Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think Israels greatest fear is some kind of biological or chemical attack on one of their cities - Don't you think Gaza under the rule of hamas makes that more likely?

I'm gonna say an Iranian nuke probably beats that. Hamas has trouble getting together infrastructure to smuggle food. The requirements to create a viable bio-weapon are orders of magnitude larger.

Let me spell it out for you: To be a viable threat to Israel, you'd need to be able to inflict casualties in the mid to low thousands, at least. Hamas on it's best day might be able to manage a few hundred. That's why they keep them, since their presence keeps the ultra conservatives in power in Israel, without any serious risk. They're not going to kill the scary, dangerous group that keeps their ballot boxes full.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The name of the image tells me it is the Beirut barracks bombing in the 1980's. Don't really see how it is relevant here, since it is highly unlikely Hamas could pull something like that off. The Beirut bombing was conducted either by Hezbollah or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, both of those organisations are vastly more dangerous and capable than Hamas is.

The attack was basically carried out at the behest of Iran by a group that is basically a foreign front of Hezbollah. The group has now split from Hezbollah and is commonly known as Islamic Jihad.

That said, Hezbollah is certainly not more dangerous than Hamas, depending on how you define dangerous. Hezbollah is certainly more competent, but Hezbollah is also a lot more moral. As an organization they reject the targeting of civilians who are not affiliated with the state. An military barracks is in their eyes a valid target because it is a military facility. A court house is a valid target because it is a state building. An apartment complex is not a valid target. For example Hezbollah denounced the 9/11 attacks as "barbaric" because it explicitly targeted civilians.

Hezbollah is also an organization that can be reasoned and negotiated with since they're kind of the opposite of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that dabbles in state politics. Hezbollah is a political party that dabbles in terrorism (the former being the primary reason Hezbollah is not listed as a terrorist group by some countries).

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think Israels greatest fear is some kind of biological or chemical attack on one of their cities - Don't you think Gaza under the rule of hamas makes that more likely?

I'm gonna say an Iranian nuke probably beats that. Hamas has trouble getting together infrastructure to smuggle food. The requirements to create a viable bio-weapon are orders of magnitude larger.

Let me spell it out for you: To be a viable threat to Israel, you'd need to be able to inflict casualties in the mid to low thousands, at least. Hamas on it's best day might be able to manage a few hundred. That's why they keep them, since their presence keeps the ultra conservatives in power in Israel, without any serious risk. They're not going to kill the scary, dangerous group that keeps their ballot boxes full.

Gaza with them burning out the fuel pipe can barely sustain fuel and gas yet alone build chemical or bio weapons.

Plus they need special, rather thought out ways of delivery. Even if someone provided blue prints etx. Building them would be a task. There not gonna be simple designs.

They do not have access to tons of advanced metals, work shops and ability to manufacture high grade alloys.

Unlikely they ever develop them. Even then may not use them. There not out right intrested in suicide which a chemical strike would being on them.

Iran nuke definitely bigger threqt by a mile.

Then you just run into the issue that Mossad doesn't even think Iran has an active weapons program (something Mossad purposefully leaked via South Africa in 2014 as part of their ongoing feud with Benjamin Netanyahu). All evidence points to Iran abandoning active weaponization efforts in 2003-2006 and then giving up even passive interest in 2009.

The specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon is just fear mongering absent evidence. Iraq 2.0.

 jhe90 wrote:
They do not have access to tons of advanced metals, work shops and ability to manufacture high grade alloys.

They could, conceivably go with a primitive anthrax delivery system if they could generate enough anthrax, that is. All you really need there is basically a hollow ceramic shell that breaks open just after the explosive detonates to spread it over a wide area, but that's still a stunningly sub par weapon. You'd be able to expose maybe a few dozen people, and anthrax isn't something that spreads between people as effectively as ebola and can be treated with ordinary antibiotics.

I never got the Iranian nuclear fearmongering anyway. So what if they get a nuclear weapon? It is not like they are crazy enough to use them. Israel has nuclear weapons of its own as well, so it has nothing to worry about.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
They do not have access to tons of advanced metals, work shops and ability to manufacture high grade alloys.

They could, conceivably go with a primitive anthrax delivery system if they could generate enough anthrax, that is. All you really need there is basically a hollow ceramic shell that breaks open just after the explosive detonates to spread it over a wide area, but that's still a stunningly sub par weapon. You'd be able to expose maybe a few dozen people, and anthrax isn't something that spreads between people as effectively as ebola and can be treated with ordinary antibiotics.

Maybe but that's not exactly VX. There's probbly some more potent cures available too, to counter the stuff developed for military.

OK.. Chlorine and mustard... But they need careful delivery and they a not bot even have the resources to make the gas.

And the problem comes.. The reaction from Israel would make cast Lead, Protective Edge or any other campaigns look like a picnic with tea in the park. If thr could prove they used a legally WMD.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I never got the Iranian nuclear fearmongering anyway. So what if they get a nuclear weapon? It is not like they are crazy enough to use them. Israel has nuclear weapons of its own as well, so it has nothing to worry about.

Iran may not, but they could give/sell to those who would.

