NationStates Jolt Archive

On Friday, Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper published comments made by Israeli general Gadi Eisenkot, head of the army's northern command. Eisenkot took the opportunity to share the principles shaping plans for a future war.

The general promised "disproportionate" force to destroy entire villages identified as sources of Hizbullah rocket fire, the reasoning being that they are "not civilian villages" but rather "military bases" – the kind of reasoning that can land you in a war crimes tribunal.

Eisenkot pointed to how Israel levelled the Dahiya neighbourhood of Beirut in 2006 and confirmed that this would be the fate of "every village from which Israel is fired on". In case there was any doubt, he added: "This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/07/israelandthepalestinians.lebanon

It appears the "darkies" need a firm hand when they get uppity.

Why does Israel seem to wish to become the new ancient Rome?

America has no greater friend than Israel.

If I had a friend who went around killing innocent people and taking billions of dollars from me without paying me back I'd stop answering my phone.

But America has no greater friend than Israel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/07/israelandthepalestinians.lebanon

It appears the "darkies" need a firm hand when they get uppity.

I don't think skin color has anything to do with this?

America has no greater friend than Israel.

If I had a friend who went around killing innocent people and taking billions of dollars from me without paying me back I'd stop answering my phone.

But America has no greater friend than Israel.

What about Britania? We invade who you invade, torture who you torture. We even tolerate your colonial whineing.

Why does Israel seem to wish to become the new ancient Rome?
Because Israel is a Jewish state in the middle of an Muslim world

Ah, how fun.

Because Israel is a Jewish state in the middle of an Muslim world

Just like ancient Rome?

Just like ancient Rome?

The implication was a state of advanced culture surrounded by barbarians.

What about Britania? We invade who you invade, torture who you torture. We even tolerate your colonial whineing.

And posses awful dental hygiene! So, what are you trying to accomplish?:tongue:

The implication was a state of advanced culture surrounded by barbarians.

Well, that's a justification...
Sure they've haven't just run out of living space?

And posses awful dental hygiene! So, what are you trying to accomplish?:tongue:

Unfortunatly, that statement is true. :(

Well, that's a justification...
Sure they've haven't just run out of living space?

I'm not justifying it. I'm merely interpreting the other poster's statement.

Unfortunatly, that statement is true. :(

I was joking, Zero-kun.:fluffle:

I'm not justifying it. I'm merely interpreting the other poster's statement.

Oh course, didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I was joking, Zero-kun.:fluffle:

I know Yuki-Chan, but British Dental hygine is on the decline.

This is almost admitting plans to commit genocide.

But we must support Israel! As John McCain would say, "we can never allow a second Holocaust."

I just read some of the article from Yediot Achronot. If he does do that I'd agree with charging him for war crimes. He says that pretty much all the shi'ite villages near the border house rockets instead of people, but that doesn't really seem very likely to me.

Edit: Ah yes, and it appears that those plans are "approved", so anyone in the government that was a part of approving this plan should be charged as well in the event that something of the sort happens.

America has no greater friend than Israel.

If I had a friend who went around killing innocent people and taking billions of dollars from me without paying me back I'd stop answering my phone.

But America has no greater friend than Israel.

Unfortunately in this neck of the woods there are no greater friends, so Israel is who we have.

Unfortunately in this neck of the woods there are no greater friends, so Israel is who we have.

So their government should be issued a blank check to commit war crimes?

This is almost admitting plans to commit genocide.

But we must support Israel! As John McCain would say, "we can never allow a second Holocaust."

Its only a holocaust apperantly when it happens to the jews.

It appears Israel learnt much from the Nazis.

I don't think skin color has anything to do with this?

Its the colonial attitude. You may substitute "natives" should you wish.

Its the colonial attitude. You may substitute "natives" should you wish.
There are plenty of dark skinned Israelis in society and government.
Not all Israelis are of white skin and wish to persecute all darkies. That is what your original comment implied, at least to my understanding.

Its only a holocaust apperantly when it happens to the jews.

It appears Israel learnt much from the Nazis.

For that matter, genocide is largely ignored in Africa, in the Sudan or Rwanda.

The lessons of the Holocaust should have made sure that such things never happened to anyone, Jewish or otherwise. Instead, the Holocaust has become a political bludgeon.

There are plenty of dark skinned Israelis in society and government.
Not all Israelis are of white skin and wish to persecute all darkies. That is what your original comment implied, at least to my understanding.

Lets get off the semantics and talk about what matters.


That the Israel government just admitted it is essentially planning genocide. As I said, they have learned much from the Nazis.

Lets get off the semantics and talk about what matters.


That the Israel government just admitted it is essentially planning genocide. As I said, they have learned much from the Nazis.

You could argue that it is self/premptive defense. Presumably the plan is the threat will stop Hamaz from launching anay rockets for a few days.

You could argue that it is self/premptive defense. Presumably the plan is the threat will stop Hamaz from launching nay rockets for a few days.

But you forget, Israel isn't allowed to defend itself. If the United States had a large group in its midst living amongst a supportive local population, regularly firing rockets on US cities and opposing the US state, I bet the US would do a hell of a lot worse.

Lets get off the semantics and talk about what matters.


That the Israel government just admitted it is essentially planning genocide. As I said, they have learned much from the Nazis.


Well, let's talk about what matters then. This is NOT the first time that someone in the Israeli government has made such comments. There are members of gov't that usually talk about genocide against the Palestinians. They have been committing genocide for some time now, and not just planning it.

Wiki says this:
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as
“ any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

They have done this wholesale through raids, bombings, blockades, denial of health care, etc etc. They have done this for ages, and the world still sits by. The UN can throw a resolution against them, but its never binding, or the US will veto whatever one is binding.

I really hope the third intifada comes soon, because those people are the only ones that are willing to stand up against Israeli aggression.

You could argue that it is self/premptive defense. Presumably the plan is the threat will stop Hamaz from launching nay rockets for a few days.

Is their such a thing as premptive defense?

Regardless, their is no defense for these statements. Genocide is genocide. War Crimes are War Crimes. Killing civillians is wrong. Doesn't matter who does it to who.

This is almost admitting plans to commit genocide.

But we must support Israel! As John McCain would say, "we can never allow a second Holocaust."

One of my most hated things about American politicians is their seemingly blind support of Israel (This as a conservative American). I can understand up to a point, "they're our only friend in the region", which mostly seems to be because they're our "friend" :rolleyes:

You could argue that it is self/premptive defense. Presumably the plan is the threat will stop Hamaz from launching anay rockets for a few days.

Well, one could have argued that what Hitler did was pre-emptive as well. He was trying to prevent the ebul Joos from taking over.

;)


/godwin

It´s funny that in a war crimes thread, the ad is about chatting with Single Arabs online. LMAO!:p

Well, let's talk about what matters then. This is NOT the first time that someone in the Israeli government has made such comments. There are members of gov't that usually talk about genocide against the Palestinians. They have been committing genocide for some time now, and not just planning it.

Wiki says this:


They have done this wholesale through raids, bombings, blockades, denial of health care, etc etc. They have done this for ages, and the world still sits by. The UN can throw a resolution against them, but its never binding, or the US will veto whatever one is binding.

I really hope the third intifada comes soon, because those people are the only ones that are willing to stand up against Israeli aggression.


Another intifada would only legitimize Israel and provoke more brutal actions on their part. The solution must be diplomatic. Attacking Israel won't stop their attacks, just intensify them. If we go down that road, the only peace is likely to be the genocidal extermination of one or both groups. Possibly sparking off WW3 in the process.

It´s funny that in a war crimes thread, the ad is about chatting with Single Arabs online. LMAO!:p

I'm seeing funeral plans in Portugal... :confused:

It´s funny that in a war crimes thread, the ad is about chatting with Single Arabs online. LMAO!:p

I noticed that too. I was wondering if it was just because I have an interest in Arab women :p

It´s funny that in a war crimes thread, the ad is about chatting with Single Arabs online. LMAO!:p

Why becasue their terorists and are going to kill us all and therfore must be feared becasue they are commiting war crimes and mass murder just because thier Arabs?


;) - before you call me a racist wiki Poe's law. It makes my life easier. Myabe I'll just sig it.

Another intifada would only legitimize Israel and provoke more brutal actions on their part. The solution must be diplomatic. Attacking Israel won't stop their attacks, just intensify them. If we go down that road, the only peace is likely to be the genocidal extermination of one or both groups. Possibly sparking off WW3 in the process.

What has diplomacy done thus far? It has only led to more fighting, and less trust. Its kind of like two friends who keep getting in fist fights with each other. After a dozen times of saying sorry and trying to make up, it just comes off as empty.

But you forget, Israel isn't allowed to defend itself. If the United States had a large group in its midst living amongst a supportive local population, regularly firing rockets on US cities and opposing the US state, I bet the US would do a hell of a lot worse.

Weather the US or any one else would do worse is not a satisfactory explanation for why Israel's actions are ok.

To put it bluntly, evil is evil, and the pressence of evil in one place does not justify it in another.

I noticed that too. I was wondering if it was just because I have an interest in Arab women :p

Who knows. Either that or Jolt is predisposed against Arabs. :p

What has diplomacy done thus far? It has only led to more fighting, and less trust. Its kind of like two friends who keep getting in fist fights with each other. After a dozen times of saying sorry and trying to make up, it just comes off as empty.

So you believe that the only solution is to do what Israel's done in reverse?

This makes you better, how?

So you believe that the only solution is to do what Israel's done in reverse?

This makes you better, how?

If someone keeps coming up to you and randomly punching you, won't you get sick of it and punch them back? I don't anyone here would be like "Hey, stop that please, its not very nice."

If someone keeps coming up to you and randomly punching you, won't you get sick of it and punch them back? I don't anyone here would be like "Hey, stop that please, its not very nice."

But according to both sides, it's the other one that's repeatedly punching them in the face. There must be some possible compromise somewhere, that hopefully doesn't involve half-genociding both populaces.

Why becasue their terorists and are going to kill us all and therfore must be feared becasue they are commiting war crimes and mass murder just because thier Arabs?


;) - before you call me a racist wiki Poe's law. It makes my life easier. Myabe I'll just sig it.

I was just about to invoke Poe's Law, back when somebody was on about the "Darkies" comment, taking it to mean skin color, and not just the general attitude towards the native or different population.

Weather the US or any one else would do worse is not a satisfactory explanation for why Israel's actions are ok.

To put it bluntly, evil is evil, and the pressence of evil in one place does not justify it in another.

And Palestinian terrorists are evil too. If they didn't attack innocents, Israel wouldn't reply with such force. Israel sometimes goes too far, but any state subject to sustained attack has a responsibility to try and look after its citizens or they will lose faith in its ability to protect them.

If someone keeps coming up to you and randomly punching you, won't you get sick of it and punch them back? I don't anyone here would be like "Hey, stop that please, its not very nice."

Interactions between individuals are not always well applied to the complex relm of international relations. Its a symplistic analogy, and ignores the reality of the situation.

