|
vintagepurple posted:Palestinians are sort of like those estonian SS dudes that fought against the USSR. I don't really agree with their methods but man, what choice do you have? Every option results in your land stolen and your people enslaved or killed, might as well take some of the bastards with you. I guess there is always the choice not to murder people going to shul. A thought.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I guess there is always the choice not to murder people going to shul. A thought. You mean like legal terrorism and nonviolent terrorism and UN terrorism? I'd love to be able to make an argument to the Palestinians that not doing vile things is going to get them somewhere, but Israeli policy of rewarding terrorists and punishing collaborators is sure making that difficult. American diplomatic immunity at the UNSC ain't helping, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You mean like legal terrorism and nonviolent terrorism and UN terrorism? I'd love to be able to make an argument to the Palestinians that not doing vile things is going to get them somewhere, but Israeli policy of rewarding terrorists and punishing collaborators is sure making that difficult. American diplomatic immunity at the UNSC ain't helping, either. The current Israeli government is like a child looking for any excuse to start a fight; perhaps it's best not to give them one so when they finally do go on the offensive anyway they won't have a scapegoat to fall back on. The international community will surely step in then.. right? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:The current Israeli government is like a child looking for any excuse to start a fight; perhaps it's best not to give them one so when they finally do go on the offensive anyway they won't have a scapegoat to fall back on. The international community will surely step in then.. right? The international community would as soon step in on the US or any other nuclear power. All we can do is wring our hands and post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Holy poo poo, reading this guy's posts is like reading a scientologist harass someone. Replace "what are your crimes?" with "why do you loath jews?" Jews? I'm talking about Israelis. Do you not understand the difference? Do you know not every Jewish person is also an Israeli? Please don't conflate the two needlessly. It can be a pretty ugly sentiment, although I'm not accusing you of having sinister motives in conflating Jews as a whole with Israelis, I'm just saying you should engage in a little self-reflection since your mind went there so quickly. Absurd Alhazred posted:If your rivals are caricatures, you do not need to examine yourself or your views. It's really that simple. You get it, A.A. Dehumanizing an entire class of people as unfeeling, bloodthirsty monsters means you don't have to make any attempt whatsoever to understand their perspective or see them as anything other than a faceless horde. That holds true whether it's  -esque "race realists" discussing Ferguson or "anti-Zionists" discussing Israel. One type likes to spam pictures which convey to them the idea that black people are dangerous looters, the other prefers clinging to images which they use to justify their belief in Israelis as bloodthirsty monsters. There were a few of the former in the Ferguson thread recently, if you would care to compare.
The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I guess there is always the choice not to murder people going to shul. A thought. Considering that you quantified that with "going to shul" do you believe that there is a class of Israelis that are permissible to murder as a resistance action? If yes, who? If not, what would you suggest Palestinians do to end the occupation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Jews? I'm talking about Israelis. Do you not understand the difference? Do you know not every Jewish person is also an Israeli? Please don't conflate the two needlessly. It can be a pretty ugly sentiment, although I'm not accusing you of having sinister motives in conflating Jews as a whole with Israelis, I'm just saying you should engage in a little self-reflection since your mind went there so quickly. Literally your first post in this thread: The Insect Court posted:You seem to have the reference backwards, C.G. Dog whistling isn't used to describe criticism of bigotry but its covert usage. If dog whistle racism is talking about "welfare queens" instead of blacks explicitly directly but still conveying a message of hatred to those predisposed to hear it, dog whistle anti-semitism would therefore be railing against the "Zionists" while really attacking Jews. Even then when you talk about Israelis, you specify Jewish Israelis: The Insect Court posted:It's clear that there are some posters who have a very intense, very personal hatred of Jewish Israelis that goes beyond mere disagreement with the policies of the current Israeli government. The Insect Court posted:Interesting. So that sort fanatical loathing of Jewish Israelis is a sort of externalized self-hatred? I hadn't considered that possibility, to be honest, but it does help explain how irrational such fervor is. The Insect Court posted:I think I see. What you seem to be saying is that what's behind the hatred is the belief that instead of people holding a wide and diverse range of opinions on a variety of issues, Jewish Israelis are a sort of monolithic hivemind definitely exclusively by their persecution of the Palestinians? The Insect Court posted:I'm just saying that the hatred directed towards Israel and Jewish Israelis is so disproportionate and so personal that I want to understand the motivations behind it. The Insect Court posted:Does this mean you're adopting the Job Truniht position that every