How so?
Syrian War: Israel Returns Fire
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
How so?
Well the argreement to to be big progress towards peace between Israel and Gaza: http://news.yahoo.com/details-hamas-israel-cease-fire-deal-205758127.html
I wonder if this means the boarder between Egypt and Gaza will open, maybe the naval blockade will end?
I wonder if this means the boarder between Egypt and Gaza will open, maybe the naval blockade will end?
Bells
Staff member
Would you preferred I waxed the lyrical and made it sound complex?
The crux of it is that both sides are overly trigger happy and merely looking for an excuse.
So the rockets fired at civilians by Hamas on a daily basis? That does not count? That may not have given Israel the excuse it wanted to pound Hamas again?
I'm sorry, but as much as I support the Palestinians, I would hardly classify Hamas as being "victims". They are as much the aggressors as Israel is an aggressor. Hence why both sides are "trigger happy buffoons".
Which side are you talking about?
You know, since rockets fly both ways and both sides can classify as being in a 'fish bowl' in that regard.
Bells
Staff member
That same argument was used by white colonialist when they decided to massacre the natives..
Nice..
Are you claiming those people (the settlers) do not have fundamental human rights recognised by international law?
And you misunderstood what the Red Cross and what just about every single country meant in their determination that the settlements were a violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention and also what the Red Cross meant when it determined that the establishments settlements were in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention.
At no time has the Red Cross, the UN or any other Government or international body ever determined that the settlers themselves were not "protected people" if one were to use your words in this discussion. The settlements, no, they are not protected under international law. But the people? Yes, they are very much protected under international law.
that's pretty amazing since those legal protections didn't exist until 100 years after the colonial movement.
not all of them.
um bells the red cross said the settlements were incompaitible with article 27 as well. which is the one that protects civilians.
your grasping and ignoring what the red cross said. the red cross said settlements were incompatible with article 27 article 27 is the article that puts forth the protections so yeah actually the red cross said exactly what I'm saying it said unless you think incompitable has a much different meaning than it does.
Bells
Staff member
You missed the point entirely.
Your comment was very much the excuse given by those in power to massacre natives... In short, they were not legally protected and while it was wrong to kill them, since they had no legal rights to protection back then, killing them was not illegal as such.. And that is the argument you are trying to palm off here.
Really?
Care to tell me which fundamental and basic human rights they do not have because of their status as a "settler"?
Have you read article 27?
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section I : Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.
Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.
Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.
Now show me where in Article 27 does it say that they are not protected or as you are trying to claim, that they do not have "legal protection"?
I would also suggest that you acquaint yourself with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also affords them and also Palestinians "legal protection".
Sorry to have to curb your bloodlust but while the settlements are illegal, the settlers, as human beings and civilians, are fully protected under International Law and as human beings, if the enemy decided to simply kill them, it would be very much illegal under the Geneva Convention and could constitute a war crime... Because the settlers, the civilian population, are very much protected under International Law. So trying to claim that while it's wrong to kill them but they don't have the same legal protection is wrong. Wrong on a legal level and also on a moral level.
How anyone in this day and age could even stomach making such an argument is disgusting in my opinion.
They are human beings and to gleefully claim that 'oh they don't have legal protection' in discussing the possibility of their being killed.. Really?
Well sorry to burst your bubble, but they are very much protected because they are human civilians. While the settlements have no legal protection under International Law, the human beings that inhabit them are very much protected people and enjoy the same protection as all human beings on this planet.
Because Muslims only care if infidels are killing Muslims, not other Muslims, especial Jews.
Muslims in general have been brainwashed by their own corrupt governments to spend significant time and energy thinking about the poor Palestinians and thus not how their own governments are fucking them over, why Palestinians? because they are Muslims and are being ruled over by Jews, that's why! Nothing gets people more mindless and livid like pure bigoted hate. I have a theory that its instinct, that we humans since before the ape-hominid divide have formed tribes and murdered one another for food, land and sexual slaves, and as such its our instinct to form groups of "us" and to be suspicious of, dehumanize and down right hate the "other". Kingdoms, states, nations, are merely ever more logical implementations of that instinct. People will automatically form groups based around what ever, common family, common religion, common language, etc, and then start to despise the other, or at the very least think of the group first and then the other, and if the other are assaulting some of the group, well that is a personal assault to all of the group!
But why does pjdude1219 who isn`t Arab or Muslim or connected in any organic way to the Arab-Israeli conflict focus on it nonetheless?
You got me on that, I'm pretty sure he is Muslim, but because of the nature of the internet he/it could be a cat stepping on a keyboard for all we know.
That and there always outliers: people who behavior is not explainable given the evidence.
Bollocks. This is what started your misplaced "trigger happiness". The HAMAS retaliation is utterly understandable and legitimate. No arbitrary "find any excuse" reason for violence.
