[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Today the IDF has flattened the UN headquarters in Gaza, destroying plenty of humanitarian aid intended for the thousands of injured civilians.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/14/gaza-thursday.html
And on a side note, they've even killed journalists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3yN1Qnz3LQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9FP7VKGlc8
Someone please, provide a rational explanation as to how this isn't the IDF trying to sensor their atrocities past and present, and why this is different from any other instance of ethnic cleansing in recent history.
[/QUOTE]
It's quite simple. [b]According to international law[/b], there are two main protected categories:
[listo]
[li]Civilians - "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack" (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 51(2))
[li]Civilian objects - "Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals" (Article 52(1))
A party to the conflict cannot direct attacks
[/listo]
However, there are two important exceptions to these rules, which allow [b]directing attacks [/b]at the categories mentioned above:
[listo]
[li]Civilians - "Civilians shall enjoy the protection... unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities" (Article 51(3)). That means that if a civilian takes a direct part in hostilities, he loses (for that time) his protected status.
[li]Civilian objects - "Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives" (Article 52(1)). That means that if a civilian object becomes a military objective, it is a legitimate target. And what is a "military objective"? The law has an answer for that as well: "military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage" (Article 52(2)).
[/listo]
In any case, the rules above only relate to directing attacks. People or objects in the two protected categories, [b]even if they do not lose their protected status[/b], may be harmed as [b]collateral damage -[/b] as long as the attack is aimed at military targets (whether persons are objects), and as long as the damage caused to the civilian population does not exceed the direct military advantage anticipated (Articles 51(5)(b) and 57).
Now to what the IDF did:
[listo]
[li]Attacking UNRWA's headquarters
[listu]
[li]The IDF claims Hamas militants inside the headquarters fired at Israel soldiers. The presence of militants there is not surprising, since UNRWA deals with all kinds of Palestininan refugees.
[li]Once Hamas fires from within the headquaters, the location turn into a military objective and may be attacked (subject to the proportionality rule mentioned before).
[li]Still, Israel pays great attention to the needs of the civilian population in Gaza.
[li]Article 70(2) of Additional Protocol I states: "The Parties to the conflict... shall allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel provided in accordance with this Section".
[li]Similarly, Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention reads: "Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases".
[li]Accordingly, Israel lets relief consignments into Gaza and has even created a daily 4-hour humanitarian corridor, during which the IDF refrains completely from attacking Hamas targets (even though Hamas takes advantage of this and continues to fire rockets at Israeli cities).
[li]
[/listu]
[li]Killing journalists
[listu]
[li]"Journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict shall be considered as civilians" (Article 79(1)) - That means that aiming attacks at journalists is prohobited, but they may be harmed (like any other civilian) as collateral damage. Sounds bad? Well, that's war.
[li]"They shall be protected as such under the Conventions and this Protocol, provided that they take no action adversely affecting their status as civilians" (Article 79(2)) - So if a journalist takes a direct part in the hostilities, the adverse party (=Israel) can direct attacks at him/her. We do not know if that's the case here, but please keep in mind "journalist" is not a magic word that renders one angelic.
[/listu]
[/listo]
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
I'm merely pointing out that both sides are killing.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the numbers are far from equal. Less than 10 Israeli civilian deaths vs about 500 Palestinians.
And the Palestinian side isn't the one cutting off relief (and destroying UN headquarters) for their injured.
Other than that, you're spot on.
[/QUOTE]
The numbers are not how you determine whether methods and means of warfare are allowed or not. It's not only killing that's proscribed, it's also "merely" [b]attacking[/b]. Terrorizing [b]as a primary purpose[/b] is prohibited as well:
[listu] [li]"The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited" (Additional Protocol I, Article 51(2)) [/listu] The rockets Hamas fires, as a weapon, are also prohibited:
[listu] [li]"Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective..." (Article 51(4)). So using these rockets is proscribed in both ways. [/listu]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
I'm merely pointing out that both sides are killing.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the numbers are far from equal. Less than 10 Israeli civilian deaths vs about 500 Palestinians.
And the Palestinian side isn't the one cutting off relief (and destroying UN headquarters) for their injured.
Other than that, you're spot on.
