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.
I don't see how that's relevant to anything I posted.
Because the two aren't really comparable as conflicts. Acting like we should judge the Iraq war or the Israel-Palestine conflict by the same standards is dense.
Completely ignoring it is just as dense.
Please. You might as well compare the casualties of WWII to the Second Boer War.
So...Arab Muslims living in Iraq don't matter when they're killed by the US military, but Arab Muslims living in Gaza matter when they're killed by the IDF? This is a curious point of view...
How'd I say they didn't matter? I said comparing a 7 year war with a foreseeable end point to a 30 year sectarian conflict with no foreseeable end is a dense exercise. The only purpose of it is to excuse civilian deaths in one conflict by saying that a whole bunch died in another conflict and bypassing civilians aren't supposed to die in either conflict.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 01:36:59
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
Forced by whom?
The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
You do know there is a blockade which prevents basic provisions from getting into Gaza right? That 30% of people's earnings are spent on getting clean water after all their wells were bulldozed or bombed? That people are dying because the basic medical supplies are lacking.
As I pointed out by linking articles above, Israelis are just as guilty of calling for genocide, and Hamas are actually willing to engage in a peace process.
This.
Is.
War.
It's time for the world to recognize this for what it is...
This is not a skirmish in some rough neighborhood. This is not Israel getting a boner for bullying their adversaries. This is absolutely one side (and their supporters) who wants to eradicate Israel.
What you're watching is a Proxy War over Israel's existance.
I understand where you're coming from: You're looking at this as a humanitarian crisis that Israel is not free from culpability. As human beings, we should always speak to this as a reminder that war is ugly in the hopes that loss of innocent lives are mitigated.
Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?
It has nothing to do with religion as Lordofhat is insinuating...
We see a country/group fighting for their literal existance. That's all.
If it is war then Israel is committing war crimes. Put their leaders on trial.
How so? Be very specific and what legal justification.
Because if it were that easy... I can see The Hague itching to put Israel on trial.
Also, how is a small group of terrorists with some Rockets threatening the existence of Israel, a country with modern weapons and equipment?
A) because it isn't just about the Hamas. There are other powerful groups who wants this Proxy War.
B) what else should Israel do? One state solution? Two state solution? Given that, if any one of those occured, do you really think there will be Peace in this region?
I know this one:
Geneva convention. pt 3, section 1:
Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories.
article 33.
This paragraph then lays a prohibition on collective penalties. This does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons, in defiance of the most elementary principles of humanity, for acts that these persons have not committed.
No persons may be punished for an offense 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 persons and their property are prohibited.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishment is a war crime.
Article 53 - Destruction of property
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Evidence: Latest from Gaza: Israel targets houses, mosques, disabled center and essential infrastructure, 14 more Palestinians killed. Since July 8, Israeli strikes have hit more than 2,000 targets in Gaza and Hamas launched nearly 1,500 rockets at Israel, the Israeli military has said. (note israel hit 2000 targets, but they list how many rockets hamas fired knowing at least 1/3 were shot down by their defense and with how inaccurate the rockets are no mention of how many actually hit targets)
As Israel is occupying the Gaza strip, all they have to do is cease their occupation and accept Palestines right to exist, to me seems like a great first step towards peace between the two. Palestine should not be firing rockets into Israel, but Israels over reaction to them puts it into the war crime catagory.
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
Forced by whom?
The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
You do know there is a blockade which prevents basic provisions from getting into Gaza right? That 30% of people's earnings are spent on getting clean water after all their wells were bulldozed or bombed? That people are dying because the basic medical supplies are lacking.
As I pointed out by linking articles above, Israelis are just as guilty of calling for genocide, and Hamas are actually willing to engage in a peace process.
This.
Is.
War.
It's time for the world to recognize this for what it is...
This is not a skirmish in some rough neighborhood. This is not Israel getting a boner for bullying their adversaries. This is absolutely one side (and their supporters) who wants to eradicate Israel.
What you're watching is a Proxy War over Israel's existance.
I understand where you're coming from: You're looking at this as a humanitarian crisis that Israel is not free from culpability. As human beings, we should always speak to this as a reminder that war is ugly in the hopes that loss of innocent lives are mitigated.
Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?
It has nothing to do with religion as Lordofhat is insinuating...
We see a country/group fighting for their literal existance. That's all.
If it is war then Israel is committing war crimes. Put their leaders on trial.
How so? Be very specific and what legal justification.
Because if it were that easy... I can see The Hague itching to put Israel on trial.
Also, how is a small group of terrorists with some Rockets threatening the existence of Israel, a country with modern weapons and equipment?
A) because it isn't just about the Hamas. There are other powerful groups who wants this Proxy War.
B) what else should Israel do? One state solution? Two state solution? Given that, if any one of those occured, do you really think there will be Peace in this region?
I know this one:
Geneva convention. pt 3, section 1:
Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories.
article 33.
This paragraph then lays a prohibition on collective penalties. This does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons, in defiance of the most elementary principles of humanity, for acts that these persons have not committed.
No persons may be punished for an offense 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 persons and their property are prohibited.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishment is a war crime.
Article 53 - Destruction of property
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Evidence: Latest from Gaza: Israel targets houses, mosques, disabled center and essential infrastructure, 14 more Palestinians killed. Since July 8, Israeli strikes have hit more than 2,000 targets in Gaza and Hamas launched nearly 1,500 rockets at Israel, the Israeli military has said. (note israel hit 2000 targets, but they list how many rockets hamas fired knowing at least 1/3 were shot down by their defense and with how inaccurate the rockets are no mention of how many actually hit targets)
As Israel is occupying the Gaza strip, all they have to do is cease their occupation and accept Palestines right to exist, to me seems like a great first step towards peace between the two. Palestine should not be firing rockets into Israel, but Israels over reaction to them puts it into the war crime catagory.
Free Tibet & Free Palestine.
You glossed over a key point that I've highlighted above.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 01:49:35
How'd I say they didn't matter? I said comparing a 7 year war with a foreseeable end point to a 30 year sectarian conflict with no foreseeable end is a dense exercise. The only purpose of it is to excuse civilian deaths in one conflict by saying that a whole bunch died in another conflict and bypassing civilians aren't supposed to die in either conflict.
So it's not that they don't matter...rather it's that they don't matter...quite as much?
So it's not that they don't matter...rather it's that they don't matter...quite as much?
Wow...
And Dread wonders why I troll these threads rather than take them seriously
Well it's just a little bit ridiculous that you have issues drawing a parallel between two wars that have a) occurred during overlapping periods in history, b) involve Western media influences (i.e., CNN doesn't do a whole lot of reporting in Dagestan), c) occurred (mainly) in urban environments, d) involved high tech Western militaries fighting and relatively low tech insurgents in asymmetrical warfare, so on and so forth.
There are more similarities between Iraq and the "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (however you define it...not sure we can even agree of a definition) than there are between WWII and the Second Boer War. The main difference seems to be the way that people perceive the civilian casualties.
Again - I'm not criticizing US performance in Iraq. I'm merely saying that the IDF is receiving disproportionate criticism given its conduct relative to the conduct of other nations operating in similar environments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 02:07:55
Not going to throw my 2 coppers in being I have no experience dealing with Hamas. Is the Chain of Command in Hamas the same Chain of Command the militant battalions fall under?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Jihadin wrote: Not going to throw my 2 coppers in being I have no experience dealing with Hamas. Is the Chain of Command in Hamas the same Chain of Command the militant battalions fall under?
Not sure I understand your question...are you asking if Hamas' military wing shares a chain of command with its political wing?
So it's not that they don't matter...rather it's that they don't matter...quite as much?
Wow...
And Dread wonders why I troll these threads rather than take them seriously
Well it's just a little bit ridiculous that you have issues drawing a parallel between two wars that have a) occurred during overlapping periods in history, b) involve Western media influences (i.e., CNN doesn't do a whole lot of reporting in Dagestan), c) occurred (mainly) in urban environments, d) involved high tech Western militaries fighting and relatively low tech insurgents in asymmetrical warfare, so on and so forth.
