|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, it’s not. The fact that you typed that pretty thoroughly demonstrates that you don’t understand basic principles of LOAC. Unless their aim is to cause civilian casualties, like Hamas does, they’re not targeting civilians. You may think Israeli targeting shows a lack of regard for the lives of civilians in Gaza, but unfortunately it’s not outside the norm in terms of state practice. What you seem to take for granted is the very idea an operation to attack gaza was even necessary in the first place. Remember it was preceded by operation brother's keeper, which was intended to rescue the kidnapped settlers who netanyahu and all the people with the power to do anything about it knew were already dead. What did egypt do to keep palestinians from using tunnels to enter their country? They dug a large trench, and flooded it with water. That's literally all it would take to end the threat of tunnel incursions into israel. Operation protective edge never had to be waged. All those people, combatant and noncombatant died for baldly political reasons. What does it matter whether a west bank palestinian has it better than a palestinian in beit lahia etc. It's like asking someone how life is in a larger prison. Nobody is asserting anything w/r/t the acts of vandalism and willful destruction of private property other than the looting; what I took from it is that this is essentially the cherry on top of a poo poo sundae and you're really the only person trying to defend it from it being out of place from LOAC/military law and essentially not choosing to judge it for the sick loving act it is outside that reference point. Something like that would never need to even be taken all the way to the Hague to begin with. Did the instances of looting go anywhere beyond a military tribunal?
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So we should paint the map blue-and-white throughout all of mandatory Palestine, got it. And it's everyone else who is treating it like a map painting game, not you. All right champ. It seems like you're pretty fixated on painting the map, you've got the colors picked out and everything. Too bad resolving conflict and improving the lives of actual Palestinians don't really seem to do it for you.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
There is no one with the political will to mediate a solution to the situation in Israel and Palestine, so pretending like that happen without an outright revolution in the political order of the rich countries is a childish fantasy of self-righteousness.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Why don't you care enough about Palestinians to support ethnic cleansing of the land they occupy, liberals?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:There is no one with the political will to mediate a solution to the situation in Israel and Palestine, so pretending like that happen without an outright revolution in the political order of the rich countries is a childish fantasy of self-righteousness. "The Occupation of Palestine won't end until Capitalism has been overthrown and put all those CEOs and politicians against the wall by the glorious revolutionaries!" "What guys, I'm being serious!" VitalSigns posted:Why don't you care enough about Palestinians to support ethnic cleansing of the land they occupy, liberals? There's nothing liberal about wanting poor people to go to war for you. That's just being a chickenhawk. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:54 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:02
|
|
Kaal posted:"Israel v. Palestine won't end until Capitalism has been overthrown and put all those CEOs and politicians against the wall by the glorious revolutionaries" Not what I said. If you think that the political elites of the USA, or Western Europe, or Japan, or Australia and New Zealand are motivated primarily by morality, which is what would be necessary to mediate the conflict successfully, you're absurdly childish. So you would have to basically completely replace them, which is not likely.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Kaal posted:There's nothing liberal about wanting to poor people to go to war for you. That's just being a chickenhawk. What. I'm not asking anyone to go to war for me. I don't want a war. Of course, I'm operating under the normal definition of war, and you seem to be operating under a definition of warlike which is "if you are Arab, anything short of giving away your land to foreign settlers and voluntarily becoming homeless refugees wandering other foreign countries"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
I think it's really funny how defensive people get when they realize that strenuously supporting a faction of violent militants and rejecting all efforts at peace kind of jumps the shark with progressive principles. "I might want for Palestinians to fight to the bloody end and never give up their righteous struggle to free themselves from the oppressive Jews, regardless of what it takes ... but I don't want a war"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:22
|
|
Kaal posted:I think it's really funny how defensive people get when they realize that strenuously supporting genocidal maniacs and rejecting all efforts at peace kind of jumps the shark with progressive principles. "I might want for Palestinians to fight to the bloody end and never give up their righteous struggle to free themselves from the oppressive Jews, regardless of what it takes ... but I don't want to a war" Don't want to what a war? It's cute when people think that the USA, locked internally in a struggle between fetishism of European norms and lizardish realism for its foreign policy, is going to come around and negotiate a realistic settlement that will last any day now. Any... day... now.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