[/QUOTE]
The numbers are not how you determine whether methods and means of warfare are allowed or not. It's not only killing that's proscribed, it's also "merely" [b]attacking[/b]. Terrorizing [b]as a primary purpose[/b] is prohibited as well:
[listu] [li]"The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited" (Additional Protocol I, Article 51(2)) [/listu] The rockets Hamas fires, as a weapon, are also prohibited:
[listu] [li]"Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective..." (Article 51(4)). So using these rockets is proscribed in both ways. [/listu]
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
Time magazine reports about a dozen missles an hour get fired. Missle raid warnings go off about every seven minutes. Families scramble to find shelter, they've got about 5-10 minutes to take cover. But that's ok for people to live like that?
Rockets are being fired from a densely populated area into a more rural area. That explains the reasons for the difference in casualty count.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Don't get me wrong, I've never had any doubt that it goes both ways. My biggest beef is just the double-standard of calling it "terrorism" when it's a Muslim and "self-defense" when it's Israel. It's murder and it's war, on both ends.
>A cease fire was signed. Hamas kept shooting random missles into Israel.
It's well-documented that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire on November 4 - right around when the US elections were happening. I hardly think that was a coincidence. And you can bet your life savings that it will be over by Jan 19, as Obama is being sworn in on the 20th.
Guy, you can pull out the book and tell me who's a civilian and who isn't. As much as one can claim that terrorists are hiding behind civilians, it still disturbs me that it can be used to justify civilian deaths without a shred of remorse.
Numbers aside and who's killing who aside, the fact that Israel is killing journalists and bombed the UN headquarters in Gaza is completely inexcusable. Even at the most brutal heights of war, when a medic is helping someone or removing a dead body, general etiquette is observed when an opposing soldier waits for brief moment before fighting again. But to destroy food and medical supplies for the people they have injured? That is the lowest of all lows.
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
Time magazine reports about a dozen missles an hour get fired. Missle raid warnings go off about every seven minutes. Families scramble to find shelter, they've got about 5-10 minutes to take cover. But that's ok for people to live like that?
Rockets are being fired from a densely populated area into a more rural area. That explains the reasons for the difference in casualty count.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Don't get me wrong, I've never had any doubt that it goes both ways. My biggest beef is just the double-standard of calling it "terrorism" when it's a Muslim and "self-defense" when it's Israel. It's murder and it's war, on both ends.
>A cease fire was signed. Hamas kept shooting random missles into Israel.
It's well-documented that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire on November 4 - right around when the US elections were happening. I hardly think that was a coincidence. And you can bet your life savings that it will be over by Jan 19, as Obama is being sworn in on the 20th.
Guy, you can pull out the book and tell me who's a civilian and who isn't. As much as one can claim that terrorists are hiding behind civilians, it still disturbs me that it can be used to justify civilian deaths without a shred of remorse.
Numbers aside and who's killing who aside, the fact that Israel is killing journalists and bombed the UN headquarters in Gaza is completely inexcusable. Even at the most brutal heights of war, when a medic is helping someone or removing a dead body, general etiquette is observed when an opposing soldier waits for brief moment before fighting again. But to destroy food and medical supplies for the people they have injured? That is the lowest of all lows.
Here's some perspective for any American who wants to consider it. All I've done is repeat the history and used ratio to adjust the numbers appropriately:
Zionists immigrate to the US. They cram 300,000,000 people into 20,000 square miles of ghetto. They seal you off, and cut off most supplies. You rebel. The Zionists attack you using 21st century military US taxpayer-paid artillery. They call you terrorists. They murder 250,000 and maim 1,250,000 of you in 3 weeks. They call it self-defense. They say you are cowards hiding behind civilians and children. How would you feel?
Zionists immigrate to the US. They cram 300,000,000 people into 20,000 square miles of ghetto. They seal you off, and cut off most supplies. You rebel. The Zionists attack you using 21st century military US taxpayer-paid artillery. They call you terrorists. They murder 250,000 and maim 1,250,000 of you in 3 weeks. They call it self-defense. They say you are cowards hiding behind civilians and children. How would you feel?
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
It's well-documented that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire on November 4 - right around when the US elections were happening. I hardly think that was a coincidence.
[/QUOTE]
The ceasefire was still active in December, and that's [url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048055.html]a fact[/url] (from the most left-wing newspaper I know).
-> "the fact that Israel is killing journalists and bombed the UN headquarters in Gaza is completely inexcusable"
But it is, Bob. [url=http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions?OpenDocument]International Humanitarian Law[/url] says it could be perfectly excusable. And I've shown you how.
