Israel

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel

Postby Dream » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:52 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Dream wrote:Hizbullah kidnapped some soldiers.


You do realize that as far as "starting" it goes, that makes my point?

And I said that this was a pretext, not the start of the war. I even emphasised the word in italics. You already know I didn't make your point, I made my own where I quoted you: Isreal started the war, and they used the soldiers as an excuse. It is the opposite of "Hizbullah started the war by kidnapping."
yoni45 wrote:
Dream wrote:Unless this is suddenly the 19th Century, the rights of every Lebanese civilian to live in peace far outweigh the right of Israel to decide what massive military action is appropriate as a response to such an act.


And where is the relative weight of these rights encoded?

If you really think that the kidnappings justified all the documented Israeli actions in the recent Lebanon war then there is very little point in continuing this discussion. Hundreds of innocent people were killed and cluster bomblets were sown across hundreds of square miles of Lebanese territory, all with the justification that it was an attempt to recover a few individual kidnap victims? And as I said above, it could never have been expected to work?

But anyway:

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:REAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.


So no, Israel doesn't get to decide that Lebanese rights are less equal than their own citizen's, expecially when the Lebanese concerned are civilians.
yoni45 wrote:, I "misrepresented" the settlements as being occupied?

I never even implied the settlements themselves are occupied: they aren't. The land on which the settlements sit however, *is* occupied, and that should be relatively common knowledge.


To this, and everything else regarding the settlements (snipped for brevity): These setlers are there with the Israeli governments knowledge and permission. It doesn't have to be on their orders to be under their control. This is tacit agreement, and as such is indefensible. But regardless, I doubt you will believe me. Perhaps instead you might believe B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group?

Edit syntax.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:05 pm UTC

Dream wrote:And I said that this was a pretext, not the start of the war. I even emphasised the word in italics. You already know I didn't make your point, I made my own where I quoted you: Isreal started the war, and they used the soldiers as an excuse. It is the opposite of "Hizbullah started the war by kidnapping."


Excuse or not, that still does not change the fact that Hizbullah's actions were what ignited the conflict.

Not only that, but this would be Hizbullah's actions which can be considered an act of war - making them the first such act of war in this conflict.

Your line of reasoning is the equivalent of me saying "Sure, Hezbollah's actions were just an excuse for Israeli invasion, but the Israeli invasion was nothing more than an excuse for Hezbollah's rocket launches into Israeli territory, which is what really started the war"...

Except that'd be faulty for another reason, as Hezbollah launched mortars at Israeli towns prior to the Israeli attacks as well...

Dream wrote:If you really think that the kidnappings justified all the documented Israeli actions in the recent Lebanon...


And I see you continue your use of straw-man arguments. You realize your credibility takes a hit with each time you do?

Nowhere did I state the kidnappings justified "all" the documented Israeli actions in Lebanon.

In fact, you even seem to be under the assumption that the kidnappings were the sole reason for the Israeli invasion.

Dream wrote:But anyway:

...
So no, Israel doesn't get to decide that Lebanese rights are less equal than their own citizen's, expecially when the Lebanese concerned are civilians.


And yet another tactful use of a straw-man. I never said Israel gets to decide that Lebanese rights are less equal than their own citizens'.

I specifically asked you where it is encoded that the rights of "all" Lebanese to live in "peace" outweigh the rights of Israel to choose its military operations as it deems necessary, as per your claim.

Dream wrote:To this, and everything else regarding the settlements (snipped for brevity): These setlers are there with the Israeli governments knowledge and permission. It doesn't have to be on their orders to be under their control.


*again*?

I never stated it was outside Israeli control. I stated it was not Israeli force that placed the settlers in the settlements, which is what Article 49 (I believe that's the one) prohibits.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Re: Israel

Postby 3.14159265... » Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:18 am UTC

Sorry, Israel didn't nuke Iraq, but attacked what was its nuclear program, I read that wrong somewhere.

I also made my point clearly now, and you have began ignoring it. This is typical, and sad.

Who supports the settlements? People that aren't saying "SHIT, THAT STUFF IS DAMN EVIL, KICK THEM THE FUCK OUT, DO IT FUCKIN NOW NOW NOW NOW!" and instead say "Well, it would be hard to pull out, the land is in dispute, Israel needs it for defence" etc.

I make my point again:

Israeli settlements on land not belonging to Israel in 67 are illegal. There are lots of them.
About half of "palestine" is inaccessable to palestinians. This is wrong.
Their immediate removal is important, and fundamental to anything that is not greed, or religiousity.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel

Postby Dream » Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:25 am UTC

@yoni, before Pi's post:

Did you read the B'Tselem article, and do you have a definite opinion on the status, both legally and morally, of the settlments?

Do you not understand the Declaration of Human Rights saying all people are equal, and how this affects the balance of hunderds of innocent, uninvolved Lebanese lives versus a few innocent Israeli?

These were the important questions raised by my post, which was a direct answer to questions raised in yours. In short, I've answered you, even if you disagree with the answers I took the time to do it. Would you care to extend me the same courtesy?
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:27 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:Sorry, Israel didn't nuke Iraq, but attacked what was its nuclear program, I read that wrong somewhere.


Wow - that's a rather huge mistake... ^_^

3.14159265... wrote:I also made my point clearly now, and you have began ignoring it. This is typical, and sad.

Who supports the settlements? People that aren't saying "SHIT, THAT STUFF IS DAMN EVIL, KICK THEM THE FUCK OUT, DO IT FUCKIN NOW NOW NOW NOW!" and instead say "Well, it would be hard to pull out, the land is in dispute, Israel needs it for defence" etc.


Just because you choose to misrepresent the positions of certain individuals, doesn't mean everyone has to believe it. Nor do I remember you trying to previously misrepresent those positions - I must have been away.

Regardless, the two positions you present are not the same - trying to equate them is intellectually dishonest at best, regardless of how many emotionally charged appeals you try to do it with.

3.14159265... wrote:Israeli settlements on land not belonging to Israel in 67 are illegal. There are lots of them.


That's not much of a point pending you proving it - I've already provided evidence that they aren't.

3.14159265... wrote:About half of "palestine" is inaccessable to palestinians. This is wrong.


Not necessarily.

3.14159265... wrote:Their immediate removal is important, and fundamental to anything that is not greed, or religiousity.


Also not necessarily.
Last edited by yoni45 on Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:36 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:34 am UTC

Dream wrote:@yoni, before Pi's post:

Did you read the B'Tselem article, and do you have a definite opinion on the status, both legally and morally, of the settlments?


Why would I need to do or have either of the above?

Although, if I must: B'tselem clearly refers to the territories as "occupied", so they happen to agree with me on that point.

As for the legality of the settlements themselves, I've already addressed the legal issue B'tselem brought forth (that being article 49).

Dream wrote:Do you not understand the Declaration of Human Rights saying all people are equal, and how this affects the balance of hunderds of innocent, uninvolved Lebanese lives versus a few innocent Israeli?


You assume any of that is relevant in you providing to me the source of the codification that states that the rights of all Lebanese civilians living in peace trump the right of Israel to choose its methods of self-defense...?
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel

Postby Dream » Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:15 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Dream wrote:@yoni, before Pi's post:

Did you read the B'Tselem article, and do you have a definite opinion on the status, both legally and morally, of the settlments?


Why would I need to do or have either of the above?

Although, if I must: B'tselem clearly refers to the territories as "occupied", so they happen to agree with me on that point.


No, the article explains at length how directly after the 1967 war the Israeli governmant initiated an ongoing official program of using settlments to grab land from Palestine, and to do so deliberately and illegally. The Israeli govenment actively promotes settlement efforts, and therefore it is taking land by conquest. Since you saw fit to take just a single word from an article that clearly is the poalr oppoite of your position, and from this word argue that it agrees with you, I can only conclude that you are either divorced form reality, or are not bothering to make any effort with this discussion. Seriously, B'Tselem does not agree with you. It actively promotes the idea that the settlements are illegal and must be removed. If you can't agree with that, then the B'Tselem article doesn't agree with you. To suggest otherwise is meretricious.

yoni45 wrote:
Dream wrote:Do you not understand the Declaration of Human Rights saying all people are equal, and how this affects the balance of hunderds of innocent, uninvolved Lebanese lives versus a few innocent Israeli?


You assume any of that is relevant in you providing to me the source of the codification that states that the rights of all Lebanese civilians living in peace trump the right of Israel to choose its methods of self-defense...?


Yes, the rights of Lebanese civilians living in peace trumps the right of Israel to choose it's methods of self defence. If you don't understand that I believe this, you don't understand my position at all. This is borne out by the entire scope of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not just any article in particular. In short: No gratuitous killing of civilians just because it makes you more secure. They don't deserve it.

I must call on you to condemn the deliberate bombing of civilian residential areas and infrastructure across Lebanon, and the gratuitous use of cluster munitions in south Lebanon, even as I condemn Hezbollah's methods, and those of it's goals that are racist and anti-semitic. If you can't stretch to directly criticising Isreal when it is at it's most barbaric and violent, then I respectfully suggest that continuing this discussion will not serve any purpose.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Dream wrote:Since you saw fit to take just a single word from an article that clearly is the poalr oppoite of your position, and from this word argue that it agrees with you, I can only conclude that you are either divorced form reality, or are not bothering to make any effort with this discussion.


