.

Your WWII reference is totally misplaced btw.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,261
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
fluff said:
Just so that we can have a debate where terms are understood, how exactly would you define an agressor?
by the one whose actions fall under casus belli.

You do not need to occupy a land to diminish the threat, otherwise Israel would not have returned Sinai to Egypt.
israel returned the sinai in exchange of a promise of peace.
palestinian authority word is worth virtually nothing (also because they have no real authority).

Israel started the 1967 war, so you cannot really term that as defensive. At best it was pre-emptive.
it started with the blockade of tiran.
blockades are fair and square casus belli.

By your logic Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to remain in Kuwait.
again, casus belli....

So what we have left is the Israeli desire for Jerusalem and the West Bank
you can say that. but that is circunstancial, its irrelevant from a legal pov, since the legal reasoning does not rest on that.

Are you seriously suggesting that peace could suddenly break out independent of the actions of Israel? Israel certainly cannot unilaterally bring peace and there are many wrongs perpertrated by her enemies. Peace will take both parties to compromise and (most crucially) stop
i believe israel´s offers have been fair enough, specially considering the background. i dont think they should accomodate more just because.

Your WWII reference is totally misplaced btw.
as a precedent, is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_international_law
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,920
2,886
Pōneke
ALEXIS_DH said:
palestinian authority word is worth virtually nothing (also because they have no real authority).
How can you have authority when you cannot travel in your own land? Seriously, what's the difficulty understanding this?
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,261
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
Changleen said:
How can you have authority when you cannot travel in your own land? Seriously, what's the difficulty understanding this?
c´mon dude, the PA has like 80k "police officers", and the restrictions they face are nowhere near the average level.
thats not the reason, dont play the single-issue republican-voter emotive-appeal card....
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
ALEXIS_DH said:
by the one whose actions fall under casus belli.
That's not a definition, more a list of excuses. Like a couple of children squabbling over who started a fight. Provide a definion of what you understand as agressive war, not some woolly catch-phrase.
ALEXIS_DH said:
israel returned the sinai in exchange of a promise of peace.
palestinian authority word is worth virtually nothing (also because they have no real authority).
So enable a Palestinian authority with credibility, or accept one with. Israel needs to make peace with someone, if it genuinely wants peace.
ALEXIS_DH said:
it started with the blockade of tiran.
blockades are fair and square casus belli.
So is occupation of land you believe is yours. But neither is actually and act of war, ergo not the "out" you so desire.
ALEXIS_DH said:
again, casus belli....
Do you even know why Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, his "casus belli"?
ALEXIS_DH said:
you can say that. but that is circunstancial, its irrelevant from a legal pov, since the legal reasoning does not rest on that.
The legal reasoning?
ALEXIS_DH said:
i believe israel´s offers have been fair enough, specially considering the background. i dont think they should accomodate more just because.
Just because what exactly? I would expect you to believe Israel's offer as fair if it were a ten acres of desert.
ALEXIS_DH said:
As a comparison it is, WWII was wholly different. And if you do wish to compare where is Israel's Marshall Plan?
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,920
2,886
Pōneke
ALEXIS_DH said:
c´mon dude, the PA has like 80k "police officers", and the restrictions they face are nowhere near the average level.
thats not the reason, dont play the single-issue republican-voter emotive-appeal card....
Do they have a prison in each settlement? Do they have a court in each settlement?

This is so not an emotive card.