[b]If you choose to ignore the law, that's your choice; but Israel wishes to comply with the law, and therefore cannot ignore it[/b].
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
It's well-documented that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire on November 4 - right around when the US elections were happening. I hardly think that was a coincidence.
[/QUOTE]
The ceasefire was still active in December, and that's [url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048055.html]a fact[/url] (from the most left-wing newspaper I know).
-> "the fact that Israel is killing journalists and bombed the UN headquarters in Gaza is completely inexcusable"
But it is, Bob. [url=http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions?OpenDocument]International Humanitarian Law[/url] says it could be perfectly excusable. And I've shown you how.
[b]If you choose to ignore the law, that's your choice; but Israel wishes to comply with the law, and therefore cannot ignore it[/b].
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Here's some perspective for any American who wants to consider it. All I've done is repeat the history and used ratio to adjust the numbers appropriately:
Zionists immigrate to the US. They cram 300,000,000 people into 20,000 square miles of ghetto. They seal you off, and cut off most supplies. You rebel. The Zionists attack you using 21st century military US taxpayer-paid artillery. They call you terrorists. They murder 250,000 and maim 1,250,000 of you in 3 weeks. They call it self-defense. They say you are cowards hiding behind civilians and children. How would you feel?
[/QUOTE]
You need to get your facts straight. I suggest you start with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Partition_Plan]this[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_arab_israeli_war]this[/url].
If you want a good summary of the official Israeli position, here it is: [url=http://www.unreal.co.il/stuff/IDF_Legal_Stance.wmv]http://www.unreal.co.il/stuff/IDF_Legal_Stance.wmv[/url].
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Here's some perspective for any American who wants to consider it. All I've done is repeat the history and used ratio to adjust the numbers appropriately:
Zionists immigrate to the US. They cram 300,000,000 people into 20,000 square miles of ghetto. They seal you off, and cut off most supplies. You rebel. The Zionists attack you using 21st century military US taxpayer-paid artillery. They call you terrorists. They murder 250,000 and maim 1,250,000 of you in 3 weeks. They call it self-defense. They say you are cowards hiding behind civilians and children. How would you feel?
[/QUOTE]
You need to get your facts straight. I suggest you start with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Partition_Plan]this[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_arab_israeli_war]this[/url].
If you want a good summary of the official Israeli position, here it is: [url=http://www.unreal.co.il/stuff/IDF_Legal_Stance.wmv]http://www.unreal.co.il/stuff/IDF_Legal_Stance.wmv[/url].
I think Hamas knew that there would be many civilian deaths and injuries and suffering. There are plenty of images and videos for the rest of the world to see. This is as Hamas intended. They are using their own people in a calculated way. And I think that this is what terrorists do.
As for Israel's part in this, I think they have been in an unnecessary hurry but that's just my uneducated opinion. They've got them surrounded, right? If they had tried to achieve good will and cooperation among the anti-Hamas Palestinians, it may have been a better long term strategy. I'm referring to my idea (and I know nothing of how this would work) that maybe they should have carried out this operation in more of a police-raid type of style rather than using bombs and blowing up targets. I do think that by using bombs, they are playing into Hamas's plans.
Anyway, Guy, I hope you and your family stay safe during this conflict and that it is all over soon.
As for Israel's part in this, I think they have been in an unnecessary hurry but that's just my uneducated opinion. They've got them surrounded, right? If they had tried to achieve good will and cooperation among the anti-Hamas Palestinians, it may have been a better long term strategy. I'm referring to my idea (and I know nothing of how this would work) that maybe they should have carried out this operation in more of a police-raid type of style rather than using bombs and blowing up targets. I do think that by using bombs, they are playing into Hamas's plans.
Anyway, Guy, I hope you and your family stay safe during this conflict and that it is all over soon.
[QUOTE]
[b]Guy wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
It's well-documented that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire on November 4 - right around when the US elections were happening. I hardly think that was a coincidence.
[/QUOTE]
The ceasefire was still active in December, and that's [url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048055.html]a fact[/url] (from the most left-wing newspaper I know). [/QUOTE]
Right, I know that. Israel broke the ceasefire, but it officially remained in place until December.
>International Humanitarian Law says it could be perfectly excusable. And I've shown you how.
If you choose to ignore the law, that's your choice; but Israel wishes to comply with the law, and therefore cannot ignore it.