Fortunately, I don't need to "bother" much - the arguments you put forth are rather standard fare.

And yes, on that point, B'tselem does agree with me, whether you like it or not. In fact, any sane individual that knows even a bit regarding this conflict agrees that the territories are indeed 'occupied' - whether they are on the Israeli or Palestinian side. B'tselem included, as clearly evidenced by their terminology.

Dream wrote:...It actively promotes the idea that the settlements are illegal...


That it does not agree with me on, you're correct. And that, I've already provided a counter-argument to, which you (and B'tselem) have yet to refute.

Dream wrote:Yes, the rights of Lebanese civilians living in peace trumps the right of Israel to choose it's methods of self defence. If you don't understand that I believe this...


You seem to be under the assumption that I care about what you "believe" in. You can feel free to believe that should you wish to do so, but it doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. I've asked you to provide evidence for such a basis, and you've failed to do so.

In other words, that might be your belief, but your belief is (thus far) baseless, and therefore (thus far) irrelevant.

Dream wrote:In short: No gratuitous killing of civilians just because it makes you more secure. They don't deserve it.


And again, your continued use of a straw-man argument. Quite frankly, if that's the argument you're trying to go against, then you should be rather embarrassed considering it'd be rather easy to find the Geneva Conventions prohibiting deliberate targeting of civilians.

But as always, I never argued that "gratuitous killing of civilians just because it makes you secure" is legitimate.

You stated that the Lebanese civilians' right to peaceful life trumps the Israeli right to choose its methods of self-defense, and that is what I've asked you to provide evidence for. Thus far, you've come up short.

Dream wrote:I must call on you to condemn the deliberate bombing of civilian residential areas and infrastructure across Lebanon, and the gratuitous use of cluster munitions in south Lebanon, even as I condemn Hezbollah's methods, and those of it's goals that are racist and anti-semitic.


Actually, it's probably arguable that Hezbollah's goals or actions aren't anti-semitic per se, but it was you who said it.

Either way, I do condemn any deliberate bombing of exclusively civilian targets, as well as the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon (that was just downright stupid).

That, however, has absolutely no bearing on this argument.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby fjafjan » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:55 pm UTC

Dream wrote:Since you saw fit to take just a single word from an article that clearly is the poalr oppoite of your position, and from this word argue that it agrees with you, I can only conclude that you are either divorced form reality, or are not bothering to make any effort with this discussion.


Fortunately, I don't need to "bother" much - the arguments you put forth are rather standard fare.

And yes, on that point, B'tselem does agree with me, whether you like it or not. In fact, any sane individual that knows even a bit regarding this conflict agrees that the territories are indeed 'occupied' - whether they are on the Israeli or Palestinian side. B'tselem included, as clearly evidenced by their terminology.

Yes they are "the occupied territories" as they are on palestinian land occupied by Israel. Thus occupied territories. It is illegal under international law to create new settlements on Occupied territories and so the Settlements are illegal. Really it's not very difficult, and every expert on international law agrees with me. Amnesty does, Human rights watch does, B'tselem does.

Dream wrote:...It actively promotes the idea that the settlements are illegal...


That it does not agree with me on, you're correct. And that, I've already provided a counter-argument to, which you (and B'tselem) have yet to refute.
Please restate this, as I wrote earlier every authority on internatoinal law in the world I can think of (the world court in the united nations included) agree with me, and dream, that the settlements are illegal. Please show this revolutionising documnet which puts all of this on its head.

Dream wrote:Yes, the rights of Lebanese civilians living in peace trumps the right of Israel to choose it's methods of self defence. If you don't understand that I believe this...


You seem to be under the assumption that I care about what you "believe" in. You can feel free to believe that should you wish to do so, but it doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. I've asked you to provide evidence for such a basis, and you've failed to do so.

The basis is international law which deals with things like not killing four thousand [insert group] in responce to an attack that killed two [insert other group] and declares that this is infact illegal. So you might say "But israel has to defend itself!" but if the threat is that occasionally a border soldier will get kidnapped for ransom, and the method of defense is devestating an entire nation then infact this is illegal and again most authorities on international law who had their say about it (never came to the world court ofcourse) agreed that Israel was using agregious amount of force in responce to a fairly insignificant act, deliberatly targeting civilian structures such as power plants, roads, and various infrastructure and taking little into account the civilian lives at stake.
Now if you find these laws that are designed to prevent escalation of violence, which is essentally what Israel has been doing for the past 50-60 years, are poor or immoral then fine, but to me they seem infact very sensible and somewhat understated.


Dream wrote:In short: No gratuitous killing of civilians just because it makes you more secure. They don't deserve it.


And again, your continued use of a straw-man argument. Quite frankly, if that's the argument you're trying to go against, then you should be rather embarrassed considering it'd be rather easy to find the Geneva Conventions prohibiting deliberate targeting of civilians.

But as always, I never argued that "gratuitous killing of civilians just because it makes you secure" is legitimate.

Yet you do seem to have supported an ethnic cleansing, the lebanon wars, both of which were gratuitous killing for a sense of Israeli security when infact, and I find it hard to believe Israeli mlitary advicers were not aware of this, they are and were couter productive to Israeli safety.




Either way, I do condemn any deliberate bombing of exclusively civilian targets, as well as the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon (that was just downright stupid).

What about the deliberate shooting of exclusively civilian targets? It's uncontroersial that it occurs with some frequency, though ofcourse the IDF denies either the deliberate, the exclusive or both. But if you trust witnesses more than the accused then it's uncontroversial.

My point is that it is not purely on the basis of ethnicity. If you look at the definition I quoted above, it is clear that the purpose of ethnic cleansing is to make an area ethnically "pure" in some sense of the word. There's a whole article there to read if you want to. The issue here boils down to a semantic argument. You are using all the negative connotations of ethnic cleansing to argue against what Israel did in 1948, when in fact these connotations apply to a definition of the term which is not equivalent to the one you are using.

The creation of an Israeli state in the desired location would require an ethnic cleansing of Arabs to infact be a majority jewish state, this is known and it was known. Now you might say "but look they were dangerous!" or whatever but everyone knew the arabs had to go and out the arabs went, it had alot to do with ethnicity.
as for "negative connotations" denying refugees the right of return is infact, a bad thing. It's not like we're skillfully using words in order to make it seem bad. It is bad. It's like saying we are using the "negative connotations" of murder in order to make Israel seem like a bad guy for killing children who throw rocks at Israeli oppressors.


As for ethnic cleansing, promising to drive the Jews into the sea would clearly be an example of ethnic cleansing, were it carried out. Removal of people that have a relatively high (but still possibly low) chance of being terrorists is not ethnic cleansing. If there were no terrorists, there would be fewer difficulties between the Palestinian state/government/whatever it is right now and Israel.

Okey so you would like to make it legal for russia to move all thechnyans out into siberia on the pretext that they might all infact be terrorists, why not move all the Kurds in Iraq or turkey away somewhere else too, they might be terrorsts too.
This argument is incredibly poor, and what you are suggesting is collective punishment in some extreme way, ignoring the fact that Palestinian terrorism was quite rare untill the first intifada, while Israeli killings of Palestinians was not quite so rare. you define Palestinian actions against Israel as terrorism, Israeli actions against Palestine as "self defense" and then ascribe it legal for Israel, in self defense, to perform horrible terrorist act and human rights abuses on Palestinians because "they are all terrorists", though to be fair you didn't say they were all terorirsts, but that there was a higher chance they were. I hope you yourself see that this is infact insane.


Of course! After all the USA did during the Cold war to spread democracy/create allies, do you think it would give up on the one democratic state in the middle east (ignore Iraq for now)?

Hahaha, yeah Dream already adressed this but America during the cold war also backed Saddam Hussein, deposed several democratically elected socialist and or communist leaders and generally seemed to have no issue dealing with dictators as much as presidents or the like.


It showed up earlier on this thread that we should not condone Israel's discrimination, racism, and human rights abuses just because there are others out there that are worse. While this is true, why aren't more people complaining about the abuses that occur elsewhere, in the area and elsewhere as well - because this is Israel? How about the USA, which stole a third of a continent from the Native Americans? Sure, that was 150 years ago that it ended, but it was far worse than anything going on in Israel. My point is, just about any other nation would be criticized to a lesser degree.

So your sollution to this is we should infact ignore these abuses since we all do them, except to a varying degree? Again it should be obvious why this is an extremly poor choice of action. First of all complaining about the treatment of native americans 150 years ago would be quite inane, sure we should know about it but I would rather take care of people who are infact alive.
Second the reason so many people like to complain about Israel is because of people like you who infact defend these actions. There are quite few people trying to defend Stalin, but alot of people who support the oppression human rights abuses against the palestinians, so rather than Preach to the Choir about how terrible Stalin was it is more productive to point out how bad Israel is. This should not be controversial but it has come up again and again in this thread.

For both sides, peace is what matters more, IMO. Stop the terrorism first, but the Palestinian authorities are clearly helping, so that will be easily settled. With the excellent example set by the responses to the Oslo accords, we'll have a nice setup soon.
[/quote]
I agree, let's stop the terrorism, let's tear down the wall, actually punish soldiers who kill innocent civilians, free political prisoners and give suspected terrorists fair trials with the right to a legal defense. That might atleast be a good start but there are plenty of solutions.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:42 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:It is illegal under international law to create new settlements on Occupied territories and so the Settlements are illegal. Really it's not very difficult, and every expert on international law agrees with me. Amnesty does, Human rights watch does, B'tselem does.