It's not just the PA that is innefective because of the checkpoints, it's basically everything. Imagine if there were 4 hour queues to get between evey village and town around you and everytime you tried to cross there was a chance you may be arbitrarily refused. What does it do to commerce, emergency services, families? (Yes they are known to stop Palestinian 'Ambulances' and so forth.) These people have lived like this for years now. If you criminalise people, they become criminals.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,261
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
fluff said:
That's not a definition, more a list of excuses. Like a couple of children squabbling over who started a fight. Provide a definion of what you understand as agressive war, not some woolly catch-phrase.
lol, thats serious dude. thats international law. thats the widely accepted criteria to establish who is responsible for a war, and a lot of consequences that come from that...
So enable a Palestinian authority with credibility, or accept one with. Israel needs to make peace with someone, if it genuinely wants peace.
the oportunity for a PA was given. but israel cannot make a PA happen, unless you want a puppet one, and then that one wouldnt have much credibility either.
So is occupation of land you believe is yours. But neither is actually and act of war, ergo not the "out" you so desire.
starting from formal pease, casus belli only works once, until formal peace is declared again.
if right now, france shoots a missile at uk, the responsability of war is frances, and if uk sends another back, france cannot claim casus belli.
Do you even know why Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, his "casus belli"?
iraq accusing kuwaiti based oil rig pumping from iraq?
that grants no reason to invade kuwait, nor to claim it afterwards. customary international practices (a source of international law) do not considered that a fair reason. brazilian timberers come in to peru from time to time, and russian fishers from into peruvian waters too.. yet those are not valid reasons for peru to start a war.
The legal reasoning?
in gross simplification. international law is customary for the most part. with a few bits enconded in laws.
so basically something is legal, if there is a "legal" widely accepted similar precedent.
in the case of sovereignty as a form of war reparation. in a recent example you have poland who was given pomerania as a reparation from germany who started a war against poland.
there is a valid claim as land as a form of reparation. now you can say that contradicts other encoded bits of international law. BUT those (i dont remember right now exactly what are they) refer to ESTABLISHED border of sovereign nations. in this case we dont have established borders to begin with... so that doesnt apply.
in short, israel has a claim over the west bank, based on the fact it got it in a defensive war. and that doesnt mean it washes off with time.

Just because what exactly? I would expect you to believe Israel's offer as fair if it were a ten acres of desert.
nah, 90% of the west bank is pretty good actually.
As a comparison it is, WWII was wholly different. And if you do wish to compare where is Israel's Marshall Plan?
its for the precedent. for the legal precedent. and its relevant because is established what the "defensive" and "aggressor" parties are entitled to, and their responsabilities are.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
ALEXIS_DH said:
lol, thats serious dude. thats international law. thats the widely accepted criteria to establish who is responsible for a war, and a lot of consequences that come from that...
lol yourself mate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

Despite the apparent authority that the use of Latin confers on it, the term did not come into wide usage until the late nineteenth century with the rise of the political doctrine of "jus ad bellum" or "just war theory". Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict. As such, it has been used both retroactively to describe situations in history before the term came into wide usage and in the present day when describing situations when war has not been formally declared.

Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort ("Ultima Ratio") and that it in fact possessed "Just Cause" for doing so.

Casus belli is generally used to avoid loss of morale in the country or nation, or to gain the support of the people. If a country attacked another country with no stated reason it may cause discontent among its populace, and loss of faith in their leaders, in extreme cases leading to revolt or other kinds of civil uprisings.

In modern times casus belli may not be focused primarily on convincing the population, but instead be aimed at justifying the action to the global community, which would equally affect dictatorships and militarily controlled nations who might not previously have had need of a convincing casus belli among its own people.

One of the earliest examples of a pretext to war


______________________________________________

So, anything a nation thinks justifies its action in going to war. There is no legal framework around it.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
ALEXIS_DH said:
starting from formal pease, casus belli only works once, until formal peace is declared again.
So, whoever finds the excuse first is the victim? You cannot be that naive.

Come on, I'm still waiting for you to give me a definition of and aggressor. Until you do there is no point to this discussion as you are not willing to define your terms.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
ALEXIS_DH said:
iraq accusing kuwaiti based oil rig pumping from iraq?
that grants no reason to invade kuwait, nor to claim it afterwards. customary international practices (a source of international law) do not considered that a fair reason. brazilian timberers come in to peru from time to time, and russian fishers from into peruvian waters too.. yet those are not valid reasons for peru to start a war.
According to you any nation that invades is entitled to the spoils of victory, hence Iraq could stay.

And if a blockade is sufficient reason to go to war, why is stealing valuable natural resources not?

Care to provide a list of valid reasons to go to war?
 

Lex

Monkey
Dec 6, 2001
594
0
Massachusetts
Reading these threads everyday and watching the news has really started to depress me. The whole situation is the unsolvable conundrum of our time and there is no end that I can imagine. Hate begets more hate and as long as all sides feel they are justified in their actions they will continue to act as they are now.

It's so far beyond the "which came first the chicken or the egg" finger pointing and blaming that it doesn't even matter who did what first. As always the people who will truely suffer are the ones who have no interest beyond getting up, going to work, and taking care of their families.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
fluff said:
According to you any nation that invades is entitled to the spoils of victory, hence Iraq could stay.

And if a blockade is sufficient reason to go to war, why is stealing valuable natural resources not?

