|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Well as I said, he didn't claim they were executed, he claims that they were killed and later on seems to confirm the infiltrator's statement that the land seller would be tortured. I didn't mention that possibility for two reasons. First, extrajudicial killings do sometimes happen, but since they're extrajudicial, they're fundamentally difficult to predict - when Nawi reports people he has no way of knowing whether an interrogator or prison guard is going to decide to lynch them. Second, Israel is hardly in any position to be outraged about the extrajudicial torture and sometimes murder of Palestinian detainees.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Neither the Israeli hypocrisy on the subject nor the likely possibility that Nawi is not intimately aware of the conditions of those previous land sellers he claims to have turned in to the PA and is merely talking out of his rear end have much to do with whether Nawi's actions were morally reprehensible or not. And besides, you are making a rather huge assumption concerning Nawi's lack of ability to ascertain the ultimate fate of people he turned in to the PA, he is apparently a man who has operatives in the Preventive Security Force on his phone's memory, he might very well have access to first hand information which does not get officially reported. Again, there are several different narratives that might explain Nawi's statements, a rather large segment of the Israeli radical left has hitched their fortunes to those of Nawi and declared that there's absolutely nothing wrong with what he did and that his statements concerning the killing of those men whom he turned in were mere boasts. There are certain arguments to be made for both narratives though I personally believe that while Nawi might be incorrect and that no one he turned in got killed or tortured he seems sufficiently convinced in the veracity of his statements to make him a scumbag. Another thing, while I'm fairly convinced that the land seller he allegedly turns in in front of the hidden camera was an imposter hired by the infiltrators in a part of a sting operation, after that happens Nawi himself brings up the information about three more men whom he turned in out of his own volition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Nawi has in the meanwhile been re-arrested, a gag order has been imposed on his case and he is reportedly not allowed to consult with his lawyer - http://972mag.com/israeli-left-wing-activist-denied-access-to-lawyer-to-be-held-for-another-week/115868/
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Neither the Israeli hypocrisy on the subject nor the likely possibility that Nawi is not intimately aware of the conditions of those previous land sellers he claims to have turned in to the PA and is merely talking out of his rear end have much to do with whether Nawi's actions were morally reprehensible or not. Oh, absolutely. He's definitely morally reprehensible, I'm not disputing that. But that's not why security forces arrested him, nor is it why politicians and right-wing organizations appear to be so outraged at his actions - and intent on defunding or destroying virtually every major left-wing pro-Palestine organization in response. Honestly, this unusual outpouring of condemnation for violence against Palestinian civilians would be super heartening if even a little of it was genuine, much like the popular outrage against alleged Shin Bet torture of suspected Jewish terrorists. And personally, I find the nuances of the situations - like the obvious double standard in play here, the considerable political fallout making itself known, the fact that it's happening as several major anti-leftist and pro-far-right moves have been bouncing around the Knesset, and the clear similarity to the smothering of ACORN in the US - far more interesting than having to confirm over and over again that "yep, it sure was bad for that civilian to get murdered, regardless of what race or religion they were". I can't really fault you for thinking that's something that needs to be discussed, since there are a lot of people in this thread (on both sides of the debate) who are disturbingly reluctant to agree with simple statements like "killing civilians is bad", but it's not like any of the organizations or entities actually involved in Israel and Palestine are making decisions based on morality at all (let alone some clear universal morality that everyone agrees on), so I find it to be of limited use for understanding the situation. The only real use of a moral debate is for us to make moral judgements about each other, and I wouldn't really mind skipping the next few rounds of the "try to bait the other side onto saying something you can use to portray them as being a racist or amoral monster" that certain posters like to engage in. That ended up being a bit more meta than I'd like, so to make up for it, updates on the case! In addition to suspicion of "consipracy to commit a crime", Nawi is also being held for suspicion of "contact with a foreign agent". The "Palestinian" in the hidden camera sting was an Israeli citizen, so the security services might still come up with something later regarding his actual reporting. He was arrested yesterday, and had a closed-doors hearing today which determined that he will be held without charge for at least a week and prevented from speaking to his lawyer. Also, curiously absent from most media coverage has been the gag order barring the media from publishing any name, photo, or identifying information about this suspect. Honestly, I don't know why the judge even bothered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