There are more similarities between Iraq and the "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (however you define it...not sure we can even agree of a definition) than there are between WWII and the Second Boer War. The main difference seems to be the way that people perceive the civilian casualties.
Again - I'm not criticizing US performance in Iraq. I'm merely saying that the IDF is receiving disproportionate criticism given its conduct relative to the conduct of other nations operating in similar environments.
I have issue with the embargoes on every day items, confiscation of property , 60 years of occupation, interrogation of children ( coupled with profiling where palestinian children sleep - still least the IDF now knows how many they kill ahead of launch) and 15 years of making people live in a walled ghetto. Add to that 30 years of not being able to reach a peace settlement whilst still putting in more settlements.
Bulldozing of houses and livelyhoods, kneecapping people , people having no recourse to law except via military style courts...the list goes on.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Jihadin wrote: Not going to throw my 2 coppers in being I have no experience dealing with Hamas. Is the Chain of Command in Hamas the same Chain of Command the militant battalions fall under?
Not sure I understand your question...are you asking if Hamas' military wing shares a chain of command with its political wing?
Yes. The first Cease Fire the militant battalions of Hamas said no and kept going at it. No mention of Hamas leadership saying yes or no
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The main difference seems to be the way that people perceive the civilian casualties.
They perceive them differently because the conflicts are different. The scale of the Iraq war dwarfs the periodic skirmishes between Israel and Hamas. When I bothered to compare the US war record in the Drone Campaign, I was specific in pointing out the number of civilians killed vs the number of military targets killed (insurgents, militants, terrorists leaders). Just throwing out "well a whole bunch of civilians died over there!" ignores that the US did get knocked on for those deaths, and is fallacious because you're erroneously comparing two very different conflicts using a single statistic.
Israel and Palestinians have been going at it since the 1930's. Even now when most of the Arab League has decided they're done throwing bullets at it (some of them are still happy throwing money at it for a myriad of macabre comedy reasons), Israel and the Palestinians are still going at it. I've mentioned numerous times my beef isn't solely the civilian deaths but that Israel's operations in which they die do not bring the conflict closer to an end. Israel has no plan to end the conflict and has never honestly indulged the plans proposed by others. US conduct in the Iraq war is a completely different barrel monkeys from Israel's conduct in theirs. Just because there's some red monkeys in both barrels don't form a valid basis for comparison.
"Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (however you define it...not sure we can even agree of a definition)
I got a book that spends its first twenty pages talking about just that. As you can imagine it starts out boring and stays boring
Jihadin wrote: Not going to throw my 2 coppers in being I have no experience dealing with Hamas. Is the Chain of Command in Hamas the same Chain of Command the militant battalions fall under?
Not sure I understand your question...are you asking if Hamas' military wing shares a chain of command with its political wing?
Yes. The first Cease Fire the militant battalions of Hamas said no and kept going at it. No mention of Hamas leadership saying yes or no
Definitely a good question...I'm not sure. I do know that Hamas is far less organized than Hezbollah. So Hezbollah's military wing is very unlikely to act without consent of the political wing.
On the other hand, a lot of the guys shooting off rockets and mortars aren't even necessarily affiliated with Hamas. The Israelis (and maybe everyone else?) have been trying to paint this is an Israel vs. Hamas kind of a fight, but there's evidence that Fatah-affiliated guys are also doing a bit of the fighting. If Hamas and Fatah agree on anything, it's where to aim their rockets.
Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories.
article 33.
This paragraph then lays a prohibition on collective penalties. This does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons, in defiance of the most elementary principles of humanity, for acts that these persons have not committed.
No persons may be punished for an offense 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 persons and their property are prohibited.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishment is a war crime.
Article 53 - Destruction of property
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Evidence: Latest from Gaza: Israel targets houses, mosques, disabled center and essential infrastructure, 14 more Palestinians killed. Since July 8, Israeli strikes have hit more than 2,000 targets in Gaza and Hamas launched nearly 1,500 rockets at Israel, the Israeli military has said. (note israel hit 2000 targets, but they list how many rockets hamas fired knowing at least 1/3 were shot down by their defense and with how inaccurate the rockets are no mention of how many actually hit targets)
As Israel is occupying the Gaza strip, all they have to do is cease their occupation and accept Palestines right to exist, to me seems like a great first step towards peace between the two. Palestine should not be firing rockets into Israel, but Israels over reaction to them puts it into the war crime catagory.
