[Anamehuskeene]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yes fatah was bad but the Hamas rocket fire at Israeli civilians was not an unknown at the time of the vote. Nor was it the most important issue. To use an example for American history, it was like backing Boston's Sons of Liberty (who were using terrorist acts against British tax collectors) against the British Crown. Yes, the Sons of Liberty were tar and feathering British tax collectors, but the acts of the British government overall were worse.

[Retapleapse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hamas was mostly elected, not for the stance on terror and Israel, That and Fatah was already sponsoring attacks on Israel. This led to the Kill teh joos plank of the Hamas platform being a non-issue for the electorate.

[layevymed]

Originally posted by BeBro
I think it's pretty shitty. Yes, there are security concerns, but with that argument you could justify anything. I'd accept it as temporary thing in case of an acute and concrete threat, but not as permanent solution because of the general situation. This is the real crux of the matter. There are security concerns; obviously Israel must take steps to protect its citizens. The problem is that those security concerns are used to justify any policy, and any criticism of that policy is interpreted by the pro-Israeli crowd as a rejection of the security concerns.

It's most clear in the case of the wall. Has the wall stopped instances of terrorism? Probably. Does it exist for a legitimate security reason? There is a valid argument to be made that it does. The problem is that it exists for other reasons, too. If security had been the only issue, it could easily have been built on the Green Line and accomplished that. The wall, however, snakes and meanders improbably through Palestinian land, dividing people from their farms, villages from each other, and generally snipping away valuable areas of land in the Palestinian territories. When this is criticized, its defenders counter that the critics must obviously be pro-suicide bombing.

It's really no different here: security concerns used as carte blanche to advance certain obvious aims -

“Think of the road itself as a settlement,” he said, “part of the conscious effort to change the character of the area, giving it an Israeli stamp. The point was to make it impossible for Israel ever to return certain parts of the land.

[Wezfyowk]

Originally posted by Wezil
To collectively punish a population for the actions of their elected government is reasonable imho if that government is engaged in attempting to kill innocent and random civilians in my country. The Fourth Geneva Convention disagrees

Article 33
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

[Enrivaanonock]

Israel needs to be on that list in the thread about words often spelled incorrectly. Israelian, I think that's wrong, too. If it's not, it's just probably a new term to me. Like Mr Fun's AmerIndian, rather than Stinking Red Savage.

[fissasste]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Reducing a citizenry to second class because of violence by a subset of the population is never proportional and just begets more hard feelings, more violence, and more symphathy with those engaged in violent behavior. It's not a subset of the population. In Gaza it's the governament. If the leaders of the people don't want to end the hostilities of a part of the population, then there's nothing Israel can do but make the entire nation responsible.

If people from Belgium start detonating bombs in Holland, start shooting rockets into dutch territory, and their governament keeps refusing to stop the hostilities, then I assure you that we, the dutch, can't do anything but close the border with belgium and take action inside Belgium to end the hostilities.

If you deny that, then you deny nations the right to protect themselves.
And use force to protect yourself is unpleasant, and as a matter of fact, I hate war and violence. But if that's what needs to be done, then it needs to be done.
And Israel is restraining itself quite a bit for a nation that's unders attack for 60 years already, and has the power to end the palestinian problem within weeks by force.

Be fair. The other choice was Fatah.

And even out of two evil choises, they were able to pick the worst option.
But you're right, the palestinians are victims of their own leaders, and of all arabian/muslim leaders, who use them as a playcard.

But we can't blame Israel for those leaders.

It's sad when all you care about it winning the war.

I don't care about winning the war.
I care about ENDING the war.
And a war will only end when there's a clear winner.
Certainly in backwards territories like the Middle East.

I think it's pretty shitty. Yes, there are security concerns, but with that argument you could justify anything.

Nobody is trying to justify 'anything' with security concerns.

I'd accept it as temporary thing in case of an acute and concrete threat, but not as permanent solution because of the general situation.