At the very least, whether it's this guy or Jewish settlers who burned down a house full of Arabs, I find it pretty loving horrifying that Israel feels it's perfectly fine to hold people without charge and also deny them access to a lawyer. Edit: I should make it clear I find it disturbing that the PA do that too, if they do that. Double edit: I should also add before TIC or someone accuses me of racism or being bigoted against people from the Levant, that I find it disturbing that this happens in the People's Republic of China. Just so you can rest assured that I'm not a pro-PRC anti-Levantist who is only here to downplay the humanity of those in that area compared to everyone else around the globe. MrNemo fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jan 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:At the very least, whether it's this guy or Jewish settlers who burned down a house full of Arabs, I find it pretty loving horrifying that Israel feels it's perfectly fine to hold people without charge and also deny them access to a lawyer. So you're a Zimbabwe defender then. We should have known.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Dabir posted:So you're a Zimbabwe defender then. We should have known. At least Mugabe doesn't try to deflect the criticism when you compare him to Hitler! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
The United Methodist Church is divesting from five Israeli banks because they do not meet the human rights standards the church has established in dealing with certain financial institutions. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/w...v=top-news&_r=0 It appears that at least one of these banks finances illegal settlement construction in the West Bank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The United Methodist Church is divesting from five Israeli banks because they do not meet the human rights standards the church has established in dealing with certain financial institutions. Isn't that illegal? I remember reading somewhere that boycotting Israel was a crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Isn't that illegal? I remember reading somewhere that boycotting Israel was a crime. It's not a boycott, it's a divestment from five specific banks; and the reason isn't "they're Israeli" but "they don't respect human rights".
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Isn't that illegal? I remember reading somewhere that boycotting Israel was a crime. Nah, the law just prohibits U.S. entities from agreeing to participate in foreign government boycotts, or to provide information for that purpose. You, by yourself, can boycott whatever you want, as long as you don't do it in collusion with a foreign government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:So it seems obvious there's a sizeable contingent of anti-Israeli posters who are willing to condone rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. What is more noble than giving your life for your country and people? I don't think that way. I'm more of the "kill all war veterans as they are class-traitors" mentality than the flag-waving sub-moron mentality. But when you watch Independence Day and that guy flies the nukes into the mothership and sacrifices himself for his people, don't you weep a little? Don't you think it's bittersweet and brave of him? The only reason your moral calculus is different in the context of suicide bombers is because you view Palestinians as vermin to be exterminated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
The tan shirt organization who've "infiltrated" Taayush and recorded a convicted child molester boast about sending Palestinian land traders to their alleged death has translated their video to English, so if you want to see first hand what's all the fuss is about you can find it here: https://www.facebook.com/904556049651520/videos/904565392983919/ iirc the bits pertaining to Nawi's admission only feature in the last ten minutes. Edit: Also, this 
emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jan 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They're both wrong, so who cares which one is more wrong? The minute you start talking about which murder of civilians is more "excusable", you're not making a moral argument anymore, you're just making excuses for amoral conduct that you've decided is justified for non-moral reasons. Because in real life you have to prioritize which acts to devote the most attention and energy towards preventing. Otherwise, you'd end up coming to ridiculous conclusions like "well, Native Americans also killed some European civilians so really they're both wrong." Sure, I guess it's technically correct, but it's not a useful conclusion. Even if the act of killing civilians is inherently immoral, the circumstances that lead to that immoral action are still important. Hell, even in Actual Law, the circumstances that cause someone to commit a murder are considered. It's generally accepted that a crime committed for no reason (or a malicious reason) is worse than the same crime committed with some excuse. It's still a crime, but its punishment is not as harsh. Also, on a societal level, some level of violent resistance is historically the natural result of the sort of behavior Israel subjects Palestinians to. This does not excuse the individuals and groups that commit this violence, but it is ineffective at best (and at worst can lead towards the societal equivalent of victim blaming) to devote equal attention to condemning that behavior. Another consideration is the fact that, again on a societal level, violence committed by or heavily influenced by sophisticated governments is inherently far more threatening and harmful than violence committed by individuals or less influential/sophisticated organizations. Even if you consider only the rocket attacks directly ordered and/or committed by Hamas, Hamas is not nearly as powerful or well-organized as the Israeli government and IDF. Even if Hamas did not exist, individual Palestinians would still attack Israeli civilians. Israel, on the other hand, could not commit its far more sophisticated war crimes without the backing of the IDF. So, in a sense, comparing Palestinian violence with IDF attacks is like comparing apples to oranges; they both involve killing civilians, but what they represent on a societal level is completely different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
No, no, you don't get it. It's "both sides are bad, therefore taking a side is wrong, therefore we have to let the status quo continue forever instead of protesting it".