Free Tibet & Free Palestine.
I agree, let's get rid of Hamas and then we can start to have a proper dialogue without the "from the river to the sea" demands
Practice Relating to Rule 38. Attacks against Cultural Property
Note: This rule concerns the prohibition of attacks on cultural property as part of the conduct of hostilities. For practice concerning damage to cultural property under one’s control see Rule 40. Although schools may be defined as cultural property, for ease of reference, practice concerning attacks against schools is included in Rule 7D.
Quick navigation
I. Treaties
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 27 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides:
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity … provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 27 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides:
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments … provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
Hague Convention (IX)
Article 5 of the 1907 Hague Convention (IX) provides:
In bombardments by naval forces all the necessary measures must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific or charitable purposes, … on the understanding that they are not used at the same time for military purposes. It is the duty of the inhabitants to indicate such monuments, edifices or places by visible signs, which shall consist of large, stiff rectangular panels divided diagonally into two coloured triangular portions, the upper portion black, the lower portion white.
. . .
Additional Protocol II
Article 16 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, it is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to use them in support of the military effort . . .
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 1(b) of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property states that the term “cultural property” means “cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the [1954 Hague] Convention”.
Article 6 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
With the goal of ensuring respect for cultural property in accordance with Article 4 of the [1954 Hague] Convention:
(a) a waiver on the basis of imperative military necessity pursuant to Article 4 paragraph 2 of the Convention may only be invoked to direct an act of hostility against cultural property when and for as long as:
(i) that cultural property has, by its function, been made into a military objective; and
(ii) there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage to that offered by directing an act of hostility against that objective;
…
(c) the decision to invoke imperative military necessity shall only be taken by an officer commanding a force the equivalent of a battalion in size or larger, or a force smaller in size where circumstances do not permit otherwise;
(d) in case of an attack based on a decision taken in accordance with sub-paragraph (a), an effective advance warning shall be given whenever circumstances permit.
. . .
Brussels Declaration
Article 17 of the 1874 Brussels Declaration provides:
In such cases [of bombardment of a defended town or fortress, agglomeration of dwellings, or village] all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to art, science, or charitable purposes, hospitals … provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings by distinctive and visible signs to be communicated to the enemy beforehand
. . .
Oxford Manual
Article 34 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides:
In case of bombardment all necessary steps must be taken to spare, if it can be done, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science and charitable purposes … on the condition that they are not being utilized at the time, directly or indirectly, for defense.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings by visible signs notified to the assailant beforehand . . .
Hague Rules of Air Warfare
Article 25 of the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare provides:
In bombardment by aircraft, all necessary steps must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible buildings dedicated to public worship, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments … provided such buildings, objects or places are not at the time used for military purposes. Such buildings, objects and places must by day be indicated by marks visible to aircraft …
A belligerent who desires to secure by night the protection for the hospitals and other privileged buildings above mentioned must take the necessary measures to render the special signs referred to sufficiently visible.
I'm sure you're seeing a trend by now. Storing munitions, being used as a base of operations, or being used as a rocket launch site is generally seen as being used for "military purposes"
Jihadin wrote: Not going to throw my 2 coppers in being I have no experience dealing with Hamas. Is the Chain of Command in Hamas the same Chain of Command the militant battalions fall under?
People usually draw a distinction between Hamas' political leadership and its military arm; the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Ostensibly its the same chain of command but they often don't see completely eye to eye. Hamas' political leaders are slightly less crazy (only slightly) than their militant arm.
There's also the Hamas elements in the West Bank, which are very ill defined.
sirlynchmob
Article 53 - Destruction of property
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Evidence: Latest from Gaza: Israel targets houses, mosques, disabled center and essential infrastructure, 14 more Palestinians killed. Since July 8, Israeli strikes have hit more than 2,000 targets in Gaza and Hamas launched nearly 1,500 rockets at Israel, the Israeli military has said. (note israel hit 2000 targets, but they list how many rockets hamas fired knowing at least 1/3 were shot down by their defense and with how inaccurate the rockets are no mention of how many actually hit targets)
You glossed over a key point that I've highlighted above.
It would take quite the argument to convince a jury that a disabled center, a number of civilian house, or a mosque as necessary military targets. I didn't gloss over it, it's ridiculous to think of those buildings as military targets. Israel must be using the Richard defense, " Listen, like I told your captain, that orphanage attacked me."
Yes. The first Cease Fire the militant battalions of Hamas said no and kept going at it. No mention of Hamas leadership saying yes or no
Definitely a good question...I'm not sure.
Hamas' leadership agreed to the recent temporary cease fire.
Hamas kind of a fight, but there's evidence that Fatah-affiliated guys are also doing a bit of the fighting. If Hamas and Fatah agree on anything, it's where to aim their rockets.
I mentioned this in jest earlier to Seaward. There's been ongoing evidence for years that the PNA Police force double deals with both Fatah and Hamas. It was either in Cast Lead or in 2006 that Israel striked police stations in the West Bank for the very reason that the force was backhandedly helping Hamas out while ostensibly cooperating with the IDF.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 02:37:26
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The main difference seems to be the way that people perceive the civilian casualties.
They perceive them differently because the conflicts are different. The scale of the Iraq war dwarfs the periodic skirmishes between Israel and Hamas. When I bothered to compare the US war record in the Drone Campaign, I was specific in pointing out the number of civilians killed vs the number of military targets killed (insurgents, militants, terrorists leaders). Just throwing out "well a whole bunch of civilians died over there!" ignores that the US did get knocked on for those deaths, and is fallacious because you're erroneously comparing two very different conflicts using a single statistic.
Israel and Palestinians have been going at it since the 1930's. Even now when most of the Arab League has decided they're done throwing bullets at it (some of them are still happy throwing money at it for a myriad of macabre comedy reasons), Israel and the Palestinians are still going at it. I've mentioned numerous times my beef isn't solely the civilian deaths but that Israel's operations in which they die do not bring the conflict closer to an end. Israel has no plan to end the conflict and has never honestly indulged the plans proposed by others. US conduct in the Iraq war is a completely different barrel monkeys from Israel's conduct in theirs. Just because there's some red monkeys in both barrels don't form a valid basis for comparison.
"Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (however you define it...not sure we can even agree of a definition)
I got a book that spends its first twenty pages talking about just that. As you can imagine it starts out boring and stays boring
I'm talking specifically about the TTPs used by the US and Israel. The conflict is strategically very different. Tactically, however, Israel is doing far more than the US ever did to minimize civilian casualties.
The saddest thing about the entire conflict is that the Arab states don't really care about the Palestinians. You see a lot more genuine concern coming from Europeans than other Arabs. Now you say that Israel isn't handling the conflict in a way that will bring it to resolution - I'm not sure that there is a resolution here. You can't get rid of the Arabs in Gaza and you can't get rid of the Israelis. Giving the Arabs a state isn't going to do anything. Hamas has had a decade to clean up Gaza and try to better their situation. They spend all their money on things to shoot at Israelis, their schools are indoctrination centers, and they publicize the fact that they want people to act as human shields!
The only positive outcome I see from this is the IDF dealing Hamas a grievous blow and Israel funding another, more moderate party. Hamas' charter doesn't leave very much room for negotiation and they definitely don't prioritize the Palestinians' well-being.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Tactically, however, Israel is doing far more than the US ever did to minimize civilian casualties.
I disagree (but I won't argue it further cause I think I did enough of that earlier in this thread XD)
The saddest thing about the entire conflict is that the Arab states don't really care about the Palestinians.
Agreed.
You see a lot more genuine concern coming from Europeans than other Arabs.
Depends on the Arabs/Middle Easterners. Syria for a time at least, seemed sympathetic to Palestinian refugees before Assad started his crazy streak. Turkey cares a great deal but Turkey's always been very Europeanish in its international sensibilities. Jordan and Lebanon confusingly bounce back and forth depending on whose in charge at the time.
Now you say that Israel isn't handling the conflict in a way that will bring it to resolution - I'm not sure that there is a resolution here.
There are resolutions. It's just that none of them are easy and they all involve Israel abandoning its de facto annexation of the West Bank. Something that at this point its quite committed to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 02:36:33
sirlynchmob
Article 53 - Destruction of property
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Evidence: Latest from Gaza: Israel targets houses, mosques, disabled center and essential infrastructure, 14 more Palestinians killed. Since July 8, Israeli strikes have hit more than 2,000 targets in Gaza and Hamas launched nearly 1,500 rockets at Israel, the Israeli military has said. (note israel hit 2000 targets, but they list how many rockets hamas fired knowing at least 1/3 were shot down by their defense and with how inaccurate the rockets are no mention of how many actually hit targets)
You glossed over a key point that I've highlighted above.
It would take quite the argument to convince a jury that a disabled center, a number of civilian house, or a mosque as necessary military targets. I didn't gloss over it, it's ridiculous to think of those buildings as military targets. Israel must be using the Richard defense, " Listen, like I told your captain, that orphanage attacked me."
It's why the Hamas stage their attacks from those places.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 02:44:30
sirlynchmob
Article 53 - Destruction of property
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Evidence: Latest from Gaza: Israel targets houses, mosques, disabled center and essential infrastructure, 14 more Palestinians killed. Since July 8, Israeli strikes have hit more than 2,000 targets in Gaza and Hamas launched nearly 1,500 rockets at Israel, the Israeli military has said. (note israel hit 2000 targets, but they list how many rockets hamas fired knowing at least 1/3 were shot down by their defense and with how inaccurate the rockets are no mention of how many actually hit targets)
You glossed over a key point that I've highlighted above.
It would take quite the argument to convince a jury that a disabled center, a number of civilian house, or a mosque as necessary military targets. I didn't gloss over it, it's ridiculous to think of those buildings as military targets. Israel must be using the Richard defense, " Listen, like I told your captain, that orphanage attacked me."
It's why the Hamas stage their attacks from those places.
And you have evidence of them doing so? or should I just take your word for it? You're assuming Israel is in the right when it's just as likely, if not demonstrably true, they're committing war crimes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 02:48:45
sirlynchmob wrote: It would take quite the argument to convince a jury that a disabled center, a number of civilian house, or a mosque as necessary military targets. I didn't gloss over it, it's ridiculous to think of those buildings as military targets. Israel must be using the Richard defense, " Listen, like I told your captain, that orphanage attacked me."
Yesterday, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered approximately 20 rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip. UNRWA strongly condemns the group or groups responsible for placing the weapons in one of its installations. This is a flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law. This incident, which is the first of its kind in Gaza, endangered civilians including staff and put at risk UNRWA’s vital mission to assist and protect Palestine refugees in Gaza.
I think it would take quite the argument to convince a jury that these are not military targets
I think it would take quite the argument to convince a jury that these are not military targets
It would take quite the jury for Israel to prove all of them are military targets. People have wondered about the validity of Israel's claims about targets for years.
Take the recent shelling of a hospital in Gaza. Israel claims militants were gathering there. Doctors at the hospital have steadfastly stated there were no militants gathering at the hospital.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 02:55:36
sirlynchmob
Article 53 - Destruction of property
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Evidence: Latest from Gaza: Israel targets houses, mosques, disabled center and essential infrastructure, 14 more Palestinians killed. Since July 8, Israeli strikes have hit more than 2,000 targets in Gaza and Hamas launched nearly 1,500 rockets at Israel, the Israeli military has said. (note israel hit 2000 targets, but they list how many rockets hamas fired knowing at least 1/3 were shot down by their defense and with how inaccurate the rockets are no mention of how many actually hit targets)
You glossed over a key point that I've highlighted above.
It would take quite the argument to convince a jury that a disabled center, a number of civilian house, or a mosque as necessary military targets. I didn't gloss over it, it's ridiculous to think of those buildings as military targets. Israel must be using the Richard defense, " Listen, like I told your captain, that orphanage attacked me."
It's why the Hamas stage their attacks from those places.
And you have evidence of them doing so? or should I just take your word for it? You're assuming Israel is in the right when it's just as likely, if not demonstrably true, they're committing war crimes.
Or you could actually read the articles I posted, in which the UN, which is resoundingly anti-Israel, published evidence of Hamas storing rockets in a school.
sirlynchmob wrote: It would take quite the argument to convince a jury that a disabled center, a number of civilian house, or a mosque as necessary military targets. I didn't gloss over it, it's ridiculous to think of those buildings as military targets. Israel must be using the Richard defense, " Listen, like I told your captain, that orphanage attacked me."
Yesterday, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered approximately 20 rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip. UNRWA strongly condemns the group or groups responsible for placing the weapons in one of its installations. This is a flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law. This incident, which is the first of its kind in Gaza, endangered civilians including staff and put at risk UNRWA’s vital mission to assist and protect Palestine refugees in Gaza.
I think it would take quite the argument to convince a jury that these are not military targets
let's not forget:
"No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible".
Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.
Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
I wouldn't say the UN is resoundingly anti-Israel. It's just that the comical structure of UN bodies is such that the only way for anyone to be taken to task for violation of international law is to have no friends. Israel is the only country that comes close to that description (and occasionally Sri Lanka).
LordofHats wrote: I wouldn't say the UN is resoundingly anti-Israel. It's just that the comical structure of UN bodies is such that the only way for anyone to be taken to task for violation of international law is to have no friends. Israel is the only country that comes close to that description (and occasionally Sri Lanka).
Come on man...lettuce be cereal here. The UN hates Israel. If the UN represents the world, well...that's all the more reason that Israel needs to exist. Tin pot dictators were murdering people by the hundreds of thousands, and we had state sanctioned rapes and starvation in countries like North Korea, but old Mustafa's olive tree is clearly more of a tragedy.
sirlynchmob wrote: It would take quite the argument to convince a jury that a disabled center, a number of civilian house, or a mosque as necessary military targets. I didn't gloss over it, it's ridiculous to think of those buildings as military targets. Israel must be using the Richard defense, " Listen, like I told your captain, that orphanage attacked me."
Yesterday, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered approximately 20 rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip. UNRWA strongly condemns the group or groups responsible for placing the weapons in one of its installations. This is a flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law. This incident, which is the first of its kind in Gaza, endangered civilians including staff and put at risk UNRWA’s vital mission to assist and protect Palestine refugees in Gaza.
I think it would take quite the argument to convince a jury that these are not military targets
let's not forget:
"No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible".
Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.
Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
this is clearly what is going on right now and no matter how you try to spin it, Israel is committing war crimes.
Read the entire rule.
You're allowed to have weapons and ammo in a hospital taken off of injured soldiers. You are not allowed to use a hospital as a base of operations and supply depot. Stockpiling weapons and conducting command and control from a structure counts as "acts harmful to the enemy." That is a war crime and in direct violation of the Hague. These allegations of "war crimes" are completely ridiculous especially when you have an enemy that is expressly targeting civilians.
There's really no talking to you. You ask for proof, we provide it. Then you go and post something like this...brilliant.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/19 03:23:47
Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
Just pointing that out
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
You're allowed to have weapons and ammo in a hospital taken off of injured soldiers. You are not allowed to use a hospital as a base of operations and supply depot. That is a war crime and in direct violation of the Hague. These allegations of "war crimes" are completely ridiculous especially when you have an enemy that is expressly targeting civilians.
There's really no talking to you. You ask for proof, we provide it. Then you go and post something like this...brilliant.
Not for the hospital, can you show the due warning that was given? Or that actual acts were committed from there against Israel? Without the due notice and a reasonable time It was considered protected and in no circumstances be the object of an attack.
And one or two houses that hamas leaders lived in does not warrant all the houses that have been targeted, I've seen evidence against 2 places, just 1998 to go. But the clear cut case is the hospital caring for the disabled.
The convention is written against the occupiers, to protect the people that have been occupied. As Israel signed and agreed to it, they should be held to it.