Wouldn’t even need to be an actual nuke. Just packing a bit of uranium into a regular bomb can make a dirty bomb. Even if Iron Dome got the rocket the uranium would get spread into the air. Same with any sort of explosive device, suicide bombers, IEDs, etc...

So Palestine is now demanding the ICC launch a full investigation over the Isreali settlement building, land appropriations and the recent violence in Gaza. Wonder how that's going to go? Especially as Israel for some reason isn't even a member.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44214088

Edit; tidying language and adding link.

It is a bit like a Frenchman in Belgium calling the British police because a German national stole his baguette.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is a bit like a Frenchman in Belgium calling the British police because a German national stole his baguette.

Basically this minus a country or two. Really all the ICC can do is what it does all the time. Call Israel a naughty boy, which will be ignored in Israel and by Israel's supporters.

 ingtaer wrote:
So Palestine is now demanding the ICC launch a full investigation over the Isreali settlement building, land appropriations and the recent violence in Gaza. Wonder how that's going to go? Especially as Israel for some reason isn't even a member.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44214088

Edit; tidying language and adding link.

Even if they take case and decide...

They have no ability to enforce there edict and verdict without the support of other nations.

So unless they can convince them to side with them, back them and enforce the verdict. It's just paper and words. Not anything solid or enforced.

Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.

I think the managed to successfully condamned the US for some putsh in central america a few years back to which the US has simply answered ''zog off'' and zog off they did. If you like to file paperwork and get bragging rights, it's the perfect organisation for you (plus, most of the time, the defendant won't even care to show up or present a defense).

epronovost wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.

I think the managed to successfully condamned the US for some putsh in central america a few years back to which the US has simply answered ''zog off'' and zog off they did. If you like to file paperwork and get bragging rights, it's the perfect organisation for you (plus, most of the time, the defendant won't even care to show up or present a defense).

The PA doesn't have much to show in the way of bragging rights, so they'll take any chance.

UN, ICC, whatever NGO they can convince to toe their line, etc. It's all part of the victim narrative. Israel doesn't really bother now because they have the free get out of jail card from papa US and mama Holocaust guilt. They used to, but they barely try at this stage.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.

To be fair to the UN, they actually do a lot of great work, especially in food provision, vaccines, education assistance, etc. Low visibility, high impact basic social stuff that doesnt get headlines but does save millions of lives, and serves as a hub for many negotiation efforts. It is intentionally militarily toothless howeever, and the big 5 saw to that.

epronovost wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.

I think the managed to successfully condamned the US for some putsh in central america a few years back to which the US has simply answered ''zog off'' and zog off they did. If you like to file paperwork and get bragging rights, it's the perfect organisation for you (plus, most of the time, the defendant won't even care to show up or present a defense).

You are probably thinking of the ICJ here. The ICJ adjudicates in disputes between countries, while the ICC prosecutes crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC does not prosecute countries, only individuals. Overall, the ICJ is a bit less useless than the ICC is.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.

To be fair to the UN, they actually do a lot of great work, especially in food provision, vaccines, education assistance, etc. Low visibility, high impact basic social stuff that doesnt get headlines but does save millions of lives, and serves as a hub for many negotiation efforts. It is intentionally militarily toothless howeever, and the big 5 saw to that.

Oh yeah, the UN is far from useless, it does a lot of good work. I did not want to imply it doesn't. It just fails miserably in its primary mission to keep peace and maintain international order most of the time, unless it involves conflict in countries that nobody cares about and that do not have resources for the great powers to fight over. The UN only gets the military teeth it needs when the great powers all agree with it, and since most conflicts in the world directly or indirectly involve the great powers, they rarely do. But the UN does do a lot of important humanitarian work and ensures that the great powers at least keep talking to each other, along with a whole lot of other stuff in all kinds of different areas. The ICC does not have any such secondary functions to make it useful.

Yeah, the UN really should just amend its charter to be an international relief aid organization, because that is all they can really do.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.

I think they managed the serbian guy who killed himself in court?

Granted he also had no real state power so similar to a Africa case.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.

I think they managed the serbian guy who killed himself in court?

That was an ad-hoc tribunal set up for war criminals of former Yugoslavia, very much like Nuremberg after WW2.

The ICC was set up later, the idea being of a permanent structure to judge precisely these type of cases, but with many heavyweights opting out (either not signing in or withdrawing later on) like the US, Russia, Israel (obviously), China.... it's toothless. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia OTOH was set up with a security council decision which makes it much more of a real court.

jouso wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.

I think they managed the serbian guy who killed himself in court?

That was an ad-hoc tribunal set up for war criminals of former Yugoslavia, very much like Nuremberg after WW2.

The ICC was set up later, the idea being of a permanent structure to judge precisely these type of cases, but with many heavyweights opting out (either not signing in or withdrawing later on) like the US, Russia, Israel (obviously), China.... it's toothless. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia OTOH was set up with a security council decision which makes it much more of a real court.

Oh, so it's basically completely useless in regards to serious international business, without UN and by extension the main powers military and economic...

At this point then its what... A posturing tool for nations who cannot have ernough money and power to being the UN in?

 jhe90 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.