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:What is more noble than giving your life for your country and people? I always marvel at this sort of projection. Is it a cynical attempt to make the 'the only good Zionist is a dead Zionist' extremism of the anti-Zionist fringe seem less objectionable in comparison? Or is it because those who see the I/P conflict as a struggle between the forces of good and capital e Evil can't imagine how anyone else can see it any other way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
I'm always horrified by the continual belief that the actions of the people involved are what determines the justice of their cause. It's the root of all the emphasis on Palestinian misdeeds and the downplaying of Israeli actions as well, because the people who hold it have various reasons to avoid the conclusion that if Israel commits enough war crimes, it should be destroyed and all of its citizens with it, necessitating the belief that it's OK to burn people alive with white phosphorus because they're Palestinian. I urge such people to abandon their beliefs. Just because somebody does something morally reprehensible doesn't render them no longer human or worthy of moral consideration. Just because Hamas fires a rocket doesn't mean that it's acceptable to kill Palestinians for looking like they might have a knife.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Because in real life you have to prioritize which acts to devote the most attention and energy towards preventing. Otherwise, you'd end up coming to ridiculous conclusions like "well, Native Americans also killed some European civilians so really they're both wrong." Sure, I guess it's technically correct, but it's not a useful conclusion. The reason it's not a useful conclusion is because it's a moral judgement, and those are virtually never "useful". They just give you a scale on which to rate entities' relative badness, a metric which is not typically useful for stopping violence in the real world. Ending violence is not a matter of devoting attention or determining who's the wrongest. Jewish communities were engaged in violence with Arab communities years before the IDF came into existence, and continue to engage in violence against Arabs today even when soldiers are nowhere to be seen. The IDF is not some fundamental societal shift, it just represents the skewed power balance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Because in real life you have to prioritize which acts to devote the most attention and energy towards preventing. Otherwise, you'd end up coming to ridiculous conclusions like "well, Native Americans also killed some European civilians so really they're both wrong." Sure, I guess it's technically correct, but it's not a useful conclusion. I agree, so the disproportionate focus on Israel is insane when Syria/Iran/Saudi Arabia/China/etc... still exist. quote:Even if the act of killing civilians is inherently immoral, the circumstances that lead to that immoral action are still important. Hell, even in Actual Law, the circumstances that cause someone to commit a murder are considered. It's generally accepted that a crime committed for no reason (or a malicious reason) is worse than the same crime committed with some excuse. It's still a crime, but its punishment is not as harsh. You just said you care about consequences, but now you don't. If that's the standard, then Israel prevails because Hamas has genocide written into its charter, and in many periods, its actions have been to deliberately maximize civilian casualties. quote:Also, on a societal level, some level of violent resistance is historically the natural result of the sort of behavior Israel subjects Palestinians to. This does not excuse the individuals and groups that commit this violence, but it is ineffective at best (and at worst can lead towards the societal equivalent of victim blaming) to devote equal attention to condemning that behavior. By this logic, Hamas's attacks radicalizing Israelis justifies the hilltop youth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I agree, so the disproportionate focus on Israel is insane when Syria/Iran/Saudi Arabia/China/etc... still exist. this is the thread for talking about israel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Also Israel is heavily dependent on Western aid, so it's not unreasonable for Westerners to hold Israel to more scrutiny than say, North Korea, since their tax dollars are actually playing a role in Israeli policy. It's much more of a domestic issue here at home than something like the DPRK's human rights abuses that we're far removed from and play no role in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Nah, the law just prohibits U.S. entities from agreeing to participate in foreign government boycotts, or to provide information for that purpose. You, by yourself, can boycott whatever you want, as long as you don't do it in collusion with a foreign government. And the US government has broadly considered all boycotts of Israel a collusion with a foreign government. But yet the US DOJ will never ban lobbyists/political contributors cooperating with foreign governments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:And that is 100% the fault of Israel. While I would advise Palestinians to not do rocket attacks, I would advise them to do this in the same way I would advise someone to