Zombies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:
The evidence from the last Israeli attack is that Hamas were trying to target military facilities. The fact is that their rockets don’t have targeting systems.
[/quote]

Firing rockets into a populated area without a targeting system is, by definition, “indiscriminate” and a war crime.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/01/28/gaza-hamas-report-whitewashes-war-crimes

“The locally manufactured Qassam and longer-range Grad rockets launched by armed groups in Gaza also have no guidance system and are therefore inherently indiscriminate when fired at populated areas. Firing them into densely populated areas of Israel is a violation of the laws of war.”

There is no doubt there are abuses on both sides, but if your point is that Hamas is blame free you are absolutely wrong, as evidenced by the statement above in your post that you present as fact.
[/quote]

Agreed that is what I said. The Palestinians should stop firing the bloody things. They should invest in air defence, anti-tank and targeting systems to defend against the Israeli artillery. (NB you might not have heard that according to Israeli sources Hamas were not firing until they were attacked and were actively working to prevent other groups in Gaza from firing.)

Interestingly it is the Palestinians who are asking the UN to investigate war crimes not the Israelis.

42

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

So you doubt that the Israelis have killed a whole of Palestinians recently?[/quote]

Sure, but civilians were not targeted intentionally. If you can find a way to wage war without causing collateral damage, then you’ll be a very rich and famous man indeed.
[/quote]

Actually there is some evidence that civilians have been deliberately targeted. Even if they weren’t there is no doubt that the Israeli tactics are irresponsible and indiscriminate. (The attack on Gaza is also technically illegal not that anyone seems to care about international law.)[/quote]

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Produce this evidence that civilians were deliberately targeted please.[/quote]

I can’t find the link but one of the major UK newspapers watched an unarmed Palestinian man being shot (I think more than once) during an interlude in the fighting. I will dig around some more but googling this produces a lot of random articles from previous Israeli attacks and reams of propaganda. I thought that I had bookmarked it.

Breaking the Silence have a bit to say on this as well if you google them.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
How are Israeli tactics irresponsible and indiscriminate? Be specific and go into detail.[/quote]

I will let an Israeli soldier speak for me here.

The casualty lists say a great deal too.

I do have an interest in international law. What specific violation took place?[/quote]

This is unusual. International law is generally regarded as ignorable.

Geneva convention part IV (concerning Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex) states that the invading party does not have a right of self-defence with regards to occupied territory or people and that the invading party attacking the occupied people is considered internal oppression. Due to the siege conditions placed upon Gaza by Israel it is still considered occupied by the UN. The Israelis have claimed (wrongly since they attacked first) that they are exercising self-defence in attacking Gaza.

This does not say that Israel does not have an inherent right of self-defence - if Egypt were to attack them then they would have that right. However, with regards to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank the Israelis by occupying them have themselves waived that right.[/quote]

This is horseshit. The Geneva convention says nothing of the sort.

43

Speaking of the fourth Geneva convention, it allows Israel to occupy any region it sees fit for its own security purposes. The British refused to allow the Jews in the mandate to arm themselves for self defence and the British were unable and unwilling to protect them. In many cases the British stood by and did nothing as Jews were massacred by Arab mobs. When Britain pulled out in 1947, the Jews were at the mercy of the Arabs. Accordingly, the Haganah issued operational plan D:

“The strategic basis of the plan was that if an Arab town or village was close to a Jewish settlement or town, and prevented continuity between the Jewish cities and neighbouring settlements, or disrupted the essential lines of communication, it should be occupied.”

44

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

This is unusual. International law is generally regarded as ignorable.

Geneva convention part IV (concerning Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex) states that the invading party does not have a right of self-defence with regards to occupied territory or people and that the invading party attacking the occupied people is considered internal oppression. Due to the siege conditions placed upon Gaza by Israel it is still considered occupied by the UN. The Israelis have claimed (wrongly since they attacked first) that they are exercising self-defence in attacking Gaza.