Jewish Israeli is a legitimate and non-civilian target? The Insect Court posted:What's going on here is what goes on in pretty much every I/P thread. For example, in the last big I/P thread I kind of clocked out when the discussion moved onto how young Jewish settlers in the West Bank could be before it was no longer morally permissible to kill them. So yes, he was 100% correct in that you assume people hate Jews. Even if you want to try and split hairs about it just about you assuming people hate Israeli Jews, that just changes the details of what your assumption is rather than offering any defence of why you hold it. quote:You get it, A.A. Dehumanizing an entire class of people as unfeeling, bloodthirsty monsters means you don't have to make any attempt whatsoever to understand their perspective or see them as anything other than a faceless horde. That holds true whether it's -esque "race realists" discussing Ferguson or "anti-Zionists" discussing Israel. One type likes to spam pictures which convey to them the idea that black people are dangerous looters, the other prefers clinging to images which they use to justify their belief in Israelis as bloodthirsty monsters. There were a few of the former in the Ferguson thread recently, if you would care to compare. Please tell me more of how it is wrong to dehumanise and try not to understand others or see them as a faceless horse while you simultaneously group all anti-zionists as anti-semites. Sounds like someone should be practising what they preach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
He's a boring dork that is going to argue in bad faith for 500 pages. As is the way of D&D. Whether he's a true believer or just stirring the pot he isn't going to ever change his tune.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
peak debt posted:Considering that you quantified that with "going to shul" do you believe that there is a class of Israelis that are permissible to murder as a resistance action? It is permissible to kill the IDF, which would not constitute murder as they are the opposing armed force in an ongoing conflict. The Palestinians have a right to resistance but that doesn't extend to killing civilians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:I wonder why TIC people feels the need to trivialize antisemitism by insinuating that every joe schmoe that comes along with a few "oh dears" about the colonial project of the State of Israel are antisemites. For Zionists that's actually a positive outcome because increased anti-Semitism makes Jewish people more likely to emigrate to Israel, which helps address the demographic problem. Plus the more real anti-Semitism that occurs the easier it is to conflate it with criticism of Zionism. Zionists don't want Jewish people to have a safe or happy life anywhere but in Israel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:For Zionists that's actually a positive outcome because increased anti-Semitism makes Jewish people more likely to emigrate to Israel, which helps address the demographic problem. Plus the more real anti-Semitism that occurs the easier it is to conflate it with criticism of Zionism. Eh, while that held true for Theodor Herzl I wouldn't say it's a particular feature of Zionism today. I sincerely doubt many Zionists feel anti-seminism is a positive development, although they might view it as an affirmation of their Zionist stance. Some might see it your way but I think in most instances it will be used either as an easy counter to an arguement or because it is assumed that Israel's actions are righteous and just so the only practical rationale for criticism is assumed to be anti-semitism even if the person gives other reasons. With the former it works fairly well because no matter how cogent and well reasoned your arguement is it's going to be brought up short if you're suddenly having to defend against accusations of being a bigot, while with the latter it's just nationalistic/ethnic/religious blinkers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Eh, while that held true for Theodor Herzl I wouldn't say it's a particular feature of Zionism today. I sincerely doubt many Zionists feel anti-seminism is a positive development, although they might view it as an affirmation of their Zionist stance. The Israeli adverts in the US a few years back show this sentiment still exists fairly strongly: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/thelede/2011/12/02/american-jews-angered-by-israeli-ads-aimed-at-luring-expats-home-from-u-s/
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I guess there is always the choice not to murder people going to shul. A thought. We can`t all be Ghandi, that`s not reasonable to expect of anyone. Sure it`s a possible choice not to murder but given the circumstances i can`t fault those who choose the path of armed resistance, even if it takes the form of terrorist attacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