If you attack Israel, they'll just hit back harder. If you conqure them, the fanatics in Israeli society will just use terrorism like the Plastinian fanatics are doing now. In short, your way has only one plausible resolution: the near total anhialation of one group or the other.

I don't usually accuse opponents of Israel of being anti-semites. You, however, seem bent on giving me reason to make an exception.

But according to both sides, it's the other one that's repeatedly punching them in the face. There must be some possible compromise somewhere, that hopefully doesn't involve half-genociding both populaces.

Indeed. Somewhere the cycle of violence must end.

Indeed. Somewhere the cycle of violence must end.

Luckily, it seems that a prominent Israeli general has found the solution.

And Palestinian terrorists are evil too. If they didn't attack innocents, Israel wouldn't reply with such force. Israel sometimes goes too far, but any state subject to sustained attack has a responsibility to try and look after its citizens or they will lose faith in its ability to protect them.

Israel does not need to slaughter civillians to defend itself. If the Israeli government respected concepts like "human rights" (and if the US President had stayed involved in the Peace Process rather keep his head stuck up his ass for 8 years), the situation might be better.

Their are fanatices among both the Israelis and Palastinians. They need to be delt with. What does not need to happen is recriminations against the general population of either side.

Luckily, it seems that a prominent Israeli general has found the solution.

That better be sarcastic.

If someone keeps coming up to you and randomly punching you, won't you get sick of it and punch them back? I don't anyone here would be like "Hey, stop that please, its not very nice."

If you're Israel you beat them with a baseball bat, then go do the same thing to their friends, family, and neighbors.

Israel does not need to slaughter civillians to defend itself. If the Israeli government respected concepts like "human rights" (and if the US President had stayed involved in the Peace Process rather keep his head stuck up his ass for 8 years), the situation might be better.

Their are fanatices among both the Israelis and Palastinians. They need to be delt with. What does not need to happen is recriminations against the general population of either side.

Israeli's pet project with the West Bank settlement plan seems to suggest otherwise. The government has chosen very willfully to just not care about human rights. Little by little, the Israelis are dividing up Palestinians into smaller and smaller enclaves, and forcibly settling the area. If this process continues as planned, there won't be a Palestine left in fifty years. They all be dead or forced off their lands, refugees in another country.

Luckily, it seems that a prominent Israeli general has found the solution.

Yeah, the final one.

Interactions between individuals are not always well applied to the complex relm of international relations. Its a symplistic analogy, and ignores the reality of the situation.

If you attack Israel, they'll just hit back harder. If you conqure them, the fanatics in Israeli society will just use terrorism like the Plastinian fanatics are doing now. In short, your way has only one plausible resolution: the near total anhialation of one group or the other.

I don't usually accuse opponents of Israel of being anti-semites. You, however, seem bent on giving me reason to make an exception.


Wait a second...I am anti-semetic because I am against the state of Israel? I'm glad this automatically makes me a Jew-hater. That'd be news for my Jew friends, such as the messianic jew that lives next to me, or to Aerou (an NS poster), or one of the many other Jews that I know. This is the only argument that Israel supporters have. If you don't agree with Israel, then you are an anti-semite. How sweet.;)

Now back on topic. Show me how well diplomacy has worked in the last 60 years for the relations between these two groups. For the Palestinian it is a lose-lose situation. If they do nothing, they will be gobbled up by Israel. If they act back, they are accused of terrorism, and Israel gets sympathy from the world.

If someone keeps coming up to you and randomly punching you, won't you get sick of it and punch them back? I don't anyone here would be like "Hey, stop that please, its not very nice."

Of course you'd punch them back.

You wouldn't however, break their ankles with a sledgehammer, remove their fingers and toes, bash their skull in with a brick, and then skin them, before moving on to their family.

Even Israel is bound by International Law - supposedly. What was described by that General is against even the norms of war. Even Israel is bound by the norm of ius cogens.

Israel does not need to slaughter civillians to defend itself. If the Israeli government respected concepts like "human rights" (and if the US President had stayed involved in the Peace Process rather keep his head stuck up his ass for 8 years), the situation might be better.

Their are fanatices among both the Israelis and Palastinians. They need to be delt with. What does not need to happen is recriminations against the general population of either side.

Well, it does need to kill civilians to defend itself. Because the terrorists deliberately hide amongst civilians. Israel isn't just going to say "fine, attack us, we won't retaliate"

Well, it does need to kill civilians to defend itself. Because the terrorists deliberately hide amongst civilians. Israel isn't just going to say "fine, attack us, we won't retaliate"

And if those unavoidable casualties were to be your family, that would be acceptable to you?

And if those unavoidable casualties were to be your family, you'd be as understanding?

And if you lived in Israel and your family were killed by a terrorist atrocity, you'd argue that Israel shouldn't fire back? This is precisely what I am getting at. Public anger will not allow Israel to refuse to act when its citizens are attacked.

The idea of a war "crime" is by definition, hypocritical.

And if you lived in Israel and your family were killed by a terrorist atrocity, you'd argue that Israel shouldn't fire back? This is precisely what I am getting at. Public anger will not allow Israel to refuse to act when its citizens are attacked.

A lot of countries have and do deal with terrorist acts - no one else goes out planning war crimes as a policy.

Wait a second...I am anti-semetic because I am against the state of Israel? I'm glad this automatically makes me a Jew-hater. That'd be news for my Jew friends, such as the messianic jew that lives next to me, or to Aerou (an NS poster), or one of the many other Jews that I know.

What does a Christian have to do with you having Jewish friends? BTW, not saying the accusation is true but the "some of my best friends" defense never works.

And if you lived in Israel and your family were killed by a terrorist atrocity, you'd argue that Israel shouldn't fire back?

I certainly wouldn't argue that they should start firing at random people.

A lot of countries have and do deal with terrorist acts - no one else goes out planning war crimes as a policy.

I still believe any country subjected to sustained terrorist attack over many years, by groups often hiding amongst the local population would eventually resort to such policies in a last desperate attempt to defend their citizens. If Cuba started launching rockets at US cities every week, they'd have the crap bombed out of them, no matter the civilian consequences. I'm not saying that it is desirable, or that it will even help reduce tensions (indeed, having your family killed is likely to make someone support the overthrow of the regime who did it), only that it is inevitable given the pressures of a public desiring protection from near-constant attack

I certainly wouldn't argue that they should start firing at random people.
They aren't random. When those doing the firing do it from residential areas and try to hide amongst the population, retaliation is bound to kill civilians as well as the people it aims for. If the terrorists truly cared about their people they wouldn't effectively sign death warrants for those amongst whom they hide.

Israel is becoming what it always professed to hate.

So is the US (my country).

Several other countries are wandering in that direction, too.

It's very depressing.

I still believe any country subjected to sustained terrorist attack over many years, by groups often hiding amongst the local population would eventually resort to such policies in a last desperate attempt to defend their citizens.
The United Kingdom from about 1920 to 1997. Sorry to pop your analogy there.

And what you 'believe' is frankly irrelevant to the definition of what a war crime is, and how illegal it is - nevermind how morally reprehensible it is to defend and condone the killings of innocent civilians on a huge scale.

The next time you condemn a suicide bomber detonating him/herself in a market place/school - remember what policy you defended in this thread.

It´s funny that in a war crimes thread, the ad is about chatting with Single Arabs online. LMAO!:p

Mine tells me that I can meet single Lebanese women in Kuwait! Hurrah!

Also, there was one for the Kuwaiti metal scene forums, which boggles the mind. Apparently Kuwait (or Q8, which is apparently the hip way to spell it) has a Battle of the Bands every year. Who knew?

Israel is becoming what it always professed to hate.

So is the US (my country).

Several other countries are wandering in that direction, too.

It's very depressing.

And people say that the terrorists didnt win.

What does a Christian have to do with you having Jewish friends? BTW, not saying the accusation is true but the "some of my best friends" defense never works.

I know it normally doesn't work. The point is though that I have more proof of me NOT being a jew-hater than your supposed proof of me being anti-semetic.

I know it normally doesn't work. The point is though that I have more proof of me NOT being a jew-hater than your supposed proof of me being anti-semetic.

Did someone say you were anti-semetic?

The United Kingdom from about 1920 to 1997. Sorry to pop your analogy there.

And what you 'believe' is frankly irrelevant to the definition of what a war crime is, and how illegal it is - nevermind how morally reprehensible it is to defend and condone the killings of innocent civilians on a huge scale.

The next time you condemn a suicide bomber detonating him/herself in a market place/school - remember what policy you defended in this thread.

I think you misunderstand here. Allow me to make myself totally clear (well, my point, rather than myself, like most people I'm opaque) I'm *not* saying it is morally justifiable. I'm not engaging with the normative question. Rather, my argument is that its inevitable given the following:

1. People subjected to constant terrorist attack desire revenge.
2. One of the fundamental roles of the state is to protect its citizens from attack. If it does not do so, it risks becoming a failed state and losing the allegiance of its people. Therefore it must respond.
3. Palestinian terrorists hide amongst the populace and launch attacks from residential areas
4. Attacking the terrorists and reducing their capacity to keep firing results in large civilian casualties.

Secondly, your example of the UK actually reinforces my point. British troops committed numerous atrocities in Ireland in this period, even though IRA terrorism was never as frequent, widespread and deadly over a long period as the attacks on Israel. At the times when terrorism was concerted, the British government responded with more oppresive tactics. Furthermore, peace was only forthcoming when the IRA began to come round to the idea of a ceasefire. When terrorists launch offences, government responds with violence and coercion. When terrorists stop, government will negotiate a political settlement. Similarly, if the terrorists stopped attacking Israel, Israel would not be obliged to attack the Palestinians by the logic of its role as a state established to protect its people. Then a settlement can be found. The only way out of the vicious cycle is for Palestinian terrorists to stop their attacks.

Did someone say you were anti-semetic?

Redwulf said that normally he wouldn't consider anti-israel sentiments to be anti-semitic, except I seemed to be different, some how.

Mine tells me that I can meet single Lebanese women in Kuwait! Hurrah!

Perhaps Jolt feels we´re lonely NSGers or something.

Redwulf said that normally he wouldn't consider anti-israel sentiments to be anti-semitic, except I seemed to be different, some how.

But arent you defending Israel?


Hell, Im comparing them to the Nazis and fucking hate Israel, and I make no effort to hide it.

I just reread this thead and must be missing something. Hm.

Perhaps Jolt feels we´re lonely NSGers or something.

Well, i'm certainly not, any more... :D

But arent you defending Israel?


Hell, Im comparing them to the Nazis and fucking hate Israel, and I make no effort to hide it.

I just reread this thead and must be missing something. Hm.



No, I am not defending Israel. I have no reason to do so. They are a tyrannical state that has committed acts of genocide against the Palestinians, whom I do support.

No, I am not defending Israel. I have no reason to do so. They are a tyrannical state that has committed acts of genocide against the Palestinians, whom I do support.