A permanent solution is better leaders in the muslim world, and an end of hate indoctrination against Israel.
But that's on in the hands of Israel.

[q]The problem is the Israelis treating the Palestinians like second class citizens - because they do consider them to be second class citizens (or rather, not citizens at all, of course). /q]

There's a history of problems between those 'people'.
That can't be erased during war.
First peace must be signed and a true intention from the palestinians to not 'push the Israelians into the sea'. Only then the Israelians can start to learn to treath the palestinians as first class citizen.
One cannot both hate a nation, and try to exterminate it, and try to pluck the fruits of that nation.

Hamas was mostly elected, not for the stance on terror and Israel, but because of Fatah's legendary corruption and the need for social services, which Hamas was already providing.

So?
What difference does that make for Israel?

Let's consider some of your "examples" of violence against Israel, 1956 and 1967. Both times, Israel started the war. Some may consider violence and war justified for closing the Straights of Tiran, but regardless, Israel initiated the violence in these cases.

Israel only 'started the violence' in 1967.
And it had to because their main access to resources and food was blocked.
One could claim that a blockade all by itself is already an act of war, btw.

It is beyond question. In 1981, Israel launched an offensive war, in response to PLO shelling of Israel, that was in turn a response to Israel air strikes into Lebanon, which was a reprisal for an attempted assassination carried out by the Abu Nidal organization. "Abu Nidal, abu shmidal. We need to screw PLO!" was Israel's response.

Yes, Israel has started wars. So, what's your point?
It's the only democracy and the only free nation and the only place for Jews in the entire world.
They're in the mids of many nations that hate them and waged war on them before.

It's clear that there's a history of war. And we all agree that the war must end.
But it's also clear that the only reason for Israel to wage war is self protection.
If all groups in the ME stop their aggression, both in words and in deeds, towards Israel, there's no need for self protection for the Israelians anymore.

It's not too much to ask the big majority to cease their aggression first, before the small majority can lay down their arms.

When I'm in a dark street, surrounded by 10 big dudes who hold their knifes towards me and try to rob me, nobody can expect me to trow away my gun first. No, first the 10 big guys with the knifes must stop their attempts to robe me.

And when some of them attack me, nobody can blame me if I shoot two.
And maybe I get a bit nervous and shoot another 1 because I get the feeling that they're trying to attack me again.

In 1948, Israel was every bit as responsible for the war as the other countries. It was much less a war of all Arab countries against Israel as it was of all countries against Palestine, including Israel. Israel had a secret agreement with Tranjordan, which has come out, to divide Palestine between them. It was also a war with Arab states against each other, as one of Egypt's columns was aimed straight at Transjorden. Lebanon's [i]Christian[i] armies were only occupying the part of Palestine that was assigned to the Arabs. Syria tried to seize a part of Israel that the French maps had assigned to Syria. While at the conclusion of the first truce, all sides resumed fighting, it was Israel that violated the 2nd and 3rd truces.

yeah, sure.
Israel was to blame as well.
that we disagree about the interpretation of the facts, ok, I can accept that.
But you now even try to twist the facts.

[YmolafBp]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I realize that the issue was collective punishment's rightness. And I don't think it is really right to punish a population for their elected government's positions. Sometimes it may be somewhat justified for certain pragmatic reasons, but it is never morally justified, IMO. After all, there are probably plenty of people who didn't vote for the government who are also being punished for simply being in the wrong country. I hope you will then be logically consistent when you get around to answering my question re WWII bombing by allies...

[mr.nemo]

I think that things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombings of Germany can be justified on pragmatic reasons (the atom bombs because an invasion would have cost more lives), but they were not morally ok. Of course you may have to end up choosing between two immoral acts, but that doesn't mean the choice ends up being a moral one as a result.

I don't think that's a tenable distinction.

[XYTommy]

Originally posted by CyberShy
You talk about proportional?
I'd say that after the decades of violence against Israel, both from nations (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1991) and terrorists (1st intifada, 2nd intifada, Hamas Gaza) Israel's reaction is still quite proportional.

[DINAKuncher]

I mean the distinction between "what you ought to do" and "what is right and wrong".

[Babposa]

Originally posted by Wezil
Let me know when the pals even come close to complying with the GC. Oh great, this again. Let's trot out the whole "they break it, so we can too" line of reasoning. You must likewise be pro-torture - it's only consistent.

They can't comply with that article of the GC anyways - the Israelis aren't "protected persons." That part of the Geneva conventions is about state conduct in occupied territories. It's not even relevant to how Palestinians treat Israelis.

Any at any rate we're back to "the pals" as a collective proxy for terrorists. Did you learn anything at all by reading that excerpt of the GC?

[idertedype]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Given the vast numbers of attacks every where Palestinians are allowed it is only common sense that Palestinians, who are foreign nationals, should not be allowed to use the roads as citizens. This is a common sense approach to legitimate security concerns which have proven to be needed all to often.

[yarita]

Originally posted by Wezil
I mean really, by that definition the wartime bombings were war crimes. I say again When did we start talking about wartime bombings? I cited a specific article to refute the assertion that collective punishment was acceptable or just if a democratic government was in place, by showing that, according to generally recognized international law, it is not. The fact that one's government is elected does not give anybody the right to collectively punish the citizenry for the actions of the leadership.

I'm not even talking about wartime, or bombings, or the validity of the Geneva Conventions as a whole. No wonder you're bored - you're having a conversation with yourself.

[assonomaf]

Originally posted by Wezil
Post #34. Please try and keep up. Why do you think I care? I responded to this, and this only.

To collectively punish a population for the actions of their elected government is reasonable imho if that government is engaged in attempting to kill innocent and random civilians in my country. And had America been on the losing side of WWII, I'd sure Dresden, et al. would have been prosecuted as war crimes. They certainly would be if they were done today. Times change? OMG! Sound the alarm!

[Seeseeskeva]

Originally posted by Wezil
So you admit you entered the discussion mid-stream but I'm the one that was having a conversation with myself? Nobody forced you to respond, but if you are going to respond, it should at least be relevant.

[8Uxtkz7F]

chegitz guevara
So violence is acceptable if it's from your side? Nice Christian you are. In any event, you said Israel was attacked in 1967. I am contradicting you here with reality.

1. The blockade was a declaration of war. Israel started the violence, it didn't start the war of 1967. Claiming that Israel 'started' the war of 1967 can only be funded by lawyer fundamentalism. Yes, it started the violence, but it didn't start the war.

2. I putted 'started the violence' between ''

3. Christianity isn't against violence. If violence is needed to defend the weak or punish the criminals, then then that's a pitty, but not to be not done.

My point is that when you say that the Arabs started every war, you were talking out your ass.

No, what I said is that Israel has been threathened by surrounding nations and terrorists for 60 years.
It's existence has been subject of 'debate', terror and war for 60 years.
That's what I said.

#1, it's not the only democracy. Cyprus, Lebanon, and Turkey are all democracies in the region. Iraq and Iran were until the U.S. overthrew their governments in the 50s and 60s.

I don't consider Cyprus and Turkey arabic nations. But that's up for debate. I don't consider Lebanon a real democracy.

As for the only place for Jews, that's true, but only because they stole someone else's country.

Whoms country? It was english.
And before jews and arabs started to immigrate it in the 19th century about nobody lived there, of which 50% was jewish and 50% arabic.

Do you know the history of Israel / Palestine?
It's never been a 'palestinian' state.

98% of the ancestors of the current population came from other regions of the world, originally. Not only the jews, but also the palestinians and the arabas.

[yQvpyNt3]

Originally posted by Wezil


Let me know when the pals even come close to complying with the GC. Which Palestinians? The Geneva convention is binding on State signatories. Israel is a signatory, and thus bound by the Geneva Convention.

As for any Palestinian entity:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?...rm&id=375&ps=P

Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council "that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto".

On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".