1. Would you care to cite the relevant international law for me? If you could quote it too, that'd be nice.

2. Let me get this straight: you claim that "every expert on international law agrees with [you]"... and then go to cite Amnesty, HRW, and B'tselem as examples? :roll:

fjafjan wrote:Please restate this, as I wrote earlier every authority on internatoinal law in the world I can think of (the world court in the united nations included) agree with me, and dream, that the settlements are illegal. Please show this revolutionising documnet which puts all of this on its head.


You do realize that the world court is actually the only legal authority you've cited?

The rulings of which, fortunately, aren't legally binding nor precedent setting?

And the document you're looking for is the same one I've cited previously - Article 49 of the 4th Geneva convention, on which the vast majority of illegality claims stem, and the same one that clearly states that it forbids actual transfer of population - something that did not happen with the settlements, as their inhabitants settled them by their own free will.

fjafjan wrote:The basis is international law which deals with things like not killing four thousand [insert group] in responce to an attack that killed two [insert other group] and declares that this is infact illegal.


Which international law states that that is illegal?

How's this: from now on, every time you cite "international law", I expect a quote and a link.

fjafjan wrote:Yet you do seem to have supported an ethnic cleansing


Quote me.

fjafjan wrote:...the lebanon wars, both of which were gratuitous killing...


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ition.html

You assume that just because I support certain decisions to go to war, that I must also support all actions that were undertaken within said war.

What about the deliberate shooting of exclusively civilian targets?


Yes, that too.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

yelly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:25 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem, The Original One.

Re: Israel

Postby yelly » Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:06 pm UTC

Again, you are all talking about every settlement outside '67 borders in the same voice. Not all Jewish settlers are insane baby killers that walk around with M16s. There are some settlements that are just normal neighbourhoods in normal cities (Ma'ale Edomim, for example), and the people that live there are just like you and me (well, apart from the thing about living outside '67 borders, I wouldn't, for the record). Evicting these settlements will be slightly more difficult than places like Gush Katif (which I think should be torn down ASAP). Practically, getting Jews out of these places just can't work, so I believe that when a Palestinian state will be founded, there most be land swaps, or it can't work. I also thing demonising these people is problematic. I do agree that we should never have founded these settlements, but that is the case, and we have to work it out.
As to the war, I don't see how you can possibly claim it wasn't at the least provoked if not justified. Hizbullah kidnapped 2 IDF soldiers, blew up some tanks, killed some other soldiers (I believe it was 5 on the specific day before the war broke) and where firing missiles at highly populated cities with zero military importance (AKA, strictly civilian targets) for a few weeks. When you have to evacuate 1.5 million of your citizens south, you go to war. It is just that simple. Of course, I do agree that Israel was not the best on the human rights front, and the actual managing of the war was abysmal, but I don't see how you can argue against going to war.
killing four thousand [insert group] in responce to an attack that killed two [insert other group]

Where did you get this number? (I assume you are arguing that Israel killed 4000 civilians in the last Lebanon war, I have yet to see such a number)
deliberately targeting civilian structures such as power plants, roads, and various infrastructure

Israel was bombing roads and bridges over which thousands of missiles that would be pointed at it were passing. They could not blow up the the actual trucks, because they were full of kids, so they had to destroy the roads. If this is against international law, fuck international law. My country's citizens' lives > some road between Syria and Lebanon. I don't see how you can argue against that.
I've also seen some mentions of the Geneva convention. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that only binding if both sides keep it? I highly doubt the Palestinian's and Hizbullah do.
...
"So there are 3 guards, one always tells the truth, one always lies and the third answers randomly"
"But I only want to know the fucking time!"

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby fjafjan » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:05 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:It is illegal under international law to create new settlements on Occupied territories and so the Settlements are illegal. Really it's not very difficult, and every expert on international law agrees with me. Amnesty does, Human rights watch does, B'tselem does.


1. Would you care to cite the relevant international law for me? If you could quote it too, that'd be nice.

You actually do further down, though ofcourse it's not just a question of a single crime in regards to the whole situation, which involves denying the right of return, collective punishment, etc etc.

yoni45 wrote:2. Let me get this straight: you claim that "every expert on international law agrees with [you]"... and then go to cite Amnesty, HRW, and B'tselem as examples? :roll:

Who the hell would you cite? Israeli goverment? You may not like it because they vehemently disagree with you on most issues and agree with me on most issues [atleast regarding this conflict] but the fact is that these are the most unbiased independant and qualified groups when it comes to international law. There are of couse other scholars, but just as there is a scientific consesnsus that evolution is a real phenomenon so there is a consensus that the settlements are Illegal. Now that does not imply a consensus on what should be done with them, in reality, but that is not what I said.

fjafjan wrote:Please restate this, as I wrote earlier every authority on internatoinal law in the world I can think of (the world court in the united nations included) agree with me, and dream, that the settlements are illegal. Please show this revolutionising documnet which puts all of this on its head.

You do realize that the world court is actually the only legal authority you've cited?

I would say amnesty is an authority, in the same way that say an engineer is an authority on building shit (well some are, you get the point I am sure). analogously the other sources I cited.

The rulings of which, fortunately, aren't legally binding nor precedent setting?

So what? We are not arguing wether or not Israel is in imminent threat of being prosecuted, we are talking about the legality. Simularily you can say that you are not going to get busted for downloading some movie, yet that is a terrible argument in regards to the legality of that action.

And the document you're looking for is the same one I've cited previously - Article 49 of the 4th Geneva convention, on which the vast majority of illegality claims stem, and the same one that clearly states that it forbids actual transfer of population - something that did not happen with the settlements, as their inhabitants settled them by their own free will.

Transfer does not imply forced transfer, in other words it is illegal to allow people to settle there aswell, especially since it is effectively and consciously seizing land through war which is also illegal and not disputed. Basically you can make it sound like our opinion doens't matter and that's fine, but in reality it is you perception of international law that doesn't matter as the verdict is already in. Again it would allow legal precedent for any dictatorship to move around 'trouble makers', to invade other smaller nations and seize their land through simular "voluntary" settlements.

Infact that very paragraph you quote very clearly impies that transfer is infact a more voluntary action
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Deport - moved against ones own will
Which then would imply, and indeed has been so interperted, that transfer might very well be voluntary. Infact considering Israel being a democracy any action it would take a nation would be seen as voluntary, does this mean they are not covered by the rest of the rules saying "an occupying power" or something similar?

fjafjan wrote:The basis is international law which deals with things like not killing four thousand [insert group] in responce to an attack that killed two [insert other group] and declares that this is infact illegal.


Which international law states that that is illegal?


How's this: from now on, every time you cite "international law", I expect a quote and a link.

If I could get a quote and a link everything someone said Hezbollah or Hamas were using human shields....

But sure. link and
Amnesty International wrote:International humanitarian law governs the conduct of war, and seeks to protect civilians, others not participating in the hostilities, and civilian objects. In an armed conflict, military forces must distinguish between civilian objects, which may not be attacked, and military objectives, which, subject to certain conditions, may be. The principle of distinction is a cornerstone of the laws of war.


Military objectives are those that: "by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." Civilian objects are "all objects which are not military objectives". Objects which are normally considered "civilian objects" may, under certain circumstances, become legitimate military objectives if they are "being used to make an effective contribution to military action". However, in case of doubt about such use, the object must be presumed to be civilian.


Direct attacks against civilian objects are prohibited, as are indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks are those which strike military objectives and civilian objects without distinction. One form of indiscriminate attack is treating clearly separate and distinct military objects located in a city, town, village or concentration of civilians, as a single military objective. If two buildings in a residential area are identified as containing fighters, bombardment of the entire area would be unlawful.


Disproportionate attacks, also prohibited, are those in which the "collateral damage" would be regarded as excessive in relation to the direct military advantage to be gained. Israel maintains that the military advantage in this context "is not of that specific attack but of the military operation as a whole".(13)

fjafjan wrote:Yet you do seem to have supported an ethnic cleansing


Quote me.

Ah, it seems I have mixed you up with the apologists of other blatantly obvious questions.

fjafjan wrote:...the lebanon wars, both of which were gratuitous killing...


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

what exactly is this in responce to?

You assume that just because I support certain decisions to go to war, that I must also support all actions that were undertaken within said war.

Could you outline how a succesful, non destructive and negatively impacting war might have looked? I am not saying you give me every detail but a general outline how you will move in an army and attempt to take out a militia in a hostile nation without causing excessive damage and end up hurting your reputation so badly that infact it was not worth it?

Again, you are all talking about every settlement outside '67 borders in the same voice. Not all Jewish settlers are insane baby killers that walk around with M16s.

Please don't straw man like this.
There are some settlements that are just normal neighbourhoods in normal cities (Ma'ale Edomim, for example), and the people that live there are just like you and me (well, apart from the thing about living outside '67 borders, I wouldn't, for the record). Evicting these settlements will be slightly more difficult than places like Gush Katif (which I think should be torn down ASAP). Practically, getting Jews out of these places just can't work, so I believe that when a Palestinian state will be founded, there most be land swaps, or it can't work. I also thing demonising these people is problematic. I do agree that we should never have founded these settlements, but that is the case, and we have to work it out.