Oh, wow now Im lost.


Ok, anyway, back on topic. Why do you support Palastine? Theyre not really any better.

"Supporting" either side, IMO, is foolish, as they are both acting like pushy spoiled children with bombs and fully automatic weapons.

Perhaps Jolt feels we´re lonely NSGers or something.

I suppose I can't blame Jolt for not knowing that I'm not allowed to go into Kuwait City to meet these Lebanese women.

Oh, wow now Im lost.


Ok, anyway, back on topic. Why do you support Palastine? Theyre not really any better.

"Supporting" either side, IMO, is foolish, as they are both acting like pushy spoiled children with bombs and fully automatic weapons.

I support Palestinians because they are the original owners of the land. They have a legit reason to be pissed, and they are also severely persecuted. They have no rights. The live in conditions that cannot even be considered low, as that does not fully describe what they are forced to live in. Children as a result of this are being killed either by Israelis, or by their parents who have lost all hope in living. The Palestinian is one who has lost total understanding of what it means to be alive. They have been reduced to basic animal instincts; kill or be killed. On the other hand, Israel steals water to turn a desert into a botanical garden. They enjoy endless money from the west. They enjoy technology and sophisticated culture. They can afford to live comfortable.

I suppose I can't blame Jolt for not knowing that I'm not allowed to go into Kuwait City to meet these Lebanese women.

True.

I support Palestinians because they are the original owners of the land. They have a legit reason to be pissed, and they are also severely persecuted. They have no rights. The live in conditions that cannot even be considered low, as that does not fully describe what they are forced to live in. Children as a result of this are being killed either by Israelis, or by their parents who have lost all hope in living. The Palestinian is one who has lost total understanding of what it means to be alive. They have been reduced to basic animal instincts; kill or be killed. On the other hand, Israel steals water to turn a desert into a botanical garden. They enjoy endless money from the west. They enjoy technology and sophisticated culture. They can afford to live comfortable.

We're not going to play "Who had it first" because thats pointless. Both sides have a legit claim to the land. Palastine's conditions are abhorrent, and no one should be able to deny that. However, their actions have been a cause to their conditions (not to justify Israel. Timmy did it first was not a defense when I was 4, and its not a defense in Geo-politics). No side is innocent, and while I can sympathise with both, I cannot condone either side.

There is something to be said with living in constant fear like both sides have to.

Both sides have a legit claim to the land.


Please explain this.

I know it normally doesn't work. The point is though that I have more proof of me NOT being a jew-hater than your supposed proof of me being anti-semetic.

Kindly point to anywhere I accused you of antisemitism. All I did is say that "some of my best friends" isn't proof.

Please explain this.

Israel was there in ancient times and the Roman era. The Jews were there during the Crusades. They have been there just as long as the Palastinians have.

Redwulf said that normally he wouldn't consider anti-israel sentiments to be anti-semitic, except I seemed to be different, some how.

Um, where?

Um, where?

SORRY!!! wrong "R" poster. That is my fault

I support Palestinians because they are the original owners of the land. They have a legit reason to be pissed, and they are also severely persecuted. They have no rights. The live in conditions that cannot even be considered low, as that does not fully describe what they are forced to live in.

None of this gives them the right to attack the innocent. Nor does Israel have the right to attack innocent Palestinians.

None of this gives them the right to attack the innocent. Nor does Israel have the right to attack innocent Palestinians.

Are the Israelis tthat innocent? They keep electing those to office who are doing these terrible deeds.

Are the Israelis tthat innocent? They keep electing those to office who are doing these terrible deeds.

Surely you must admit that at least the CHILDREN killed on both sides are innocent?

Are the Israelis tthat innocent? They keep electing those to office who are doing these terrible deeds.

Of course, by going down this road, one could just as easily argue that the 9/11 victims were not innocent, as they had elected all the presidents previously.

In addition, the people in Spain killed by the train bombings were not innocent, as their people elected the person who put troops in the middle east.

The people standing nearby when suicide bombers tried to kill various members of the Pakistani government were clearly not innocent either, as they vote them in as well.

I could go on?

I am not condoning terrorism or the killing of civilians in any way. I also don't condone the killing of military, political leaders, or kittens. I am merely making a point.

Of course, by going down this road, one could just as easily argue that the 9/11 victims were not innocent, as they had elected all the presidents previously.

In addition, the people in Spain killed by the train bombings were not innocent, as their people elected the person who put troops in the middle east.

The people standing nearby when suicide bombers tried to kill various members of the Pakistani government were clearly not innocent either, as they vote them in as well.

I could go on?

11M... wow... I´m sad now... :(

Of course, by going down this road, one could just as easily argue that the 9/11 victims were not innocent, as they had elected all the presidents previously.

In addition, the people in Spain killed by the train bombings were not innocent, as their people elected the person who put troops in the middle east.

The people standing nearby when suicide bombers tried to kill various members of the Pakistani government were clearly not innocent either, as they vote them in as well.

I could go on?

I am not condoning terrorism or the killing of civilians in any way. I also don't condone the killing of military, political leaders, or kittens. I am merely making a point.


SO citizens shouldn't be held accountable for the crap they voted in? I'm sure that could take us interesting places.

SO citizens shouldn't be held accountable for the crap they voted in? I'm sure that could take us interesting places.

The question isn't whether the citizens should be held accountable - it's more of a question of whether they should die for it.

By the brush stroke you're using, no single person of any democratic country is ever an innocent victim, regardless of country.

SO citizens shouldn't be held accountable for the crap they voted in? I'm sure that could take us interesting places.

The question isn't whether the citizens should be held accountable - it's more of a question of whether they should die for it.

By the brush stroke you're using, no single person of any democratic country is ever an innocent victim, regardless of country.

There's also the fact that it doesn't take into account the citizens that DIDN'T vote the crap in, citizens who in fact voted AGAINST the crap. Or is Zilam postulating a magic bomb that knows what people voted for and only kills the ones who voted for things it's maker doesn't like?

There's also the fact that it doesn't take into account the citizens that DIDN'T vote the crap in, citizens who in fact voted AGAINST the crap. Or is Zilam postulating a magic bomb that knows what people voted for and only kills the ones who voted for things it's maker doesn't like?

I thought about saying that, but decided to use a larger brush instead.

Because Israel is a Jewish state in the middle of an Muslim world
And the Jews have the exclusive use of the real world Godwin to defend any and all actions.

Are the Israelis tthat innocent? They keep electing those to office who are doing these terrible deeds.

Please show me the Israeli leader with the 100% aproval rating.

Or is this steriotype the Jews time? Regardless, as an American who believes in human rights and democracy, I'm especially sensitive to idiots assuming all people in a nation hold the views and sanction the actions of their governments.

A lot of countries have and do deal with terrorist acts - no one else goes out planning war crimes as a policy.

Actually, a lot of countries do. Its not unusual. It just doesn't mean its right.

Redwulf said that normally he wouldn't consider anti-israel sentiments to be anti-semitic, except I seemed to be different, some how.

Actually that would be me, unless Redwulf shares my opinion.

And apologies for triple post.

The killing of human shields is not against the Geneva conventions, while using them is. And they are human shields.

So, its not a war crime.

They aren't random. When those doing the firing do it from residential areas and try to hide amongst the population, retaliation is bound to kill civilians as well as the people it aims for. If the terrorists truly cared about their people they wouldn't effectively sign death warrants for those amongst whom they hide.

By this reasoning, the Iraqi insurgency would be well within their rights to wipe out entire American cities from where the munitions which were used to bomb their country came from.

By this reasoning, the Iraqi insurgency would be well within their rights to wipe out entire American cities from where the munitions which were used to bomb their country came from.

Since he is offline, I will respond to this.
We aren't firing from American cities. Despite many of the weapons of the insurgency being made in Iran and Syria, have we bombed Iran and Syria? No. However, if we had a missile base in Chicago and we bombed Iraq with it, then the Insurgents would be will within their rights to try and destroy the missile base, even if that meant destroying Chicago in the process.

Since he is offline, I will respond to this.
We aren't firing from American cities. Despite many of the weapons of the insurgency being made in Iran and Syria, have we bombed Iran and Syria? No. However, if we had a missile base in Chicago and we bombed Iraq with it, then the Insurgents would be will within their rights to try and destroy the missile base, even if that meant destroying Chicago in the process.

Really? So all those innocent hundreds of thousands of people who live in Chicago and don't have anything to do with the war, they should die because of a bad decision from their government?

And if we're going to say they are legitimate targets, why not the cities where the weapons are made? I mean, if they disagreed so strongly, they wouldn't make the weapons. And if there weren't any weapons, the soldiers wouldn't be able to bomb Iraq. So therefore, the munitions towns are just as culpable as the people actually firing the weapons. The companies are just using innocent civilians as human shields by building their weapons in residential cities instead of military bases.

Since he is offline, I will respond to this.
We aren't firing from American cities. Despite many of the weapons of the insurgency being made in Iran and Syria, have we bombed Iran and Syria? No. However, if we had a missile base in Chicago and we bombed Iraq with it, then the Insurgents would be will within their rights to try and destroy the missile base, even if that meant destroying Chicago in the process.

A great deal of aircraft that were involved in bombing Iraq were based off American bases, most notably the B-2 spirits, as well as large scale transport craft used to transfer weapons and troops from American territory to Iraq. Many of these bases are either in, or near major cities, where weapons plants worked by civilian workforce feed them the tools of war which are then dropped on Iraqi targets.

Those bases, their supporting cities and entire populaces, by the earlier reasoning, are now legitimate targets for complete and utter annihilation.

Why does Israel seem to wish to become the new ancient Rome?

Wouldn't you if you had a sucker like Bush to back you up?

Has anyone besides me read the Hague Conventions?

These are the actual rules of war, to which the first and second Geneva Conventions are addenda. And they're very clear.

In this circumstance, they ascribe the responsibility for civilians and civilian casualties being used as human shields for a legitimate military target. To summarize:

Responsibility of attacker: none.

Responsibility of Human Shield User: Total.

Please do bring this Israeli General before a tribunal. And as soon as he is TOTALLY EXONERATED, maybe you could start laying the blame on the murderous fuckwits who have chosen to make war without any consideration for the welfare and safety of their own population.

Has anyone besides me read the Hague Conventions?

These are the actual rules of war, to which the first and second Geneva Conventions are addenda. And they're very clear.

In this circumstance, they ascribe the responsibility for civilians and civilian casualties being used as human shields for a legitimate military target. To summarize:

Responsibility of attacker: none.

Responsibility of Human Shield User: Total.

Please do bring this Israeli General before a tribunal. And as soon as he is TOTALLY EXONERATED, maybe you could start laying the blame on the murderous fuckwits who have chosen to make war without any consideration for the welfare and safety of their own population.

I think the debate is more over weather counting entire villages as human shields if a single rocket is fired from them is stretching the term somewhat.

I think the debate is more over weather counting entire villages as human shields if a single rocket is fired from them is stretching the term somewhat.