not try and fight a mugger. It's a bad idea to provoke a violent person, but you don't bear any moral responsibility when they retaliate against you. (edit: I want to be clear here that the Palestinians who shoot rockets *do* bear a moral responsibility for any people who are directly hurt by those rockets; they just don't bear any moral responsibility for Israeli retaliation.) Ultimately, Israel bears 100% of the responsibility for its actions, and discussing Palestinian violence in the way you seem to be ("if only they didn't do ___ they wouldn't have it so bad") seems to wrongly shift the responsibility/blame for Israeli violence towards Palestinians. Yeah, your position is pretty much the same as my own and if people weren't literally arguing "And here is why the war crimes of the side I support are okay..." in this thread then it wouldn't have gone on for anywhere enar as long as it has ended up doing. The Insect Court posted:Can I take this to mean that suicide bombings, stabbings, and other various terrorist attacks directed against civilian targets are not at all morally acceptable? Yes, although it's not just terrorist attacks. Military attacks directed against civilian targets are reprehensible whether it's some dudes in a cave or a government, hence why Israel's actions are worse and the main to focus due to them committing far more deadly attacks on civilians by orders of magnitude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Also Israel is heavily dependent on Western aid, so it's not unreasonable for Westerners to hold Israel to more scrutiny than say, North Korea, since their tax dollars are actually playing a role in Israeli policy. It's much more of a domestic issue here at home than something like the DPRK's human rights abuses that we're far removed from and play no role in. But he said we're being utilitarians (before he didn't, because he doesn't have an argument so much as he's frantically grasping at straws), so the point is more how his argument falls apart using that standard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:But he said we're being utilitarians (before he didn't, because he doesn't have an argument so much as he's frantically grasping at straws), so the point is more how his argument falls apart using that standard. I think you need to reread what he wrote because this and your last response don't really have much bearing on what he actually typed and don't really make valid point. He was talking about our condemnation of Israel in comparison to Palestine when we're already focusing on the I/P conflict. This has very little to do with your point of focusing on other countries entirely and ignoring I/P and I think you missed the point. You seem to have misunderstood at the point he used an analogy about Native Americans and Europeans and without actually reading what he wrote seemed to have assumed he wrote "Well we don't really care about this conflict, here's my reason for focusing on Israel." That's not what he was saying. Instead he was saying that within a conflict we already care about and look at, we're not going to ascribe equal morality to murders regardless of the context with the Native Americans in his example being analogous to the Palestinians and being the ones which are worse off with worse crimes comitted against them. His point also wasn't utilitarian at all but rather was focused on morality, with him making the point that deeds that break the same laws aren't inherently as immoral as one another and context should be taken into account. E.g. someone who in the heat of the moment kills someone who's offended them is not morally as culpable in most people's eyes as someone who kills others because he wants to make a flesh suit. This is a fairly basic and accepted point in day to day life and Western law, which is the entire point that we have a range of sentences what criminals can be incarcerated for
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:By this logic, Hamas's attacks radicalizing Israelis justifies the hilltop youth. Israel has been radicalizing sectors of it's populace WAY before hamas was even thought of. But you want to bring up hilltop youth, ok so let's discuss pricetag attacks. Or how about how international allies who arrive in the west bank to demonstrate nonviolently are assaulted while soldiers watch and do nothing. edit: hilltop youth would be a cool band name
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Netanyahu has accused the EU of engaging in unauthorized and illegal construction in the West Bank in an effort to create "political realities", has compared the labeling of products made in the West Bank to Nazi oppression. No aneurysms have yet been reported as a result of this advanced new form of trolling. He's also fired new shots in the ongoing diplomatic friction with Brazil, by refusing to withdraw his appointment of Dani Dayan (a prominent settler leader) as Israeli ambassador to Brazil. For those who haven't been following this, Netanyahu appointed him publicly without first privately consulting Brazil to gain their agreement first as per diplomatic custom. This, by itself, is not a huge deal; however, the reason that it's customary to work it out privately first is so there's no chance of the appointment being rejected publicly by the target country, which is generally considered to be diplomatically undesirable for both sides. And that's