News Is it fair that america gets the blame for israels actions ?

[marlon]

This is destabalizing global politics in a very dangerous way.
An unexperienced snotnose president who was misleaded by his own
ambitious military staff into this collosal blunder.

The one and only reason for this whole escalation is to get the peace
process of the table and most importantly: the widthdraw from occupied
territories which was forced by the world upon an unwilling Israel.
Escalate with Hamas to keep the Westbank, Escalate with Hezbollah and
Syria to keep the Golan Heights.


Regards, Hans.

I completely disagree with this. Let's look at the situation. Israel is surrounded by nations that don't recognize Israel as an independent country. Israel is surrounded by so many hostile nations and when being attacked (AS THEY WERE BY HEZBOLLAH) who can they turn to for help. Europe is not helping, only the USA are. They have no choice but to take matters into their own hands. How would you react when you are dealing with people/nations that don't even recognize your country ? Would you just talk when you are attacked. Keep in mind that Israel was attacked first, you know. Really, tell me, what would you do as prime minister ?

marlon

 

[Anttech]

My question is: will Israel stop being blamed for the illegal actions taken by Hezbollah that directly threaten neutral targets by drawing them into the fight?

Israel didnt have to fight, the negotiation table was open. Israel played right into Hezbollahs hands.

As long as people continue to blanket-condemn Israel for every civilian being killed, and UN post being hit, Israel's enemies will continue to use them as cover illegally

What do you expect Gurrelia/ resistance fighters /Terrorist to do? All line up on in the middle of a field and take on Israel with rifles, firing at their F16's? Of course they are going to use the urban Environment to get shelter. But this fact still doesn't give Israel the right to bomb Villages and kill 50 Civilians of which over 50% were children, or Deliberately take out using laser guided missiles a UN post. If you don't agree with this, then write to you senator or whatever and ask them to null the Geneva convention, and all other Human Rights pacts Israel signed up too..

And it seems the Toronto Star aggrees with me :)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154382609690&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

 

[russ_watters]

The one and only reason for this whole escalation is to get the peace
process of the table and most importantly: the widthdraw from occupied
territories which was forced by the world upon an unwilling Israel.
Escalate with Hamas to keep the Westbank, Escalate with Hezbollah and
Syria to keep the Golan Heights.


Regards, Hans.

I'm confused too - who has forced Israel to withdraw from occupied territories? What they have done so far (the West Bank) has been done unilaterally and they have been very straightforward about their intention to withdraw more.

And how is the reson for this to get peace off the table? Israel is the only side who has ever shown up at the table! It seems to me that the reason for fighting is to force the other side to the table.

 

[russ_watters]

One of the problems with not negotiation with Terrorist organisations is that, if you do not engage them and listen to what they want, they tend to shout louder and louder and louder. The 'ignore them and they will go away' tactic doesn't work with Terrorism.

There is a difference between general terrorism and the specific tactic of kidnapping. Your logic is somewhat correct regarding terrorism as a whole, but simply doesn't apply to the specific tactic of kidnapping.

No that's not my point, my point is that Israel was incorrect in its judgement to go to war. They should have negotiated, got there prisoners back and saved the anguish of all the Israeli's in danger now, and all the Lebonesse.

Many in the world community share this view, but it is worthlessly shortsighted. Yes, if Israel negotiated, they wouldn't be in this conflict (that's almost uselessly redunant), but by negotiating, they guarantee that more people will be kidnapped in the future. That is the cycle in this case.

 

[russ_watters]

What do you expect Gurrelia/ resistance fighters /Terrorist to do? All line up on in the middle of a field and take on Israel with rifles, firing at their F16's? Of course they are going to use the urban Environment to get shelter.

They certainly are on the short end of that catch-22. But that is their problem and it is still wrong to fight the way they are fighting. A person who steals bread because they are hungry still goes to jail.

But this fact still doesn't give Israel the right to bomb Villages and kill 50 Civilians of which over 50% were children...