Law isn't inherently correct on all levels for all people involved. Law or no law, it's a question of feeling empathy for the thousands of civilians that have been injured or killed, without hiding behind said law as a way to somehow excuse the atrocities on a human level.
And I'm well aware of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 war. Things were just fine after that until 1967 when Israel decided to take over Gaza in violation of the Partition Plan.
Feel free to fill in the blanks if I'm missing anything.
[b]Guy wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
It's well-documented that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire on November 4 - right around when the US elections were happening. I hardly think that was a coincidence.
[/QUOTE]
The ceasefire was still active in December, and that's [url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048055.html]a fact[/url] (from the most left-wing newspaper I know). [/QUOTE]
Right, I know that. Israel broke the ceasefire, but it officially remained in place until December.
>International Humanitarian Law says it could be perfectly excusable. And I've shown you how.
If you choose to ignore the law, that's your choice; but Israel wishes to comply with the law, and therefore cannot ignore it.
Law isn't inherently correct on all levels for all people involved. Law or no law, it's a question of feeling empathy for the thousands of civilians that have been injured or killed, without hiding behind said law as a way to somehow excuse the atrocities on a human level.
And I'm well aware of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 war. Things were just fine after that until 1967 when Israel decided to take over Gaza in violation of the Partition Plan.
Feel free to fill in the blanks if I'm missing anything.
I[i]srael are the Nazis of the 21st Century,they are doing the same that Hittler did to them,create Ghettos(ex:Palestina and some cities that are surrounded by walls) and make a massacre to which they "consider" dangerous or may be a threaten to their security.Hey Mr Bush!!Saddam didn´t use weapons and was killed thank to the US "help" to free Irak,the country was sacked and bombed,Israel is using phosporus to kill men,women,terrorists,children,everyone!don´t you see it????may be you are drinking some Scotch Mr Bush...[/i]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Right, I know that. Israel broke the ceasefire, but it officially remained in place until December.
>International Humanitarian Law says it could be perfectly excusable. And I've shown you how.
If you choose to ignore the law, that's your choice; but Israel wishes to comply with the law, and therefore cannot ignore it.
Law isn't inherently correct on all levels for all people involved. Law or no law, it's a question of feeling empathy for the thousands of civilians that have been injured or killed, without hiding behind said law as a way to somehow excuse the atrocities on a human level.
And I'm well aware of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 war. Things were just fine after that until 1967 when Israel decided to take over Gaza in violation of the Partition Plan.
Feel free to fill in the blanks if I'm missing anything.
[/QUOTE]
I think it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire, but that's not really the issue now, is it?
Civilians are not the only ones affected by war, you know; soldiers are as well. Nevertheless, perhaps the greatest achievement of the Red Cross is the Geneva Conventions. And you can't really suspect the Red Cross as being biased towards states. In this respect, law [b]is[/b] "inherently correct on all levels for all people involved".
Although law is not identical to morals, much of international humanitarian law is based upon moral premises. We agree that combatants may be attacked at almost any time, while directing attacks at non-combatants is almost never justified. This legal framework is morally sound (for more, see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Walzer]Michael Walzer[/url], [i]Just and Unjust Wars[/i] [Basic Books, 1977]).
Moreover, the international community has agreed on international humanitarian law. Every state in the world has signed and ratified the four Geneva Conventions. Therefore, the international community cannot ignore international law, and every action during warfare (by both sides!) should be examined in light of the law.
Things were not "just fine" until 1967. What about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis]the 1956 Suez War[/url]? And especially this:
"From 1955 to 1956, Egypt took an increasingly hostile attitude towards Israel. Hundreds of Israelis were killed in Fedayeen attacks from (Egyptian occupied) Gaza into Israeli territory" (quoted from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_Egypt#The_1956_Suez_War]here[/url])
Occupying Gaza at that point, and in 1967, didn't violate the Partition Plan, because Article 51 of the [url=http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/]United Nations Charter[/url] enabled it. Regarding what happened with the occupation afterwards - well, we can argue about that forever, but it doesn't matter anymore. Israel has [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan]withdrawn[/url] from the Gaza strip in 2005.
Donna, thank you very much and Amen to that.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Right, I know that. Israel broke the ceasefire, but it officially remained in place until December.
>International Humanitarian Law says it could be perfectly excusable. And I've shown you how.
If you choose to ignore the law, that's your choice; but Israel wishes to comply with the law, and therefore cannot ignore it.