"Since Wednesday evening, 14 November 2012, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have escalated military attacks on the Gaza Strip. They first extra-judicially executed the leader of the Izziddin al-Qassam Brigades (the armed wing of Hamas) and his bodyguard. This attack was followed by a series of aerial, ground and sea attacks on civilian and paramilitary targets throughout the Gaza Strip. As a result of these attacks, 13 Palestinians, including 4 civilians (two children, a woman and an old man) have been killed and 116 others, including 26 children and 25 women, have been wounded. IOF have escalated the situation in spite of the quiet atmosphere that followed a previous wave of escalation. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) is following up developments of this new offensive on the Gaza Strip."
This is called resistance against gross, oppression, occupation, serial assault and starvation. "It's Palestinians who have the right to defend themselves"
Regarding HAMAS rockets fired on a "daily basis" - please provide your sources?
Anyone with an iota of sense will know that the Israelis need no excuse to pound the Gazans or their democratically elected government HAMAS. This is called OCCUPATION, and its a fact.
Bollocks - Compare - Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip, 19.1.2009 - 30.9.2012 - to - Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in Israel, 19.1.2009 - 30.9.2012
Bollocks. Without even including the incredible military and weapons superiority of Israel - Gaza is an open air prison - attacking its populace who cannot escape - is like shooting fish in a barrel.
In essence, of course you have a very valid position. But regarding arbitrary warmongering you are mistaken. The very survival of the Palestinians is at stake as Israel slowly rakes in their land. Thus the resistance. Ireland was not occupied or blockaded, nor were the Irish public subjected to large scale military assaults, by heavy artillery, missiles and fighter planes on a regular basis in any similar sense to the Palestinian issue. Until Israel is held responsible for its illegal occupation of the region, and the Palestinians are given statehood, and as much of their land back as can be fairly negotiated - there will be no lasting peace. Thus the onus is on Israel the occupier, and its backers, to facilitate Statehood in good faith. Note Abbas`s political initiatives to achieve statehood is habitually blocked at every turn by Israel and the US. Ironically these initiatives to gain Statehood by the stateless by Abbas is routinely criticised as jeopardizing the "peace process".
Bells
Staff member
I am not denying that the Gazan's are in a fucked up situation and they are oppressed and occupied and that they have the right to defend themselves. But Hamas were also firing rockets on civilians. For 2012 alone to date:
As of November 2012, over 1,947 rockets had been launched at Israel from Gaza since January 2012
While the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves, deliberately targeting a civilian population in doing so is not the way to go about it.
A civilian population having rockets falling on their heads also have a right to defend themselves and a right to be protected from harm.
That applies to both sides of this debate.
Unless of course you are going to try and claim that the Israeli civilians are somehow not protected as pjdude is trying to claim that because they are settlers, they are not granted their basic human rights protection awarded to all human beings?
Hamas are hardly angels to their own populace. Is it democracy if you rule by fear and terror and torture and murder your opposition?
In 2012 the Human Rights Watch presented a 43 page long list of human rights violation committed by Hamas. Among actions attributed to Hamas the HRW report mentions beatings with metal clubs and rubber hoses, hanging of alleged collaborationists with Israel, and torture of 102 individuals. According to the report, Hamas also tortured civil society activists and peaceful protesters. Reflecting on the captivity of Gilad Shalit, the HRW report described it as "cruel and inhuman". The report also slams Hamas for harassment of people based on so called morality offenses and for media censorship.[312][313] In a public statement Joe Stork, the deputy Middle East director of HRW claimed that "after five years of Hamas rule in Gaza, its criminal justice system reeks of injustice, routinely violates detainees' rights and grants impunity to abusive security services". Hamas responded by denying charges and describing them as "politically motivated"[314]
I do not deny the Gazan's are an occupied people. They are unfortunately occupied on both sides. By their own oppressive Government and Israel.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise that we were determining who is more morally right by comparing numbers.
So Hamas is more moral because their rockets kill less civilians than Israeli one's, because by their own admittance, their rockets aren't as good?
Oh my sympathy lays squarely with the Palestinians of Gaza. Because on the one hand they have the superior military might of Israel bombing them and on the other, they have Hamas who are deliberately targeting civilians with rockets from civilian areas in Gaza.
I have tried to get everyone to stop concentrating on the warmongers and powers on both 'sides' behind the mess, and concentrate instead on THE PEOPLE on both 'sides'.
Whether the state of israel is illegal in creating the settlements, the PEOPLE who take up the state of israel's offer under israel's laws are NOT so 'illegal' and 'unprotected' by international conventions as you think.
Get it? The warmongers/powers on both sides are the problem, not the people themselves who fall under their respective powers' control.
Human rights are inextinguishable by any argument based on whomever they are under the control/laws of at anytime/anyplace. Hamas calously and hypocritically and ILLEGALLY using the GAZA PEOPLE as HUMAN SHIELDS is just as 'illegal' as the settlements.