Yeah, actually it does. The Geneva Conventions are relatively clear on the use of human shields being the illegal act, not their killing while trying to kill the fighters.

... If you don't agree with this, then write to you senator or whatever and ask them to null the Geneva convention, and all other Human Rights pacts Israel signed up too..

Sorry, that simply isn't how those laws read. Please find for me a passage that says it is illegal to bomb soldiers who are using human shields.

And it seems the Toronto Star aggrees with me :)

That is an op ed and it doesn't mention the use of human shields.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Dropping the bomb was deliberate. Dropping the bomb on the UN outpost was not. (or are you asserting that the Israelis actually wanted to take out the UN people in the post?) There's a big difference between the two, and it doesn't help this discussion any when you don't make the distinction.

That's your presumption. It is disputed if it was deliberate. Military
commanders can handle on their own.

It was a precision guided bomb controlled by coordinates. The coordinates
of the all UN posts are well known at the Air Force command centers.
The command centers receive coordinates from local observers and then
relay them to one of the fighter planes circling overhead. Northern Air
Force command claims that the coordinates it passed were not those of
the UN bunker... I can't imagine that the coordinates passed to the
fighter planes aren't automatically checked against their coordinate
database.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1220278,00.html?cnn=yes

There is unfortunately a history here. Israeli local commanders were
caught lying about many of the details in the notorious first Qana UN post
shelling in 1996 by a video and many witness reports.


Regards, Hans

 

[Anttech]

Sorry, that simply isn't how those laws read. Please find for me a passage that says it is illegal to bomb soldiers who are using human shields.

You have turned it on its head, You *arent* allowed to bomb civilian, regardless of where the Soldiers are.

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
* violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_I:_General_Provisions

I think it is quite clear..

And...

Laws of war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The two parts of the laws of war: Law concerning acceptable practices while engaged in war, like the Geneva Conventions, is called jus in bello; while law concerning allowable justifications for armed force is called jus ad bellum.

<snip>Conduct of warfare

Among other issues, the laws of war address declaration of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; the avoidance of atrocities; the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#Conduct_of_warfare

 

[Gokul43201]

Prisoner exchange as Gokul rightly said

I guess my intent in pointing out the obvious, was lost. I thought I was revealing what appeared to me as the absurdity of stating that Hizbullah was open to negotiation. But I guess we don't share the same fundamental beliefs on that issue.

PS : This new thread is rapidly going off topic and simply continuing the discussion of the previous locked thread. I think we should keep our eyes on the ball if we don't want this thread locked as well.

 

[Gokul43201]

You have turned it on its head, You *arent* allowed to bomb civilian, regardless of where the Soldiers are. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_I:_General_Provisions

I think Article 3 deals with the humane treatment of prisoners and not what constitutes acceptable collateral damage.

 

[dirac1]

i see a lot of people complaining about the hezbuulah terrorists but when will they be complaining about the jewish terrorists eg the stern gang and the haganah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group )

 

[Lisa!]

People in ME consider Israel as a terrorist government and people in western countries consider Hesbulah as a terrorist organization. what's wrong with the negotiation of terrorists with each other?

And 2 questions:
1. is that true that Israel was planing carefully to attack Hizbullah in a near future?
2. Would you blame US only because of things that's agains UN laws?(not to forget that US veto any law that it doesn't like)
3.someone explain this term to me "legal nuclear weapons"?

Thanks

 

[Anttech]

I think Article 3 deals with the humane treatment of prisoners and not what constitutes acceptable collateral damage.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I

Says it right at the top.

 

[pcorbett]

i see a lot of people complaining about the hezbuulah terrorists but when will they be complaining about the jewish terrorists eg the stern gang and the haganah.

When they reappear in our time, perhaps?

 

[Anttech]

People in ME consider Israel as a terrorist government and people in western countries consider Hesbulah as a terrorist organization. what's wrong with the negotiation of terrorists with each other?

And 2 questions:
1. is that true that Israel was planing carefully to attack Hizbullah in a near future?
2. Would you blame US only because of things that's agains UN laws?(not to forget that US veto any law that it doesn't like)
3.someone explain this term to me "legal nuclear weapons"?