Some land swaps might very well be a much easier solution, as long as it is the 67 borders that are the base, in other words you start with 67 borders and then start dealing, as opposed to start with 76 borders + settlements and then start dealing.

As for the number that was an just a theoretical example, I guess I should've had said a few million in order to avoid confusion.


Israel was bombing roads and bridges over which thousands of missiles that would be pointed at it were passing. They could not blow up the the actual trucks, because they were full of kids, so they had to destroy the roads. If this is against international law, fuck international law. My country's citizens' lives > some road between Syria and Lebanon. I don't see how you can argue against that.
I've also seen some mentions of the Geneva convention. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that only binding if both sides keep it?

As far as I am aware, no, civilians are civilians nomatter how poorly their leaders behave.


As to the war, I don't see how you can possibly claim it wasn't at the least provoked if not justified. Hizbullah kidnapped 2 IDF soldiers, blew up some tanks, killed some other soldiers (I believe it was 5 on the specific day before the war broke) and where firing missiles at highly populated cities with zero military importance (AKA, strictly civilian targets) for a few weeks. When you have to evacuate 1.5 million of your citizens south, you go to war.

Never heard of about half of that, any source? As for having to evacuate I am pretty doubtful they "had", considering how few actually died, before aswell as after.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:41 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:Who the hell would you cite? Israeli goverment? You may not like it because they vehemently disagree with you on most issues and agree with me on most issues [atleast regarding this conflict] but the fact is that these are the most unbiased independant and qualified groups when it comes to international law.


Me citing the Israeli government would indeed be the equivalent of you citing HRW, Amnesty, or B'tselem. I could also cite a bunch of pro-Israeli groups to get a nice list. Many would likely have a rather amusing twist on the situation in the same manner as HRW, Amnesty, or B'tselem, just in the opposite direction.

But the reason I found that rather amusing, is because none of those groups are authorities on international law - they're NGO's, not professors of law.

fjafjan wrote:I would say amnesty is an authority, in the same way that say an engineer is an authority on building shit (well some are, you get the point I am sure). analogously the other sources I cited.


An engineer is to construction like a lawyer or a court is to law.

Amnesty to law is more like the 16 year old who wants a building to look pretty is to construction.

fjafjan wrote:we are talking about the legality.


And legally, the opinion of that court means very little.

fjafjan wrote:Transfer does not imply forced transfer, in other words it is illegal to allow people to settle there aswell...


On what basis do jump to that conclusion?

Transfer means an actual action that is undertaken. If the settlers moved there on their own free will, then it isn't an act of transfer by the government that moved them there.

fjafjan wrote:Deport - moved against ones own will
Which then would imply, and indeed has been so interperted, that transfer might very well be voluntary.


Except there's another difference between deport and transfer, in that in cases of deportation the deportee is not allowed back.

fjafjan wrote:If I could get a quote and a link everything someone said Hezbollah or Hamas were using human shields...


If it comes up, I could easily provide evidence for both.

fjafjan wrote:But sure. link and
Amnesty International wrote:International humanitarian law governs the conduct of war, and seeks to protect civilians, others not participating in the hostilities, and civilian objects. In an armed conflict, military forces must distinguish between ...


That's all very nice, but where does it state that:

"...killing four thousand [insert group] in responce to an attack that killed two [insert other group] and declares that this is infact illegal..."


fjafjan wrote:what exactly is this in responce to?


The implication that I support gratuitous killing (part) simply because I support the decision to go to war (whole).

fjafjan wrote:Could you outline how a succesful, non destructive and negatively impacting war might have looked? I am not saying you give me every detail but a general outline how you will move in an army and attempt to take out a militia in a hostile nation without causing excessive damage...


This is rather interesting - on the one hand, you're claiming that damage was 'excessive' - but on the other hand, you're implicitly admitting that it wouldn't be possible to complete such a mission without causing such damage...

fjafjan wrote:As far as I am aware, no, civilians are civilians nomatter how poorly their leaders behave.


Not as far as the Geneva Conventions go. Article 2:

Geneva Conventions wrote:Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

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.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Co ... Convention
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel

Postby Dream » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:57 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:An engineer is to construction like a lawyer or a court is to law.

Amnesty to law is more like the 16 year old who wants a building to look pretty is to construction.


I'm out of this one. If Amnesty International is deserving of such contempt, and you are incapable of assuming that they might well employ some people who are better informed than you about international law, then there is no convincing you of anything.

And this makes you look really stupid.

Apologies and thanks to anyone who put time into serious discussion here. Bye bye.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby fjafjan » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:38 am UTC

Me citing the Israeli government would indeed be the equivalent of you citing HRW, Amnesty, or B'tselem.

This I think says everything. Really there isn't much to add, I think you need to recognize that they are infact the best sources out there and the Israeli goverment like any goverment or indeed body will lie to make itself look better. This is why you want independant organizations looking into these things.


But the reason I found that rather amusing, is because none of those groups are authorities on international law - they're NGO's, not professors of law.

NGO's with the best international reputation and specifying in international law. A person without a university degree can still be an authority within a subject if he or she has a large body of credibly experience etc etc.


And legally, the opinion of that court means very little.

It's the highest god damn ruling body. Who else would mean more?


Transfer means an actual action that is undertaken. If the settlers moved there on their own free will, then it isn't an act of transfer by the government that moved them there.

It didn't say goverment, it said occupying power and since Israel is a democracy they are part of that occupying power. Not saying they are evil, I don't think most South africans are, or were evil, but that does not impact the illegality of south africans and Israels actions.

If it comes up, I could easily provide evidence for both.

Oh, and please don't quote the IDF. There, now it should be more or less impossible but you give it a go.



That's all very nice, but where does it state that:

"...killing four thousand [insert group] in responce to an attack that killed two [insert other group] and declares that this is infact illegal..."

See that was me describing the law not quoting the law. It does say
Disproportionate attacks, also prohibited, are those in which the "collateral damage" would be regarded as excessive in relation to the direct military advantage to be gained.

which I think is a pretty close paraphrase of what I said.


Not as far as the Geneva Conventions go. Article 2:

And this is where you replace Hezbollah with lebanesse which I would object to.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:57 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:This I think says everything. Really there isn't much to add, I think you need to recognize that they are infact the best sources out there and the Israeli goverment like any goverment or indeed body will lie to make itself look better. This is why you want independant organizations looking into these things.


"best sources"? Rather laughable at best.

Bottom line however, is that they are not authorities on international law. They might do good work out there, but the legal field is not one in which they specialize.

fjafjan wrote:NGO's with the best international reputation and specifying in international law.


You assume 'best international reputation' means something. Quite frankly, I don't think I've yet to come across a truly 'good' NGO in terms of unbiased work, so being the 'best' of that group tends to mean very little.

fjafjan wrote:A person without a university degree can still be an authority within a subject if he or she has a large body of credibly experience etc etc.


Just like a person who spent years of his life working "near" doctors can be a neurosurgeon, right?

fjafjan wrote:It's the highest god damn ruling body. Who else would mean more?


It's not the "highest god damn ruling body" - in fact, in the hierarchy of power, it doesn't even have a place.

A binding UNSC resolution, for example, would mean more.


fjafjan wrote:It didn't say goverment, it said occupying power and since Israel is a democracy they are part of that occupying power.


I'm not quite sure why you assume that's relevant. Israel, as an 'occupying power' still did not undertake any actions of transfer for the settlements.

fjafjan wrote:Oh, and please don't quote the IDF. There, now it should be more or less impossible but you give it a go.


1. Why would I not quote the IDF? They do happen to be the primary source dealing with this. And interestingly enough, they've also had far, far fewer cases of misinformation than say, your beloved HRW, which you seem to have no problem citing, on matters outside their scope of expertise, no less.

2. As noted, if it becomes necessary, I will.



fjafjan wrote:See that was me describing the law not quoting the law. It does say
Disproportionate attacks, also prohibited, are those in which the "collateral damage" would be regarded as excessive in relation to the direct military advantage to be gained.

which I think is a pretty close paraphrase of what I said.


Except it isn't. What you stated had nothing to do with intent (as noted by your source which states "...would be regarded as..."), nor with the actual targets.

fjafjan wrote:And this is where you replace Hezbollah with lebanesse which I would object to.


You can object all you want, but Hezbollah did not act on behalf of the Lebanese government, the latter of which was the signatory to the conventions. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Lebanese government itself expressly rejects the idea that Hezbollah acted on their behalf.

Finally, you never responded to this:

Yoni wrote:This is rather interesting - on the one hand, you're claiming that damage was 'excessive' - but on the other hand, you're implicitly admitting that it wouldn't be possible to complete such a mission without causing such damage...


Would you say that's rather... accurate...?
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

yelly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:25 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem, The Original One.

Re: Israel

Postby yelly » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:41 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:Never heard of about half of that, any source? As for having to evacuate I am pretty doubtful they "had", considering how few actually died, before aswell as after.