This does not say that Israel does not have an inherent right of self-defence - if Egypt were to attack them then they would have that right. However, with regards to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank the Israelis by occupying them have themselves waived that right.[/quote]

This is horseshit. The Geneva convention says nothing of the sort.[/quote]

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=4D47F92DF3966A7EC12563CD002D6788

45

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Speaking of the fourth Geneva convention, it allows Israel to occupy any region it sees fit for its own security purposes. The British refused to allow the Jews in the mandate to arm themselves for self defence and the British were unable and unwilling to protect them. In many cases the British stood by and did nothing as Jews were massacred by Arab mobs. When Britain pulled out in 1947, the Jews were at the mercy of the Arabs. Accordingly, the Haganah issued operational plan D:

“The strategic basis of the plan was that if an Arab town or village was close to a Jewish settlement or town, and prevented continuity between the Jewish cities and neighbouring settlements, or disrupted the essential lines of communication, it should be occupied.”[/quote]

This very selective post totally ignores the Jewish terrorism going on at the time. It also ignores the ethnic cleansing carried out during the creation of Israel. The formation of Israel does not make Israel look pretty but many countries have bad things in their past so let’s not get too hung up on them.

However, we aren’t talking about then. We are talking about now. Right now Israel is continuing to occupy Palestinian territory in the West Bank in a way that violates international law and to effectively occupy Gaza in a way that violates international law.

46

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

This is unusual. International law is generally regarded as ignorable.

Geneva convention part IV (concerning Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex) states that the invading party does not have a right of self-defence with regards to occupied territory or people and that the invading party attacking the occupied people is considered internal oppression. Due to the siege conditions placed upon Gaza by Israel it is still considered occupied by the UN. The Israelis have claimed (wrongly since they attacked first) that they are exercising self-defence in attacking Gaza.

This does not say that Israel does not have an inherent right of self-defence - if Egypt were to attack them then they would have that right. However, with regards to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank the Israelis by occupying them have themselves waived that right.[/quote]

This is horseshit. The Geneva convention says nothing of the sort.[/quote]

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=4D47F92DF3966A7EC12563CD002D6788[/quote]

Err…jah? It says nothing of the sort.

47

[quote]lou21 wrote:

This very selective post totally ignores the Jewish terrorism going on at the time.
[/quote]

Terrorism against whom? The British? Terrorism by whom? Irgun? Stern Gang? Ben-Gurion and the fledgling state attacked Irgun and forced them to renounce terrorism and disband. Stern Gang terrorists were widely condemned and the nascent state of Israel arrested and executed them. The only reason they enjoyed any support was due to the actions of the British - reneging on Balfour, restricting immigration, locking up thousands of holocaust survivors and deporting them back to Europe or into concentration camps in Cyprus. The British government even threatened to side with Egypt and wage war against the Jews in 1948. They forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai and cede strategic advantage to Egypt which allowed the Egyptians to hold Gaza for the next two decades.

It’s entirely relevant to now. With the exception of Egypt, the Arab states don’t recognise the existence of Israel. For them the war is not over. Israeli occupation of Judea and Samaria is entirely reasonable on grounds of self defence under the Geneva convention.

[quote]

Right now Israel is continuing to occupy Palestinian territory in the West Bank in a way that violates international law and to effectively occupy Gaza in a way that violates international law.[/quote]

Palestine is not a state. King Abdullah rejected the territorial claims of the Mufti’s All Palestine government. He declared Judea and Samaria a part of the Hashemite Kingdom. No one recognises Palestine as a nation.

49

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

This is unusual. International law is generally regarded as ignorable.

Geneva convention part IV (concerning Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex) states that the invading party does not have a right of self-defence with regards to occupied territory or people and that the invading party attacking the occupied people is considered internal oppression. Due to the siege conditions placed upon Gaza by Israel it is still considered occupied by the UN. The Israelis have claimed (wrongly since they attacked first) that they are exercising self-defence in attacking Gaza.

This does not say that Israel does not have an inherent right of self-defence - if Egypt were to attack them then they would have that right. However, with regards to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank the Israelis by occupying them have themselves waived that right.[/quote]

This is horseshit. The Geneva convention says nothing of the sort.[/quote]

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=4D47F92DF3966A7EC12563CD002D6788[/quote]

Err…jah? It says nothing of the sort.[/quote]

Um yes.