Because if the line is at a single rocket, what's wrong with the factory that the weapons come from? And couldn't one simply use the argument in reverse in defence of Hamas tactics? "The Israeli bombers took off from that town, lets go fire on it. Because the civilian populations are just human shields."

There comes a point at which terms are legitimate, and a point at which they are not. Killing whole villages because of one shot is not a legitimate response.

Has anyone besides me read the Hague Conventions?

These are the actual rules of war, to which the first and second Geneva Conventions are addenda. And they're very clear.

In this circumstance, they ascribe the responsibility for civilians and civilian casualties being used as human shields for a legitimate military target. To summarize:

Responsibility of attacker: none.

Responsibility of Human Shield User: Total.

Please do bring this Israeli General before a tribunal. And as soon as he is TOTALLY EXONERATED, maybe you could start laying the blame on the murderous fuckwits who have chosen to make war without any consideration for the welfare and safety of their own population.

I hear the SS was quite free to do as they pleased when they killed nearly every man, woman and child during the Warsaw uprising, which did consist of armed attacks mind you. I'm certain that if any of them were alive today, they would be happy at your exonerating them.

After all, it was the Jew's fault for fighting in an urban city.

Come to think of it, I hear the Russians used thermobaric weapons quite liberally in Chechnya too, but clearly it's not their fault if there were massive civilian casualties. It all lies on those insurgent Chechens.

Or more recently, it's all the Georgian's fault that Russia went past the disputed territories and bombed Georgian cities. They should have known better than to fight from a populated city.

By this reasoning, the Iraqi insurgency would be well within their rights to wipe out entire American cities from where the munitions which were used to bomb their country came from.

The logic isn't quite the same. The Iraqi insurgents do not represent the people, and are not a state. Therefore my reasoning, designed to explain why a state facing near-constant terrorist attack has to take action obviously does not apply. Its a totally different context.

Allow me to restate my argument in post #69

1. People subjected to constant terrorist attack desire revenge.
2. One of the fundamental roles of the state is to protect its citizens from attack and respond to these attacks. If it does not do so, it risks becoming a failed state and losing the allegiance of its people. Therefore Israel is logically going to respond, regardless of civilian casualties.
3. Palestinian terrorists hide amongst the populace and launch attacks from residential areas
4. Attacking the terrorists and reducing their capacity to keep firing results in large civilian casualties. These casualties provoke further terrorist attacks. Return to point 1.

I am not, and have never argued that it Israel's logic is morally justified, merely that the public naturally have a desire to get revenge on those who fire rockets on them, and the terrorists hide among the residential population. Any response therefore hits civilians hard.

The Israeli state must protect its citizens or it fails as a state. The cycle that develops is thus - terrorists fire into Israel, the Israeli state has to respond, terrorists fire back in revenge etc etc. Now, what I'm arguing here is that for a two-state solution (the only practical option IMO) to be feasible, the Palestinian terrorists have to stop firing or the negotiations will inevitably fail. Normatively, Israel would not ideally respond in this manner, but the structure of the situation limits the agency of the politicians.

Anyways, why the two examples are different is because of this; the Iraqi insurgents aren't a state, and thus are not subject to the pressures on a state to respond to near-constant terrorist attack and destroy those taking part, even if this involves civilian casualties. The insurgents may proclaim themselves as representatives of the people, but they are launching attacks because they believe it to be a just war against American oppression, not because they will be voted out or the state collapse if they do not do so. This is a very different situation to where politicians in Israel are constrained by public demands to try and maintain their security by striking terrorists hiding amongst the civilian population in residential areas. The motivations in the two cases are different, so they cannot really be compared.

Because if the line is at a single rocket, what's wrong with the factory that the weapons come from? And couldn't one simply use the argument in reverse in defence of Hamas tactics? "The Israeli bombers took off from that town, lets go fire on it. Because the civilian populations are just human shields."

There comes a point at which terms are legitimate, and a point at which they are not. Killing whole villages because of one shot is not a legitimate response.

I agree completely.

Because if the line is at a single rocket, what's wrong with the factory that the weapons come from? And couldn't one simply use the argument in reverse in defence of Hamas tactics? "The Israeli bombers took off from that town, lets go fire on it. Because the civilian populations are just human shields."

There comes a point at which terms are legitimate, and a point at which they are not. Killing whole villages because of one shot is not a legitimate response.

The reason military bases AREN'T in towns or cities (or at least weren't founded in them - I'm well aware of the tendency for towns to spring up to service military bases) is precisely this. A town surrounding a military target cannot be considered "civilian" without an attacker being expected to completely castrate his ability to fight effectively - an expectation the Hague Conventions expressly do not make.

And before anyone asks, if Hezbollah or Hamas restricted themselves to attacking such targets, I'd have a lot less of a problem with them.

As for killing a village for one shot - yes, it does appear disproportionate. However, you aren't taking into account the mobility of the launch systems they're targetting. By the time a counterstrike can be ordered, the radius that would need to be leveled in order to be sure of getting the launcher and launch team would be the size of a large village anyway.

The logic isn't quite the same. The Iraqi insurgents do not represent the people, and are not a state.

So what? An insurgency of a subjugated people is still considered a legitimate resistance movement, and if they succeed in driving out the invaders, they become the state. An American of all people should know better than to argue otherwise.


1. People subjected to constant terrorist attack desire revenge.
2. One of the fundamental roles of the state is to protect its citizens from attack and respond to these attacks. If it does not do so, it risks becoming a failed state and losing the allegiance of its people. Therefore Israel is logically going to respond, regardless of civilian casualties.
3. Palestinian terrorists hide amongst the populace and launch attacks from residential areas
4. Attacking the terrorists and reducing their capacity to keep firing results in large civilian casualties. These casualties provoke further terrorist attacks. Return to point 1.

Alright, you acknowledge the futility of the action.

So you don't think maybe something a little more direct and less widespread might work?


The Israeli state must protect its citizens or it fails as a state.


And at what point do you draw the line of what a state can do to protect it's citizenry, and where it starts to act in its own self interests, using the citizenry as an excuse.


The cycle that develops is thus - terrorists fire into Israel, the Israeli state has to respond, terrorists fire back in revenge etc etc. Now, what I'm arguing here is that for a two-state solution (the only practical option IMO) to be feasible, the Palestinian terrorists have to stop firing or the negotiations will inevitably fail. Normatively, Israel would not ideally respond in this manner, but the structure of the situation limits the agency of the politicians.


You also forget that a significant bloc of Jewish Israeli settlers are far from likely to agree to anything but complete extermination of their Arabian neighbors. Rabin's (Israeli PM who was integral to the Oslo Accords) assassination, the Cave of Patriarch's massacre and the currently unchecked terror campaign against Palestinian residents were all committed by Israeli Jews.

Arguing that only one side should stop doing things completely ignores the fact that the other side is also committing atrocities and crimes and getting away with it.

Without significant third party military presence sitting between the two antagonists, there will be no peace.

Easier to relocate both parties to the North and South pole respectively and utterly irradiate their former homes.


Anyways, why the two examples are different is because of this; the Iraqi insurgents aren't a state, and thus are not subject to the pressures on a state to respond to near-constant terrorist attack and destroy those taking part, even if this involves civilian casualties. The insurgents may proclaim themselves as representatives of the people, but they are launching attacks because they believe it to be a just war against American oppression, not because they will be voted out or the state collapse if they do not do so.


So this is a resistance movement. Their state has already collapsed due to foreign invasion. A state of war exists between the two parties, and as such, by the reasonings used earlier, the home cities of the invaders which provide weapons for the occupation troops are now legitimate targets.


This is a very different situation to where politicians in Israel are constrained by public demands to try and maintain their security by striking terrorists hiding amongst the civilian population in residential areas. The motivations in the two cases are different, so they cannot really be compared.

Of course this does absolutely nothing to counter the fact that the acts being committed here, wiping out entire population centers and their populace, is so close to ethnic cleansing (which is a war crime), as makes no difference.

How come these threads are only ever made about ISRAEL?

How come these threads are only ever made about ISRAEL?

Because Israel is in the public eye and it's fashionable to bash them for their policies.

Which ignores the fact that every time they've come to the table and tried to make peace, it's been the other side that's driven them away again. It takes two to tango.

Plus, it's easier to yell "Genocide, genocide" at Israel than to demand actions in the Sudan - where there's an actual genocide going on.

Because Israel is in the public eye and it's fashionable to bash them for their policies.

Because they're the welfare recepient of the United States with a blank check to flagrantly violate human rights with impugnity and they know it.

Which ignores the fact that every time they've come to the table and tried to make peace, it's been the other side that's driven them away again. It takes two to tango.

Oh that's right, we forgot Yigal Amir was a Dirty Moslem.

Plus, it's easier to yell "Genocide, genocide" at Israel than to demand actions in the Sudan - where there's an actual genocide going on.

Here's where the United States has something in common with China and Russia: They're all permanent members of the Security Council and they all veto to block any actions against their pet countries, regardless of the ethnic cleansings they commit.

The reason military bases AREN'T in towns or cities (or at least weren't founded in them - I'm well aware of the tendency for towns to spring up to service military bases) is precisely this. A town surrounding a military target cannot be considered "civilian" without an attacker being expected to completely castrate his ability to fight effectively - an expectation the Hague Conventions expressly do not make.

This might have been true well before the industrial revolution, but that's no longer the case. Your average cruise missile gets assembled from parts and raw materials that come from all over the place, more often than not from cities that are quite far away from the actual military installations.

Bombing factories and places of production where the raw materials for war are produced have been put in practice for centuries, but it was only in WWII that the idea of total war, and complete destruction of factory cities, became acceptable. In fact, it still is apparently.

So why shouldn't the that rule apply when one side seems quite happy to level villages and utilize group punishments?

Because Israel is in the public eye and it's fashionable to bash them for their policies.

It would be less noisy if Israel didn't insist that it could never do any wrong, all the while winking as their settlers massacre Palestinians and push them out of their homes with violence.

The noisily hypocritical gets the hammer more often than the quiet scum.


Which ignores the fact that every time they've come to the table and tried to make peace, it's been the other side that's driven them away again. It takes two to tango.

Two to tango, correct.

That's why you're not ignoring things like the Jewish settlers committing crimes against Palestinian settlers and not getting punished, that the Israeli Prime Minister who signed the Oslo Accords was killed by a Israeli Jew, and that the Cave of Patriarchs massacre was also committed by a Jew when you're casting blame. Oh wait...


Plus, it's easier to yell "Genocide, genocide" at Israel than to demand actions in the Sudan - where there's an actual genocide going on.

The only difference I can see is that Sudan is keeping quiet about themselves on the international stage. Israel is playing the holier than thou trumpet.

Look, I'm not saying that Israel's hands are the only ones with blood on it, nor am I giving the Palestinians a free pass. Both sides have massively screwed up any real chance of creating peace, and until whatever's left for an actual authority on both sides agree to rein in their radicals and do so in force, they will both share the blame for the problem.