Care to provide a list of valid reasons to go to war?
To be fair, he said that the winner is entitled to the spoils of victory, provided that winner was fighting a defensive war. In your example, you might want to say that Kuwait is entitled to part of Iraq.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Old Man G Funk said:
To be fair, he said that the winner is entitled to the spoils of victory, provided that winner was fighting a defensive war. In your example, you might want to say that Kuwait is entitled to part of Iraq.
He has so far failed to give me a definition of a defensive war. Israel's wars of 67 and 82 involved them firing the first shots and invading other sovereign nations. They may have had good cause (though probably not in 82) but some feel that Iraq had good cause to invade Kuwait. As the actual fighting in 67 was started by Israel then the defensive argument goes out the window just as much as it does for Iraq.

What I am trying to get from Alexis_DH is consistency of viewpoint in order to enable a more useful discussion. If I need to play devil's advocate to do so I will.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
fluff said:
He has so far failed to give me a definition of a defensive war. Israel's wars of 67 and 82 involved them firing the first shots and invading other sovereign nations. They may have had good cause (though probably not in 82) but some feel that Iraq had good cause to invade Kuwait. As the actual fighting in 67 was started by Israel then the defensive argument goes out the window just as much as it does for Iraq.

What I am trying to get from Alexis_DH is consistency of viewpoint in order to enable a more useful discussion. If I need to play devil's advocate to do so I will.
I was just trying to give a counter-example that he might react more favorably to.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,261
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
fluff said:
lol yourself mate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

Despite the apparent authority that the use of Latin confers on it, the term did not come into wide usage until the late nineteenth century with the rise of the political doctrine of "jus ad bellum" or "just war theory". Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict. As such, it has been used both retroactively to describe situations in history before the term came into wide usage and in the present day when describing situations when war has not been formally declared.

Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort ("Ultima Ratio") and that it in fact possessed "Just Cause" for doing so.

Casus belli is generally used to avoid loss of morale in the country or nation, or to gain the support of the people. If a country attacked another country with no stated reason it may cause discontent among its populace, and loss of faith in their leaders, in extreme cases leading to revolt or other kinds of civil uprisings.

In modern times casus belli may not be focused primarily on convincing the population, but instead be aimed at justifying the action to the global community, which would equally affect dictatorships and militarily controlled nations who might not previously have had need of a convincing casus belli among its own people.

One of the earliest examples of a pretext to war


______________________________________________

So, anything a nation thinks justifies its action in going to war. There is no legal framework around it.
to complete your quote in bold.
.....the mysterious sinking of the USS Maine ship which led the US to blame the Spanish and start the Spanish-American War. Some critics have claimed that the sinking was intentional [1].

casus belli is not an excuse a country puts up, that is "valid" just because the country says so.
there is a legal framework around it. you cant say, for example, a brazilian timberer in peru grants peru the defensive position if it started a war. (for the claim to be valid, there should be a customary practice or a legal precedent) you also say
So, whoever finds the excuse first is the victim? You cannot be that naive.
Come on, I'm still waiting for you to give me a definition of and aggressor. Until you do there is no point to this discussion as you are not willing to define your terms.
i dont define the terms of makes you an agressor. thats defined by casus belli. and the definition of what is "valid" casus belli is for the most part customary. it is rooted on precedents. (thats the customary part on customary international law). you just cant say "the first one to find a excuse", because its not about an excuse, but of what constitutes a valid act of war against one (valid being what is widely and customarily accepted as valid), and reason enough to retaliate in self defense. its not rationalized backwards. for the most part most "reasons to go to war" are already established. you just cant go and make up a new one to fit your needs.
and unless is some extremely rare action, never seen before (so that there is no precedent)... you cant retroactively find an excuse. casus belli is full or precedents, its definition is already shaped by them (and the lack of precedents in spite of widely known action).
so its not like X happens and you say "hey this is casus belli" (unless you are talking something so very extraordinary that there is no precedent).

now, back to 1967. you have (besides the mounting of troops on the borders, which for its own sake can be argued as a reason to go to war) the blockade of the tiran strait. that is customarily accepted as an act of war. do you want me to dig for a case??? or is it intuitively reasonable why a naval blockade is an act of war??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

now, you ask me "Care to provide a list of valid reasons to go to war?"
i know a few..., blockades, bombarding, infantry invasion, magnicide (or whatever its spelled when you kill a president or a king), formal war declaration.... yet that list is not conclusive. there are many more reasons.....
i believe those 5 i just said are pretty intuitive and self-explaining.. and 48, 67 and 73 casus belli fall under those or other intuitive casus belli and there is no need to dig for a relevant case to back up.