"Israel should quit starting wars to get more land" "Oh so it's war you want!" E: And what's with this weird anti-semitism projection? "The Jews" aren't oppressing Palestinians. Most Jews aren't even Israeli. Israel is controlled by a political coalition led by Likud, not by some nebulous "The Jews" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:41 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think it's really funny how defensive people get when they realize that strenuously supporting a faction of violent militants and rejecting all efforts at peace kind of jumps the shark with progressive principles. "I might want for Palestinians to fight to the bloody end and never give up their righteous struggle to free themselves from the oppressive Jews, regardless of what it takes ... but I don't want a war" I don't support hamas. I support an independent state of palestine. You can support one and distinctly oppose the other without being a hypocrite. Your shtick is really getting stale as gently caress too btw.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
So what I'm getting from Kaal's posts is that Poland is responsible for WWII and "Danzig or War" was a reasonable request?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
If you want to go on some quixotic crusade against the Germans, do it yourself. Cheering on poor Poles to mobilize and spill Wehrmacht blood for you because you're obsessed with some lines on a map is pathetic cowardice, you chickenhawk.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:So what I'm getting from Kaal's posts is that Poland is responsible for WWII and "Danzig or War" was a reasonable request? What you should be getting, but of course refuse to, is that Japan and Germany surrendering at the end of World War 2 was better for everyone - most particularly them - rather than fighting to the absolute last man, woman, and child. Fortunately there were moderates in their governments who were able to resist the hardliners and pursue peace. When the American South was facing defeat at the end of the Civil War, there were plenty of fools who were willing to order the remaining Confederate troops into a guerilla campaign - Davis among them - but fortunately the leading Confederate generals didn't truck with that sort of cowardice and refused to subject their people to that kind of cruelty. Telling people to righteously fight for a hopeless cause or die trying is a lot easier than actually making the kind of tough compromises that are required for peace.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:00
|
|
Kaal posted:What you should be getting, but of course refuse to, is that Japan and Germany surrendering at the end of World War 2 was better for everyone - most particularly them - rather than fighting to the absolute last man, woman, and child. Fortunately there were moderates in their governments who were able to resist the hardliners and pursue peace. When the American South was facing defeat at the end of the Civil War, there were plenty of fools who were willing to order the remaining Confederate troops into a guerilla campaign - Davis among them - but fortunately the leading Confederate generals didn't truck with that sort of cowardice and refused to subject their people to that kind of cruelty. Telling people to righteously fight for a hopeless cause or die trying is a lot easier than actually making the kind of tough compromises that are required for peace. What, in general, would a peace plan look like that was acceptable to all the involved parties?
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Wouldn't it have been better for everyone if Poland had capitulated immediately? Ditto the USSR, France, Britain, China, and the United States. If no one had fought against Germany and Japan, there wouldn't have been all those millions of war deaths. Couldn't the allies all get together and come up with the cash to pay everyone from the Polish border to the Urals a pittance to sell their land and go, I don't know, somewhere I guess? Hypothetically they could have. Therefore, they did, and the fact that the Poles and Russians and Estonians et al didn't take that offer makes them guilty for all the deaths the war inflicted on their suffering people. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:08 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
How do we know which side in a war is the unreasonable one for not immediately surrendering unconditionally to end the bloodshed? Do we flip a coin? Or are we operating on "might makes right" and we should always side with the stronger country and pressure the weaker one to cede all its territory immediately and expel its own people to become stateless refugees.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Kaal posted:What you should be getting, but of course refuse to, is that Japan and Germany surrendering at the end of World War 2 was better for everyone - most particularly them - rather than fighting to the absolute last man, woman, and child. Fortunately there were moderates in their governments who were able to resist the hardliners and pursue peace. When the American South was facing defeat at the end of the Civil War, there were plenty of fools who were willing to order the remaining Confederate troops into a guerilla campaign - Davis among them - but fortunately the leading Confederate generals didn't truck with that sort of cowardice and refused to subject their people to that kind of cruelty. Telling people to righteously fight for a hopeless cause or die trying is a lot easier than actually making the kind of tough compromises that are required for peace. So when is it moral to support a group's struggle for independence/rights even if it might lead to armed conflict? Can I support African Americans in their quest for equal rights, knowing that by not supporting African Americans deporting themselves en masse to Liberia, some African Americans might end up getting killed by cops/vigilantees/whoever? Or is there no difference between say MLK and Hitler?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What, in general, would a peace plan look like that was acceptable to all the involved parties? There's never been a peace plan that was acceptable to all the involved parties in the history of humanity. Do you think that unconditional surrender was acceptable to all the involved parties within Japan or Germany? And that was after only a few years of war, not decades. With that standard in hand, every war would continue until one side had been wiped out completely. There's always going to be factions that think the fighting should continue - if only to achieve better terms in the eventual peace agreement. The best you can do is craft a peace plan that gets enough support to fatally weaken the warmongers. And in IvP, that would probably look similar to the previous attempts at peace frameworks, with land swaps and an introduction of UN aid and rebuilding programs, and an easement of trade and movement restrictions tied to a long-term, multi-year plan that was intended to cool tensions and engender trust. In general, a focus on economic rebuilding and military security, rather than controversial political questions. Obviously Hamas is going to resist this from ever coming to pass, since it would doom their public support, which is why it is critical to find intermediary modes of constructing peace frameworks - such as creating a buyout system to enable individual Palestinians and Israelis to resolve their differences financially rather than with arms.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:29
|
|
Kaal posted:There's never been a peace plan that was acceptable to all the involved parties in the history of humanity. Do you think that unconditional surrender was acceptable to all the involved parties within Japan or Germany? And that was after only a few years of war, not decades. With that standard in hand, every war would continue until one side had been wiped out completely. There's always going to be factions that think the fighting should continue - if only to achieve better terms in the eventual peace agreement. The best you can do is craft a peace plan that gets enough support to fatally weaken the warmongers. And in IvP, that would probably look similar to the previous attempts at peace frameworks, with land swaps and an introduction of UN aid and rebuilding programs, and an easement of trade and movement restrictions tied to a long-term, multi-year plan that was intended to cool tensions and engender trust. In general, a focus on economic rebuilding and military security, rather than controversial political questions. Obviously Hamas is going to resist this from ever coming to pass, since it would doom their public support, which is why it is critical to find intermediary modes of constructing peace frameworks - such as creating a buyout system to enable individual Palestinians and Israelis to resolve their differences financially rather than with arms. OK, so in other words, "let's pretend that this is happening because of evil warmongers". Mature.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:OK, so in other words, "let's pretend that this is happening because of evil warmongers". Mature. "Your peace plan doesn't singlehandedly bridge the gap between Israelis and a group that wants to kill them all, obviously you aren't serious the way I am." 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:36
|
|
Kaal posted:"Your peace plan doesn't bridge the gap between Israelis and a group that wants to kill them all, obviously you aren't serious the way I am." You really need to work on the whole "reasonable" thing. Letting it evaporate after one cancerous paragraph just isn't going to work in the cutthroat world of 2015.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You really need to work on the whole "reasonable" thing. Letting it evaporate after one cancerous paragraph just isn't going to work in the cutthroat world of 2015. Yeah ok well when I want lessons about reasonableness from the D&D I/P thread I'll let you know.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:41
|
|
Kaal posted:Yeah ok well when I want lessons about reasonableness from the D&D I/P thread I'll let you know. The unreasonable antisemite sez: The conflict between Israel and Palestine continues because neither party is capable of doing anything to conclude it short of long-term attempts to erode the other side into collapse, and the differences between the two are not easily resolvable. The intelligent man sez: The conflict between Israel and Palestine is because of warmongers like Hamas and Hamas, and if we could shoot them all, things would shake out for the better.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
OK, so in other words, "let's pretend that this is happening because of evil warmongers". Mature.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