In either case, Israel's penchant for mass punishments has been going on for a great many years, all to no or little effect in deterring Palestinian attacks and responses. You'd think they'd give something else a try to generate real peace.

But that's not going to happen. Not without some serious replacement of the people at and near the top in both sides because they're sure as heck not in it for the benefit of their people but themselves (when was the last time they had a PM/leader not stuck in one corruption scandal or another).

Because Israel is in the public eye and it's fashionable to bash them for their policies.

Which ignores the fact that every time they've come to the table and tried to make peace, it's been the other side that's driven them away again. It takes two to tango.

I this case yes, it takes two. One of whom is Israel.

Plus, it's easier to yell "Genocide, genocide" at Israel than to demand actions in the Sudan - where there's an actual genocide going on.

Actually I for one do take notice of the Sudan. I've been following that story for years, and wanting the world to get off its ass. I did a presentation is grade 8 (I'm now in University) calling for Canadian military intervention.

However, that doesn't mean I'll turn a blind eye to Israel. Their actions may not be genocide, but they often are war crimes. They stand out as well because of blank check US support.

Pointing out other crimes does not constitute a defense of Israel.

So what? An insurgency of a subjugated people is still considered a legitimate resistance movement, and if they succeed in driving out the invaders, they become the state. An American of all people should know better than to argue otherwise.

My point here was that as they are not currently a state they don't risk delegitimising the state by seemingly abandoning the provision of security (I agree that if Israel stopped responding to attacks, it might reduce support for Palestinian terrorist organizations, and thus in the long term maybe reduce attacks, though not stop them, but thats not how the Israeli public would perceive it in the short-term). By the way, I'm actually British (and yes, I know, I've studied the origins of the conflict and know that we caused the entire Israel-Palestine conflict by being a bunch of lying imperial bastards).


Alright, you acknowledge the futility of the action.

So you don't think maybe something a little more direct and less widespread might work?

Oh, I don't doubt that it is futile, and indeed helps perpetuate terrorism by creating more grieving relatives willing to join the cause. In terms of the plan for levelling entire cities, yes, something less extreme would be better. I hope its just posturing rather than a real plan, as it would seem in the interests of the politicians to try and keep counter-strikes as small as possible to avoid loss of allies and a general war in the region.


And at what point do you draw the line of what a state can do to protect it's citizenry, and where it starts to act in its own self interests, using the citizenry as an excuse.

You also forget that a significant bloc of Jewish Israeli settlers are far from likely to agree to anything but complete extermination of their Arabian neighbors. Rabin's (Israeli PM who was integral to the Oslo Accords) assassination, the Cave of Patriarch's massacre and the currently unchecked terror campaign against Palestinian residents were all committed by Israeli Jews.

You raise some interesting points here. If extremists start using the attacks on the citizenry to justify more extreme attacks than might be regarded as necessary to avoid it being perceived in the popular mind that the state has abandoned its duty of providing security, then yes, this is wrong. My original post was in response to those saying that Israel should never attack terrorists hiding among the population itself, and my point was that Israel couldn't adopt such a policy. I can understand why I might have been misunderstood without the context of the posts I was replying to as advocating that Israel has a right to take any action whatsover. This wasn't what I meant. I would freely concede that flattening entire cities as proposed on the OP is disproportionate action and not justifiable on these grounds, and morally wrong, though again you can understand how extreme attitudes develop on both sides as a result of the cycle of violence.

Arguing that only one side should stop doing things completely ignores the fact that the other side is also committing atrocities and crimes and getting away with it.

I'm arguing that it would be politically impossible for Israel to stop responding if hit by frequent and deadly terrorist attacks. I'm not saying that only the Palestinians should stop, merely that they kinda have to stop first or negotiations aren't going to have much chance.

So this is a resistance movement. Their state has already collapsed due to foreign invasion. A state of war exists between the two parties, and as such, by the reasonings used earlier, the home cities of the invaders which provide weapons for the occupation troops are now legitimate targets.

I won't engage with the "resistance movement vs. terrorists debate" here as I don't really have time. Both are value-loaded terms. I've referred to them as terrorists because I have been trying to present their case from the point of view of how the Israeli public would see inaction, and they'd view them as terrorists. I will say that historically speaking, Israel's actions in taking control of the whole of Palestine were wrong, and that I would personally view it as a resistance movement rather than terrorists if I had to choose one of the terms. But I've been trying to describe it from the position of contemporary Israeli's and their motivations, so I've been using the term "terrorist".

Anyway, off that and on to your point. Well, the same basic logic of "they've killed some of ours, we'll kill some of yours" certainly operates on the Palestinian side. But the Palestinian side in some ways due to its lack of a state has more flexibility to make the first move in stopping first and declaring a ceasefire. In that they aren't under the same pressure as a state to appear to provide security for citizens or risk state collapse or being voted out. Also, if Israel stops attacking, there's no guarantee that the Palestinian terrorist groups will stop as well, as they oppose the Israeli state's occupation, which won't stop just if Israel stops firing for a bit. So the Palestinians keep attacking, leading to a gradual build up of pressure for actions to be taken against the Palestinians. Whereas, if the Palestinians stop firing, Israel's justificaiton that its moves are to protect its own citizens security and strengthen their position as a state is undermined, and they would be more likely to accept a ceasefire. So a ceasefire is more likely to hold and succesful negotiations take place if the Palestinians stop attacking first.

Of course this does absolutely nothing to counter the fact that the acts being committed here, wiping out entire population centers and their populace, is so close to ethnic cleansing (which is a war crime), as makes no difference.

Again, with regard to the plan in the OP, that would seem to be true. My argument is just that the Israeli politicians have to respond with some violence in rsponse to violence or risk their own position and the legitimacy of their institutions in the eyes of the people. If the Palestinian terrorists keep firing rockets at them, they can't just ignore it. But, at the same time, they shouldn't resort to these measures, as while some response might be considered necessary, this level of response is not.

Actually, a lot of countries do. Its not unusual. It just doesn't mean its right.

Who? And links/sources showing that it is the state policy in response to terrorist activity?

The killing of human shields is not against the Geneva conventions, while using them is. And they are human shields.

So, its not a war crime.

Has anyone besides me read the Hague Conventions?

These are the actual rules of war, to which the first and second Geneva Conventions are addenda. And they're very clear.

In this circumstance, they ascribe the responsibility for civilians and civilian casualties being used as human shields for a legitimate military target. To summarize:

Responsibility of attacker: none.

Responsibility of Human Shield User: Total.

Please do bring this Israeli General before a tribunal. And as soon as he is TOTALLY EXONERATED, maybe you could start laying the blame on the murderous fuckwits who have chosen to make war without any consideration for the welfare and safety of their own population.

Ugh. Ius cogens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_norm) people. It doesn't have to be specified in any convention.

My point here was that as they are not currently a state they don't risk delegitimising the state by seemingly abandoning the provision of security (I agree that if Israel stopped responding to attacks, it might reduce support for Palestinian terrorist organizations, and thus in the long term maybe reduce attacks, though not stop them, but thats not how the Israeli public would perceive it in the short-term).

Fair enough.

Half the problem is that there's at least a pretty big chunk of the Israeli demographic who have the whole manifest destiny thing lodged firmly in their skull, and no matter what Israel or Palestine do officially, they'll not stop at anything to get what they want.

The Palestinian attacks are either motivated by a need for revenge, bigotry, or both, and the Israeli problem is compounded by the fact that you have attacks being carried out by the military and civilian alike.


Oh, I don't doubt that it is futile, and indeed helps perpetuate terrorism by creating more grieving relatives willing to join the cause. In terms of the plan for levelling entire cities, yes, something less extreme would be better. I hope its just posturing rather than a real plan, as it would seem in the interests of the politicians to try and keep counter-strikes as small as possible to avoid loss of allies and a general war in the region.

Seems to me that the current precedent of mass punishments makes the likelihood of it being only posturing rather unlikely unfortunately.


You raise some interesting points here. If extremists start using the attacks on the citizenry to justify more extreme attacks than might be regarded as necessary to avoid it being perceived in the popular mind that the state has abandoned its duty of providing security, then yes, this is wrong.


To be fair, there are organizations on both sides of the fence who think that what their state is doing is seriously wrong, and are trying to work against it. But the problem is that you have the blood lusting nuts on the same side trying to kill these organizations, all the while advocating even more extreme measures.


My original post was in response to those saying that Israel should never attack terrorists hiding among the population itself, and my point was that Israel couldn't adopt such a policy.

If you mean proportionate response, fair enough. I misunderstood what you originally meant.


Anyway, off that and on to your point. Well, the same basic logic of "they've killed some of ours, we'll kill some of yours" certainly operates on the Palestinian side. But the Palestinian side in some ways due to its lack of a state has more flexibility to make the first move in stopping first and declaring a ceasefire.

Not really. The Palestinian side has actually less flexibility, mostly because there are umpteen numbers of splinter groups with sufficient resources to carry out at least some level of attacks, and don't respect the existing government enough to listen to it.

At the very least, the IDF is still subordinate to the government, and if someone breathed down hard on the Israeli police, the problem of Jewish gangs inciting violence can be curtailed.


Also, if Israel stops attacking, there's no guarantee that the Palestinian terrorist groups will stop as well, as they oppose the Israeli state's occupation, which won't stop just if Israel stops firing for a bit. So the Palestinians keep attacking, leading to a gradual build up of pressure for actions to be taken against the Palestinians. Whereas, if the Palestinians stop firing, Israel's justificaiton that its moves are to protect its own citizens security and strengthen their position as a state is undermined, and they would be more likely to accept a ceasefire.

To be honest, I don't think if all the Palestinians turned pacifist all of a sudden, it would do much to prevent retards like Baruch Goldstein from perpetrating another massacre of Palestinians or just Israeli Arabs, inciting the Palestinians to start a campaign of reprisals.

I think the Israeli's and Soviets had the right idea with a wall, but they did it all wrong. For a peace treaty to work out, build a wall between the two, cutting off the illegal OT settlements from Israel, staff it with a neutral army with orders to shoot anyone and anything crossing the wall without official sanction, and then let the leaders of both sides meet somewhere in that wall to dicker out peace.

But that probably won't solve the hate problem.

Mass forced child swaps on the other hand, might do wonders about that. Israeli children held hostage to Palestinian parents and vice versa, to be returned to their real parents only at the age of 12.

It worked in old kingdoms to help bond feuding noble families. Might work here.


Again, with regard to the plan in the OP, that would seem to be true. My argument is just that the Israeli politicians have to respond with some violence in rsponse to violence or risk their own position and the legitimacy of their institutions in the eyes of the people.


I can understand and live with some level of retaliatory violence, but just not the way they're doing it right now.

This might have been true well before the industrial revolution, but that's no longer the case. Your average cruise missile gets assembled from parts and raw materials that come from all over the place, more often than not from cities that are quite far away from the actual military installations.