Any news source from around that time should tell you all about it, and I can personally testify as some of those people were living in my house. As to not many being killed, many is subjective, and you aren't considering the fact that all of these people (again, I believe somewhere around 1.5 million) spent all those months living in cramped bomb shelters, another situation you don't want your citizens in.
yoni45 wrote:Transfer means an actual action that is undertaken. If the settlers moved there on their own free will, then it isn't an act of transfer by the government that moved them there.

I am sorry to tell you that that is just wrong. For years the Israeli government offered many incentives to citizens willing to move to the occupied territories.
...
"So there are 3 guards, one always tells the truth, one always lies and the third answers randomly"
"But I only want to know the fucking time!"

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:37 pm UTC

yelly wrote:For years the Israeli government offered many incentives to citizens willing to move to the occupied territories.


I know that much - I'm not sure how that contradicts: 'If the settlers moved there on their own free will, then it isn't an act of transfer by the government that moved them there.'?
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby fjafjan » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:47 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
fjafjan wrote:This I think says everything. Really there isn't much to add, I think you need to recognize that they are infact the best sources out there and the Israeli goverment like any goverment or indeed body will lie to make itself look better. This is why you want independant organizations looking into these things.


"best sources"? Rather laughable at best.

Bottom line however, is that they are not authorities on international law. They might do good work out there, but the legal field is not one in which they specialize.


Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is an international non-governmental organization which defines its mission as "to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights." [1] Founded in the UK in 1961, AI draws attention to human rights abuses and campaigns for compliance with international standards. It works to mobilize public opinion which exerts pressure on those who perpetrate abuses.[2] The organization has been criticized for alleged anti-Western and pro-Western bias,[3][4] while the organization has also been recognized as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for its work on torture and as a UN Human Rights Prize winner.[5][6]

Amnesties goal is to promote all human rights, and is either the or one of the leading organizations on this, are still not an authority on human rights? That is your own highly questionable judgement.


fjafjan wrote:NGO's with the best international reputation and specifying in international law.


You assume 'best international reputation' means something. Quite frankly, I don't think I've yet to come across a truly 'good' NGO in terms of unbiased work, so being the 'best' of that group tends to mean very little.

Hey why not provide some links and examples of how horribly biased and unfair Amnesty, HRW and B'tselum are? Your own credibility as an interpreter of international law is somewhat diminished by being completely contrary to set precedent so far.

fjafjan wrote:A person without a university degree can still be an authority within a subject if he or she has a large body of credibly experience etc etc.


Just like a person who spent years of his life working "near" doctors can be a neurosurgeon, right?

No but a person who spent his whole life reading neurology books and watching videos of neurosurgeons and then cutting in peoples brains might without actually getting a diploma.

It's not the "highest god damn ruling body" - in fact, in the hierarchy of power, it doesn't even have a place.

The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ; French: Cour internationale de Justice) is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations

I perhaps should have specified I meant the term as in law not as in power, it is the foremost authority on international law.
A binding UNSC resolution, for example, would mean more.

Ofcourse those have all been vetoed by the US, but if you have any doubt about the incontroversiality in their illegality on almostall of the resolutions condemning the occupation, settlements etc it's basically the world vs US and Israel + some obscure tiny country you might never even have heard of.


fjafjan wrote:It didn't say goverment, it said occupying power and since Israel is a democracy they are part of that occupying power.


I'm not quite sure why you assume that's relevant. Israel, as an 'occupying power' still did not undertake any actions of transfer for the settlements.

The point being that those parts of the occupying power transferred themselves, ie the occupying power transferred itself into occupied territory.


1. Why would I not quote the IDF? They do happen to be the primary source dealing with this. And interestingly enough, they've also had far, far fewer cases of misinformation than say, your beloved HRW, which you seem to have no problem citing, on matters outside their scope of expertise, no less.

2. As noted, if it becomes necessary, I will.

You would not quote the IDF because they are the ones accused. It's like having a murder case and then you take the word of the accused over the word of the witnesses. Second the claim that IDF has had fewer misinformations than HRW is quite a controversial claim considering the pretty damn vast number of cases where the IDF just bullshit their way out and it ends up being the claims of the IDF against all eyewitnesses etc. Sure you can't confirm that it went down the way everyone else says but it's reaonable to assume that it did. So yeah, some sources on that would be pretty sweet. Need I demand you not quote the IDF there too?

If it really did occur it should not, as it does, prove to be an insurmountable task to find some credible source that will back this up with data rather than speculation. Ofcourse all the credible sources claim that it was either impossible to prove, or that no cases were found, but don't listen to those guys. Listen to the ones accused of killing innocent people but say they were using "human shields".

fjafjan wrote:See that was me describing the law not quoting the law. It does say
Disproportionate attacks, also prohibited, are those in which the "collateral damage" would be regarded as excessive in relation to the direct military advantage to be gained.

which I think is a pretty close paraphrase of what I said.

Except it isn't. What you stated had nothing to do with intent (as noted by your source which states "...would be regarded as..."), nor with the actual targets.

Frankly I don't know what you mean by this.

fjafjan wrote:And this is where you replace Hezbollah with lebanesse which I would object to.


You can object all you want, but Hezbollah did not act on behalf of the Lebanese government, the latter of which was the signatory to the conventions. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Lebanese government itself expressly rejects the idea that Hezbollah acted on their behalf.
Huh? The treaty states that one party not coverd by the treaty will have to be treated as though under the treaty to the extent they act as though they were, is atleast how I read it, now Hezbollah you might say broke the treaty in some regards, true. The lebanesse people however did not, especially not in northern lebanon.

Yoni wrote:This is rather interesting - on the one hand, you're claiming that damage was 'excessive' - but on the other hand, you're implicitly admitting that it wouldn't be possible to complete such a mission without causing such damage...


Would you say that's rather... accurate...?

The damage was excessive in relation to the goal that was trying to be archieved. basically it's like trying to cut your nails with an axe, you can do it poorly or you can do it really poorly, you can't do it well.

I know that much - I'm not sure how that contradicts: 'If the settlers moved there on their own free will, then it isn't an act of transfer by the government that moved them there.'?

Your lawyering BS really isn't very intelligent. If you realise the reason that law was made and recognize that it is infact a sound law, you should also recognize that the fact that the citizens moved there of their free will is irrelevant, especially if there were incetives for them to move there.

Any news source from around that time should tell you all about it, and I can personally testify as some of those people were living in my house. As to not many being killed, many is subjective, and you aren't considering the fact that all of these people (again, I believe somewhere around 1.5 million) spent all those months living in cramped bomb shelters, another situation you don't want your citizens in.

No I meant the bits about the "many dead" before the invasion, since those people were forced to live in shelters due to the escalation of violence. as for many yes it's true that is highly subjective, but if you compare 40 casualities to 1000 it is fairly insignificant. Especially if you count in that a large part of the damage was economic which indirectly will lead to preventable deaths from poverty.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

yelly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:25 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem, The Original One.

Re: Israel

Postby yelly » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:39 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:No I meant the bits about the "many dead" before the invasion, since those people were forced to live in shelters due to the escalation of violence.

I never said "many dead" before the invasion, reread my post. And yes, I remember it clearly, people were dying and living in shelters well before an IDF soldier set foot in Lebanon. They were bombing Hifa for crying out loud!
fjafjan wrote:but if you compare 40 casualities to 1000 it is fairly insignificant

As a country, 40 lives of my citizens is never insignificant. That is why you have a military force in the first place.
...
"So there are 3 guards, one always tells the truth, one always lies and the third answers randomly"
"But I only want to know the fucking time!"

TheSwaminator
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:23 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby TheSwaminator » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Hello guys. This is my first post on this thread, but I read back through the last two pages, so I think I'm on topic.

Here is a quote that I really think relates to this situation.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. -John Donne


Basically all of humanity is one. If you hear of someone's death or of an injustice put on someone, it doesn't matter who it is, it should always have an impact on you.


Number wrote:For both sides, peace is what matters more,

Very true, and that's what I want to happen.
The problem is that there are too many Arabs and Jews that will never forget.[/color]
Last edited by TheSwaminator on Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:09 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:04 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:Amnesties goal is to promote all human rights, and is either the or one of the leading organizations on this, are still not an authority on human rights?


Correct.

fjafjan wrote:Hey why not provide some links and examples of how horribly biased and unfair Amnesty, HRW and B'tselum are?


B'tselem is the better of the three - I haven't seen them produce any actually false information. But they still do have a general bias. For example, their statistics page:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statisti ... alties.asp

It outlines statistics for a maximally negative image, while ignoring statistics that *should* fall into the page that would show explanations for certain trends... For example, under it's category of individuals killed who were not hostile, which would generally imply civilians, it includes members of terrorist organizations who just didn't happen to be brandishing a weapon at the time.

As for Amnesty and HRW - both for example jumped on the 'Jenin massacre' bandwagon even though there was no evidence for any such event. HRW also publicized the clearly fabricated story of the ambulance attack in Lebanon, even though no such attack ever took place. Not only that, but in the face of rather incontrovertible evidence, they stuck to their blatantly false position. You point out that they're supposed to promote "all human rights"? Well, for some reason, their work is disproportionately focused on Israel, even though on this face of this Earth, at *worst*, Israel's violations of said human rights are minimal to those on this planet.