why, for months and months, the offer's just been sitting there ignored - Brazil has yet to accept the appointment, as it is widely opposed by Brazilian lawmakers, but actually openly rejecting the candidate looks bad diplomatically. Typically, leaving the appointment hanging like that is supposed to be taken as an unspoken rejection of the offer, which is supposed to be withdrawn and replaced with another. Now Netanyahu is doubling down, saying Dayan is the one he wants and he won't withdraw or change the appointment - so now Brazil is left with a choice between either rejecting the Israeli ambassador or accepting one they don't like. Al Jazeera America is shutting down in a couple of months, citing low ratings and problems getting advertisers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Netanyahu has accused the EU of engaging in unauthorized and illegal construction in the West Bank in an effort to create "political realities" There is no  big enough for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Yeah, your position is pretty much the same as my own and if people weren't literally arguing "And here is why the war crimes of the side I support are okay..." in this thread then it wouldn't have gone on for anywhere enar as long as it has ended up doing. If your only argument had been that they shouldn't do it because it is a war crime it wouldn't have gone on for nearly as long. You had a bunch of other bullshit reasons which is actually what people were arguing against. Nice strawman though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:If your only argument had been that they shouldn't do it because it is a war crime it wouldn't have gone on for nearly as long. You had a bunch of other bullshit reasons which is actually what people were arguing against. Nice strawman though. God drat dude, we just covered this a page or two ago but you're already back to pulling this poo poo. My only argument initially was just that it was a war crime. Go back and check my first post on the topic. My entire criticism is that it's an immoral war crime. If you think otherwise, quote what I said there that makes you disagree. It only sprawls from that onto other subjects because you and other people on the other side of the argument try and justify these war crimes based on strategic necessity so I'm forced to respond. You can see these type of arguments cropping up directly below the post I link to. It's when people like you bring these arguments up in defence of war crimes that I'm forced to deal with them. So in fact my statement of 'Yeah, your position is pretty much the same as my own and if people weren't literally arguing "And here is why the war crimes of the side I support are okay..." in this thread then it wouldn't have gone on for anywhere near as long as it has ended up doing' was completely 100% correct and you are claims are dead wrong. "Nice strawman though." Also although I got dragged into the other parts of the argument, I stand by the reasoning I used and if you've got a problem with it and think it's "bullshit" then show how that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Oh my bad, it was your second post that had the other arguments. Edit: not my bad, I didn't even specify a post, but here is what I was talking about team overhead smash posted:Not using rockets isn't the same as not fighting back. "They can either go quietly into the night or take a stand and fight back" is a false dichotomy in this case. Palestinians have plenty of methods to fight back that aren't inherently war crimes and which don't disproportionately target and kill civilians. They can fire mortars, which are accurate enough you can specifically target military installations several kilometres away and which historically have disproportionately killed more soldiers than civilians even though most people lump mortars and rockets together in terms of Hamas attacks. They can stab a soldier in the face as they pass them on the street or at a checkpoint. They can dig tunnels and raid Israeli outposts. They can run soldiers over in a car. They can shoot at soldiers with guns. They could even have suicide bombers, though I wouldn't recommend it based on all the negative connotations. But rehashing all that wasn't my point, your assertion that quote:if people weren't literally arguing "And here is why the war crimes of the side I support are okay..." in this thread then it wouldn't have gone on for anywhere enar as long as it has ended up doing. is wrong because whether it was a war crime or not was not the bulk of the discussion. Fuck You And Diebold fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
How can it be a war crime if it isn't a war? Is there a point to even defining it along those terms other than to say 'aha, they are war criminals!' before you go make a sandwich or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