I find it pretty easy to fault someone who stabbed a bunch of innocent people to death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:The Israeli adverts in the US a few years back show this sentiment still exists fairly strongly: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/thelede/2011/12/02/american-jews-angered-by-israeli-ads-aimed-at-luring-expats-home-from-u-s/ If you're trying to say "Zionists feel that there can be a positive side-effect to anti-semitism" then I wouldn't disagree but in your post before it came across more like "Zionists feel anti-Semitism itself is positive" to me, which is why I objected. I also wouldn't say that article backs up either point as the ads described seem to focus on opposition to the disintegration of percieved traditional Jewisness in the USA's cultural melting pot ('Abbas' becomes 'Daddy', 'Hanukkah' becomes 'Christmas', partner can't read Hewbrew) rather than anti-Semitism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:We can`t all be Ghandi, that`s not reasonable to expect of anyone. Sure it`s a possible choice not to murder but given the circumstances i can`t fault those who choose the path of armed resistance, even if it takes the form of terrorist attacks. There is a lot of room between Gandhi and attacking civilians and making that comparison is presenting a false dichotomy. They could have attacked an IDF soldier or another legitimate military target but they didn't. They attacked civilians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:There is a lot of room between Gandhi and attacking civilians and making that comparison is presenting a false dichotomy. Looking forward to someone saying "well they're all gonna be drafted sooner or later anyway" as a counterpoint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:It is permissible to kill the IDF, which would not constitute murder as they are the opposing armed force in an ongoing conflict. That principle is undermined by Israel moving civilians into occupied territory. If there were no nonmilitary Israelis in the West Bank there wouldn't be any civilian casualties. And the Israeli press would still be calling "terrorist" on every resistance action like they did with the attack on the soldier on the 10th. Dr. Stab posted:I find it pretty easy to fault someone who stabbed a bunch of innocent people to death. It's easy to find fault but assigning blame without a suggestion on how to do better is quite useless. Not doing anything against an unjust situation is also morally wrong. And both Israel and the world at large has proven simply by the fact that this has been going on for almost 50 years now without any sign of improving that they don't care about nonviolent resistance. peak debt fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:If you're trying to say "Zionists feel that there can be a positive side-effect to anti-semitism" then I wouldn't disagree but in your post before it came across more like "Zionists feel anti-Semitism itself is positive" to me, which is why I objected. The adverts sought to emphasise that for Jews to live anywhere but Israel is bad. Similarly anti-Semitism would makes it unpleasant to live anywhere but Israel. Zionists want all Jewish people to engage in their colonial project. Thus, anti-Semitism being encouraged by the meaning of the word being trivialised by smears against critics is a positive for Zionists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
[quote="Dr. Stab" post="437915087"] I find it pretty easy to fault someone who stabbed a bunch of innocent people to death. [/quote Desperate times means that normal ethics can be disregarded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
peak debt posted:That principle is undermined by Israel moving civilians into occupied territory. If there were no nonmilitary Israelis in the West Bank there wouldn't be any civilian casualties. And the Israeli press would still be calling "terrorist" on every resistance action. No it isn't. There is nothing conditional about whether you are allowed to directly attack civilians depending on whether or not they're settled on your territory. You aren't. Also this attack took place in West Jerusalem, not the West Bank. As for calling the perpetrators terrorists anyway, true. However being called names is not an excuse for murder or for living up to the name you've been called. quote:It's easy to find fault but assigning blame without a suggestion on how to do better is quite useless. Not doing anything against an unjust situation is also morally wrong. And both Israel and the world at large has proven simply by the fact that this has been going on for almost 50 years now without any sign of improving that they don't care about nonviolent resistance. My suggestion, which I made in my last post too, it to attack legitimate military targets. Keep up the resistance without committing war crimes. Put military pressure on Israel while making it harder to be dismissed by the rest of the world (whose support you need to end the conflict) that you are bloodthirsty terrorists. Baudolino posted:Desperate times means that normal ethics can be disregarded. That some normal ethics can be disregarded. The occupation means the Palestinians have a right to resistance, but that only extends to attacking legitimate military targets. Civilians do not qualify.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
peak debt posted:It's easy to find fault but assigning blame without a suggestion on how to do better is quite useless. Not doing anything against an unjust situation is also morally wrong. And both Israel and the world at large has proven simply by the fact that this has been going on for almost 50 years now without any sign of improving that they don't care about nonviolent resistance. What they did was worse than nothing because now a bunch of people are dead and peace is further away. If you want me to give a way they could have done it better: they could have targeted their violence at least remotely towards the source of the oppression, and not towards a bunch of innocent people in a place of worship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:No it isn't. There is nothing conditional about whether you are allowed to directly attack civilians depending on whether or not they're settled on your territory. You aren't. Yep, the Geneva Convention does not sanction a remedy against violations in any of its laws, and therefore does not legalize any such action. Be it shooting on military units flying a white flag from an army that's known to use white flags to set up ambushes, or attacking civilians from a country that are being used to occupy a territory. But it does mean that the responsibility for whatever terrible things happen due to a violation is at the very least shared between the parties. Dr. Stab posted:What they did was worse than nothing because now a bunch of people are dead and peace is further away. Welcome to the middle east, where this is what both sides do because "gently caress it, why not".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