Bombing factories and places of production where the raw materials for war are produced have been put in practice for centuries, but it was only in WWII that the idea of total war, and complete destruction of factory cities, became acceptable. In fact, it still is apparently.

So why shouldn't the that rule apply when one side seems quite happy to level villages and utilize group punishments?

If you're hittng a military base, I have no problem with you.
If you're hitting a factory making arms, orparts for warplanes, that's cool too. It's probably a bit beyond what the Hague Convention envisaged, but as you point out, it's generally considered acceptable.
Power supplies? Water treatment plants? These can be argued for. Likewise bridges - all can be claimed to have clear military utility.
And yes, accidents happen. If a bomb goes off-course and demolishes a hospital, that's unfortunate, but it isn't a crime.

All of that, I can accept.

What I can't accept is deliberate rocket attacks, not on any of the above, not even on police, but on purely civilian Israeli housing areas and suburbs, and bomb attacks deliberately targetted to cause maximum ciivlian casualties. And those are the tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas. It's not acceptable if Israel does it, it's not acceptable if the US does it, it's not acceptable period.


It would be less noisy if Israel didn't insist that it could never do any wrong, all the while winking as their settlers massacre Palestinians and push them out of their homes with violence.

The noisily hypocritical gets the hammer more often than the quiet scum.

I quite agree. Israel looks good only when compared to who they're being attacked by.



Two to tango, correct.

That's why you're not ignoring things like the Jewish settlers committing crimes against Palestinian settlers and not getting punished, that the Israeli Prime Minister who signed the Oslo Accords was killed by a Israeli Jew, and that the Cave of Patriarchs massacre was also committed by a Jew when you're casting blame. Oh wait...

Ignoring, no. I want Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza. I want the settler programs discontinued and the settlers beyond the wall forcibly removed.
But I do make a distinction between actions taken by individuals and those by the effective governments of a region.



The only difference I can see is that Sudan is keeping quiet about themselves on the international stage. Israel is playing the holier than thou trumpet.

Look, I'm not saying that Israel's hands are the only ones with blood on it, nor am I giving the Palestinians a free pass. Both sides have massively screwed up any real chance of creating peace, and until whatever's left for an actual authority on both sides agree to rein in their radicals and do so in force, they will both share the blame for the problem.

In either case, Israel's penchant for mass punishments has been going on for a great many years, all to no or little effect in deterring Palestinian attacks and responses. You'd think they'd give something else a try to generate real peace.

But that's not going to happen. Not without some serious replacement of the people at and near the top in both sides because they're sure as heck not in it for the benefit of their people but themselves (when was the last time they had a PM/leader not stuck in one corruption scandal or another).

And I largely agree with you. Neither side here is without sin. It just really annoys me when people make out Israel as being the monster, when their proposed response is legal, and predicated on their opponents doing the wrong thing - after all, no rockets, no replies.

If you're hittng a military base, I have no problem with you.
If you're hitting a factory making arms, orparts for warplanes, that's cool too. It's probably a bit beyond what the Hague Convention envisaged, but as you point out, it's generally considered acceptable.
Power supplies? Water treatment plants? These can be argued for. Likewise bridges - all can be claimed to have clear military utility.
And yes, accidents happen. If a bomb goes off-course and demolishes a hospital, that's unfortunate, but it isn't a crime.

All of that, I can accept.

You'll also have to accept deliberate (usually indiscriminate) attacks on civilians involved in providing the labor that runs those factories, including their homes and their families, because that's what happens in a total war scenario.

In a total war scenario, if you're involved in any industry that has links to providing military support or is even capable of doing so, you become a legitimate target.


What I can't accept is deliberate rocket attacks, not on any of the above, not even on police, but on purely civilian Israeli housing areas and suburbs, and bomb attacks deliberately targetted to cause maximum ciivlian casualties. And those are the tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas. It's not acceptable if Israel does it, it's not acceptable if the US does it, it's not acceptable period.


Israel has a universal draft if I remember correctly, which means it can be argued that striking at their civilian populace is the same as striking at their army reserves. I don't much like that argument, but it's there.


I quite agree. Israel looks good only when compared to who they're being attacked by.


I don't think so. They both look like rubbish right now. The Israeli government might be a little bit better, but the gangs and nuts they have running around unchecked don't make them look any better, or effective, than the PA.


Ignoring, no. I want Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza. I want the settler programs discontinued and the settlers beyond the wall forcibly removed.
But I do make a distinction between actions taken by individuals and those by the effective governments of a region.

The problem is that in most cases, the government is providing implicit approval of the individuals by simply not putting a stop to them even though they are in a position to do so.

That means either the Israeli government is ineffectual to the point where it can't even control it's own military/police service branches, or it doesn't care. I can't say for certain which is the case, but its rather disheartening whichever way you slice it.


And I largely agree with you. Neither side here is without sin. It just really annoys me when people make out Israel as being the monster, when their proposed response is legal, and predicated on their opponents doing the wrong thing - after all, no rockets, no replies.

Responding is legal. Some level of retaliatory violence is legal, even if it doesn't address the cause.

But the sheer scale of response is unjustifiable.

It would be like China starting a nuclear war after their embassy was supposedly accidentally bombed by American jets.

Momma always said "A little genocide in the morning will set things straight."

You'll also have to accept deliberate (usually indiscriminate) attacks on civilians involved in providing the labor that runs those factories, including their homes and their families, because that's what happens in a total war scenario.

In a total war scenario, if you're involved in any industry that has links to providing military support or is even capable of doing so, you become a legitimate target.



Israel has a universal draft if I remember correctly, which means it can be argued that striking at their civilian populace is the same as striking at their army reserves. I don't much like that argument, but it's there.

I don't like that argument, either. Aside from anything else, it justifies Israel's REAL brutalities and overreactions - once you accept Total War as a doctrine, there are no rules.


I don't think so. They both look like rubbish right now. The Israeli government might be a little bit better, but the gangs and nuts they have running around unchecked don't make them look any better, or effective, than the PA.

True. The only way Israel is behaving better is that they are not funding their extremists, merely turning a blind eye.



The problem is that in most cases, the government is providing implicit approval of the individuals by simply not putting a stop to them even though they are in a position to do so.

That means either the Israeli government is ineffectual to the point where it can't even control it's own military/police service branches, or it doesn't care. I can't say for certain which is the case, but its rather disheartening whichever way you slice it.{/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, entirely true.



[QUOTE]Responding is legal. Some level of retaliatory violence is legal, even if it doesn't address the cause.

But the sheer scale of response is unjustifiable.

It would be like China starting a nuclear war after their embassy was supposedly accidentally bombed by American jets.

Here I must disagree. Retaliation is pointless if it doesn't strike perpetrators, and destroying the entire area is the only way to ensure that with these mobile launchers.

Now, if they were talking about destroying the towns well after the attackers had left, I'd agree, but that doesn't seem to be what they're saying here.

Well, it does need to kill civilians to defend itself. Because the terrorists deliberately hide amongst civilians.

Two massive presumptions.

They aren't random. When those doing the firing do it from residential areas and try to hide amongst the population, retaliation is bound to kill civilians as well as the people it aims for

You don't seem to have read the full article. They talk about "punishing" the whole population - making them all suffer, regardless of whether they be Palestinian or Lebanese.


even though IRA terrorism was never as frequent, widespread and deadly over a long period as the attacks on Israel

O dearie, dearie me........You need to hit the books on that one.


Redwulf said that normally he wouldn't consider anti-israel sentiments to be anti-semitic, except I seemed to be different, some how.

Welcome to the club. Suggest the right to resist = U hayte J00s. The venom is worse for Jews and Israelis who speak up though....


Please do bring this Israeli General before a tribunal. And as soon as he is TOTALLY EXONERATED, maybe you could start laying the blame on the murderous fuckwits who have chosen to make war without any consideration for the welfare and safety of their own population..

Read the whole article?


The Israeli state must protect its citizens or it fails as a state. The cycle that develops is thus - terrorists fire into Israel, the Israeli state has to respond, terrorists fire back in revenge etc etc. Now, what I'm arguing here is that for a two-state solution (the only practical option IMO) to be feasible, the Palestinian terrorists have to stop firing or the negotiations will inevitably fail..

And do the Israelis stop building and expanding the settlements, the brutality at the checkpoints, and reign in the settlers....? Because in all "ceasefires" so far, they've failed to do so.


Which ignores the fact that every time they've come to the table and tried to make peace, it's been the other side that's driven them away again..

Taba.

Nodinia, since the post you quote I have clarified my position (see post #117) and explained that I do not support Israel's right to use whatever force it likes, that I favour a two-state solution and that I find the proposed use of force wholly disproportionate. I am not one of those mad supporters of Israel who believe that it can do nothing wrong. Indeed, as I said, I support the idea of a two-state solution, and think both sides are as bad as each other, although I believe that it is not a political possibility to negotiate until the Palestinian side agrees a ceasefire. Fairly standard stuff.

What I was doing in my previous posts was approaching the issue from a very simplified constructivist approach i.e. analysing why, for the purposes of security, Israel seemingly irrationally engages in attacks that will only create more support amongst the population for terrorism. This was in response to several posters arguing rather naively that whatever the Palestinian side does, Israel should not reply with force at all. My argument has been that Israel's actions are a result of public anger at attacks on Israel and that in the public mind, not responding would be equivalent to abandoning the duty of the state to protect its citizens (though as I say, the action ironically in fact promotes more terrorism), one of a state's major duties, threatening the position of the politicians and the legitimacy of the state in the minds of the Israeli people. My argument has always been that Israel to placate the public has to occasionally respond to attacks, ideally with proportionate force and targeting the groups who carried out attacks on Israel. However, this often hits civilians as Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever often base themselves in residential areas. I have never been defending the position in the article that Israel should flatten Palestinian cities. Thats quite clearly a ludicrous position that I don't believe anyone here holds.

I don't like that argument, either. Aside from anything else, it justifies Israel's REAL brutalities and overreactions - once you accept Total War as a doctrine, there are no rules.


Which at this point, both Israel and Palestine seem to be engaging in the Total War doctrine with relish. Both sides have targeted civilians and noncombatants specifically. The Palestinians with rockets and suicide bombs, the Israelis with mass punishments when the perpetrator is already dead.


True. The only way Israel is behaving better is that they are not funding their extremists, merely turning a blind eye.

They don't have to fund them for the nuts to cause that much more damage. A significant portion of those nuts happen to be inside the IDF itself, which means they have all that military hardware to play with and zero accountability other than maybe a reshuffling of their posting.

I guarantee that an IDF soldier could walk into the OT and shoot up an entire neighborhood in Palestine, gut the corpses and string them up by their intestines while pissing on their heads, and all the IDF military courts will do is just put him somewhere else, with at best, a reprimand.



Here I must disagree. Retaliation is pointless if it doesn't strike perpetrators, and destroying the entire area is the only way to ensure that with these mobile launchers.