jfood posted:How can it be a war crime if it isn't a war? Is there a point to even defining it along those terms other than to say 'aha, they are war criminals!' before you go make a sandwich or something? War crime/terrorist action. The rocket attacks aren't morally defensible, but I think that looking at the entire IP situation makes it pretty clear why they happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Oh my bad, it was your second post that had the other arguments. I was responding to excuses for war crimes that were instantly being made by the people on your side of the argument who said it was okay based on strategic necessity and the like, not bringing them up myself. These spin-offs into all kind of other territory (practical reasons for why it's okay to commit war crimes!) appeared straight away in response to me, even though at that point I had only posted about rockets being wrong because they were war crimes This fits my statement of 'if people weren't literally arguing "And here is why the war crimes of the side I support are okay..." in this thread then it wouldn't have gone on for anywhere near as long as it has ended up doing' perfectly. Peope instantly started arguing "And here is why the war crimes of the side I support are okay..." and the argument went on from there. It totally blows your statement out the water, where you said of "If your only argument had been that they shouldn't do it because it is a war crime it wouldn't have gone on for nearly as long". "They shouldn't do it because it is a war crime" was my only argument to begin with and straight away, in the very next posts people started making retarded arguments trying to excuse this as a war crime which caused the argument to spin off from there. This is all clearly shown if you read from the post I linked to onwards. quote:But rehashing all that wasn't my point, your assertion that What are you talking about? I stated people were defending war crimes, not that they were arguing about whether something was a war crime. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and guess English is a second language for you because "And here is why the war crimes of the side I support are okay..." doesn't need to include people arguing about whether it is a war crime. The rockets are war crimes. If people either accept that rockets are a war crime and try to defend it or don't care either way if its a war crime but still try to defend the practice then it matches with my statement of people defending war crimes and that's what people were doing. jfood posted:How can it be a war crime if it isn't a war? Is there a point to even defining it along those terms other than to say 'aha, they are war criminals!' before you go make a sandwich or something? 'War crime' is just shorthand for any action which breaks international military law (often called International Humanitarian Law). It doesn't necessarily have to be in a war. For instance of there's a high intensity conflict but neither side officially declares war, it'd be pretty stupid to just let them commit war crimes against each other willy nilly. Similarly if there's a low intensity conflict, that doesn't suddenly mean that smaller massacres of civilians are okay and cool. Here's an example from Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." Now look at that first sentence which states that as well as some of its provisions applying in peace time how it also says "declared war OR of any other armed conflict". It also, as it mentions, covers occupation, which will usually be the state for a the loser of a country for a little while after losing, or several decades in Israel's case. That's why Israel's occupation is a war crime, because even if there were no conflict there is still international law stating how Israel should behave and it isn't meeting those minimums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Voted frigid loving zero. I'm the little Jew who wrote the Bible! I understand Ariel and I are learning from each other, a lesson for a lesson, and what's more beautiful than that? I miss the city, I want to grow things in poison dirt, I want to fill my lungs with traffic wind. Either all lands are holy or there is no holy land. The earth is the holy land! Every inch of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
I am Mozart, rude and crude and brilliant! Your body is my piano. I palpate your handsome ivories
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
I begin to dance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
Very interesting article that presents a newer strategy advocated by members of the Knesset and IDF officers as we inch ever closer to the next round of violence in Gaza over terror tunnels. It will be ignored, but it should be pointed out that there are Israeli Jews who are proposing these kinds of things. Quoting most of this because it's behind a paywall. quote:Following last week’s border incident, two members of Knesset opposition factions issued statements criticizing the government’s Gaza policy. Omer Bar-Lev (Zionist Union) and Ofer Shelah (Yesh Atid) serve as chairs of two subcommittees of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and both are members of its classified forums; they jointly drafted the committee’s (shelved) report into Operation Protective Edge. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.697771 Volkerball fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
There's widespread tension among the security establishment and Netanyahu on matters like this, that's not a new development at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:There's widespread tension among the security establishment and Netanyahu on matters like this, that's not a new development at all. Almost entirely based around Netanyahu being a pussy, not in controversy over Gaza being unable to develop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:18
|
|