peak debt posted:But it does mean that the responsibility for whatever terrible things happen due to a violation is at the very least shared between the parties. I don't see how. Responsibility falls on those committing the crimes in each case. Even if the actions of others affected the Palestinian militant's decision to attack civilians, the decision was still theirs. If you're saying Palestinian militants can share the blame for attacking civilians with Israel due to their occupation, would you also say Israel can share the blame for the occupation with Palestinian militants due to their attacks on civilians? As far as I'm concerned each side is responsible for its own war crimes. This still puts Israel is far the worse position due to the greater scope and affect of its war crimes, but I'm not going to try and rationalise the actions of Palestinian militants either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:My suggestion, which I made in my last post too, it to attack legitimate military targets. Keep up the resistance without committing war crimes. Put military pressure on Israel while making it harder to be dismissed by the rest of the world (whose support you need to end the conflict) that you are bloodthirsty terrorists. People made the same arguments when Hamas in Gaza almost exclusively killed IDF soldiers. The Insect Court posted:Jews? I'm talking about Israelis. Do you not understand the difference? Do you know not every Jewish person is also an Israeli? Please don't conflate the two needlessly. It can be a pretty ugly sentiment, although I'm not accusing you of having sinister motives in conflating Jews as a whole with Israelis, I'm just saying you should engage in a little self-reflection since your mind went there so quickly. The funny thing about Israel is that it has constantly tried to conflate the Israeli identity with the Jewish identity, to the point where MKs are saying that criticizing the PM of Israel is anti-semitic because the PM of Israel represents Jews worldwide. Also, this is a state where you cannot just claim Israeli nationality, you have to claim Jewish nationality. Israel is a very hosed up kind of state that seems set up to try to conflate all criticism of its policies with anti-semitism. A Jewish State in Israel and the Levant, as it were, ideologically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:People made the same arguments when Hamas in Gaza almost exclusively killed IDF soldiers. Well that's not the same argument because they're condemning Hamas targeting legitimate military targets (unless they were complaining just about the civilians who died), which is the direct opposite of what I'm doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Fundamentally in a conflict if one side has a much greater capability to offer concessions or simply stop doing needlessly bad things it must bear much more responsibility. Violent, unstable situations empower violent nasty people, a failure to reduce that instability when you are able to leads to responsibility for the actions of the violent nasty people against you as well as your own nasty actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:If you're saying Palestinian militants can share the blame for attacking civilians with Israel due to their occupation, would you also say Israel can share the blame for the occupation with Palestinian militants due to their attacks on civilians? You cannot have apartheid without having violent resistance, including terrorism any more than you can have friction without heat. That's as true in Israel as it was in South Africa. As long as Israel maintains its apartheid regime, robs its Palestinian subjects of their dignity, hope and human rights and continues to abduct and torture people for engaging in democratic resistance(like attending protests), it will continue to suffer terrorist attacks. When you realize this, it becomes clear that Israel and Israel alone has responsibility for what happens and for the bloodshed that its racist and inhuman policies inevitably create. Israel long ago chose apartheid and occupation over peace. It and it alone bears the responsibility for that choice. quote:would you also say Israel can share the blame for the occupation with Palestinian militants due to their attacks on civilians? No. That's because you don't seem to understand causality. Israel is not oppressing the Palestinians because the Palestinians are resisting; Palestinians resist because they're being oppressed. Israel would continue to oppress and victimize Palestinians even if they laid down their weapons. Look at the West Bank: before the recent rise in tensions, it had been almost completely pacified for almost a decade. The Palestinian Authority collaborated with Israel without question; if they wanted to torture a Palestinian in Zone A or B, the PA would grab the Palestinian and hand them over to the Israelis. What did such pacifism and collaboration get the West Bank Palestinians? More illegal settlements, more settler-led pogroms, more home demolitions, more apartheid roads and a promise from Netanyahu that there will never be an independent Palestine as long as he has something to say about it. In other words, there would be no terrorism if Israel ended apartheid and made peace, be it a one-state solution or a two-state one. If the Palestinians stopped engaging in terrorism, there would