Law isn't inherently correct on all levels for all people involved. Law or no law, it's a question of feeling empathy for the thousands of civilians that have been injured or killed, without hiding behind said law as a way to somehow excuse the atrocities on a human level.
And I'm well aware of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 war. Things were just fine after that until 1967 when Israel decided to take over Gaza in violation of the Partition Plan.
Feel free to fill in the blanks if I'm missing anything.
[/QUOTE]
I think it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire, but that's not really the issue now, is it?
Civilians are not the only ones affected by war, you know; soldiers are as well. Nevertheless, perhaps the greatest achievement of the Red Cross is the Geneva Conventions. And you can't really suspect the Red Cross as being biased towards states. In this respect, law [b]is[/b] "inherently correct on all levels for all people involved".
Although law is not identical to morals, much of international humanitarian law is based upon moral premises. We agree that combatants may be attacked at almost any time, while directing attacks at non-combatants is almost never justified. This legal framework is morally sound (for more, see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Walzer]Michael Walzer[/url], [i]Just and Unjust Wars[/i] [Basic Books, 1977]).
Moreover, the international community has agreed on international humanitarian law. Every state in the world has signed and ratified the four Geneva Conventions. Therefore, the international community cannot ignore international law, and every action during warfare (by both sides!) should be examined in light of the law.
Things were not "just fine" until 1967. What about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis]the 1956 Suez War[/url]? And especially this:
"From 1955 to 1956, Egypt took an increasingly hostile attitude towards Israel. Hundreds of Israelis were killed in Fedayeen attacks from (Egyptian occupied) Gaza into Israeli territory" (quoted from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_Egypt#The_1956_Suez_War]here[/url])
Occupying Gaza at that point, and in 1967, didn't violate the Partition Plan, because Article 51 of the [url=http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/]United Nations Charter[/url] enabled it. Regarding what happened with the occupation afterwards - well, we can argue about that forever, but it doesn't matter anymore. Israel has [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan]withdrawn[/url] from the Gaza strip in 2005.
Donna, thank you very much and Amen to that.
Fair enough, I need to do my research on 1948-1967. But it is what happened in 1967 that has perpetuated the conflict to where it is today.
>http://www.unreal.co.il/stuff/IDF_Legal_Stance.wmv.
There's plenty of propaganda in there. Of course there is terrorism on the Palestinian side. Nobody is debating that. But it goes both ways, and thankfully there have been plenty of media outlets exposing both sides of it.
All I have left to add is this, from the gospel of the great Noam Chomsky, written in 1992:
"We have to make a crucial decision: are we racists or aren't we? If we're not racists, then the indigenous population has the same rights of self-determination as the settlers who replaced them. Some might claim more, but let's say at least as much right.
The only realistic political settlement, for the time being... is a two-state settlement. Everybody knows what it would have to be: Israel within approximately the pre-June 1967 borders and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and a return of the Golan Heights to Syria, or maybe some other arrangement. It's supported by most of the world.
The United States and Israel adamantly oppose it. The United States will not consider it. Both political groupings in Israel reject it totally. They reject any right of national self-determination for the indigenous population in the former Palestine. "No one can be a partner with us in a land that has been holy to our people for 2000 years." That's the position. They're willing to make minor adjustments. They don't want to take care of the population in the West Bank, because there are too many Arabs; they don't want a lot of Arabs around, so what they would like to do is take the areas and the water and the resources they want from the West Bank but leave the population, either stateless or under Jordanian control. That's what's called a "compromise solution." It's a very cynical proposal, even worse in many respects than annexation.
The Palestinians are not human, they do not deserve the rights that we accord automatically to the settlers who displaced them. That's the basis of articulate American discussion: pure, unadulterated racism. Again, that's not true of the population, as usual, but it is of the politically active and articulate parts of it and certainly the government. As long as the United States and Israel reject the political settlement, there can't be one."
>http://www.unreal.co.il/stuff/IDF_Legal_Stance.wmv.
There's plenty of propaganda in there. Of course there is terrorism on the Palestinian side. Nobody is debating that. But it goes both ways, and thankfully there have been plenty of media outlets exposing both sides of it.
All I have left to add is this, from the gospel of the great Noam Chomsky, written in 1992:
"We have to make a crucial decision: are we racists or aren't we? If we're not racists, then the indigenous population has the same rights of self-determination as the settlers who replaced them. Some might claim more, but let's say at least as much right.