Study on focus of Amnesty Int'l work:
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amne ... eport_for_

Article on topic:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/ ... 20008/1013

This is about 10 minutes worth of recollection - there's plenty more. Feel free to present anything close to such falsehoods or bias propagated by the IDF.

fjafjan wrote:No but a person who spent his whole life reading neurology books and watching videos of neurosurgeons and then cutting in peoples brains might without actually getting a diploma.


Haha that's fine. When there's a trend of people allowing completely unlicensed neurosurgeons to operate on them on the basis of nothing more than "I read a whole BUNCH of books" - then we'll go ahead and trust your ad-hoc authorities on international law.

Wait, this seems familiar...

http://usmagazine.com/kanyewest_and_don ... ctice_suit

fjafjan wrote:I perhaps should have specified I meant the term as in law not as in power, it is the foremost authority on international law.


'Primary judicial organ of the UN' doesn't mean 'highest authority' - especially considering it has little to no power. International law largely has no 'top' authority, since there's no higher body to appoint it.

fjafjan wrote:Ofcourse those have all been vetoed by the US...


C'est la vie. You don't actually expect me to ignore certain mechanisms of the UN while you rest your entire argument on them...?

fjafjan wrote:The point being that those parts of the occupying power transferred themselves, ie the occupying power transferred itself into occupied territory.


I don't think there's any definition out there that refers to the occupying power as the civilian body - the occupying power is the governmental power that's occupying the given territory. But a nice attempt at equivocation, nevertheless?

fjafjan wrote:You would not quote the IDF because they are the ones accused. It's like having a murder case and then you take the word of the accused over the word of the witnesses.


First off, that's called an ad-hominem, a logical fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

Second off, it's rather easy to point out that it's the various terrorist groups being accused of using human shields, thus completely reversing your obviously flawed line of reasoning.

fjafjan wrote:Ofcourse all the credible sources claim that it was either impossible to prove, or that no cases were found, but don't listen to those guys.


Ah yes, the HRW report that stated they couldn't find any reason to believe Hezbollah was operating out of civilian areas...

I guess they weren't looking very hard, considering they somehow missed out on all of this:

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_ ... lds_eb.pdf

And failed to address *any* of it. What's that called? Willful ignorance? 70 pages of varying degrees of evidence thoroughly ripping apart what little credibility HRW once had...

fjafjan wrote:Frankly I don't know what you mean by this.


Read your original claim again, then read the text you supposedly used to support it with, and then read what I stated. I'll be honest, I'm just lazy right now - I know it was somewhat confusing, but I'm hoping I won't have to go into detail on it.

fjafjan wrote:The treaty states that one party not coverd by the treaty will have to be treated as though under the treaty to the extent they act as though they were, is atleast how I read it, now Hezbollah you might say broke the treaty in some regards, true. The lebanesse people however did not, especially not in northern lebanon.


That's fair - you can have that one.

fjafjan wrote:The damage was excessive in relation to the goal that was trying to be archieved.


But your statements clearly implied that it would've been otherwise impossible to realistically meet that goal with such damage, when you were asking me "how exactly [I] believe such an operation could have been mounted without said damage", did they not?

fjafjan wrote:If you realise the reason that law was made and recognize that it is infact a sound law, you should also recognize that the fact that the citizens moved there of their free will is irrelevant, especially if there were incetives for them to move there.


Except the text of the law clearly shows it *is* relevant, whether you'd like to acknowledge it or not.
Last edited by yoni45 on Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:07 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:06 am UTC

yelly wrote:I never said "many dead" before the invasion, reread my post. And yes, I remember it clearly, people were dying and living in shelters well before an IDF soldier set foot in Lebanon. They were bombing Hifa for crying out loud!


Eh - Israeli jets were pounding away into Lebanon before any rocket attacks on Haifa. True, there were no soldiers in Lebanon, but that's because the ground campaign came late into the war.

That said though, Hezbollah did fire mortars and rockets at a few Israeli border towns as part of their kidnapping for 'distraction'...
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

yelly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:25 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem, The Original One.

Re: Israel

Postby yelly » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:41 am UTC

TheSwaminator wrote:Example: Syria, 1973. Arabs started a conflict. Israel bombed Damascus(capital of Syria). With what? Many of the bombs were teddy bears. Children would see these teddy bears on the streets. The appealing teddy bears attracted and killed(or maimed) the children. That wasn't the end of the story. There was no "happy ever after."

Excuse me, this is ridiculous. I would like at least a citation please.

TheSwaminator wrote:Today Syria and its citizens are strong supporters of Hezbollah, a militant group. Hezbollah is the most honest, most appealing terrorist group on the planet. It's leader does not lie. Also, look at last summer's Israeli Lebanese war. Since Hezbollah's new leader, the group has never attacked any part of Israel except for Sheba Farms, a Lebanese area that Israel claims is Syria's! For this reason, Israel holds on to the land. Hezbollah, which has never lied, has promised to stop fighting Israel if Israel gives back Sheba Farms. Would Hezbollah really stop? I can't be sure. Hezbollah is too angry at Israel, in my opinion, to stop. Still, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that has never lied. (If only every country had leaders that never lied, it would certainly make things easier.)

1. Why the fuck do I care how honest Hizzbullah is?
2. Who is this new leader you speak of? When did he gain power?
3. Sheba farms is Syrian territory, I never understood why Lebanon claim it.

TheSwaminator wrote:That still doesn't clear Israel's slate. On the anniversary of the Lebanese-Israeli war, Hezbollah publicized many of Israel's injustices. One common example was the bombing of minivans full of fleeing Lebanese waving white towels desperately.

Are you citing a terrorist organisation as a reliable source?

Oh, and please don't use that colour for all your post, it is distracting.
...
"So there are 3 guards, one always tells the truth, one always lies and the third answers randomly"
"But I only want to know the fucking time!"

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:50 am UTC

TheSwaminator wrote:The settlements have been taking land. How are they not treating the land like Israeli's land?
They are going there and living there. It's all land grab. 20 years from now, Israel will use the the "well-established communities" as an excuse not to move over. That's why I don't support any of the settlements. Doesn't settlement mean colony?


They're treated as Israeli private land, not state land.

Quite frankly, I want the settlers to get the boot just as much as you do. In fact, probably more, because it's my image they're tarnishing with their divine BS.

TheSwaminator wrote:We know. It is still wrong. Israel supported those transfers.


Agreed.

TheSwaminator wrote:Yes, but considered by whom to be defensive? Israel can claim that they are all defense. I disagree.


By most relevant bodies in the field. 1956 was definitely an aggressive campaign on the part of Israel, but both '67 and '73 were defensive. '73 should be rather obvious (although arguably, Israel was acting stupid prior to the war which is what escalated to it). '67 was also defensive - Nasser not only lined up his army right on the Israeli border, he also exclaimed to the world about how they will be horrified by what they will do to the Jews. Legally, he also breached the cease-fire terms by removing UNIFIL UNEF forces from the Sinai and militarizing it.



TheSwaminator wrote:From Syria and a few other countries, they stole top soil.


I can accept Palestinian claims of private property loss, but Syria had it coming. They terrorized Israeli towns and villages under the Golan for close to 2 decades with regular mortar attacks, and then initiated a clearly aggressive war against Israel. Israel's under no obligation to return the land outside of a Syrian cessation of hostilities.


TheSwaminator wrote:From the beginning, Israel of 1948 has not at all acted like the moral biblical Israel that it was supposed to be.
Also from the beginning, Israel has tried every means of kicking out Muslims and (non-Jewish) Arabs.
What is happening now is a continuation of that.
Arabs want to do what Israel did to them, back. This is wrong.


Keep in mind that 1948 was not the beginning. Hostility between Jews and Arabs in the region started decades prior to 1948, in the early 1920's when Arab riots and attacks against Jews started. This went on for at least a decade before Jewish terrorist groups formed and started attacking Arabs. The next two decades (-ish) were ones of escalation from both sides of the field, which is what led to the events of 1948.

TheSwaminator wrote:What if it wasn't possible to complete such a mission without causing such damage?
You are implying that you would still support the war. If the war must be excessively damaging, and you support the war, then the damage is connected with the war. Thus, I can say that you support gratuitous killing when you support the war.


Ah, but here's the thing - if such damage or killing is necessary to the war, then it is neither excessive nor gratuitous.

It's unfortunate, yes. But on the other hand, Israel has little choice. The war wasn't just about 2 soldiers kidnapped, it was about Hezbollah's presence in Lebanon. It was about the fact that Hezbollah is becoming stronger with every day that passes, and it has on it's agenda Israel's destruction. So sooner or later, Israel would have to fight, either on its own terms or on Hezbollah's, but later means stronger Hezbollah, so sooner is preferable.

Israel gave Lebanon and UNIFIL six years since its withdrawal to act on their responsibilities at disarming Hezbollah, but they not only failed, they didn't actually do anything. That means "alternative" options don't exactly exist.

TheSwaminator wrote:Democratic? Sure, I must admit, Israel is democratic. A democracy with racism. A democracy made to help one people and hinder another until they leave. Explain the building rights problem.
Israel tries to kick out Palestinians by denying them the rights to build homes to live in.
That is neither Self-defense nor National Security. It is called discrimination.


Building rights in areas like Jerusalem are tough to come by for pretty much everyone - Jerusalem isn't exactly an open range.