Pop quiz: who is more opposed to a framework that will actually improve living conditions in Gaza: HAMAS or the Likud coalition? I'll give you a hint: you're a disingenuous loving idiot if you think it's the one that has to live in Gaza. Which it's already been established that you are, so carry on as you like, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Kaal posted:And in IvP, that would probably look similar to the previous attempts at peace frameworks, with land swaps and an introduction of UN aid and rebuilding programs, and an easement of trade and movement restrictions tied to a long-term, multi-year plan that was intended to cool tensions and engender trust. In general, a focus on economic rebuilding and military security, rather than controversial political questions. Obviously Likud is going to resist this from ever coming to pass, since it would doom their public support, which is why it is critical to find intermediary modes of constructing peace frameworks - such as creating a buyout system to enable individual Palestinians and Israelis to resolve their differences financially rather than with arms. I fixed this for you.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Kaal posted:There's nothing liberal about wanting to poor people to go to war for you. That's just being a chickenhawk. That sort of romanticization of violence and armed struggle, especially the belief in violence for the sake of 'action', has always struck me as an almost fascistic approach to the conflict. Obviously, Hamas and its MM antecedents were heavily influenced by fascism, but it's still surprising to see self-described "leftists" cheering on the brownshirts. Kajeesus posted:TIC is pretty clearly as much of a troll as MIGF: he just coats it in crocodile tears and evasiveness rather than 70s realpolitik, and Kaal's redtext is from a previous I/P text where he actually commented on Israeli atrocities. Always amusing to watch the  contingent start to hammer shut the windows of their asylum. On the plus side, you're not (yet) accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a literal agent of the international The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 08:38 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Pop quiz: who is more opposed to a framework that will actually improve living conditions in Gaza: HAMAS or the Likud coalition? I'll give you a hint: you're a disingenuous loving idiot if you think it's the one that has to live in Gaza.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Always amusing to watch the "Yet" being very much the operative word.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Always amusing to watch the I'm still waiting on you to explain how bombing the power and water plants in Gaza, when Israeli intelligence had explicitly been made aware that they contained no military targets, is legitimate military action and not an act of collective punishment. Lady Morgaga posted:So not Hamas huh. Because it looks like you unaware that their bigwigs living anywhere but Gaza. Well, yes, mysteriously there are very few Hamas VIPs in the open-air prison from which Israel routinely kidnaps and tortures people, and whose civilian homes are bombed to assassinate prominent members. I suppose you can assume that Hamas' leadership would torpedo peace talks if they were ever invited to them, since they may not represent their members who actually live in Gaza, and their actual goal is the death of every Jew or whatever. The day Hamas is party to an actual peace talk, we'll have to see.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:IWell, yes, mysteriously there are very few Hamas VIPs in the open-air prison from which Israel routinely kidnaps and tortures people, and whose civilian homes are bombed to assassinate prominent members. I suppose you can assume that Hamas' leadership would torpedo peace talks if they were ever invited to them, since they may not represent their members who actually live in Gaza, and their actual goal is the death of every Jew or whatever. The day Hamas is party to an actual peace talk, we'll have to see.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, it’s not. The fact that you typed that pretty thoroughly demonstrates that you don’t understand basic principles of LOAC. Unless their aim is to cause civilian casualties, like Hamas does, they’re not targeting civilians. You may think Israeli targeting shows a lack of regard for the lives of civilians in Gaza, but unfortunately it’s not outside the norm in terms of state practice. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War_(2008%E2%80%9309)#Controversial_tactics_allegedly_used_by_Israel http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Israel http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Alleged_violations_by_Israel Just because Israel is a state it doesn't mean you get to handwave hundreds of incidents requiring thousands of soldiers operating under clear co-ordination and orders from the top, over the period of multiple years and multiple conflicts, as "crimes committed by individual members". Israel, as an apartheid state practicing colonialism, has a very clear policy of unleashing violence against Palestinians on a consistent and indiscriminate basis that kills civilians, in many cases without there being a single militant in place. It has a clear and easily demonstratable policy of making civilians the object of racial discrimination, theft of land, property and freedom and use of violence whenever they resist that in any way. Just because it isn't a written policy on every IDF booklet and government paper, doesn't mean that you can't clearly see it being a policy. This insistence of words and official stated rules (that aren't followed in practice) as opposed