It bans collective punishment for a start - and the whole attack has been collective punishment.

It also requires the occupier to police the area and maintain order. Using 23,000 missiles and artillery shells is not police work not even military police work.

Yes it does give the occupier rights but Israel goes way beyond those rights.

50

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:
This very selective post totally ignores the Jewish terrorism going on at the time.
[/quote]
Terrorism against whom? The British? Terrorism by whom? Irgun? Stern Gang? Ben-Gurion and the fledgling state attacked Irgun and forced them to renounce terrorism and disband. Stern Gang terrorists were widely condemned and the nascent state of Israel arrested and executed them. The only reason they enjoyed any support was due to the actions of the British - reneging on Balfour, restricting immigration, locking up thousands of holocaust survivors and deporting them back to Europe or into concentration camps in Cyprus. The British government even threatened to side with Egypt and wage war against the Jews in 1948. They forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai and cede strategic advantage to Egypt which allowed the Egyptians to hold Gaza for the next two decades.
[/quote]

Um yes

So yes terrorism.

And we had no moral right to make the Balfour declaration in the first place.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It’s entirely relevant to now. With the exception of Egypt, the Arab states don’t recognise the existence of Israel. For them the war is not over. Israeli occupation of Judea and Samaria is entirely reasonable on grounds of self defence under the Geneva convention.
[/quote]
Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not legal under international law. Quick question how many UN resolutions have been violated on this topic?

Don’t peddle the small country surrounded by enemies bullshit. Israel is a Nuclear arms military power. An conventionally reckoned to be the 4th greatest military power on the planet. Also almost all of the Arab states effectively side with Israel today.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]
Right now Israel is continuing to occupy Palestinian territory in the West Bank in a way that violates international law and to effectively occupy Gaza in a way that violates international law.[/quote]

Palestine is not a state. King Abdullah rejected the territorial claims of the Mufti’s All Palestine government. He declared Judea and Samaria a part of the Hashemite Kingdom. No one recognises Palestine as a nation.[/quote]

Bullshit. The UN does now despite the pathetic US veto.

51

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Louie, Louie, Louie, what are we gonna do with you and your incessant propensity for falsehood?[/quote]

Um maybe listen? You might learn something that your MSM will never tell you?

52

[quote]lou21 wrote:

Um yes.

[/quote]

Um no. The Fourth Geneva convention does not prohibit a state from defending itself from attacks emanating from a territory it occupies.

What the fuck does “collective punishment” have to do with your ridiculous assertion regarding a state not having the right to defend itself from attacks emanating from territory it occupies?

What does that have to do with your erroneous assertion regarding a state not having the right to defend itself from attacks emanating from territory it occupies?

[quote]

Using 23,000 missiles and artillery shells is not police work not even military police work.

Yes it does give the occupier rights but Israel goes way beyond those rights.[/quote]

We weren’t talking about “rights” - we were talking about your horseshit claim that the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits a state from defending itself against attacks emanating from territory it occupies.

53

[quote]lou21 wrote:

Um yes

So yes terrorism.
[/quote]

What do you mean “um yes - wiki Irgun; wiki King David Hotel bombing”? I already addressed that. The Jewish Agency denounced the King David Hotel bombing as a “dastardly crime” perpetrated by “a gang of desperadoes” and called on the Jews of Palestine to “rise up against these abominable outrages.” The Jewish Community Council called it a “loathsome act.” The following day(July 23), all work and traffic stopped in Jerusalem at 3 o’clock to mourn the dead.

Then who did have a right to determine the future of the mandate? Turkish forces were driven from Palestine a month after the Balfour declaration. Britain inherited Palestine from the Ottomans. Ottoman sovereignty had been recognised prior to this so why not British?

Firstly, Israel is not “occupying” the territories. They are disputed territories. Secondly,

“Where the prior holder of territory(Egypt and Jordan) had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.”

General Assembly resolutions? Scores. More than any other country on earth combined. Which is why it’s important to examine the validity of each one specifically.

Then the Arabs should leave them the fuck alone no?

Say what?

[quote]
Right now Israel is continuing to occupy Palestinian territory in the West Bank in a way that violates international law and to effectively occupy Gaza in a way that violates international law.[/quote]

They are not occupying the territories. They are disputed territories. And who the fuck made them Arab territories?

No the UN does not recognise Palestine as a sovereign nation.

54

Sexmachine is correct when he asserts that Palestine is not a sovereign state. It is only a nation, and as such has only as much standing under international law as Kurdistan does. That is to say, very little. International law in its traditional sense concerns the behavior among sovereign states. Individuals and nations have no legal recourse in the Westphalian state system. Israel and Palestine are not on equal legal footing. Lou is advocating for transnational law, which is a dangerous and revisionist legal philosophy which threatens State sovereignty, and in the case of the U.S., the constitution itself.

55

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Sexmachine is correct when he asserts that Palestine is not a sovereign state. It is only a nation, and as such has only as much standing under international law as Kurdistan does. That is to say, very little. International law in its traditional sense concerns the behavior among sovereign states. Individuals and nations have no legal recourse in the Westphalian state system. Israel and Palestine are not on equal legal footing. Lou is advocating for transnational law, which is a dangerous and revisionist legal philosophy which threatens State sovereignty, and in the case of the U.S., the constitution itself.[/quote]

You guys seem to have missed some developments in this respect (I guess your media is not big on reporting stuff like this so not your fault). Despite your current President’s best efforts, Palestine now has the status of an “observer entity” as a “non-member observer state” within the United Nations system. This is considered by the UN as de-facto statehood and entitles Palestine to membership of various UN treaties and protection under international law.

I’ll respond to the rest of the miss-information in the other posts later.

56

[quote]lou21 wrote:

You guys seem to have missed some developments in this respect (I guess your media is not big on reporting stuff like this so not your fault). Despite your current President’s best efforts, Palestine now has the status of an “observer entity” as a “non-member observer state” within the United Nations system. This is considered by the UN as de-facto statehood and entitles Palestine to membership of various UN treaties and protection under international law.

[/quote]

We’re all aware of that. As I said, “Palestine” is not recognised as a sovereign nation. “Observer status” means nada.

[quote]

I’ll respond to the rest of the miss-information in the other posts later.[/quote]

I don’t mind debating with Jew haters, but Jew haters who don’t really know anything about Israeli history are tedious. Save yourself the trouble of the “research.” I’ve heard it all before from people who know far more than you.

57

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

You guys seem to have missed some developments in this respect (I guess your media is not big on reporting stuff like this so not your fault). Despite your current President’s best efforts, Palestine now has the status of an “observer entity” as a “non-member observer state” within the United Nations system. This is considered by the UN as de-facto statehood and entitles Palestine to membership of various UN treaties and protection under international law.

[/quote]

We’re all aware of that. As I said, “Palestine” is not recognised as a sovereign nation. “Observer status” means nada.

[/quote]

Nada to you maybe. Fortunately you don’t get to decide. The UN does that and they have decided.

Edited for quotes

58

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I don’t mind debating with Jew haters, but Jew haters who don’t really know anything about Israeli history are tedious. Save yourself the trouble of the “research.” I’ve heard it all before from people who know far more than you.[/quote]

As for this. Just stop the bullshit bullying Anti-Semitic card it makes you look unintelligent and it doesn’t work anymore. People are quite capable of seeing the Jewish does not equal Israeli and that saying is Israel is what it is and does what it does is not ‘Jew-hatred’.

59

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I don’t mind debating with Jew haters, but Jew haters who don’t really know anything about Israeli history are tedious. Save yourself the trouble of the “research.” I’ve heard it all before from people who know far more than you.[/quote]

As for this. Just stop the bullshit bullying Anti-Semitic card it makes you look unintelligent and it doesn’t work anymore. People are quite capable of seeing the Jewish does not equal Israeli and that saying is Israel is what it is and does what it does is not ‘Jew-hatred’.[/quote]

You pedal falsehoods, libels and outright lies against the Jewish state. I try to give most people who do this the benefit of the doubt because there is so much misinformation around, but your posting history demonstrates that you’re not in that camp.