Settlements may be 'illegal' etc, but the 'settlers themselves' as human beings have rights which go beyond those of each 'sides' powers to take away. Just as the Gazan people have right not to be used as human shields by hamas.
The people, on all sides, are what counts in the end.
Damn the warmongers, on all sides, if they want to continue this mess for their own agendas that treat the people as pawns, on all sides.
A violent mess is a violent mess, irrespective of provenance or type. The reality is that it's a mess. Both sides are prepared to attack the other, thus perpetuating the mess in tit-for-tat pattern which, if it could only be broken for the sake of the people, it would allow all the necessary arbitration and negotiation without violent threats necessary. If the warmongers and crazies on any side want to continue the violence then the UN should step in and GIVE them violence, no matter which 'side' the warmonger/crazy pretends to be on, while ignoring the plight of all those innocents caught up in the 'mess of ages'.
Start afresh and treat the realities on the ground NOW, not keep regurgitating historical/religious/tribal claims and hatreds and patterns of tit-for-tat stupidity.
We are the modern world now, no longer prisoners of ignorance and malice and dog-eat-dog evolutionary imperatives individually/socially.
Let's drop all the usual rationalizations for stupidity and craziness, and just work out the reality and agree on the sustainable/workable solution so that the PEOPLE on BOTH sides can come together an dpursue their destiny in happiness and equality which given enough 'generations' of peace (without crazy warmongers) these people would no longer be 'distinguishable' as being on any particular 'side' except common humanity and friendship and multicultural democracy for all there in the future.
That is the only future that can work and that awaits them, if only the crazy warmongers could be taken out of the equation/power there once and for all, on all 'sides'.
UN, youhave a job to do. Do it! Do it once! And do it right! Anything less is FAILURE on UN's part regardless of later recriminations for the failure.
Do it now!
Good luck to us all.
PS: Well done, EGYPT. Kudos! More power to you as sane and real peacemaker/arbiter! Thankyou from all here in Oz!
oh how noble of you to ignore the history of the history of the conflict and the issues of international law involved. congrats you don't know it but your actually supporting Israel with that aiittude.
um pray tell how are they to aviod being in civilians? the civvies can't leave hell no can leave and the gaza strip has the 6th highest population density in the world. there isn't anyplace to go that their aren't civilians.
again hamas doesn't use human shields it impossible to gain the seperation. and the settlers do have human rights but when you commit war crimes guess what you bear the consequences of those actions.
so in other words is just sit back and watch Israel completely conqurer palestine and just ignore the palestinians legal rights? gotcha load and clear. you'll have to forgive me for considering your position morally bankrupt.
because unlike the palestinians no one arguing they deserve to have the rights and lands taken away from them.
before you go off any your rant perhaps you should better aquaint yourself with my beliefs rather than decide what I believe. I have torn into people here for their own support of the crimes of colonialism. and yes thats exactly what I'm saying without any laws against something it is legal but legal doesn't mean moral nor license to commit the action.
well they for starters they don't get to be considered peaceful. and like any person who willfully ignores preceps designed to protect them they are responsible for their own fate.
I'm quite familiar with considering I was one of the first people on this site to reference it.
No where it a legal grey area their is nothing explicit either way. but as the red cross has stated which you have conviently ignored because well why give up a chance to pretend your better than someone else is that its incompatible with settling in occupied territory. incompatible as in mutually exclusive as in you can only have on or the other.
[QI would also suggest that you acquaint yourself with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also affords them and also Palestinians "legal protection". [/QUOTE] funny I read it and it says nothing about the right not to get shot at while being illegal being in a warzone. these rights are written under the assumption that people were caught up in a war zone and the like not intentionally going into the line of fire.
so to reiterate you have zero intention of actually paying any fucking attention to what was said didn't even bother to try and understand the argument you just assumed I am as bloodthirsty as the can and prefer people to die? again you have delibritaely ignored the most salient part the red cross stated settlements are INCOMPITABLE WITH ARTICLE 27 of the fourth geneva conventions. you may wish settlers to be protected and someday the grey area may be closed but of today the protections do not apply.
well than piss on your fucking opinion. if you have a problem with the law and its accurate interpertation doesn't make me a monster.
no they don't have the protections of international law as the reed cross has said. so either you didn't read my link to the red crosses or don't understand what the word incompatible means.
erring on the side you may very well not know what the word means here
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incompatible
you think I'm a muslim. so despite the fact my religious beliefs have been espoused more than once here you feel I'm a muslim simply because I'm educated and smart enough to know that Israel has waged a criminal endeavor against the palestinian people for close to 100 years now. this isn't the first time you have either lied about my beliefs or grossly mischacterized. how about this instead of just making assumption based on your own fucking prejudices try thinking for a change I know but the poor jews need to be defended from the consequences of their own actions but hey why not show your rampent bigotry and all that.