I think they managed the serbian guy who killed himself in court?

That was an ad-hoc tribunal set up for war criminals of former Yugoslavia, very much like Nuremberg after WW2.

The ICC was set up later, the idea being of a permanent structure to judge precisely these type of cases, but with many heavyweights opting out (either not signing in or withdrawing later on) like the US, Russia, Israel (obviously), China.... it's toothless. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia OTOH was set up with a security council decision which makes it much more of a real court.

Oh, so it's basically completely useless in regards to serious international business, without UN and by extension the main powers military and economic...

It was made BY the UN, and at one point it had the US, Russia and Israel on board.

Then they decided that maybe they didn't like the idea of at one point being at the ugly end of an international court they couldn't control and withdrew.

jouso wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.

I think they managed the serbian guy who killed himself in court?

That was an ad-hoc tribunal set up for war criminals of former Yugoslavia, very much like Nuremberg after WW2.

The ICC was set up later, the idea being of a permanent structure to judge precisely these type of cases, but with many heavyweights opting out (either not signing in or withdrawing later on) like the US, Russia, Israel (obviously), China.... it's toothless. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia OTOH was set up with a security council decision which makes it much more of a real court.

Oh, so it's basically completely useless in regards to serious international business, without UN and by extension the main powers military and economic...

It was made BY the UN, and at one point it had the US, Russia and Israel on board.

Then they decided that maybe they didn't like the idea of at one point being at the ugly end of an international court they couldn't control and withdrew.

Lets be honest, also you only join the UN etc for own benefits. NATO, EU, ICC, Commonwealth.

everyone is member because they represent benefits or advantages,

now if it ceases to be... well why pay the membership fees and responsibilities.

jouso wrote:

Then they decided that maybe they didn't like the idea of at one point being at the ugly end of an international court they couldn't control and withdrew.

Particularly since US policy is that US citizens can't be tried for war crimes by a foreign court. And there are several outstanding charges against US citizens for a variety of questionable acts;.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44343263

Funeral for medic killed by Israeli soldiers.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44343263

Funeral for medic killed by Israeli soldiers.

Yeah there was a rapid up but then claimed again by Egypt after a barrage of about 100 projectiles morters and rockets.

All in one day, and a Egyption brokered deal the next to end it.

Things have been going strangely out Thete...

So, the palestinian are, AGAIN,, fighting tanks with rocks ? I mean, isn't the human species supposed to be intelligent and capable of adaptation ? Why are they always doing the same damned things that cause them to die, and then they complain to the rest of the world ? You know what, now that the products made in the so called israeli settlements are labeled as such in the UE, I will do my best to buy them in support to Israel !

 BaronIveagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

Then they decided that maybe they didn't like the idea of at one point being at the ugly end of an international court they couldn't control and withdrew.

Particularly since US policy is that US citizens can't be tried for war crimes by a foreign court. And there are several outstanding charges against US citizens for a variety of questionable acts;.

Every country should do this, what a stupid idea that to be tried by strangers. Everyone should be tried only by people from the same country, that's basic stuff.

I take that this crap hasn't really been discussed much here?



The Palestinians continue to spread wildfires using "fire kites". The latest location hit was a Nature Reserve.

Though I doubt this really fits into the media's Palestine as the eternal victim agenda.

 godardc wrote:
You know what, now that the products made in the so called israeli settlements are labeled as such in the UE, I will do my best to buy them in support to Israel !

So, France is powered by the Maquis rolling in their graves?

 godardc wrote:

Every country should do this, what a stupid idea that to be tried by strangers. Everyone should be tried only by people from the same country, that's basic stuff.

Let's see how that turned out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_War_Crimes_Trials

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre

It took the atrocity at Pinkville to get the United States to find one man guilty of war crimes. He served three and a half years under house arrest and was only found guilty for 22 of 509 civilians killed. For comparison, what happened in France with similar circumstances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Though I doubt this really fits into the media's Palestine as the eternal victim agenda.

Well, frankly, Israel is not helping it's image much either.



This guy was, supposedly, I gak you not, shot dead while climbing over the fence during the protests.

I have to ask, how a cripple with no legs was climbing a fence? Let alone a viable threat to the men on the other side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

The latest location hit was a Nature Reserve.

Though I doubt this really fits into the media's Palestine as the eternal victim agenda.

BTW: if it had been the Israelis burning things, it'd be the children who where burned and the grasslands intact.

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Family-of-Palestinian-teen-burned-alive-by-Jewish-terrorists-sues-killers-552937

I couldn't care less about the maquis: they are but a band of terrorists to me, who killed poor conscripts from Germany and countries invaded and got French civilian killed in return, and didn't change anything in the war .True «heroes»...

 BaronIveagh wrote:
[



Well, frankly, Israel is not helping it's image much either.



This guy was, supposedly, I gak you not, shot dead while climbing over the fence during the protests.

I have to ask, how a cripple with no legs was climbing a fence? Let alone a viable threat to the men on the other side.



Though I doubt this really fits into the media's Palestine as the eternal victim agenda.

This man was clearly ressourceful and had stronger arms than mine !