Thanks

Well Hezbollah are a Terrorist Organisation. Israel is a government, who (in the eyes of some) Terrorise. There is a difference.

Answers:

1.Where did you read this? It certainly wouldn't surprise me
2.I am not blaming the US, Ultimately it is Israel who are fighting, Israel can stand on its own two feet. So I can't answer that question :)
3.If the international community says you can have them, then you can, but this is off topic, isn't it?

 

[Hans de Vries]

I completely disagree with this. Let's look at the situation. Israel is surrounded by nations that don't recognize Israel as an independent country. Israel is surrounded by so many hostile nations and when being attacked (AS THEY WERE BY HEZBOLLAH) who can they turn to for help. Europe is not helping, only the USA are. They have no choice but to take matters into their own hands. How would you react when you are dealing with people/nations that don't even recognize your country ? Would you just talk when you are attacked. Keep in mind that Israel was attacked first, you know. Really, tell me, what would you do as prime minister ?

marlon

People with a too simple worldview of "good against evil" always end up
defending evil. Regardless of which side they choose.
Did you ever heard of the Sabra and Shatila massacre?

A (Belgium) Flemish guy was one of the senior commanders of the
Christian militias who slaughtered over 1000 civilians there in 1982.

This man was a regular guest in an Italian bar in Brussels (Laken) where
I had rented a room around 1984. I learned about his past after being
invited to his house several times, (He was looking for an husband for
his adopted daughter)

The people responsible for this slaughter were Christians (Catholics like
most people in Belgium) It all happened with the consent of Ariel Sharon
who had encircled the camps. Sharon was fired but unfortunately chosen
to become Israel’s president in march 2001.

This historical mistake of the Israeli's to make an alleged war criminal
their Prime Minister was just as stupid (if not worse) as the mistake of
the Palestinians to choose Hamas. It resulted in an avallange of violence
most notably in September of that year.

We are now witnessing another historical blunder.
Regards, Hans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

i see a lot of people complaining about the hezbuulah terrorists but when will they be complaining about the jewish terrorists eg the stern gang and the haganah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group )

Your wiki link doesn't work.

Because AFAIK they aren't active any more and haven't been for quite a while. IIRC the last terrorist act I saw by an Israeli zionist malitia was the car bombing of a Palestinian during peace talks, that was about 20 years ago though. If they are active they don't make the headlines, that much is clear. Worst Terrorist attack happened at the King david hotel in 1946 and was instigated by Irgun, when 91, people, Jewish arab and mostly English were killed. Anyway it's kind of OT. If you ask me Mossad is more of a scarey organisation than their terrorists from their actions I've read about. But then covert intelligence ops always are a little scarey, I mean the CIA history makes pretty disturbing reading, I bet MI5 aren't exactly playing by the rule book sometimes either.

 

[Lisa!]

Well Hezbollah are a Terrorist Organisation. Israel is a government, who (in the eyes of some) Terrorise. There is a difference.

Yeah, but remember that this government is more powerful and gets more support!

Answers:

1.Where did you read this? It certainly wouldn't surprise me

I Just heard it unwillingly and that was just an innocent question! (note that I don't listen to our media nor I read newspapers:zzz: )

2.I am not blaming the US, Ultimately it is Israel who are fighting, Israel can stand on its own two feet. So I can't answer that question :)That question was regarded to 1 of the russ's posts in this thread!
3.If the international community says you can have them, then you can, but this is off topic, isn't it?

These questions were regarded to 1 of the russ's posts in this thread! Sorry for being off topic anyway...

 

[daveb]

Police negotiate with those who take hostages all the time in order to possibly prevent any life from being taken. To say you never negotiate with terrorists reduces possible means of resolving the situation. In a war, prisoner exchanges happen. I'm sure both Hezbollah and Israel consider this a war.

 

[DaveC426913]

No. First of all, logic is mathematical. It is not a matter of opinion. With the same starting premise, any logical person should reach the same conclusions.

I know where you're at with this, but cannot easily be applied to real life. Logic is based on initial premises and must factor in values. Both premises and values are human and therefore subjective in nature.

 

[Hans de Vries]

I'm confused too - who has forced Israel to withdraw from occupied territories?

It was the quartet: US, Europe, UN and Russia who laid out the "roadmap
for peace" which determined from which occupied areas Israel would have
to withdraw.

What they have done so far (the West Bank) has been done unilaterally and they have been very straightforward about their intention to withdraw more

It was Sharon who, on his own, pushed through the exit out of the
Gaza Strip (Which is about 15 times smaller as the West Bank from which
they didn't withdraw. see the map in the link)

Sharon is history now. Finally, becoming old and a little wiser he wasn't
given the chance to compensate the mistakes he made in his life.Regards, Hans

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

 

[marlon]

People with a too simple worldview of "good against evil" always end up
defending evil. Regardless of which side they choose.



Did you ever heard of the Sabra and Shatila massacre?

A (Belgium) Flemish guy was one of the senior commanders of the
Christian militias who slaughtered over 1000 civilians there in 1982.

This man was a regular guest in an Italian bar in Brussels (Laken) where
I had rented a room around 1984. I learned about his past after being
invited to his house several times, (He was looking for an husband for
his adopted daughter)

The people responsible for this slaughter were Christians (Catholics like
most people in Belgium) It all happened with the consent of Ariel Sharon
who had encircled the camps. Sharon was fired but unfortunately chosen
to become Israel’s president in march 2001.

This historical mistake of the Israeli's to make an alleged war criminal
their Prime Minister was just as stupid (if not worse) as the mistake of
the Palestinians to choose Hamas. It resulted in an avallange of violence
most notably in September of that year.

We are now witnessing another historical blunder.



Regards, Hans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon

Well, this may all be very true but this is NOt an answer to the very clear and simple question that i asked you. Please, don't just twist around. Again i ask you : what would YOU do when being in the position of the Israeli prime minister and knowing this situation as it is. I also dislike war very much but sometimes there is no other option. What alternative would you have for this situation ?

marlon

 

[Office_Shredder]

And it seems the Toronto Star aggrees with me :)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154382609690&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

No, the Toronto Star proves you didn't actually click on the link I posted. The Canadian observer isn't the name of a newspaper, it's referring to the actual Canadian who was in the UN observer post

 

[pcorbett]

It was the quartet: US, Europe, UN and Russia who laid out the "roadmap
for peace" which determined from which occupied areas Israel would have
to withdraw.

Not quite sure how that translates to "forced."

It was Sharon who, on his own, pushed through the exit out of the
Gaza Strip (Which is about 15 times smaller as the West Bank from which
they didn't withdraw. see the map in the link)

How does an Israeli prime minister effect a withdrawal from Gaza "on his own?"

 

[russ_watters]

You have turned it on its head, You *arent* allowed to bomb civilian, regardless of where the Soldiers are.


I think it is quite clear...

That passage has nothing at all to do with what you are claiming! It is a general provision that doesn't mention collateral damage or use of human shields. It simply isn't true that killing civilians is automatically illegal. The Geneva Conventions don't handcuff a military into submitting to the illegal acts of another.

Jeez, apply some logic to it! If what you were saying were true, then if a soldier walked behind a human shield, you'd be legally obligated to let that soldier go wherever he wanted!

What you are claiming is so straightforwardly absurd that I just don't know how to explain it. You aren't using any logic at all.

The wording of the part that actually applies is clear:

Article 28
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

This confims both points of mine:
1. Use of human shields is illegal.
2. The precence of protected persons (whether human shields or just coincidental presence) does not require the opposing military to back off. Ie, The crime is a crime only for the side who intentionally places the civilians in danger.

Wik's article on human shields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields

 

[russ_watters]

i see a lot of people complaining about the hezbuulah terrorists but when will they be complaining about the jewish terrorists eg the stern gang and the haganah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

What's there to complain about when the gang in the wik link (fixed) disbanded almost 60 years ago?

 

[russ_watters]

I know where you're at with this, but cannot easily be applied to real life. Logic is based on initial premises and must factor in values. Both premises and values are human and therefore subjective in nature.

The value of human life is subjective (and as a result, the initial premise debateable), but once you define what that value is, it becomes a quantity to be plugged into the equation and calculated. And yes, the values of your country affect which equations you use, but still - once you choose the premise and choose the equation, the logic follows directly.

Ie, (and this could have gone in my new thread...) in a country where individual human rights are paramount (such as the US), you are required to treat all people as individuals. That makes it unacceptable to apply the utilitarian principle to the issue - and as a result, the US tends to be more willing to negotiate than Israel, which applies a more utilitarian approach. But that just changes the way you use the equations: whether/how you negotiate becomes a matter of statistical probability.

Ie, for a hijacked Israeli airliner, the probability of death for the passengers is very high because of the fact that their death is a viable consolation proze for the hijackers. Because of that, using force to go after the hijackers is also the correct course of action from a probabilistic point of view.

Either way, in this case, the action being taken here doesn't really affect the prospects for saving those captured soldiers all that much. They are being protected as bargaining chips even during this little war, but they are just bargaining chips and because of that, their lives have already been subtracted from the equation.

 

[russ_watters]

It was the quartet: US, Europe, UN and Russia who laid out the "roadmap
for peace" which determined from which occupied areas Israel would have
to withdraw.

Israel isn't on that road because the arabs wouldn't join them (and the US solicited the formation of the quartet based on Bush's speech/policy on the issue http://www.mideastweb.org/quartet.htm ). And that roadmap did not include any way to force Israel to take it. They did this on their own.

It was Sharon who, on his own, pushed through the exit out of the
Gaza Strip (Which is about 15 times smaller as the West Bank from which
they didn't withdraw. see the map in the link)

Sorry, I got the wrong piece of land. The point still stands: Israel made a unilateral withdrawal.

Let me say that again: Israel made a unilateral withdrawal! Do you see how absurd/spectacular that is? Countries just plain don't do things like that. You always negotiate for peace. Israel has shown a level of commitment to peace unprecidented in the history of the world by saying 'we want peace so bad we're willing to take the road alone and make concessions before discussion even begins'.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Israel isn't on that road because the arabs wouldn't join them (and the US solicited the formation of the quartet based on Bush's speech/policy on the issue http://www.mideastweb.org/quartet.htm ). And that roadmap did not include any way to force Israel to take it. They did this on their own. Sorry, I got the wrong piece of land. The point still stands: Israel made a unilateral withdrawal.

Let me say that again: Israel made a unilateral withdrawal! Do you see how absurd/spectacular that is? Countries just plain don't do things like that. You always negotiate for peace. Israel has shown a level of commitment to peace unprecidented in the history of the world by saying 'we want peace so bad we're willing to take the road alone and make concessions before discussion even begins'.

Israel will never, ever want to give up the main occupied territories.

They gave up on a 130 square mile strip to get rid of the 1.4 million
Palestinians packed on there.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan_of_2004

In an October 6, 2004 interview with Israel’s Daily “Haaretz”,
Dov Weissglas, Sharon's chief of staff, declared:

"The significance of the (unilateral) disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process... When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians" [1]

(Edit- The text above is an abbreviation of the actual interview by the
Israeli editors. The original text is slightly less direct but clearly reveals
the ideas behind the strategy:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929

You might want to first skip the very long informal introduction and
read the sections: "Maneuver of the century" first and then
"The formaldehyde formula" . note: With "Arik" he means Sharon )
Regards, Hans.

 

[kyleb]

While Israel withdrew from Gaza they contued to expand their territory in the West Bank. That doesn't show any want for peace.

 

[Evo]

Hezbollah did actually say at the beginning of this conflict that they were willing to negotiation

You can't be serious. They kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. There is no negotiation, that was a criminal act.

This thread hasn't been on topic since the first few posts.