Nevertheless:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A961958260

That said, Israel does have it's racial issues, like any country. Even so however, Arabs are equal under Israeli law, and more often than not have far more rights in Israel than they do in the various neighboring countries...

TheSwaminator wrote:Example: Syria, 1973. Arabs started a conflict. Israel bombed Damascus(capital of Syria). With what? Many of the bombs were teddy bears. Children would see these teddy bears on the streets. The appealing teddy bears attracted and killed(or maimed) the children. That wasn't the end of the story. There was no "happy ever after."


*That* is rather interesting. I hope you'll extend me the courtesy to answer honestly, but where did you get this? I'm not looking for you to justify or prove that happened (well, that too), but I'd really like to know where you picked up this information...

TheSwaminator wrote:It's leader does not lie.


He did regarding casualty statistics.

TheSwaminator wrote:Also, look at last summer's Israeli Lebanese war. Since Hezbollah's new leader, the group has never attacked any part of Israel except for Sheba Farms, a Lebanese area that Israel claims is Syria's!


First off, what? They hit most of Northern Israel with rockets...

Second off, Shebaa farms would indeed be Syrian. The vast majority of maps, both Syrian and Lebanese have shown it as such. The official UN ruling on the matter in 2000 agreed with this, after having pored over what I believe were dozens if not hundreds of maps.

TheSwaminator wrote:For this reason, Israel holds on to the land. Hezbollah, which has never lied, has promised to stop fighting Israel if Israel gives back Sheba Farms.


And before they made up the Shebaa Farms issue, which was never even mentioned in any discourse, they said they would stop fighting Israel if only they withdrew from Lebanon. Israel did that, and suddenly Shebaa Farms became Lebanese.

Nasrallah has also stated numerous times that even if Israel was to return the land, they would not consider reconciliation.

TheSwaminator wrote:Admittedly, the whole area is civilian. Hezbollah is a recruiter of common people, who lived in normal homes, with others. The areas Israel bombed were not individual homes, they were 4-20 story apartment buildings with all types of people in them.


Well, at least you admit Hezbollah fights from among civilian areas. Now, to get this straight, Hezbollah commits an act of war against Israel, runs behind civilian lines, and you then complain over Israel targeting said civilian areas...?
Last edited by yoni45 on Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:34 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Israel

Postby Maurog » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:10 am UTC

I'd really like a source on that teddy bear bombs issue. It doesn't look like a tactic Israel would use, well, ever.

TheSwaminator, source or GTFO.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:32 am UTC

Maurog wrote:TheSwaminator, source or GTFO.


Be nice, those aren't the two only viable options... ^_^
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby segmentation fault » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:37 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:Excuse or not, that still does not change the fact that Hizbullah's actions were what ignited the conflict.


actually, afaik, the soldiers were in lebanese territory when they were kidnapped. they violated lebanon's sovereignty. THATS what ignited the conflict.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

yelly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:25 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem, The Original One.

Re: Israel

Postby yelly » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:05 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:
yoni45 wrote:Excuse or not, that still does not change the fact that Hizbullah's actions were what ignited the conflict.


actually, afaik, the soldiers were in lebanese territory when they were kidnapped. they violated lebanon's sovereignty. THATS what ignited the conflict.

Well, that really depends on what you call lebanese territory. They were kidnapped out of an IDF base on what currently is the Israeli side of the border. Furthermore, considering that it wasn't a lebanese authority that arrested them, but rather an individual group that kidnapped them, it doesn't really matter.
...
"So there are 3 guards, one always tells the truth, one always lies and the third answers randomly"
"But I only want to know the fucking time!"

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby fjafjan » Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:35 pm UTC

yelly wrote:
segmentation fault wrote:
yoni45 wrote:Excuse or not, that still does not change the fact that Hizbullah's actions were what ignited the conflict.


actually, afaik, the soldiers were in lebanese territory when they were kidnapped. they violated lebanon's sovereignty. THATS what ignited the conflict.

Well, that really depends on what you call lebanese territory. They were kidnapped out of an IDF base on what currently is the Israeli side of the border. Furthermore, considering that it wasn't a lebanese authority that arrested them, but rather an individual group that kidnapped them, it doesn't really matter.

Which means it was a border confrontation on at best contested land, but most likely they were actually on, in accordance with International Law on Lebanese land. The argument was not so much that any action was unreasonable, but the scale and execution were not just illegal but also foolish and counter productive.
Secondly, the bolded bit is quite great.
That bolded bit means it was what most CERTAINLY an illegal act, if a mexican murders and american soldier that does not grand the US permission to invade mexico, they can only demand him be extradated, and so if it was not one man but rather a group.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:09 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:actually, afaik, the soldiers were in lebanese territory when they were kidnapped. they violated lebanon's sovereignty. THATS what ignited the conflict.


Um, they weren't - they were on a border patrol on the Israeli side.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/13/ ... ideast.php

fjafjan wrote:Which means it was a border confrontation on at best contested land, but most likely they were actually on, in accordance with International Law on Lebanese land...


Source?

fjafjan wrote:That bolded bit means it was what most CERTAINLY an illegal act, if a mexican murders and american soldier that does not grand the US permission to invade mexico, they can only demand him be extradated, and so if it was not one man but rather a group.


Would you care to point me to a copy of the extradition treaty between Israel and Lebanon?
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Israel

Postby Maurog » Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:23 pm UTC

fjafjan my good chap, if Lebannon actually extradites Hisballah to Israel to be tried, we'll all have a lot more peace on our hands.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby segmentation fault » Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:41 pm UTC

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html

It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel. Hezbollah, which commands the Lebanese south, immediately seized on their crossing. They arrested two Israeli soldiers, killed eight Israelis and wounded over 20 in attacks inside Israeli territory.


everything i have read on the matter says they were captured near Aita Al Shab, which is clearly across the border in Lebanon.

http://arab-americans.blogspot.com/2006 ... banon.html

The Israelis so far have not been able to enter Aita al-Shaab to recover the tank that was exploded by Hizbullah and the bodies of the soldiers that were killed in the original operation (this is a main indication that the operation did take place on Lebanese soil, not that in my opinion it would ever be an illegitimate operation, but still the media has been saying that it was inside ‘Israel’ thus an aggression first started by Hizbullah).
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

yelly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:25 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem, The Original One.

Re: Israel

Postby yelly » Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:19 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
yelly wrote:Well, that really depends on what you call lebanese territory. They were kidnapped out of an IDF base on what currently is the Israeli side of the border. Furthermore, considering that it wasn't a lebanese authority that arrested them, but rather an individual group that kidnapped them, it doesn't really matter.

Which means it was a border confrontation on at best contested land, but most likely they were actually on, in accordance with International Law on Lebanese land. The argument was not so much that any action was unreasonable, but the scale and execution were not just illegal but also foolish and counter productive.
Secondly, the bolded bit is quite great.
That bolded bit means it was what most CERTAINLY an illegal act, if a mexican murders and american soldier that does not grand the US permission to invade mexico, they can only demand him be extradated, and so if it was not one man but rather a group.

As to the first bit, do not catch me on my word, I have not seen those maps (or at least I don't remember them), they might well have been well within '47 borders for all I know.
The second bit is true, but if it were a Mexican militia that was committing acts of war against the US, the story would be different. Plus, as was said, I don't believe we have an extradition agreement with Lebanon.

segmentation fault wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html

It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel. Hezbollah, which commands the Lebanese south, immediately seized on their crossing. They arrested two Israeli soldiers, killed eight Israelis and wounded over 20 in attacks inside Israeli territory.


everything i have read on the matter says they were captured near Aita Al Shab, which is clearly across the border in Lebanon.

http://arab-americans.blogspot.com/2006 ... banon.html

The Israelis so far have not been able to enter Aita al-Shaab to recover the tank that was exploded by Hizbullah and the bodies of the soldiers that were killed in the original operation (this is a main indication that the operation did take place on Lebanese soil, not that in my opinion it would ever be an illegitimate operation, but still the media has been saying that it was inside ‘Israel’ thus an aggression first started by Hizbullah).

For starters, you are citing an Asian news source and a blogger to back your statement that is contradicting with the Herald Tribune, never a good idea.
Second, I think you are misunderstanding what happened. 2 soldiers were kidnapped from within Israeli territory, and then the forces that went to rescue them were ambushed within Lebanese land. Chasing after people that kidnapped your soldiers sounds OK to me.
...
"So there are 3 guards, one always tells the truth, one always lies and the third answers randomly"
"But I only want to know the fucking time!"

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:28 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:everything i have read on the matter says they were captured near Aita Al Shab, which is clearly across the border in Lebanon.


That's not very true, considering I've provided you with at least one source which clearly states otherwise, is it now?

As for your source, not only are you putting up the 'Asia Times' against the IHT (not the greatest, but light years ahead of AT), you're also quoting out of an opinion piece coming out of Damascus - hardly a beacon of free speech or accuracy in events.

