[Illuyankas]

You're perfectly fine with targetting civilians, with given examples that either served to harm the attacker's cause (the Blitz helped bolster British spirits and didn't damage the manufacturing or military installations used enough to stop the Germans, and the bombing of civilian populations actually caused the remaining Germans to fight harder) or were unneeded (Japan were going to lose and surrender before the nukes were dropped, and showing them off would have been just as effective if it wasn't on a city), so not sound tactics at all. It's brutally simple; there is one answer to the question "Is killing civilians wrong?" and it's not "Depends."

Please do not insinuate I would want the IDF to go into these places unarmed, if they went in to investigate and they were attacked by Hamas, of course they could defend themselves by firing back. Against Hamas. And not the civilians in every single building around the target area. Or their entire extended family. Or their neighbours and their extended family. Unlike what is currently happening. Besides, the new madeup objective of Protective Edge is to go in and take out the TERROR TUNNELS that have existed for years but only now make a good enough scapegoat, and they've been acknowledged to be too deep to airstrike so they'll have to go in on the ground, and the deaths of the non-volunteering to be in a war zone civilians will decrease! And no, a ceasefire without acknowledging or contact with the other side doesn't count for diddly.


As for your videos, they're translated by MEMRI TV.

Quote

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a not for profit press monitoring organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. MEMRI publishes and distributes free English language translations of Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Pashto, and Turkish media reports.[1] The institute was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born, American political scientist. MEMRI states that its goal is to "bridge the language gap that exists between the Middle East and the West". Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions.

----

Several critics have accused MEMRI of selectivity. They state that MEMRI consistently picks for translation and dissemination the most extreme views, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets.[3][39][39][40][41] Juan Cole, a professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan, argues MEMRI has a tendency to "cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials... On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a bigoted Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated."[43] Former head of the CIA's counterintelligence unit, Vincent Cannistraro, said that MEMRI "are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud. They simply don't present the whole picture."[44][45] Laila Lalami, writing in The Nation, states that MEMRI "consistently picks the most violent, hateful rubbish it can find, translates it and distributes it in email newsletters to media and members of Congress in Washington".[39] As a result, critics such as Ken Livingstone state, MEMRI's analyses are "distortion".[46][47]

A report by Center for American Progress, titled "Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America" lists MEMRI as promoting Islamophobic propaganda in the USA through supplying selective translations that are relied upon by several organisations "to make the case that Islam is inherently violent and promotes extremism".[48]

I don't really need to say much more about those guys.



This is Likud, the party of the Prime Minister in Israel, and not the most extreme of the coalition: [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud#Charter]

Quote

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

There's no monopoly on ranting clerics and stupid reprehensible statements, either: http://www.haaretz.c...n-israel-1.4496 Actions do speak louder than words, and I would point out the 80% civilian casualty rate caused by Israel and that Hamas have exclusively targetted the military while able to aim at all, but you've stated civilian deaths are to be accepted as a perfectly reasonable tactic (which confuses me as to why the total ineffectuality of Hamas' rockets offends you so, really) so I won't bother. Hell, to borrow a terrible analogy, remember Mars Attacks? You'd be saying the aliens, running around shooting thousands with laser guns while the translator beeps "We come in peace, do not run, we are your friends" are morally in the right while the humans saying 'we need to fight back' are the real aggressors for their harsh tone. Actually, no, I'd be accused of calling Israelis aliens and of being antisemitic, nevermind.

Yes, Islamic Jihad has a strong presence in Palestine, and they're more extreme than Hamas, which is why the aim of this entire conflict is to damage Hamas, split the unity government (that Israel said needed to exist in order for peace talks to occur) and weaken the position of Palestine in the eyes of the world.


Do you think Hamas would still be voted in power after ten years of peace in a '67 borders Palestine? Do you think if Israel saw the buildup of arms they wouldn't break the ceasefire as they've broken so many others and just blow up all of them again? Do you think Hamas wouldn't know that? These aren't rabid dogs.




e: what the hell is up with these hyperlinks

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 28 July 2014 - 12:24 AM

[amphibian]

Cause, on 27 July 2014 - 11:25 PM, said:

I re-read what I wrote and I don't believe I said or even implied that war crimes don’t exist.

Ok, let's go directly to your post

Cause, on 27 July 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

I wanted to prove im internally consistent so I tracked down this old post of mine

Quote

I have always held to the position that there is no such thing as a war crime, only war.

So... that doesn't say or imply that you believe war crimes don't exist? Dang.

What about this one?

Quote

I stand by what I say above. War is the only crime, it is horrible but sometimes necessary.

I'm bringing this up because these are abominable statements put forwards in a horrible framework for an argument. In several places you contradict yourself in the statements above, saying that there are single acts/coordinated endeavors over long periods of time you find "extremely dodgy" or "over the red line", but go and say that "they must be dealt with justly and consistently, which is impossible in the UN because Security Council vetoes exist". Then you say that international law regarding war crimes is constantly in flux/highly subjective.

Then you say that the London Blitz, the nuking of Japan and indiscriminate bombing of Germany are indeed war crimes.

Look, I'm not out to "get" you or show you to be a terrible person that we shouldn't interact with. I'm saying that when you're talking about some of the worst acts/coordinated endeavors in modern history, you'd better be careful how you talk about them. Statements like you saying you agree with the firebombing of Dresden or other mass killings are bad, because you're not only saying them, you're saying them with so little context and accurate grasp of history/tactics/morality that it's like listening to a teenage sociopath talking about how the murder of a cheerleading squad would make the world a better place because X, Y and Z.

The firebombing of Dresden in particular was absolutely unnecessary, ineffective and morally wrong. It should have resulted in the jailing for life of several dozen higher-ups in the Allied chain of command and dozens of lesser sentences handed out to the people who carried it out. I recall studying this in college, guided by a professor who reached Dresden that year, and was appalled at the personal details he told us with great difficulty and the historical context, which he'd dug up by dint of great research work.

Quote

I bring [what is happening with Syria] up now though to show just how arbitrary people’s opinions on this subject [Israel/Palestine] can be.

I don't think the knowledgeable and informed commentators, politicians, citizens and other people involved in the Middle East region are being arbitrary on this particular issue. It's entirely possible to talk about deplore how Palestinians are treated/discriminated against by Arabs while saying that Israeli soldiers and bombs are murdering them in Gaza. One doesn't mean the other doesn't exist and your awareness of people talking of specific regions and the happenings appears to be artificially limited to this thread, which invites comments specifically on Israeli and Palestinean happenings.

You don't get to dictate who is and who isn't a hypocrite by relying only upon your artificial constraints/awareness of what's being said. That's Fox News territory. That's where you DON'T want to be as a person trying to live a good life and make the world a better place.

I'm not saying that Illuyankas is 100% in the clear. I'm saying that there are serious problems in what you are saying beyond the Israeli/Palestinian situation being discussed and that re-evaluating them is a very good idea.

[D'iversify]

Thought I might splurge some general thoughts I've been having on terrorism, asymmetric conflict and the rights of state actors and non-state actors to employ violence as widely perceived in a post COld War/post-9/11 politicla landscape, which I have then related to perceptions in the West of the current conflicts in Palestine and Syria. Posted elsewhere but was largely ignored, so the narcissist in me thought I'd impose it on others elsewhere to see if there was more interest:

Broadly speaking, the problem with the post-9/11 discourse on terrorism is that it has increasingly become one in which the moral problematic of the state's use of violence is ignored, whereas the political use of violence by non-state actors is condemned as terrorism whatever the circumstances under which it occurs. Basically, it is increasingly viewed as only acceptable to resist oppression by a state through non-violent means. But this only gives a monopoly on violence to oppressive states and effectively ensures that they cannot be resisted from within.

Part of this shift in the perception of non-state political violence I think can be traced to the ending of the Cold War. Beforehand, it was widely assumed that there were two major political systems, capitalism and communism, and non-state actors were judged freedom fighters or terrorists based on whether they fell into the same or different camp as the observer. Moreover, it was assumed that if one of the two systems collapsed in a particular nation state, it would be replaced by the other, e.g. that if a communist state collapsed due to the actions of 'pro-capitalist' freedom fighters, capitalism would replace communism unless the latter system successfully reasserted itself. Groups with ideologies less easy to classify were generally categorised as capitalist-leaning or communist-leaning. Things started changing with the Iranian revolution, as it became more popular to think that there might be a third class of system - theocracy - which might compete with capitalism and communism. But more important was the collapse of communism and the emergence of a broadly 'unipolar' world in which almost all nations converted to some form of capitalism. With communism apparently discredited as a working politico-economic system, theocracy, especially Islamic theocracy, appeared the main remaining competitor. Hence Huntington's 'Clash of Civilisations' thesis and various 'Jihad vs.McWorld' publications in the 1990s. Now most of the non-state actors using political violence termed 'freedom fighters' would be those in theocracies such as Iran. In the case of some post-'89 dictatorships which retain elements of planned economies, resistance groups have also been termed 'freedom fighters'; but these dictatorships I would argue are either viewed as atavistic remnants of communist totalitarianism or earlier fascism, doomed to eventually die out under pressure from capitalism, or else as capitalist leaning states which will eventually democratise in order to further economic develop themselves. Moreover, with the rise of China, there has been an increased implicit (and sometime less than implicit) cosying up to dictatorships perceived to be moving away from planned economies towards capitalism, even to the extent that some capitalist ideologues in the West have questioned whether democracy is really best for capitalistic economic development.

But I think underneath this shift to viewing theocracy as the remaining opposing system there has commonly been a continued view that capitalism is a universal acid and that theocracy therefore cannot stand up to it for long, it being too demandingly utopian, too impractical, too easily ideologically undermined and too focused on the spiritual as opposed to the material to hold out. Based on this worldview, it appears that the only possible alternative to capitalism that is not a temporary theocracy is chaos. From this point of view, non-state actors attempting to change the political order through violence increasingly appear either as naive or nihilistic. This certainly has been evident in the discourse on Syria - rebels are either construed as naive in believing they can overthrow the Assad state without endangering capitalist order (Assad, after all, may be a dictator, but at least he's a capitalist!) or as nihilists spreading death and lunacy.

The kind of worldview described above is, of course, simplistic (a strategic strawman perhaps even) and, I would argue, erroneous, for it fails to understand that capitalist states will often engender opposition to them not due to any external ideological infection but rather from the fact that capitalism by its nature depends on exploiting certain classes of people and distributing resources and capital in an inegalitarian manner. The rebelling exploited may themselves not be ideologically opposed to capitalism but rather seek to alter the balance of power and seize control of resources. In the case of Israel/Palestine, the war for resources is certainly more fundamental than any religious or cultural differences in inducing conflict. Hamas after all have as one of their main demands for a ceasefire demanded that the Israeli blockade on Gaza be lifted. And political violence between Palestinians and settlers in the West Bank is entirely a battle for control over land and water.

Now, if this was any ordinary democratic state, Palestinians could protest their exploitation to their political representatives. But the Israeli Knesset do not represent them and the Palestinian Authority do not have the power to properly resist Israel. In ordinary cases where this was construed as state-on-state violence, the Palestinian Authority could complain to the UN and demand action for the protection of its sovereignty. But as Palestine does not have full UN membership, its treatment by Israel cannot be construed as state-on-state violence. This is why Israel has protested attempts by Palestine to attain representation on international bodies, as the closer Palestine gets to full statehood, the more violence between Israel and Palestine is treated as state-on-state violence, in which case the rules of international warfare (and resulting possible prosecutions and sanctions for violations of sovereignty) apply. Whilst Palestine is not a full UN member, actions by Palestinian militia can be construed as non-state actor political violence, which is today almost universally described as terrorism, outside of those cases where it occurs in opposition to 'atavistic' dictatorships and 'temporary' theocracies.

The point I would conclude with is that, irrespective of whether any kind of political violence can be regarded as just, that right wing Israeli ideologues have successfully exploited the ambiguous political status of Palestine in a post-Cold war world in which state violence is seen as increasingly acceptable so long as the state is committed to the capitalist system and non-state violence is perceived as having no legitimate political ends when ranged against a capitalist state, even when there are very real issues of exploitation and conflict over resources.

[Cause]

amphibian, on 28 July 2014 - 01:48 AM, said:

Cause, on 27 July 2014 - 11:25 PM, said:

I re-read what I wrote and I don't believe I said or even implied that war crimes don’t exist.

Ok, let's go directly to your post

Cause, on 27 July 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

I wanted to prove im internally consistent so I tracked down this old post of mine

Quote

I have always held to the position that there is no such thing as a war crime, only war.

So... that doesn't say or imply that you believe war crimes don't exist? Dang.

What about this one?

Quote

I stand by what I say above. War is the only crime, it is horrible but sometimes necessary.

Im glad that our history on this forum extends beyond this one thread Amphibian otherwise I would be horrified that you would really think this is what I said and I would think you were misquoting me on purpose. I have said that:

'I have always held to the position that there is no such thing as a war crime, only war'

'the allies did things that objectively might be considered war crimes during world war II. They firebombed how many European and Japanese cities to win the war? They destroyed how many dams, flooded how many houses to win the war? They hurt civilians! What else were they supposed to do? War crimes are too subjective, coloured too much by our own perspectives and take place in a context that we cant understand until its kill or be killed and wont understand once the situation is over.'

'War is a terrible thing, most often unnecessary but right or wrong when things reach that point the laws of war become only suggestions. '

'in times of war laws fall silent'

'I wished to suggest that war is closer to being the true crime (though sometimes being unavoidable) rather than any acts committed during them.'

Wars are meant to kill people. That we have rules governing how we should kill people is to me absurd. Every war is a crime and will lead to crime. The London blitz was tactically unsound true, the allied bombing campaign on Germany did often strengthen German resistance. It is also claimed to have massively undercut German war production which though consistently increased throughout the war always felt short of nazi predictions and targets. Albert Spears credited it with winning the war. The firebombing of Dresden is the pinnacle that highlights the devestation allied bombing command caused, and also in the case of Dresden just how unnecessary some of it was. Still I imagine the rational that Dresden remained the largest patch of unbombed German production centres was enough reason for the allies to knock it out. We also have the gift of hindsight of knowing the war would end in a few months. War is terrible, its disgustin, people die and I am glad the allies won. Japan refused to surrender unconditionally and the first bomb was dropped Aug 6th as I recall, Japan still never surrendered until the 15th and after a second bomb was dropped on the 9th. Its comforting to know that Illy knows the answer to a question still controversially debated to this day. Would Japan have surrounded anyway? Would other options to force Japan surrender cost more or less Jpaanese lives and truthfully as America would only have cared about would it have cost more american lives. If my position has not been clear before let me clear it up now. All of the above and I include the Blitz are at once both war crimes and fully excusable in the context of a total war. I understand the rational behind all of it even as I am horrified by it. There are so many more to discuss. Germanies unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic that almost choked the lifeblood from Britain. England broke its own treaty of London and responded in kind.

So lets also be clear that Total war has not happened since WW2. Still when Nato intervened in Yugoslavia they killed thousands of civilians. The intervention is Libya killed 60. The Ukrainian forces and the rebels they are fighting have caused over 500 civilian deaths (excluding the plane flight) and HRW says both are guilty of war crimes. Iraq, Afghanistam etc etc. The 'good guys' kill civilians in the countries they are purportedly trying to save from humanitarian rights violations all the time. War can not be fought without casualties. Oh and if you want some sweet irony when the pentagon was hit on 9/11 70 civilians died in the pentagon. I don't care if you are not part of the armed forces, you might not be a soldier but if you work in the pentagon you are not a civilian. Every Aircraft carrier has a hospital on it but its still primarily a viable military target.

We pick and choose our interpretations of war crimes all the time. Its illegal to put any weapons in or even near a hospital to avoid enemy fire, yet its still illegal if the enemy does so to fire at them. I assure you its also every bit abhorrent to ask a soldier to die in not doing so. So to be clear 'war crimes' are the inevitability of war. Nevertheless I can still see and draw the distinction between a death camp, the torture of civilians and the sighting of a child in your targeting scope and firing anyway. I further see a distinction between a solider firing anyway and the standing orders of his armed forces instructing him to fire as a matter of course. Their is the legal definition of a war crime and their is today the moral distinction of a war crime! Technically under the Geneva convention which does not go to great lengths to define how to treat combat irregulars I think any Hamas soldier out of uniform can be considered and executed as a spy since he is arguably behind enemy lines and not in uniform. I have no doubt this is not the laws true intent.

Every war is a war crime but O don't live in a world of dreams and fairytales. War happens, some are necessary and some are not.

Quote

I'm bringing this up because these are abominable statements put forwards in a horrible framework for an argument. In several places you contradict yourself in the statements above, saying that there are single acts/coordinated endeavors over long periods of time you find "extremely dodgy" or "over the red line", but go and say that "they must be dealt with justly and consistently, which is impossible in the UN because Security Council vetoes exist". Then you say that international law regarding war crimes is constantly in flux/highly subjective.

I believe the USA has vetoed Security council votes on Israel 14 times, about a large variety of issues from settlements to assassinations. I don't think its ever gone as far as declaring war crimes. Russia has vetoed action on Syria 11 times. Russia and America have each cast approximatly 100 vetoes alone. The UN is a joke. It is made so by the security council veto and it is made so by its human rights council which has singled out Israel in approx 50% of its resolutions. I ask you a simple question is Israel the worlds worst violator of human rights? Both Koffi Annan and Ban ki moon have said the HRC has a problem. Zionism once equalled racism according to the UN until it was finally overturned only for the Arab block to bring it up again during a UN conference on racism in my own country. Countries that host holocaust cartoon expos in protest of the Netherlands drawing Muhammed (I never saw the connection either) like to try and pass legislation that calls Israel racist. I can't imagine why a block of countries with some of the worst human rights records in the world might like to play this game. I have said it already I will say it again If Israel is guilty of war crimes the fact that Syria is as well won't make them less culpable. I will also say how can one country be guilty and another not be for the same actions. Syria recently lambasted Israel on human rights in the lasted vote. Tell me that is not playing politics? Despots use the HRC focus on Israel to get away with murder.

Then you say that the London Blitz, the nuking of Japan and indiscriminate bombing of Germany are indeed war crimes.

Quote

Look, I'm not out to "get" you or show you to be a terrible person that we shouldn't interact with. I'm saying that when you're talking about some of the worst acts/coordinated endeavors in modern history, you'd better be careful how you talk about them. Statements like you saying you agree with the firebombing of Dresden or other mass killings are bad, because you're not only saying them, you're saying them with so little context and accurate grasp of history/tactics/morality that it's like listening to a teenage sociopath talking about how the murder of a cheerleading squad would make the world a better place because X, Y and Z.

I am willing to amend that instead of agree with I understand.

Quote

I bring [what is happening with Syria] up now though to show just how arbitrary people’s opinions on this subject [Israel/Palestine] can be.

I don't think the knowledgeable and informed commentators, politicians, citizens and other people involved in the Middle East region are being arbitrary on this particular issue. It's entirely possible to talk about deplore how Palestinians are treated/discriminated against by Arabs while saying that Israeli soldiers and bombs are murdering them in Gaza. One doesn't mean the other doesn't exist and your awareness of people talking of specific regions and the happenings appears to be artificially limited to this thread, which invites comments specifically on Israeli and Palestinean happenings.

You don't get to dictate who is and who isn't a hypocrite by relying only upon your artificial constraints/awareness of what's being said. That's Fox News territory. That's where you DON'T want to be as a person trying to live a good life and make the world a better place.

I'm not saying that Illuyankas is 100% in the clear. I'm saying that there are serious problems in what you are saying beyond the Israeli/Palestinian situation being discussed and that re-evaluating them is a very good idea.

How much knowledge is necessary? I have seen members of the British parliament call for sanctions on Israel and accuse it of war crimes! Google the civilian deaths caused in Iraq and Afghanistan and the pretext that caused them! The controversy of the human rights council is a matter of record as is the dysfunction of the UN security council. The African union has decided that no sitting president may be called before the Hague (apparently its racist). For reasons of our own Bias, political bias, and for political gain we interpret international law as we see fit or we apply it as we see fit.

@Illy-please dont imply I will call you an anti-Semite. I have not once gone that route with your or any else on this forum that I can recall. I only said (and accurately) that their are people in this world who hate Israel as an extension of their hate for Jews or who can see no distinction between Jews and Israel. The Hitler posts are making the rounds in my country, I see the french protests have attacks shulls and Jewish shops. I saw the protest in the UK had swastikas and shouts of from the river to the sea. It does happen in the world but its beneath this forum.

[Illuyankas]

It was more of a disclaimer that antisemitism is not and will never be my intent when critising the state and government of Israel, it wasn't aimed at you. That said, conflating the people you refer to and the people who loathe the actions and not the population is an extremely common tactic I've seen before. And I really don't think you believe as much as a quarter of the pro-Palestinian protests over Europe were based on hating Jews specifically and not Israel the country, do you?

[Tapper]

Quote

I have seen members of the British parliament call for sanctions on Israel and accuse it of war crimes! Google the civilian deaths caused in Iraq and Afghanistan and the pretext that caused them! The controversy of the human rights council is a matter of record as is the dysfunction of the UN security council. The African union has decided that no sitting president may be called before the Hague (apparently its racist). For reasons of our own Bias, political bias, and for political gain we interpret international law as we see fit or we apply it as we see fit.

Not to get involved in the debate, but are you here arguing that because military operations by certain countries in the past decade (well, probably week, with all those drones) caused civilian deaths, those countries should shut up and play dumb when a different country causes civilian deaths through a military operation?

The UN is an imperfect tool, has always been and will always be.
It won't condemn China, it won't intervene in Russia, it will not pursue the USA (and all three haven't signed every document of the UN or don't support all of its institutions, like the The Hague Court). And thus, governments that got out through a veto or by withholding votes on UN issues when it affected themselves may be hypocrits. But even so, isn't the UN working once every 10 conflicts much, much preferable than it never ever working?

But arguably, it is better than nothing, and much of the negativity focuses on UN involvement with international conflict and arms proliferation - which is an important branch, but not the only one. IMF, UNESCO, IFAD are all useful, to say the least.

[amphibian]

D, on 28 July 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

Part of this shift in the perception of non-state political violence I think can be traced to the ending of the Cold War. Beforehand, it was widely assumed that there were two major political systems, capitalism and communism, and non-state actors were judged freedom fighters or terrorists based on whether they fell into the same or different camp as the observer. Moreover, it was assumed that if one of the two systems collapsed in a particular nation state, it would be replaced by the other, e.g. that if a communist state collapsed due to the actions of 'pro-capitalist' freedom fighters, capitalism would replace communism unless the latter system successfully reasserted itself. Groups with ideologies less easy to classify were generally categorised as capitalist-leaning or communist-leaning. Things started changing with the Iranian revolution, as it became more popular to think that there might be a third class of system - theocracy - which might compete with capitalism and communism. But more important was the collapse of communism and the emergence of a broadly 'unipolar' world in which almost all nations converted to some form of capitalism.

I disagree mightily with this, as the usage of terrorism in the modern sense was percolating soon after the Industrial Revolution really caught steam. It took thirty or so years to produce Gavrilo Princip and the sparks that flamed into what we call World War I. Elsewhere in the world, anarchists/terrorists and more -ist groups were using small scale acts of violence to destabilize government and protest violently, particularly in Latin America.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was preceded by their withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was a major event in the arming and training of Islamo-fascist militants. Zia ul-Haq, the Pakistani President in the late 1970s to 1988, was absolutely crucial to this development in the heavy arming of fringe groups through what was shown to be a dumbass long-term foreign policy for the Western world and a terrible short-term and long-term one for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Quote

With communism apparently discredited as a working politico-economic system, theocracy, especially Islamic theocracy, appeared the main remaining competitor. Hence Huntington's 'Clash of Civilisations' thesis and various 'Jihad vs.McWorld' publications in the 1990s.

Huntington's book sold a lot of units and influenced a lot of thinkers, but honestly, it's been tossed aside for the last 15 years. It's too monolithic and too willing to coalesce very different groups into one for the sake of simple talking. This isn't simple and trying to reduce things to simplicity is to lose the all important context and history.

Quote

Now most of the non-state actors using political violence termed 'freedom fighters' would be those in theocracies such as Iran. In the case of some post-'89 dictatorships which retain elements of planned economies, resistance groups have also been termed 'freedom fighters'; but these dictatorships I would argue are either viewed as atavistic remnants of communist totalitarianism or earlier fascism, doomed to eventually die out under pressure from capitalism, or else as capitalist leaning states which will eventually democratise in order to further economic develop themselves. Moreover, with the rise of China, there has been an increased implicit (and sometime less than implicit) cosying up to dictatorships perceived to be moving away from planned economies towards capitalism, even to the extent that some capitalist ideologues in the West have questioned whether democracy is really best for capitalistic economic development.

Sri Lanka has been a democracy since the late 1940s and they've had to deal with the Tamil Tigers (originators of the modern suicide bomber doctrines). Sri Lanka is majority Hindu and so are the Tamil sub-set. This wasn't a Hindu/Muslim or Christian/Muslim or Jewish/Muslim dynamic.

You also ignore that quite a few of the dictators in the world since the early 1900s were put in place, kept in place and supported by the Western governments (and USSR/Russia). Both the capitalists and the communists in other, richer countries wanted the dictators in place. In some places, they still do.

Also, China has been essentially capitalistic in action since the 1970s. They're communist in name only.

Quote

This certainly has been evident in the discourse on Syria - rebels are either construed as naive in believing they can overthrow the Assad state without endangering capitalist order (Assad, after all, may be a dictator, but at least he's a capitalist!) or as nihilists spreading death and lunacy.

That's not quite accurate. The rebels are a large coalition of groups and the most powerful are looking a lot like the ones armed in Afghanistan, Iraq and a few other places that very quickly turned on their Western backers or started formenting crappy versions of totalitarian governments on their areas of control. It's not capitalism that's concerning. It's repeating the terrible decisions of the invaders/onlookers in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq that's the concern.

Quote

The point I would conclude with is that, irrespective of whether any kind of political violence can be regarded as just, that right wing Israeli ideologues have successfully exploited the ambiguous political status of Palestine in a post-Cold war world in which state violence is seen as increasingly acceptable so long as the state is committed to the capitalist system and non-state violence is perceived as having no legitimate political ends when ranged against a capitalist state, even when there are very real issues of exploitation and conflict over resources.

Mostly yes to this.

[amphibian]

Cause, on 28 July 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

Wars are meant to kill people. That we have rules governing how we should kill people is to me absurd. Every war is a crime and will lead to crime.

Fighting almost always has rules. There are explicit and implicit rules in fights from the one person vs. one person to the millions vs. millions. If I have a fistfight with you over you taking my last beer, it is sort of understood that when one of us wins in an exchange of punches, kicks with maybe some grappling going on that the other will be let go rather quickly after showing signs of not wanting to continue further. If I bite your 'nads off over a beer, that's completely over the explicit and implicit lines. Sure, we were fighting, but there are rules to it that we do and should follow.

Scaling it up to an organizational/state level still produces fights with explicit and implicit rules. Violence is costly, both to the deliverer and the recipient. Having the rules helps keep the costs as low as possible and ideally, they work to prevent catastrophic consequences in the short term and long term. Going to war doesn't and shouldn't mean governments/militaries start lobbing nukes at each other. Having rules make eventual peace and possible reconciliation more likely to come faster and smoother.

Quote

So lets also be clear that Total war has not happened since WW2.

Total war still happens today. It's on a small scale, without the state governments vs. state governments driving immense conflicts, but it happens. It's an incredibly shitty practice to engage in, but people still choose to inflict it.

Quote

So to be clear 'war crimes' are the inevitability of war.

I think that there is an extremely strong correlation between war and war crimes, but that having a war does not mean that war crimes have to occur. Even within the violence of a war, there is the possibility of acting so out of scope and acting wrongly that a crime exists, even in a situation where murder and maiming of certain other humans is temporarily legal and encouraged for many. It's a strange concept, but it is a good one, in my estimation.

Quote

How much knowledge is necessary? I have seen members of the British parliament call for sanctions on Israel and accuse it of war crimes! Google the civilian deaths caused in Iraq and Afghanistan and the pretext that caused them! The controversy of the human rights council is a matter of record as is the dysfunction of the UN security council. The African union has decided that no sitting president may be called before the Hague (apparently its racist). For reasons of our own Bias, political bias, and for political gain we interpret international law as we see fit or we apply it as we see fit.

Yes, cases of hypocrites, manipulative idiots using this for political gain and the context-deficient and history-ignorant abound. Do not add to their numbers.

The failures of international law as engaged in by the UN and other organizations is something I've dealt lightly with in a three month long course during law school. We didn't go into things in much depth (aided by my own frustration with the subject and a horrible, horrible professor), but it is so haphazard, ridden with unequal enforcement and contradictory that most of international law has little meaning beyond small treaties and occasional ventures funded by the richer nations and crewed by the poorer ones. This is true even in the economic portions of international law. But the above problems you talk about do not excuse that there are many voices rightly taking to task states and groups like Israel, Boko Haram and many others for committing what are morally reprehensible things in the name of undefined, hazy future objectives that past history has shown little likelihood of succeeding.

You really can't out-race the other side to the bottom in terms of war and violence in the world today without word/pictures/video getting out. That means that holding to an actually good code of conduct is a better idea in the long run, even if it means taking some short term hits (a strategy the United States failed very, very badly with in terms of Iraq/Afghanistan and more in the past). It means that the voices raised in outrage - yes, more so when Israel is involved - are valuable. They do more than just register in ears.

[Imperial Historian]

amphibian, on 28 July 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

Quote

Now most of the non-state actors using political violence termed 'freedom fighters' would be those in theocracies such as Iran. In the case of some post-'89 dictatorships which retain elements of planned economies, resistance groups have also been termed 'freedom fighters'; but these dictatorships I would argue are either viewed as atavistic remnants of communist totalitarianism or earlier fascism, doomed to eventually die out under pressure from capitalism, or else as capitalist leaning states which will eventually democratise in order to further economic develop themselves. Moreover, with the rise of China, there has been an increased implicit (and sometime less than implicit) cosying up to dictatorships perceived to be moving away from planned economies towards capitalism, even to the extent that some capitalist ideologues in the West have questioned whether democracy is really best for capitalistic economic development.

Sri Lanka has been a democracy since the late 1940s and they've had to deal with the Tamil Tigers (originators of the modern suicide bomber doctrines). Sri Lanka is majority Hindu and so are the Tamil sub-set. This wasn't a Hindu/Muslim or Christian/Muslim or Jewish/Muslim dynamic.

Sri Lanka is a majority Buddhist state, with the Tamil minority being majority Hindu. Whilst the Sri Lankan conflict was more the result of ethnic tensions like Rwanda, the influence of religion certainly paid a part. Militant buddhist groups (I know this makes no sense) paid a significant role in stirring the conflict, and since the end of the war are leading to problems with the Muslim and Christian minorities. The abrahamic religions don't have a monopoly on religious conflict.

I'm firmly of the opinion that war crimes by one side cannot justify war crimes by the other, and that war crimes are largely counterproductive in terms of lasting peace, as they just create more implacable enemies. In my opinion Israel would be a lot more secure if half the money they spent on defence was spent on aid, reconstruction and education for the gazan people, and the restrictions on Gaza were lifted. Hamas attacks on civilians is to be deplored, but I can't blame them for trying to fight Israels oppression of Gaza. I somewhat understand the Israeli attitude born from centuries of discrimination against Jewish people, and the desire to be secure, but I do wish that they had taken the lesson from their history that discrimination and oppression is a horrible thing and to be deplored, instead of utilising it to gain 'security'.

[amphibian]

I come from Nepal, where Buddhists are mostly considered Hindus who've decided to follow a certain path of Hinduism, so thank you for correcting me on that.

[Abyss]

Imperial Historian, on 28 July 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

... In my opinion Israel would be a lot more secure if half the money they spent on defence was spent on aid, reconstruction and education for the gazan people, and the restrictions on Gaza were lifted.

In my opinion, your opinion is misguided by the incorrect impression that Israel dropping billions on the Palestinian people would mean a thing to Hamas. Hamas, as an organization, doesn't care about the Palestinians except as a source of money, resources and shelter.

As for those restrictions, Egypt closed their border with Gaza a year ago. Notice the lack of Palestinian indignation about that?

Quote

Hamas attacks on civilians is to be deplored, but I can't blame them for trying to fight Israels oppression of Gaza.

Except that they aren't fighting Israel's oppression of Gaza. That's a convenient excuse given lip service. If Hamas actually gave a crap about the oppressed Palestinians in Gaza, they wouldn't be firing rockets from schools and hospitals knowing full and well exactly what will happen next. So yes, you CAN blame them.

Quote

I somewhat understand the Israeli attitude born from centuries of discrimination against Jewish people, and the desire to be secure, but I do wish that they had taken the lesson from their history that discrimination and oppression is a horrible thing and to be deplored, instead of utilising it to gain 'security'.

Israel and Gaza are not Germany and the European Jews. I could explain the differences but i'm pretty certain you already know them. If Israel wanted to treat the Palestinians the way the Germans treated the Jews, there wouldn't be any Palestinians left. Twenty years ago.

Israel is far from blameless in this mess... the list of things they've could have done different/better is long and growing, but you can stop thinking of Hamas as bold champions of the Palestinian people against the evil Israeli occupiers. Hamas are terrorists. Hamas may kill more Palestinians than Israel ever did. Hamas wants to keep Palestinian women in burkas churning out meals and new recruits.

[Mentalist]

Cause, on 27 July 2014 - 11:25 PM, said:

Darn it I Lost my whole post, as best as I can remember what I was saying

I re-read what I wrote and I don't believe I said or even implied that war crimes don’t exist. Only I wished to suggest that war is closer to being the true crime (though sometimes being unavoidable) rather than any acts committed during them. Further I posit that the definition of a war crime is constantly in flux or at least our interpretation or choice to apply international law is highly subjective

The London Blitz, the nuking of Japan and the indiscriminate bombing of Germany are all at once both war crimes and sound tactics. WW2 was a time of total war when the economies, resources and populations of whole countries were being fed into the war effort. The factory that built war-planes was a target but not the factory worker who built them? Guns kill people, Bombs Kill people! Somehow we have laws governing how they should kill people? Absurd. White phosphorous is both illegal and illegal in war. It’s only a war crime if it accidentally touches and burns human flesh, it is okay to use it mark positions for later shelling .In the US-Russia relations thread Gothos praises the Ukrainian forces for not going the way of the IDF. What he means when a quick check shows that the fighting in one city alone has caused over 500 civilian casualties and both sides have been accused of targeting civilians by human rights watch I have no idea. I posit that you can’t drop bombs in a city without killing a civilian at some point. Since your probably fighting over a city where else would you drop the bombs?

The invasion of Iraq caused 3500-7000 civilian casualties in 2 months. The opening stages of operation ‘enduring freedom’ caused 3000 deaths by coalition bombings alone. The nato bombings of Yugoslavia killed 500-5000 civilians and the nato intervention in Libya killed 60 civilians.

War is tragic and civilians die (Even wars meant to help civilians seem to kill them). To expect otherwise is madness. For Illy or anyone else to ask that IDF soldiers go into Gaza in APCs armed with batons, tazers and stun grenades and fight the good fight bloodlessly is insanity. He has even somehow made Israel’s offer to extend a ceasefire sinister.

Also here are some videos I would love it if someone who speaks Arabic can confirm the translations:
http://youtu.be/g0wJXf2nt4Y - human shields
http://youtu.be/J08GqXMr3YE - human shields
http://youtu.be/eQ6S0-o3uFI - human shields
http://youtu.be/fcrWy3PT6zc - human shields
http://youtu.be/e09uYp7sRrE - embarrassing, ouch
http://youtu.be/5oesBeCFAlg - not this conflict but using an ambulance
http://blog.unwatch....ainst-humanity/ - UN Palestinian ambadassor on war crimes.

http://youtu.be/gqthkdPaa2I - Hamas owned TV
– I would love a first-hand account on this

This is Hammas: https://en.wikipedia...i/Hamas#Charter
Please read the ranting’s of their clerics, the anti-Semitism and the holocaust denial

This is Palestinian Jihad: https://en.wikipedia...nt_in_Palestine
Please notice the flag. Also this is not a fringe group that Hamas can’t control as Illy would have it. They operate schools, mosques and hospitals.


Also Illy this quote

Quote

In January 2004, Hamas leader Yassin said that the group would end armed resistance against Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and that restoring Palestinians' "historical rights" (relating to the 1948 Palestinian exodus) "would be left for future generations."[41] On January 25, 2004, senior Hamas official Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year truce, or hudna, in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state and the complete withdrawal by Israel from the territories captured in the 1967 Six Day War.[41] Al-Rantissi stated that Hamas had come to the conclusion that it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation."[41][42] Israel immediately dismissed al-Rantissi's statements as insincere and a smokescreen for military preparations.[42] Yassin was killed in a targeted killing on March 22, 2004, by an Israeli air strike,[43] and al-Rantisi was killed by a similar air strike on April 18, 2004.[44]

Simply agrees with my point that Hamas won’t give up on east Jerusalem. Did you know that the UN does not even fully recognize Israel’s ownership of even west Jerusalem since it was originally supposed to be governed by the UN in the original 1948 partition plan but they do recognize that Palestine can have the east? Israel’s annexation of east Jerusalem is not recognized because they struck first in 1967 and yet if they had not there would be no Israel. Strangely Russia is gaining ground in its right to annex the Crimean peninsula. International Law is Iron! In any event Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the only holy site in Judaism (last time Jordan and the Palestinians had control they refused Jews access to the temple mount, desecrated it, destroyed about 50 shulls and used Jewish gravestones to line latrines) asking to divide it is the equivalent of ending the peace talks. Also the right of return might as well be code for the destruction of Israel. Do we think that 5 million + Palestinian voters will keep Israel as Israel?

Also in asking for the gaza strip and the west bank and east Jerusalem (ie the entirety of the Palestinian state recognized internationally) and in return giving a ten year truce what they are really saying is they think they need ten years of build up before going after the rest! A phased liberation it’s even spelt out for you. These people don’t want peace. If you think Israel rejecting this magnanimous offer is suprising you are insane.

Replying to the underlined only: there's a growing body of video evidence of terrorists (considered that by me since they've started taking hostages) shelling teh cities they occupy from one end to another to make the destruction seem as actions of Ukrainian government forces. Also, see the immediate appearance of russian propaganda channel LifeNews at the sight of such "fascist atrocities".

The very reason the fighting in Ukraine is still going is precisely BECAUSE Ukrainian government values civilian lives over those of soldiers and refuses to bomb the places occupied by the terrorists into the ground--often at the cost of their own personel.

Also, the conclusions were made by Human Rights Watch Moscow office, so I'm gonna reserve my right to be sceptical, thank you very much.

Re: your position in general. Am I to assume you will then condone the Srebrenica massacre in the Yugoslav wars, ont he basis that "the Bosnian Serbs could not allow any potential combabtants to be left behind them?"

You seem to adapt the idea that when at war, we're allowed to forego basic human values. War dehumanizes us, and while most people here reel from it, you seem to embrace that fact, applauding the most "efficient" decisions of wartie logic, ignoring the way they will be seen through the prism of "human" values.

Suffice it to say, I don't consider that to be a rational position, since dealing with violence through overkill rarely leads to lasting peace and understanding.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 28 July 2014 - 11:17 PM

[Imperial Historian]

I'm not saying hamas and its goals for palestinianx are in anyway acceptable, but Israel has created the perfect situation in which hamas can thrive. If Israel made a significant to address Palestinian concerns I seriously doubt that hamas would have anywhere near as much power. The islamification of Gaza is proceeding apace due to the lack of options and hatred towards Israel that is being exacerbated by indiscriminate bombing. Yes hamas and others would still be bombing Israel if Israel had engaged more peacefully with Gaza, but I suspect they would have considerably less support among Palestinians, and it would be a lot easier to stop them.

Re Nazis I wasn't making that comparison but to the lower level discrimination and limiting of Jewish rights in various communities over the centuries.

[Morgoth]

Abyss, on 28 July 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:

In my opinion, your opinion is misguided by the incorrect impression that Israel dropping billions on the Palestinian people would mean a thing to Hamas. Hamas, as an organization, doesn't care about the Palestinians except as a source of money, resources and shelter.

As for those restrictions, Egypt closed their border with Gaza a year ago. Notice the lack of Palestinian indignation about that?

Any country is well within their rights to close their borders. Egypt is however not occupying Gaza.

[HoosierDaddy]

Morgoth, on 29 July 2014 - 06:02 AM, said:

Abyss, on 28 July 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:

In my opinion, your opinion is misguided by the incorrect impression that Israel dropping billions on the Palestinian people would mean a thing to Hamas. Hamas, as an organization, doesn't care about the Palestinians except as a source of money, resources and shelter.

As for those restrictions, Egypt closed their border with Gaza a year ago. Notice the lack of Palestinian indignation about that?

Any country is well within their rights to close their borders. Egypt is however not occupying Gaza.

Could you expand upon this, Morgy?

The latter point is obvious, but isn't part of the problem Palestinian supply lines with Egypt? If it isn't with Gaza is it with the West Bank? And if so, do we consider Palestinian Israel and the West Bank two separate entities?

Meh. I try to stay out of this. It's a fucktardian situation of the highest calibre.

[Morgoth]

Sure, it is a serious problem for the citizens of Gaza that they cannot trade with Egypt. It is also a serious problem for them not being able to trade with Israel (probably more so). All the same, Israel closing their borders to a hostile country makes sense in a way, though in the long run it is much more beneficial to their security to build up friendly relations through trade.

However, Gaza is not landlocked. They could trade with anyone in the world, not to mention receive proper aid, if Israel didn't block their access to the sea. Or for that matter, blockade their airspace.

[D'iversify]

HoosierDaddy, on 29 July 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 29 July 2014 - 06:02 AM, said:

Abyss, on 28 July 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:

In my opinion, your opinion is misguided by the incorrect impression that Israel dropping billions on the Palestinian people would mean a thing to Hamas. Hamas, as an organization, doesn't care about the Palestinians except as a source of money, resources and shelter.

As for those restrictions, Egypt closed their border with Gaza a year ago. Notice the lack of Palestinian indignation about that?

Any country is well within their rights to close their borders. Egypt is however not occupying Gaza.

Could you expand upon this, Morgy?

The latter point is obvious, but isn't part of the problem Palestinian supply lines with Egypt? If it isn't with Gaza is it with the West Bank? And if so, do we consider Palestinian Israel and the West Bank two separate entities?

Meh. I try to stay out of this. It's a fucktardian situation of the highest calibre.

Gaza and the West Bank are pretty much separated by Israel proper; Gaza is a tiny coastal strip in the south-west, with its southern border being with Egypt, the West Bank is to the east of Israel proper and borders on its eastern side with Jordan. There are no Palestinian supply lines between Gaza and the West Bank and the two parts of Palestine are controlled by different factions, Hamas in Gaza, Fatah in the West Bank. Fatah is an ostensibly secular movement, whereas Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. The two fought a brief war in 2006-ish when Hamas won the Palestinian election, a result Fatah, with the implict approval of much of the international community, rejected; Hamas seized Gaza but Fatah remained in control of the West Bank and controls Palestine's international representation and official government. Since the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who were generally supportive of Hamas, the new al-Sisi regime has put significant controls on border traffic between Egypt and Gaza on account of its hostility to any groups affiliated with the MB. This along with the loss of Iranian funding following Hamas' pledged support for Syrian Sunni rebels, left Hamas in a politically weakened position and was the major motive in its seeking a unity accord with Fatah, which was declared shortly before the latest conflict. But whilst Fatah and Hamas were still at odds, Hamas did not have uniform support against Egypt's decision to close its border with Gaza, as ideologically many members of Fatah are closer to the new Egyptian government than they are to Hamas or the MB.

[Cause]

Okay I can't believe I am still having to defend myself. I think I have been clear. I don't condone war crimes! I don't believe war condones war crimes. I believe war crimes are an inevitability of war. I also believe how we perceive them comes down to our own views, our bias, our governments bias, and power. I have pointed out how every war in the past decade and longer has caused civilian casualties no matter the 'noble' intent of the war. NATO's peacekeeping efforts kill civilians! There is a world of OBVIOUS difference between a Nazi concentration or death camp and the carpet bombing of German factories that took place in WW2 though both are tragic. There is a world of difference between a suicide bomber, or a rocket fired indiscriminately at a city and a targeted strike at a enemy position which will nevertheless cause collateral damage (one of those cool buzz words for kill people). By the letter of the law America, UK half of Nato, Russia, Syria and probably every army who has fought in an engagement since WW2 is guilty of war crimes. We can debate the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law vs the intent for hours.

My position in short as it applies to this thread -Israel can't fight Hamas without civilian casualties, Israel can't be expected not to fight Hamas as they build tunnels into Israel and fire rockets at it.

@Tapper-The law applies to all or no one. Hypocrisy is one of the worst flaws in humanity. I don't suggest Israel can't be criticised or is without blemish. I suggest that the UK can't put Israeli generals before the Hague unless their own generals stand beside them. If Israel is committing war crimes it sets the precedence that the UK and America etc etc etc did as well. International law as it stands now is a joke.

@Illy- I don't believe you’re an anti-Semite. I will agree many Jews/Israelis use the anti-Semitism play to shut down opponents far more than is called for. I also say that anti-Semitism does occur in these arguments all the time. I have said in the racism thread that I think many Jews are far too on watch for anti-Semitism and Holocaust the sequel. Every person I know who posts a picture of the smashed Jewish business in France and shows the broken glass and compares it to Kristallnacht is as guilty of Hyperbole as anyone who calls Gaza a concentration or death camp. Still you better believe that I consider the protests in France and their outcomes worrying. Hitler posts are making the rounds in my country, a pro-Israel rally that is scheduled for next month in my country has been likened a Nazi rally by some political parties in my country. They commented on a rally that has not even happened yet! People lose perspective in these fights and often people cross the line. I don't think it’s your duty to confirm you’re not an anti-Semite only that it’s all of our duties to debate respectfully. I also don't think that the anti-Semitism angle should be dismissed out of hand either.

@Mentalllist- Accusations of Bias, differences of opinion, the terrible actions of terrorists, questioning the impartiality of an NGO dedicated to human rights. I know very little of the Ukrainian conflict. A few months ago a top story in my country was the vandalism of a few cars in Jerusalem. A civil war in the Ukraine warrants no coverage apparently. Seriously I currently get most of my coverage from Wikipedia.

I doubt the Ukrainian government or its armed forces are behaving in a barbaric manner, I also doubt they have not killed a civilian yet. I also suspect that a group such as HRW can’t not see war crimes in every war they enter into. As for their bias, they once hired a nazi collector (some say sympathiser) to monitor the Israel situation, they raise funds in Saudi Arabia by pointing out how often they criticise Israel, and their own former founder says they are biased against Israel. None of this will clear Israel it only again leads back to my point just how subjective all of this can be.

Re the Blockade:
A tricky situation. Israel ended the occupation of Gaza and there was no blockade. Then the Palestinians voted in Hamas, civil war broke out and Israel began a blockade. We can talk at length if it was morally dubious for Israel to act when the elections did not go their way. Still Hamas is hostile and unreasonable and Israel must act in its own interest. I maintain that Illy betrayed his own argument when he posts a quote by Hamas that offers a ten year ceasefire for Israel handing over all of the Palestinian territory and speaks of a phased liberation. Hamas are a terrorist organization. Israel blockades them because they have been building up rockets and tunnels for years. Egypt blockades them because they don’t trust Hamas either and they are now supporting terrorist groups in the Sinai. Hamas once caused a fuel crisis in Gaza because they refused to accept petrol from Israel and Egypt chocked of their illicit supply and demand Hamas trade for it above board. They do not have Palestinians interests at heart, they are anti-Israel. Israel still provides their power, they give them medical aid and food even as we speak. They blockade weapons. They blockade concrete (they get flack for this) and yet Hamas has built dozens of Km long tunnels lined with concrete into Israel that Illy says are bomb proof but they can’t build bomb shelters? I have said it already, they eat better, have better access to medicine, higher employment (though I will admit it’s not good) and a better life expectancy than my own and half the countries of the world. Israel is not choking the life’s blood from Gaza. Letting them have control of the airspace or unrestricted ports would make the blockade silly. Do we really think Hamas won’t buy tanks or better rockets if they could? A martin Luther or Ghandi in Gaza would accomplish more in a year then 50 years of armed ‘resistance’ have gotten the Palestinians.

Criticism of Israel:
I believe Israel owns Jerusalem and they should get to keep it. I believe Gaza and the West bank should be handed to the PLO. I think one day this will be achieved. Israel forcibly removed all Israeli settlers in Gaza in 2005 and I hope one day they do the same in the west bank.
The one point where Israel deserves criticism I feel is the continual building of settlements in the West bank. I don’t understand why they still allow it, or why they demolish some one month and build more elsewhere the next. I can only hope it’s some kind of political game of one upsmanship re negotiations then it is any really attempt to annex the west bank.

I feel the following quote is a bit trite and over used but I think it’s as close to the truth as any other ‘if the Palestinians put down their arms there would be no war, If Israel puts down its arms there would be no more Israel’

I don’t think a peaceful PLO, Hamas or Fatah would magically see Israel just disengage from the west bank and peace will reign for all eternity. I do believe it is the first best step down that path.

Israel must have secure borders. A country that has the past it does thinks very differently in regards to this matter than most. A Gaza strip with all the artillery and tanks it can have is inconceivable to Israel. We like to think the world marches forward and tomorrow is better than yesterday. WW3 is inconceivable. That Egypt, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia or Jordan will attack Israel again seems unlikely and yet look at the Middle East. Syrian civil war, Hezbollah, ISIS, the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Israels security concerns are not paranoid delusion.

This post has been edited by Cause: 29 July 2014 - 09:51 AM

[D'iversify]

Cause, on 29 July 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Criticism of Israel:
I believe Israel owns Jerusalem and they should get to keep it.

I think I'm on board with you about most things you've said in this post except for this. East Jerusalem is, as I understand it, still majority Palestinian (as of 2008 57%), was designated Arab by the UN in 1947, is outside the pre-'67 Israeli borders and is claimed by the PLO as their capital. I agree that in any shared capital scenario that free access to Jewish religious sites in the East (and Muslim sites in the West) for the city's residents msut be guaranteed as a preliminary. But on what basis do you argue for Israel being granted de jure and internationally recognised control of the whole city as part of a peace agreement?

[Cause]

Jerusalem is a nonsensical mess of legal trouble.

It was supposed to be a UN governed enclave that belonged to neither side. The 1948 war ruined the two state solution and Israel ended up with more territory than it originally was supposed to have. As the defender Israel was allowed to keep any land gained. Egypt then gained control of Gaza and Jordan the west bank and east Jerusalem. In 1967 as Arab forces mobilised to attack Israel again, Israel's air-force struck pre-emptively and wiped out the Egyptian air-force and others. Israel gained the Sinai (which they traded back to Egypt for a peace agreement), Gaza, east Jerusalem, the west bank and the Golan heights. International law now regards Israel as the aggressor for the pre-emptive strike and as such by law they may not annex any land. Israel has formally annexed the Golan heights (my understanding is that they regard the heights back in Syria heights as a major security risk. Edit- in 1967 they offered to return it for a peace agreement and were rejected, now they refuse to give it up) and east Jerusalem but both are unrecognised. In fact I believe the UN still does not 100% recognize Israels claim to west Jerusalem since it was originally meant to be a UN enclave.

In twenty years of Jordanian rule no Jew was allowed to visit the temple mount despite Jordan agreeing in theory to provide free access.

As for population demographics it all comes down to where you draw the line and is a bit arbitrary.

I think it gets even more complex with some countries recognizing it, others not. Some recognize it as the capital of palestine under occupation. I think at some points Israel has denied annexing it and then denied denying it. In any event its under Israel civil jurisdiction not the military and the supreme court of Israel ruled its an integral part of Israel and irrespective of position must be governed as if it is Israeli soil. I think it remains one of the most intransigent points in negotiations. I would say their comes a point where the de facto situation is the situation and an open city governed by the UN or whathave you is unlikely to be able to exist in reality.

In any event how the UN can claim simultaneously that Israel has not right to west jerusalem but can occupy the east (which is Palestinian land) is I think incredibly confusing. https://en.wikipedia...ns_on_Jerusalem

The temple mount today:

Quote

An Islamic Waqf has managed the Temple Mount continuously since the Muslim reconquest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1187. On June 7, 1967, soon after Israel had taken control of the area during the Six-Day War, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol assured that "no harm whatsoever shall come to the places sacred to all religions". Together with the extension of Israeli jurisdiction and administration over east Jerusalem, the Knesset passed the Preservation of the Holy Places Law,[35] ensuring protection of the Holy Places against desecration, as well as freedom of access thereto.[36] Israel agreed to leave administration of the site in the hands of the Waqf.

Although freedom of access was enshrined in the law, as a security measure, the Israeli government currently enforces a ban on non-Muslim prayer on the site. Non-Muslims who are observed praying on the site are subject to expulsion by the police.[37] At various times, when there is fear of Arab rioting upon the mount resulting in throwing stones from above towards the Western Wall Plaza, Israel has prevented Muslim men under 45 from praying in the compound, citing these concerns.[38] Sometimes such restrictions have coincided with Friday prayers during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.[39] Normally, West Bank Palestinians are allowed access to Jerusalem only during Islamic holidays, with access usually restricted to men over 35 and women of any age eligible for permits to enter the city.[40] Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, which because of Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, hold Israeli permanent residency cards, and Israeli Arabs, are permitted unrestricted access to the Temple Mount.

Not perfect but not heavy handed

This post has been edited by Cause: 29 July 2014 - 11:02 AM