Now, if they were talking about destroying the towns well after the attackers had left, I'd agree, but that doesn't seem to be what they're saying here.

Where do you draw the line at striking at the perpetrators and war crimes? Taken to its logical extreme, Israel could simply carpet bomb the entire Palestine territory, and put the survivors in gas chambers, just to "make sure they get the perpetrators".

Today, it's a village. How do you know they won't upscale it to a town next? Maybe a city after that. Or after that, the entire region.

They already have a history with bulldozing neighborhoods and city block demolitions. Now they proclaim they'll level entire villages. So the slippery slope argument has precedent.

Nodinia, ..........Thats quite clearly a ludicrous position that I don't believe anyone here holds.

I might point out that Palestinian attacks do not happen in a vaccum, though one of course query whether or not they are an appropriate response to Israeli provocation. There must be a ceasefire, but there cannot be a ceasefire without some movement on the Israeli side also. A stop to building in the West Bank, easing the restrictions on Arab movement, cutting down harrassment, land seizures and the like. Its these day to day things that drive people to violence, far more than some abstract hatred or issue.

I might point out that Palestinian attacks do not happen in a vaccum, though one of course query whether or not they are an appropriate response to Israeli provocation. There must be a ceasefire, but there cannot be a ceasefire without some movement on the Israeli side also. A stop to building in the West Bank, easing the restrictions on Arab movement, cutting down harrassment, land seizures and the like. Its these day to day things that drive people to violence, far more than some abstract hatred or issue.

Agreed. Thats where the international community really have to pressurize Israel. The problem of course is even if a few concessions establish a ceasefire and allow the start of negotiations, theres always the risk of extremist elements amongst the Palestinians refusing to play along and start attacking Israel again, or to be fair, of Israel introducing some policy restricting the liberty of Palestinians and creating popular anger, which risks restarting the cycle of violence very quickly. Its very tricky, as Israel is unlikely to stay at the table for long if attacks recommence, and there are some Palestinian groups who wouldn't accept even a two-state solution and so are likely to get disilussioned with any discussion very quickly.

It´s funny that in a war crimes thread, the ad is about chatting with Single Arabs online. LMAO!:p
I'm getting an ad for 'Race Kings' (some kind of racing game). Strangely fitting for all the talk of genocide...

How come these threads are only ever made about ISRAEL?

Because Israel is the only country that is allowed to get away with such things, perhaps?

The implication was a state of advanced culture surrounded by barbarians.

Remind me; which group are the barbarians? :confused:

Remind me; which group are the barbarians? :confused:

Obviously the ones that are brown. We need to just call them Brownbarians. Much easier to differentiate.

Remind me; which group are the barbarians? :confused:

A combination of Austrians and USians, who brought us Conan the Barbarian (film, not stories).

Because Israel is the only country that is allowed to get away with such things, perhaps?

Perhaps the fact that the behaviour stands in such contrast to the rhetoric, both from there and the US, is a factor. The Sudanese and others are let off the hook by their allies, but they havent the cloak of respectability offered to them in the West at least.

Remind me; which group are the barbarians? :confused:

The ones America doesn't like.

My original post was in response to those saying that Israel should never attack terrorists hiding among the population itself, and my point was that Israel couldn't adopt such a policy. I can understand why I might have been misunderstood without the context of the posts I was replying to as advocating that Israel has a right to take any action whatsover. This wasn't what I meant. I would freely concede that flattening entire cities as proposed on the OP is disproportionate action and not justifiable on these grounds, and morally wrong, though again you can understand how extreme attitudes develop on both sides as a result of the cycle of violence.



I'm arguing that it would be politically impossible for Israel to stop responding if hit by frequent and deadly terrorist attacks. I'm not saying that only the Palestinians should stop, merely that they kinda have to stop first or negotiations aren't going to have much chance.

Who the hell said Israel should stop responding to terrorist attacks entirely? This sounds like an argument that you made up yourself for the express purpose of countering it here.

The arguments I've seen here were that Israel should stop responding to terrorism with terrorism.

Who the hell said Israel should stop responding to terrorist attacks entirely? This sounds like an argument that you made up yourself for the express purpose of countering it here.

Which is the classic definition of a Straw Man Argument.

The arguments I've seen here were that Israel should stop responding to terrorism with terrorism.

Which will never happen as long as the Ultra Orthodoxy has its hand up the Israeli government's ass and keeps playing the Anti Semitism and Holocaust cards in response to even reasonable suggestions of toning down the draconian measures.

Welcome to the club. Suggest the right to resist = U hayte J00s. The venom is worse for Jews and Israelis who speak up though....

Except that it wasn't ME who said that. I'd like to make sure that you didn't miss that part. As a matter of fact, Zilliam, would you please edit those posts so they no longer accuse me?

Except that it wasn't ME who said that. I'd like to make sure that you didn't miss that part. As a matter of face, Zilliam, would you please edit those posts so they no longer accuse me?


I mentioned no names.....

Who the hell said Israel should stop responding to terrorist attacks entirely? This sounds like an argument that you made up yourself for the express purpose of countering it here.

The arguments I've seen here were that Israel should stop responding to terrorism with terrorism.

You yourself seem to be arguing that firing on areas where there are likely to be civilian casualties is state terrorism. Now, given that terrorists often base themselves in civilian areas and hide amongst the general population, under this defintion as most attacks risk killing large numbers of civilians they would all seem to be terrorism. Hence Israel must stop responding to terrorist attacks more or less entirely, or be labelled terrorist for its actions. And I've responded to this by saying that the sort of action outlined in the OP is unjustified, but that its not possible politically for the Israeli government not to respond to attacks with a certain degree of violence, which should be self-evident. What precisely here do you find so offensive?

I don't care much for your tone. Have you tried anger management?

I mentioned no names.....

No, you quoted Zil mentioning names. I just wanted to make sure you'd read far enough to see his retraction.

You yourself seem to be arguing that firing on areas where there are likely to be civilian casualties is state terrorism. Now, given that terrorists often base themselves in civilian areas and hide amongst the general population, under this defintion as most attacks risk killing large numbers of civilians they would all seem to be terrorism. Hence Israel must stop responding to terrorist attacks more or less entirely, or be labelled terrorist for its actions. And I've responded to this by saying that the sort of action outlined in the OP is unjustified, but that its not possible politically for the Israeli government not to respond to attacks with a certain degree of violence, which should be self-evident. What precisely here do you find so offensive?

I don't care much for your tone. Have you tried anger management?

I fail to see what anger management would do for my perplexed tone but you're free to dislike as much as you please. I never said that Israel must stop responding to terrorist attacks, I said that the must start responding by finding the terrorists and using weapons that can be targeted.

I fail to see what anger management would do for my perplexed tone but you're free to dislike as much as you please. I never said that Israel must stop responding to terrorist attacks, I said that the must start responding by finding the terrorists and using weapons that can be targeted.

And I never said they shouldn't try to ensure minimal civilian casualties, merely that the tactics of the terrorists make it difficult, and mean that there will be some - but Israel replying without being absolutely sure (which you can't be) that they won't hit civilians put right in the firing line by the tactics of the terrorists of basing themselves in residential areas, has been refered to as "slaughter" "genocide" and as a "war crime", when realistically political pressures from within and the need of the state to appear as if it is acting against those attacking its people mean that Israel has to take action, which inevitably risks innocent lives, or the politicians in charge will lose their positions and the state lose its authority.

Further to your earlier request, you can find the debate I was having earlier with various persons who were seemingly suggesting that Israel should not defend itself if attacked if there was any risk of civilian casualties around posts 50-70 in the thread.

Further to your earlier request, you can find the debate I was having earlier with various persons who were seemingly suggesting that Israel should not defend itself if attacked if there was any risk of civilian casualties around posts 50-70 in the thread.

I re-read all of them between 50 and 70 and I see no one making the argument you claim. Quotes please?

I re-read all of them between 50 and 70 and I see no one making the argument you claim. Quotes please?

*sigh*. I was expecting this. You really can't see? I say Israel is inevitably going to resort to use of force because of the demands of its citizens, which because of the situation with terrorists basing themselves in residential areas is going to cause some civilian casualties. I get labelled by numerous posters, including yourself, as effectively the spawn of satan for "justifying" atrocities against Palestinains. Logically, I conclude from this that people don't believe Israel can launch any attacks that risk civilian injury (i.e. nearly any attack, given terrorist tactics of melting into the population) without committing unjustifiable war crimes, as this has been defined by said posters as "terrorism". I then argue my counter-case, that they have to launch some counter-attacks and be seen to be doing something or the public will lose faith in the state. Out of all the people who were criticising me, not until now has anyone except you after pages and pages of argument have questioned that this was indeed the basis of their argument.

*sigh*. I was expecting this. You really can't see? I say Israel is inevitably going to resort to use of force because of the demands of its citizens, which because of the situation with terrorists basing themselves in residential areas is going to cause some civilian casualties. I get labelled by numerous posters, including yourself, as effectively the spawn of satan for "justifying" atrocities against Palestinains. Logically, I conclude from this that people don't believe Israel can launch any attacks that risk civilian injury (i.e. nearly any attack, given terrorist tactics of melting into the population) without committing unjustifiable war crimes, as this has been defined by said posters as "terrorism". I then argue my counter-case, that they have to launch some counter-attacks and be seen to be doing something or the public will lose faith in the state. Out of all the people who were criticising me, not until now has anyone except you after pages and pages of argument have questioned that this was indeed the basis of their argument.

So, what you're saying is you can't quote anyone making that argument. Is it perhaps because no one did?

They have been committing genocide for some time now, and not just planning it.
The Palestinian population is increasing faster than that of any other ethnic group (doubling time ~every 25 years), faster than most rates ever recorded in history (Ethiopia's doubling time fell to 22 years, once; the Four Horseman of famine, war, plague, and despair then decimated them). To speak of "genocide" is absolutely absurd.

So, what you're saying is you can't quote anyone making that argument. Is it perhaps because no one did?

As I said, no one said it directly, but I implied it from the tone of the thread as a whole, as I just described, not from one individual post. I'm not going to quote the 30-odd posts that gave me that impression because that would be ridiculous. As I say, since then I've been debating with people for the last god knows how many pages on that issue, and no-one until you questioned that this was their basic viewpoint. Which makes me think that the people I was arguing against accepted the basis of the debate we were having. We are capable of understanding general themes arising from the thread i.e. "force by Israel is illegitimate" as well as direct quotes where someone says it openly and sums it all up in one post

We are capable of understanding general themes arising from the thread i.e. "force by Israel is illegitimate" as well as direct quotes where someone says it openly and sums it all up in one post

That's the problem. You're missing a word from your interpretation of the general theme. "Excessive force by Israel is illegitimate"

The killing of human shields is not against the Geneva conventions, while using them is. And they are human shields.

So, its not a war crime.
However, the definition of Human Shields does not apply to this situation, so your post is moot.

The disproportionate response that's being suggested would indeed be a war crime, especially since it would include the direct targeting of civilians.