still be apartheid and Palestinian children would still grow up without any hope of being treated like a human being. That's why it's dishonest and simplistic to try to cast blame on both sides. I mourn for the civilians who've died, be they Jewish, Druze or Arab, but I know where to place the blame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:I don't see how. Responsibility falls on those committing the crimes in each case. Even if the actions of others affected the Palestinian militant's decision to attack civilians, the decision was still theirs. I'm ambivalent about this; when deciding whether parties do or don't share the blame in a criminal act, you have to look at each party's alternatives. In the case of West Bank settlers, Israel's alternative is clear and not terribly hard to implement: don't institute massive subsidies and government grants for moving into occupied territory (rather, disallow it). In the case of Gazan militants, the alternative of situating themselves away from civilians is logistically impossible. That said, I don't think it's moral or excusable to go ahead and murder Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories; at most they can be driven away, citing their lack of a proper deed to the land from the legitimate authority governing the West Bank. If they fight back, then it's okay to use force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
That some normal ethics can be disregarded. The occupation means the Palestinians have a right to resistance, but that only extends to attacking legitimate military targets. Civilians do not qualify. [/quote] That depends on how desperate the situation is. Given the present circumstances i would say there is no limit to what can be justified.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Fundamentally in a conflict if one side has a much greater capability to offer concessions or simply stop doing needlessly bad things it must bear much more responsibility. Violent, unstable situations empower violent nasty people, a failure to reduce that instability when you are able to leads to responsibility for the actions of the violent nasty people against you as well as your own nasty actions. This works for the conflict as a whole as both sides contribute to the conflict but Israel contributes to a much greater extent. This is an argument I've made myself. It doesn't work in individual cases like the attack a few days ago. Although the occupation had a key role in causing the perpetrators to carry out an attack, it was solely the decision of the perpetrators to attack civilians. They could just has easily have gone and attacked an IDF soldier at a checkpoint or what have you, but they chose not to. It is the nature of the attack being against civilians which made it a crime rather than a legitimate act of resistance and that aspect of it was entirely their own decision and did not involve Israel. FreshlyShaven posted:You cannot have apartheid without having violent resistance, including terrorism any more than you can have friction without heat. That's as true in Israel as it was in South Africa. As long as Israel maintains its apartheid regime, robs its Palestinian subjects of their dignity, hope and human rights and continues to abduct and torture people for engaging in democratic resistance(like attending protests), it will continue to suffer terrorist attacks. When you realize this, it becomes clear that Israel and Israel alone has responsibility for what happens and for the bloodshed that its racist and inhuman policies inevitably create. Israel long ago chose apartheid and occupation over peace. It and it alone bears the responsibility for that choice. The situation in Israel and the oPT gives the Palestinians the right to resistance, including armed resistance, but this is still within certain constraints. I find the South Africa analogy very apt and just like in South Africa although violent resistance was allowable, it was only possible if directed at legitimate targets and in the normal acceptable bounds of a war. To quote a summary of the TRC report: quote:"IN REVIEWING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (ANC) AND THE PAN At no point have I said that Palestinians shouldn't fight or that Israel isn't the one with the onus to act (in fact I said the exact opposite a page or two ago). I am not some pacifist saying that Palestinians should lie down and accept their situation. They have the right to resistance which includes armed and violent resistance even when it is labelled as terrorism. If the perpetrators of this attack had attacked some IDF soldiers at a checkpoint instead, fine. If they'd fired mortar into a military outpost you wouldn't hear me complain. If they're strapped suicide belts to themselves and detonated them at some place where they were targeting the military rather than civilians, that's acceptable. What I am saying is that the war crimes inflicted against Palestinians do not in turn legitimise war crimes being committed against Israel. Although Israel is responsible for the occupation and its other war crimes and such actions do legitimise violent resistance, no-one is holding a gun to the heads of these Palestinian militants and telling them that they have to attack civilians. They have the choice of attacking legitimate military targets or of attacking civilians and it is purely down to the militants that they chose the latter. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:This works for the conflict as a whole as both sides contribute to the conflict but Israel contributes to a much greater extent. This is an argument I've made myself. You can quibble about the legitimacy of targets but the fact remains if Israel behaved in a more reasonable manner violent and nasty people would be much less empowered to carry out "bad" violent acts. Violence is bad. It may well be necessary for oppressed people to use it to defend themselves but when a fight starts people who don't "deserve" it are likely to get hurt too. Imagine a shootout in a populated area where bystanders got hit, it is pointless to go around rating good or bad gunshot victims when it is entirely in the power of one of the sides in the shootout to prevent it altogether.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:That depends on how desperate the situation is. Given the present circumstances i would say there is no limit to what can be justified. No, it doesn't depend on that at all. I'm talking about the law which defines how forces engaged in a conflict are legally allowed to fight. It is illegal and the people who carried out the attack are either criminals or war criminals depending on whether we consider them part of a militia. Your opinion has no basis in international military law or in the basic morality that the law is built upon. ReV VAdAUL posted:You can quibble about the legitimacy of targets but the fact remains if Israel behaved in a more reasonable manner violent and nasty people would be much less empowered to carry out "bad" violent acts. Violence is bad. It may well be necessary for oppressed people to use it to defend themselves but when a fight starts people who don't "deserve" it are likely to get hurt too. Who is quibbling? I am straight up telling you what the definition is and it is clear as loving day. The principle of distinction is one of the most basic aspects of international military law. If you think there is anything to quibble about then you're not qualified to be involved in this discussion. This comes across in your shoot-out analogy where the same principle applies. It is not necessarily a war crime if a civilian is killed, but there has to be proportionality. Regardless of who you view as being responsible for the underlying conflict, if someone starts a firefight in a situation which puts masses of civilians at risk for little military gain (mowing down a crowd of mostly civilians and a few soldiers) then they are committing a war crime. Jus in bello and jus ad bellum are two distinct concepts and it's not like we would act differently in any other situation. Also what do you mean by "empowered". It's quite vague and I'm not sure what you're alluding to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:I can't equivocate Hamas to the Likud government. Their influence only extends so far into the West Bank. And Israelis have made every effort to prevent a unified government body for Palestine from ever happening. The PA has the advantage of arguing that they're separate and distinct mouthpiece from Hamas every time they visit the UN. Bibi doesn't have that luxury. He never did. There is the matter of Hamas's charter. The other significant difference is that while Likud is myopic about long term security, Hamas deliberately provoked a ground invasion over the summer by firing rockets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The other significant difference is that while Likud is myopic about long term security, Hamas deliberately provoked a ground invasion over the summer by firing rockets. No, they didn't. Israel did. It fired rockets into Gaza, in direct violation of the ceasefire, killing a Palestinian child. This was before the kidnappings. When those occurred, Israel used it as a pretext, once again in direct violation of the ceasefire(and the Oslo Accords, but whatever), to round up hundreds of Palestinians who had nothing to do with the kidnapping and imprison/torture them without due process. Just like with Operation Cast Lead, Hamas was holding up its end of the ceasefire before Israel decided to mow the lawn. Israel had been itching for a fight ever since the announcement of the Unity Government and it got one. Hamas began firing rockets when it was clear that Israel was on the warpath, after Israel had already repeatedly violated the ceasefire. But don't let any facts get in the way of blaming the Palestinians for being slaughtered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Your opinion has no basis in international military law The US army sure has no problem cancelling just about every prosecution of its soldiers with just that reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:There is the matter of Hamas's charter. The other significant difference is that while Likud is myopic about long term security, Hamas deliberately provoked a ground invasion over the summer by firing rockets. - Even if we go by the Hamas charter, which I think isn't a great idea, the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel but not Jews which it says can live within the Palestinian state that is created to replace it. Denying a people the right to self-determination and a state of their own is exactly what Likud are doing now. It is directly analogous. - You have your chronology screwed up. Although other groups like PIJ launched rockets earlier on, Hamas had a ceasefire in place with Israel and only responded with rockets once Israel attacked Hamas militants ( team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
peak debt posted:The US army sure has no problem cancelling just about every prosecution of its soldiers with just that reason. You say that like the US army isn't lovely too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:You say that like the US army isn't lovely too. It is an internationally "accepted" practice though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm eagerly awaiting some posts about "the D&D hivemind" To be fair, 'correct thought' is enforced pretty hard around here. It's not really debate so much as a circular back pat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:54
|
|