The only realistic political settlement, for the time being... is a two-state settlement. Everybody knows what it would have to be: Israel within approximately the pre-June 1967 borders and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and a return of the Golan Heights to Syria, or maybe some other arrangement. It's supported by most of the world.
The United States and Israel adamantly oppose it. The United States will not consider it. Both political groupings in Israel reject it totally. They reject any right of national self-determination for the indigenous population in the former Palestine. "No one can be a partner with us in a land that has been holy to our people for 2000 years." That's the position. They're willing to make minor adjustments. They don't want to take care of the population in the West Bank, because there are too many Arabs; they don't want a lot of Arabs around, so what they would like to do is take the areas and the water and the resources they want from the West Bank but leave the population, either stateless or under Jordanian control. That's what's called a "compromise solution." It's a very cynical proposal, even worse in many respects than annexation.
The Palestinians are not human, they do not deserve the rights that we accord automatically to the settlers who displaced them. That's the basis of articulate American discussion: pure, unadulterated racism. Again, that's not true of the population, as usual, but it is of the politically active and articulate parts of it and certainly the government. As long as the United States and Israel reject the political settlement, there can't be one."
The numbers don't lie...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gaza-Israel_war_casualties.png
About 5% of Israeli casualities Vs 95% of Palestinian casualties.
...and people are still willing to justify Israel's actions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gaza-Israel_war_casualties.png
About 5% of Israeli casualities Vs 95% of Palestinian casualties.
...and people are still willing to justify Israel's actions?
[i]If a bomb kills a jew is anti-semitism,if Israel bombs a school is a "collateral effect" of the war,what a crazy world...
I´m not again or for any side,I wish there were peace there forever but the point is:humans never learn from the past,I´ve heard million times on documentaries about the 2nd World War,"no more racism""no more holocaust" but history repeats itself over and over again,the Balcans,Middle East.ect etc etc.[/i]
I´m not again or for any side,I wish there were peace there forever but the point is:humans never learn from the past,I´ve heard million times on documentaries about the 2nd World War,"no more racism""no more holocaust" but history repeats itself over and over again,the Balcans,Middle East.ect etc etc.[/i]
[QUOTE]
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b]
The numbers don't lie...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gaza-Israel_war_casualties.png
About 5% of Israeli casualities Vs 95% of Palestinian casualties.
...and people are still willing to justify Israel's actions?
[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone has come on here and "justified" Israel's actions. But Israel's actions are not better or worse than Hamas. Both are causing damage.
But not as much damage as Wikipedia.
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b]
The numbers don't lie...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gaza-Israel_war_casualties.png
About 5% of Israeli casualities Vs 95% of Palestinian casualties.
...and people are still willing to justify Israel's actions?
[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone has come on here and "justified" Israel's actions. But Israel's actions are not better or worse than Hamas. Both are causing damage.
But not as much damage as Wikipedia.
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b]
The numbers don't lie...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gaza-Israel_war_casualties.png
About 5% of Israeli casualities Vs 95% of Palestinian casualties.
...and people are still willing to justify Israel's actions?
[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone has come on here and "justified" Israel's actions. But Israel's actions are not better or worse than Hamas. Both are causing damage.
But not as much damage as Wikipedia.
[/QUOTE]
Nobody is saying Hamas actions are (if you may say) less worse than Israel's.
I couldn't give 2 fucks if Hamas militants get blown up to pieces, they are a terrorist organization, so fuck'em!
My concern is that Israeli military forces are killing far more civilians than members of Hamas.
Do these children look like members of Hamas?
[url=http://]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG[/url]
[url=http://]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Infantvictim.jpg[/url]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b]
The numbers don't lie...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gaza-Israel_war_casualties.png
About 5% of Israeli casualities Vs 95% of Palestinian casualties.
...and people are still willing to justify Israel's actions?
[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone has come on here and "justified" Israel's actions. But Israel's actions are not better or worse than Hamas. Both are causing damage.
But not as much damage as Wikipedia.
[/QUOTE]
Nobody is saying Hamas actions are (if you may say) less worse than Israel's.
I couldn't give 2 fucks if Hamas militants get blown up to pieces, they are a terrorist organization, so fuck'em!
My concern is that Israeli military forces are killing far more civilians than members of Hamas.
Do these children look like members of Hamas?
[url=http://]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG[/url]
[url=http://]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Infantvictim.jpg[/url]