to what is actually happening is the kind of sniveling bullshit defense that pro-Israelis love to resort to deflect the criticism. "IDF states its a moral army that doesn't stand for this!" "Israel states it is a democracy!" "Israel states that these lands belong to it!" How about you stop being blindly naive in this one case and see that Israel, like any other country in the region or in the world doing immoral poo poo, can't obviously be trusted for poo poo when they say something? Or I guess there aren't any Russians in Ukraine and Assad is just fighting against criminal elements in the country  Kaal posted:Yeah ok well when I want lessons about reasonableness from the D&D I/P thread I'll let you know. From the guy who thinks Israel is going to shell out their annual GDP for West Bank and Gaza and Palestinians are going to accept the offer. As long as we're talking about cuckooland scenarios that will never happen, I would love it if Israelis stopped colonizing West Bank and imposing apartheid wherever their rule extends out of the goodness of their hearts tomorrow. In fact I'm just going to argue from that viewpoint this whole moment forward like its a complete reasonable thing to expect to happen and accuse everyone else of being a violent warmonger  DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 10:58 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:That sort of romanticization of violence and armed struggle, especially the belief in violence for the sake of 'action', has always struck me as an almost fascistic approach to the conflict. Obviously, Hamas and its MM antecedents were heavily influenced by fascism, but it's still surprising to see self-described "leftists" cheering on the brownshirts. Perhaps Lincoln should have surrendered immediately, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. I suppose you think the Vichy Government did nothing wrong, too, right? They prevented a war in Central and Southern France that would undoubtedly have killed many.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Lady Morgaga posted:The whole planet is open air prison. Please save you hysterics. And while you might disagree with acceptable amount of collateral damage when you are killing "prominent members" of internationally recognized terrorist organization your supposed peace seekers dont even have an excuse of trying to kill legitimate target when using people as delivery system for high explosives. On being the party to actual peace talks I guess will see Hamas a party of actual peace talks roughly at same time when we'll see Kach as one. What planet are you posting from.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 13:02
|
|
Lady Morgaga posted:The whole planet is open air prison. 
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Im having trouble finding news articles stating an update to either thing, have the Palestinians wrongly re-arrested during Brothers Keeper been re-released, or are they p much fated to live their lives in prison? And, did Israel ever dis-establish their '3km buffer zone' created last year, or did they totally just annex half of Gaza? Also, something thats confusing me is posters repeating such things as 'Hamas will never be a member of peace talks,' and 'that, due to how aggressive Hamas is, Israel was right in smashing Gaza last year.' Like, please correct me if I'm mis-remembering, in June Hamas had not just ceased their attacks for near two years, but began actively working towards a lasting peace with their attempt to formally reintegrate Gaza into the PA. Israeli government members repeatedly stated a signing of such a re-unification agreement would bring an end to peace, so, three weeks after the declaration, they started destroying Gaza. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 22:27 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Lady Morgaga posted:The whole planet is open air prison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQNlBaQXeDc
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:What planet are you posting from. Teegeeack, obviously. tentative8e8op posted:Like, please correct me if I'm mis-remembering, in June Hamas had not just ceased their attacks for near two years, but began actively working towards a lasting peace with their attempt to formally reintegrate Gaza into the PA. Israeli government members repeatedly stated a signing of such a re-unification agreement would bring an end to peace, so, three weeks after the declaration, they started destroying Gaza. Yes that is exactly what happened. Israel applies "divide to rule" faithfully, so when it looked like the Palestinians were going to be united they had to do something, and of course the only thing they know how to do wrt. Palestine is gratuitous, unprovoked mass-murders that are sold to the gullible world as "exercising our right to defend ourselves by carpet-bombing schools and hospitals as well as little children playing soccer on a beach".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
 ISRAEL IS DOOMED quote:Avigdor Lieberman announced Monday that he will be quitting his post as foreign minister, and that his Yisrael Beiteinu party will not be part of the next government. The remaining coalition partners now have 61 out of 120 seats. Yet more dire news: quote:Among his complaints on the direction of the new coalition, Liberman accused Netanyahu of "zigzagging," and lamented that the new government was not committed to eradicating Hamas in Gaza or building new housing units in Jewish settlements. SNAKES N CAKES fucked around with this message at 16:34 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 16:22
|
|