Here's a New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/world ... deast.html

New York Times wrote:JERUSALEM, Thursday, July 13 — The Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah surprised Israel with a bold daylight assault across the border on Wednesday, leading to fighting in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and at least eight killed, and elevating recent tensions into a serious two-front battle.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby Azrael001 » Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:29 pm UTC

I started reading the first few pages, but it became obvious who I agreed with (You can say it is because I am biased I don't care). These are the points summed up as far as I can tell:

1. Israel was created by the "west". The West gave them the land from land that they controlled.

2. There would have been an Arab state in the area, but because they didn't want the Jews there, they were unwilling to compromise and ended up with nothing.

3. Rather than help the Palestinian refugees*, the Arab states used their suffering as proof that Israel was evil.

4. A united Arab force ( I don't know exactly who, nor do I care), proclaimed that it would not rest until Israel was destroyed and it's people scattered ore dead.

5. Israel, who was friendly with the West (who was still feeling pretty bad about the whole Holocaust thing) bought some of the Western weapons and attacked those who threatened their existence. They kick the snot out of them.

6. Some of the conquered land is returned for peace, this is why Egypt is no longer an active party (as far as I know) in trying to wipe out the country.

7. Other Arab states are still mad at the Jews, who are (rightly so) also mad at the Arabs. They both do bad things to each other.

8. Here is where things become hazy. For the most part Israel is fighting a defensive war, they do invade a few places but it is because they are provoked. More bad things are done on both sides...

We are now at the present.

I don't know if Pi and the two people he was arguing with ever actually came to some sort of consensus, but I will assume that they didn't. I am here going to continue the (dead?) argument.

The sides seem to be
1) Kick out millions of people who have no practical place to go, even though they were given land from the UN. Barring that force them out using nasty guerrilla warfare (which is the only thing Israel's enemies seem to be capable of) despite the fact that this would cost thousands of lives, and cause years of suffering.
2) Try to reason with fundamentalists, who hate everything that the west stands for (I'm sure that many of them don't but generalizing is easy)
3) This one is my personal favorite as a solution. The Swordfish approach. Watch the movie. It is good. The general point that I am trying to reference is to make attacking us (I refer to the West as us, and I consider Israel to be part of the west, sue me) have such horrific consequences that no one will ever consider doing it. Also, it gets rid of lots of bad people.

I am feeling particularly cynical today, and I don't actually think that #3 would work, nor do I advocate it, but it is sure tempting sometimes.

My actual contribution to the discussion is: Neither side is innocent. Pointing fingers solves nothing, The best thing that could be done is to wipe the slate clean and start negotiations.

*note: there was never a state of Palestine, and historically, they have no more claim to the land than anyone else
23111

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby segmentation fault » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:44 pm UTC

yelly wrote:For starters, you are citing an Asian news source and a blogger to back your statement that is contradicting with the Herald Tribune, never a good idea.


All your article says is "across the border." Which side? It doesnt say.

yelly wrote:Second, I think you are misunderstanding what happened. 2 soldiers were kidnapped from within Israeli territory, and then the forces that went to rescue them were ambushed within Lebanese land. Chasing after people that kidnapped your soldiers sounds OK to me.


No, the 2 soldiers were captured near Aita Al Shab, within the Lebanese border.

In addition, this operation to invade Lebanon (again) had been planned for a year prior to this incident. It would make sense that Israel goaded Lebanon into an action that would justify an invasion, as Israel likes to do things like that.

Either way:

No matter where those troops were captured, Hezbollah is gloating as Israel proves that they are exactly what Hezbollah has been claiming all along -- a bunch of racists who literally believe that Arab lives are worth less than Israeli lives. Israel has played right into Hezbollah's hands. Hezbollah wanted to prove to the world that Israel was a bunch of blood-thirsty savages who would gleefully kill a hundred Arab women and children in retribution for the death of a single Israeli citizen, and voila, what did Israel do? You guessed it. They did exactly what Hezbollah wanted them to do.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:38 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:All your article says is "across the border." Which side? It doesnt say.


Perhaps you're unfamiliar with what the words 'across the border' mean, but if Hezbollah, who is situated in Lebanon, makes an assault 'across the border', then that means the assault took place in Israel.

segmentation fault wrote:No, the 2 soldiers were captured near Aita Al Shab, within the Lebanese border.


That's already been shown to be false by 2 reputable sources. The fact that you keep on repeating it says little about the incident, and much more so about yourself.

segmentation fault wrote:In addition, this operation to invade Lebanon (again) had been planned for a year prior to this incident. It would make sense that Israel goaded Lebanon into an action that would justify an invasion, as Israel likes to do things like that.


I love it when people start baseless speculation about things when they're proven wrong.

Of course Israel planned an invasion for a "year" - it was probably planning one for even longer. Considering Lebanon's inability to control Hezbollah and the UN's choice not to do so, such a contingency plan only makes sense.

Heck, the US had a contingency plan for invading Canada should the need arise.

segmentation fault wrote:No matter where those troops were captured, Hezbollah is gloating as Israel proves that they are exactly what Hezbollah has been claiming all along -- a bunch of racists who literally believe that Arab lives are worth less than Israeli lives. Israel has played right into Hezbollah's hands. Hezbollah wanted to prove to the world that Israel was a bunch of blood-thirsty savages who would gleefully kill a hundred Arab women and children in retribution for the death of a single Israeli citizen, and voila, what did Israel do? You guessed it. They did exactly what Hezbollah wanted them to do.


To get this straight: Hezbollah starts a war, fights from among its civilians, purposely uses the situation to result in the deaths of these civilians, to use for their own ends (as you admit), and you're under the assumption that this says anything about anyone other than Hezbollah?
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel

Postby aleflamedyud » Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:53 am UTC

*note: there was never a state of Palestine, and historically, they have no more claim to the land than anyone else

Hey everyone! This guy actually makes sense!

But hey, everyone just go on thinking that Arabs legitimately own some portion of the land. While you do that, I'm going to invade your house, rape your wife, kill your children, raze the building to the ground, build my own house on top of it, and then just hand the new house to my grandkids once I have them -- just like the Arabs did to the Jews in Israel. Since the grandkids weren't the ones raping and pillaging, it becomes legitimately theirs, right? Or do I have to wait until your ownership leaves living memory? I can wait that long.

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot: conquest is only OK when Arabs do it before the United Nations came along to call it Mean and Wrong. And once the United Nations does proclaim it Mean and Wrong, repatriating the original population of the land becomes Mean and Wrong Conquest, because obviously the map in 1945 is the good, natural and right map of the world.

Israel will do with the occupied territories what's best for Israel, as they have every right to do. Screw anyone who wants to expel the Jews from the Jewish homeland.

It's a pity, really. I've never met an Arab I didn't like, including Palestinians. They're really much nicer than most other people. It's too bad Israel didn't just expel them from Israel's land in '67. With no "Palestinian" Arabs left in Israel (as opposed to Israeli Arabs) to bomb Israelis in their delusions of ownership, I'd have quite a few more friends.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

yelly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:25 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem, The Original One.

Re: Israel

Postby yelly » Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:58 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:In addition, this operation to invade Lebanon (again) had been planned for a year prior to this incident. It would make sense that Israel goaded Lebanon into an action that would justify an invasion, as Israel likes to do things like that.

1. Citation please (a reliable one this time)
2. It is probably true that Israel has had a dynamic plan to invade all of it's neighbouring countries from the minute it was founded until today. This is not surprising, as a good army should be prepared for any situation, and having a ready made plan for invasion is one of those things. It doesn't mean you have to / want to use it.

No matter where those troops were captured, Hezbollah is gloating as Israel proves that they are exactly what Hezbollah has been claiming all along -- a bunch of racists who literally believe that Arab lives are worth less than Israeli lives. Israel has played right into Hezbollah's hands. Hezbollah wanted to prove to the world that Israel was a bunch of blood-thirsty savages who would gleefully kill a hundred Arab women and children in retribution for the death of a single Israeli citizen, and voila, what did Israel do? You guessed it. They did exactly what Hezbollah wanted them to do.

First of all, I believe that from a country's point of view, the life of a citizen of mine > someone else's life. It is just one of the point of having a country, and yes, it is probably true of Israel as well. (DISCLAIMER: this, of course, is not an absolute truth with no exception, but it is a good guideline).
Second, doesn't your claim make Hizzbollah look bad? You are basically saying they were thinking "lets make sure Israel kill as many people as we can to make us look better". I do agree that if this were the case, Israel is still to blame for killing lots of people, but Hizzbollah are just being plain evil.
And third, I really don't understand people who think anyone is just a bloodthirsty savage who kills for fun. Even if Israel had absolutely no regard for (arab) human life, why would they spend the resources to go and kill them if they had nothing to gain? And what can Israel possibly gain by purposeful slaughtering of innocent civilians?
And last, how can a terrorist organisation make anyone look like a blood-thirsty savage? I am pretty sure no one here can justify anything of what they do.

aleflamedyud wrote:
*note: there was never a state of Palestine, and historically, they have no more claim to the land than anyone else

Hey everyone! This guy actually makes sense!...

Well, theoretically, the Muslims (yes, not arabs), have more or less the same claim to the as the Jews do. The Jews claim is religious (we were given this land by god, the bible says it is ours...), and the Muslims have claim to it because of the Waqf (Israel was a Muslim territory during the Ottoman empire, and therefore, under Muslim law, it will be Muslim territory for ever).
...
"So there are 3 guards, one always tells the truth, one always lies and the third answers randomly"
"But I only want to know the fucking time!"


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests