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.
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.
Allow me to explain;
Look at the structure of the Human Rights Council.
2007 Group[13]
African States: Algeria, Morocco, South Africa and Tunisia.
Asian States: Bahrain, India, Indonesia and Philippines.
Eastern European States: Czech Republic and Poland.
Latin American & Caribbean States: Argentina and Ecuador.
Western European & Other States: Finland and the Netherlands.
Taken from Wiki for example.
The Middle East is split between Africa (Egypt example) and Asia (Arabia example). Many countrils in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are themselves committing crimes (though that's a little beside this point). But the organization ends up producing block voting. Libya might be committing crimes against humanity, but Algeria and Morocco like Libya, so if anyone ever suggests doing something about Libya they vote to do nothing. Indonesia might not care about Libya, but they might want to build some friend points with Morocco for whatever reason so they vote no too.
Basically, so long as you have friends, the Human Rights Council is never going to do anything to you. Its not that the human rights Council hates Israel, its that Israel has no friends on the Council (or in the UN really besides the US) to play the dirty game of UN politics on its behalf. The only other country that's ever been seriously gone after by the HRC is Sri Lanka, who doesn't really have friends so much as frienemies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/19 03:34:01
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.
You don't know what IAF drone operators see from the air, and they are under no obligation to answer to you. Neither am I. I have posted evidence, where available, of the legitimacy of the IAF's targets. I'm not going to dig up information concerning every IAF bombing for you. Let the blood congeal before you start spouting ill-informed ignorant garbage about war crimes.
Not if you care about political reality more than political rhetoric.
Israel deserves the negative attention it gets for its actions. A lot of other countries deserve them too, its just that unlike Israel they have friends to protect them from such things.
Not if you care about political reality more than political rhetoric.
Israel deserves the negative attention it gets for its actions. A lot of other countries deserve them too, its just that unlike Israel they have friends to protect them from such things.
Normally we would consider asymmetrical negative attention, given the same or worse acts, to indicate bias. How is this any different? I'm not really interested in arguing the point...more like pointing out for other people how crazy it is to say that the UN is anything but anti-Israel.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Normally we would consider asymmetrical negative attention, given the same or worse acts, to indicate bias. How is this any different? I'm not really interested in arguing the point...more like pointing out for other people how crazy it is to say that the UN is anything but anti-Israel.
Being structurally biased against Israel isn't the same as being anti-Israel.
Calling the UN anti-Israel is just a talking point thrown out to try and claim the UN's resolutions against it are invalid but there's grounds for every resolution that's been passed against Israel by the UN. That the UN is structurally built in a way that other countries protect each other from the same kind of action doesn't invalidate the actions taken against Israel. EDIT: it does make the UN look like a bunch of douches though but I don't like the UN anyway
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 03:49:09
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.
You don't know what IAF drone operators see from the air, and they are under no obligation to answer to you. Neither am I. I have posted evidence, where available, of the legitimacy of the IAF's targets. I'm not going to dig up information concerning every IAF bombing for you. Let the blood congeal before you start spouting ill-informed ignorant garbage about war crimes.
It's better to ask the questions than to blindly accept Israels actions as being legitimate. bombing hospitals is a war crime as such should be investigated. Look at Iraq when your country bombed a mosque, it seemed like the president was apologizing for a month on that one and providing all the evidence they had as justification.
As the occupiers, they should end their occupation.
As the occupiers, they should end their occupation.
Dude... they weren't occupiers. (okay, now they are but not as of a few days ago).
Israeli troops don't need to be present for a territory to be occupied. There's no one in the world (not even Israel) that doesn't call Gaza and the West Bank occupied territories.
As the occupiers, they should end their occupation.
Dude... they weren't occupiers. (okay, now they are but not as of a few days ago).
Israeli troops don't need to be present for a territory to be occupied. There's no one in the world (not even Israel) that doesn't call Gaza and the West Bank occupied territories.
You're talking about two different things....
The Occupied Terroritories™ are the territories occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
As the occupiers, they should end their occupation.
Dude... they weren't occupiers. (okay, now they are but not as of a few days ago).
Israeli troops don't need to be present for a territory to be occupied. There's no one in the world (not even Israel) that doesn't call Gaza and the West Bank occupied territories.
Been quite awhile since I have heard "Occupied Territories" but
The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. They consist of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; much of the Golan Heights; the Gaza Strip, though Israel disputes this and argues that since the implementation of its disengagement from Gaza in 2005 it no longer occupies the territory; and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also referred to as the Palestinian territories or Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Palestinian Authority, the EU,[1] the International Court of Justice,[2] the UN General Assembly[3] and the UN Security Council[4] consider East Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank and occupied by Israel; Israel considers all of Jerusalem to be its capital and sovereign territory.
Though
The International Court of Justice,[2] the UN General Assembly[3] and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power".[5] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel’s occupation "an affront to international law."[6] The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".[7] According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than 4 decades that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law
Richard Falk though
Richard Anderson Falk (born November 13, 1930)[2] is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, and has been described as 'a critical analyst of the role of international law in global politics'.[3] He is the author or co-author of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 volumes,[4] In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."[5] He has been variously criticized by U.S. ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon for his outspoken positions on Israel[citation needed] and the September 11 attacks.
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
Richard Anderson Falk (born November 13, 1930)[2] is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, and has been described as 'a critical analyst of the role of international law in global politics'.[3] He is the author or co-author of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 volumes,[4] In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."[5] He has been variously criticized by U.S. ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon for his outspoken positions on Israel[citation needed] and the September 11 attacks.
Hey now! Richard Falk is a wonderful comedian!
And his accusations that Israel's occupation is violating international law isn't without merit and doesn't make the occupation not an occupation just because he's a little loony.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 04:15:52
Richard Anderson Falk (born November 13, 1930)[2] is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, and has been described as 'a critical analyst of the role of international law in global politics'.[3] He is the author or co-author of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 volumes,[4] In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."[5] He has been variously criticized by U.S. ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon for his outspoken positions on Israel[citation needed] and the September 11 attacks.
Hey now! Richard Falk is a wonderful comedian!
And his accusations that Israel's occupation is violating international law isn't without merit and doesn't make the occupation not an occupation just because he's a little loony.
We're all (bunch of damn countries) are guilty of occupation. Loony IMO does not connect with him. Conspiracy minor nut does a bit
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
He's not a conspiracy nut. His opinions on the War on Terror are completely valid and with good- hahahahahahahahahaha
Falk is a crazy guy, but his opinion on 9/11 and the war on terror are way worse than anything he's said about Israel XD (and that's saying something).
Awesome.....the twenty missile IDF found in the UN school. UN called the local authorities to come remove the rockets from the school
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
After reading most of the posts on this thread it seems to me that some of you are actually saying that it's perfectly aceptable to bomb hospitals, mosqeys and other civillian targets beacuse it is known that Hamas hides rockets there? The end justifies the means?
And besides, this kind of strategy will onely create hatred among the palestinians that will last for generations. And Hamas will have no dificulty in recruting parents that have lost there children to israeli bombs.
Where does it say those are Israeli soldiers and that all of them do it and not some idiots?
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
Well, he is the guy who equated Israel to all Jews on the first page, so it's not surprising he would say "Random Jerkbag threatens reporter? Must've been every single Israeli soldier!"
With that said, there's an awful lot of Israelis acting pretty terribly in this whole shebang.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 10:56:50
IceBayPaint wrote: After reading most of the posts on this thread it seems to me that some of you are actually saying that it's perfectly aceptable to bomb hospitals, mosqeys and other civillian targets beacuse it is known that Hamas hides rockets there? The end justifies the means?
And besides, this kind of strategy will onely create hatred among the palestinians that will last for generations. And Hamas will have no dificulty in recruting parents that have lost there children to israeli bombs.
It's legal according to the rules of land warfare. Blame Hamas. They're the ones causing mosques, hospitals, and schools to be targeted.
Then there are gems like this:
What do you expect Israel to do when Hamas is openly using, and admitting to using, human shields? Not fire back? We'll see if you change your tone, when it's your family under constant rocket fire.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/07/19 13:42:04
If Hamas laid down arms tomorrow there would be peace. If the IDF laid down their arms tomorrow there would be no Israel.
Wow. That really seems like a statement that every side of the arguments in this thread would agree with. Exalt, that was awesome!
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
sirlynchmob wrote: 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.
So facts are spin now? Interesting.
You may have missed an important part of what you quoted again; "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" - like storing munition, being used to launch rockets, or acting as command and control centers
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Normally we would consider asymmetrical negative attention, given the same or worse acts, to indicate bias. How is this any different? I'm not really interested in arguing the point...more like pointing out for other people how crazy it is to say that the UN is anything but anti-Israel.
Being structurally biased against Israel isn't the same as being anti-Israel.
By that logic the pre-Civil Rights America was only structurally biased against Black people, it wasn't anti-Black.
If Hamas laid down arms tomorrow there would be peace. If the IDF laid down their arms tomorrow there would be no Israel.
blaming the victim at it's finest.
If your state was occupied wouldn't you fight back against your oppressors?
I think you meant to say
If Hamas laid down it's arms tomorrow, Isreal would conquer and claim Gaza. Like Iraq tried to do with Kuwait. If the IDF stopped their occupation and accepted Palestines right to exist, they would be on the road to peace.
So facts are spin now? Interesting.
You may have missed an important part of what you quoted again; "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" - like storing munition, being used to launch rockets, or acting as command and control centers
I didn't miss it, unless you can produce the evidence that they gave notice, or Hamas did such a thing with no evidence what so ever.
You keep ignoring this part: Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given.
Pointing to two or three cases where they can be shown to be military targets, and saying therefore the 2000 other hits must also be military targets is outright ludicrous.
As the occupying force everything they are doing right now is against the Geneva convention and ergo warcrimes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/19 17:09:56
Generally those who have been invaded are the victim.
Blaming them for being invaded and occupied is the same as saying in WWII the french resistance is evil and full of terrorists, how dare they fight back against those who invaded them. Germany should have kept killing everyone there until france laid down it's weapons and accepted it's occupation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Like the IDF couldn't conquer Gaza if they wanted too. Hahahahahaha. Everyone laugh at the Canadian.
Everyone laugh at the blood thirsty american who thinks any country should be free to invade any other country for any reasons what so ever.
Oh wait, like they did in Iraq. But I guess you should have just let Iraq keep Kuwait, after all they did conquer it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 17:30:04