In this circumstance, they ascribe the responsibility for civilians and civilian casualties being used as human shields for a legitimate military target. To summarize:

Responsibility of attacker: none.

Responsibility of Human Shield User: Total.
You're wrong. In this case they would attack civilians willfully, and the civilians would only count as human shields under the wrongful definition the Israelis would want to use... You simply cannot define an entire civilian town as a "military base."

Please do bring this Israeli General before a tribunal. And as soon as he is TOTALLY EXONERATED, maybe you could start laying the blame on the murderous fuckwits who have chosen to make war without any consideration for the welfare and safety of their own population.
He wouldn't be exonerated. He would be convicted for war crimes.

How come these threads are only ever made about ISRAEL?
Because Israel is a western-style democracy and a close ally, whom we hold to high standards.

But I think you're wrong - when you hear of countries threatening other sovereign countries with a willfully disproportionate response due to attacks launched by non-governmental forces, I would expect to see a thread on it, even if the country in question was Denmark or Portugal.

Because Israel is in the public eye and it's fashionable to bash them for their policies.
Hey, you seem to be bashing Sudan for their policies too. What's up with that?


Plus, it's easier to yell "Genocide, genocide" at Israel than to demand actions in the Sudan - where there's an actual genocide going on.
And it's impossible to have two thoughts in your head at once, it seems. Oh well, I still condemn Sudan for their policies and support the work of the ICC.

And - Heavens to Betsy! - in the same post as I was criticizing Israel too! I guess I should mention that I also condemn the violence by the Palestinians and the Hizbollah. I might cause heads to burst by continuing...

That's the problem. You're missing a word from your interpretation of the general theme. "Excessive force by Israel is illegitimate"

Perhaps. Though my position is, as I've stated all along, that the proposal in the OP is indeed excessive, that being the problem. My argument has been "ok, this is too much, but Israel's habit of responding in a manner that often kills many civilians is perhaps understandable due to certain dynamics and demands upon the state for security". Regular counter-strikes, which because of the tactics of the terrorists often hit civilians, are inevitable. Israel's gone to far. My point hasn't been to legitimise Israel's actions, but to try and understand why it acts as it does. I guess I've got frustrated by everyone thinking I'm sort of crazy Israel-loving extreme right wing nut and got increasingly ardent in how I've presented my opinions as a result. So I guess you're right in arguing no-one specifically said Israel has no right to respond proportionally. Typical, I slip up once after having restated my views about a hundred times throughout the thread, and I get called on it. Damn you:p

I would just like to inform Redwulf that Zilam is in fact NOT anti-semetic. So the argument can end here and you all can go back to more important business.

:D

You're wrong. In this case they would attack civilians willfully, and the civilians would only count as human shields under the wrongful definition the Israelis would want to use... You simply cannot define an entire civilian town as a "military base."

Nor did I. Read the Convention. Placing artillery inside a town, iirc, is a specifically mentioned case under the "Human Shield" clause.


He wouldn't be exonerated. He would be convicted for war crimes.

Not if he stays inside the Hague Conventions - which this policy, whatever you might think of it, does.


Hey, you seem to be bashing Sudan for their policies too. What's up with that?

They deserve it. As does Israel, for some of their policies - just not EVERY policy, as an unfortunate number of our posters seem to believe.

And it's impossible to have two thoughts in your head at once, it seems. Oh well, I still condemn Sudan for their policies and support the work of the ICC.

And - Heavens to Betsy! - in the same post as I was criticizing Israel too! I guess I should mention that I also condemn the violence by the Palestinians and the Hizbollah. I might cause heads to burst by continuing...

Good. Now, if a few other people follow your lead, we might actually get some balance here.

Nor did I.
Irrelevant. The General in question did, as you can see in the article.

Read the Convention. Placing artillery inside a town, iirc, is a specifically mentioned case under the "Human Shield" clause.
Show me. And also show me where the Convention allows for a "disproportionate" response.


Not if he stays inside the Hague Conventions - which this policy, whatever you might think of it, does.
It does not. It violates both the Convention and customary international laws. The arbitrary defining of civilian towns as "military bases", the collective punishment aspect of it, the willful targeting of civilians and the promise of a disproportional response all make sure of that.


They deserve it. As does Israel, for some of their policies - just not EVERY policy, as an unfortunate number of our posters seem to believe.
Israel deserves it for this policy.


Good. Now, if a few other people follow your lead, we might actually get some balance here.
No, people would still cry about how threads here were "only bashing Israel". Of that I am sure.

It does not. It violates both the Convention and customary international laws. The arbitrary defining of civilian towns as "military bases", the collective punishment aspect of it, the willful targeting of civilians and the promise of a disproportional response all make sure of that.


Why are you the only other person to have highlighted this? It's pretty fundamental.

It matters nought if it is or is not written in any Convention or Declaration.

The reason is thus. Israel has to make the price of spilling Israeli blood too much to bear. If they don't attack these villages these terrorists use as rocket-lauching bases, then Israel is a sitting duck, getting shot at without being able to attack back. Being surrounded by people who hate you and would smile at your complete destruction, you simply can't show these kind of weak spots. You have to make them understand, if you attack us first, we will bring the world crashing down around you, so that even if you don't value your own life, you may think twice about the lives of your family, your friends and your neighbors. Hopefully that will stop atleast some of these insane people from attacking.

It's all very simple though. Israel does not attack until it is attacked, because if it waits, it can be destroyed.

A peaceful solution? No more arabs attack Israel, they all recognize Israel's right to exist and I guarantee that the war in the the crisis between Israel and it's neighbors stops.

Why are you the only other person to have highlighted this? It's pretty fundamental.

It matters nought if it is or is not written in any Convention or Declaration.
It's very easy to write these laws and say you will heed these laws sitting in the saftey of an office building in, for example, Geneva Switzerland.

It's another thing if you're neighbors (with a few minor exceptions) wish nothing more than your complete destruction, you are totally out-numbered and you know that a single military loss could lead to the end of your civilization as you know it.....

Israel is fighting for it's existance. It's enemies are fighting for it's destruction.

It's that simple.

-snip-

Fascinating.

And that changes customary international law how?

It's very easy to write these laws and say you will heed these laws sitting in the saftey of an office building in, for example, Geneva Switzerland.

It's another thing if you're neighbors (with a few minor exceptions) wish nothing more than your complete destruction, you are totally out-numbered and you know that a single military loss could lead to the end of your civilization as you know it.....

Israel is fighting for it's existance. It's enemies are fighting for it's destruction.

It's that simple.
To reduce nearly a century of conflict between many different colonial powers, Arab and Jewish groups thus is a gross oversimplification, and is the kind of logic that keeps this conflict going.

To reduce nearly a century of conflict between many different colonial powers, Arab and Jewish groups thus is a gross oversimplification, and is the kind of logic that keeps this conflict going.
On the other hand, it's at times over-complication that prevents anything from being done.

The point is that if Israel was safe and was allowed to exist by all it's neighbors, there would be no more arab-israeli conflict.

Fascinating.

And that changes customary international law how?

Because laws written once place can't necessary be expected to be upholded in a totally different socio-political enviornment, where a war rages and a people fight for their existance.

International Law is a good thing and does help many times, but not all the time. Sometimes it's unrealistic to think that people with their back against the wall will (the wall representing their total destruction) will refrain from attacking their enemies because someone in a comfy office in a safe country thousands of miles away from the conflict said not to.

Because laws written once place can't necessary be expected to be upholded in a totally different socio-political enviornment, where a war rages and a people fight for their existance.

International Law is a good thing and does help many times, but not all the time. Sometimes it's unrealistic to think that people with their back against the wall will (the wall representing their total destruction) will refrain from attacking their enemies because someone in a comfy office in a safe country thousands of miles away from the conflict said not to.

That will indeed change some law. But how would it change customary international law?

For easy reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law
Also pay attention to the jus cogens part.

That will indeed change some law. But how would it change customary international law?

For easy reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law
Also pay attention to the jus cogens part.
I took a look, but the only ones opponents of Israel would try to pin on Israel is "genocide" and "crimes against humanity"...however both of those are highly debatable if the enemy is attacking you, then hiding among civilian populations when you pursue him. It's not like the intention is that group A were one day sitting under a tree thinking, "hey let's wipe out group B just for the lolz!"
It's debatable and cannot accuratly be called genocide or crimes against humanity.

All people can do is put that in the "questionable pile"....or the "for futher debate pile".

I agree it's not nice, but if the alternative is your eventual destruction and having your hands tied while you are attacked, NO nation would ever sit idly by.....

I took a look, but the only ones opponents of Israel would try to pin on Israel is "genocide" and "crimes against humanity"...however both of those are highly debatable if the enemy is attacking you, then hiding among civilian populations when you pursue him. It's not like the intention is that group A were one day sitting under a tree thinking, "hey let's wipe out group B just for the lolz!"
It's debatable and cannot accuratly be called genocide or crimes against humanity.
Go back to the OP. The General confirms that it would be a State policy to punish an innocent civilian population. That is a crime against humanity - no matter who does it - and as such breaks jus cogens. One cannot claim protection of the law, when one breaks it.

Go back to the OP. The General confirms that it would be a State policy to punish an innocent civilian population. That is a crime against humanity - no matter who does it - and as such breaks jus cogens. One cannot claim protection of the law, when one breaks it.
The general promised "disproportionate" force to destroy entire villages identified as sources of Hizbullah rocket fire, the reasoning being that they are "not civilian villages" but rather "military bases"
Like I said:

....however both of those are highly debatable if the enemy is attacking you, then hiding among civilian populations when you pursue him. It's not like the intention is that group A were one day sitting under a tree thinking, "hey let's wipe out group B just for the lolz!"

"Punish" is the wrong word. It's like like they are blowing up random civilian towns as punishment. They would be, hypothetically, attacking the towns that the terrorists are using as cover.

On the other hand, it's at times over-complication that prevents anything from being done.
Giving Israel a carte blanche to do anything it likes without any kind of accountability (for lack of a better word) isn't going to achieve anything.

The point is that if Israel was safe and was allowed to exist by all it's neighbors, there would be no more arab-israeli conflict.
Possibly. But the question here is whether Israeli policy makes this more or less likely to happen. If it does, then Israel must share some blame for the failings over a lasting peace (although I think there is far too much of this) and should be prepared to change it as soon as possible. Israel wants safety, and rightly so, but must also be prepared to accept that Palestinians will want the same.

The point is that if Israel was safe and was allowed to exist by all it's neighbors, there would be no more arab-israeli conflict.

Too bad a big chunk of Israel won't allow it's neighbors to exist either. Or are you going to pretend the likes of Baruch Goldstein, Yigal Amir, and the OT Jewish terror gangs don't exist?

"Punish" is the wrong word.

Yet its clear that that is the intent.

Additionally, you seem to have forgotten that peace will require not only an Arab recognition of Israel, but an end to expansion and annexation in the OT.