Shek

This is not a war crime if it targets a military target while using proportionate force.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

gunnut

May I ask how can the Israelis occupy Palestine legally? Has any country/nation/state/people occupied another area legally before in history?

I think muslims are occupying Palestine illegally today. They didn't exist until 7th century AD. They didn't enter that region until roughly 9th century AD. So they didn't originate from that area. They moved in. They marched in. They displaced the original inhabitants. They OCCUPIED Palestine, illegally, might I add.

Please show me how muslims occupy Palestine today legally. Where's their paperwork? Where's their pink slip? Did the Ottoman Empire sign a piece of paper to cede this area to Palestinians? Did the Byzentine Empire give the deed of this land to the muslims?

I want some legality here.

SHOW ME THE DEED!!!

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Stan187

He'd have to take his thumbs from out his ****, because that's where the deed is buried.

Yirmeyahu

troung

Your questions are, as you know, invalid. For example, by asking "When did you stop beating your wife?", you assume that the person you are asking had, at at least some point in the past, beat his wife.

Your point, obviously, is to try to say that my question was similiary invalid, based similarly upon a false assumption. Let's examine it again. I asked:

Why do you reject the right of people who have been forced to flee from their homes to return to their property?

There is nothing assumed in that question. The right of return is the right of people who have been forced to flee from their homes to return to their property. ZFBoxcar confirmed that he rejects the right of return quite candidly.

I said, "you must therefore, by your own equation, reject the right of return for Palestinian refugees." ZFBoxcar replied, "Correct."

My question, therefore, is perfectly valid. I would like to know why ZFBoxcar rejects the right of return.

shek,

I also included all Israeli civilians killed in my numbers, a fact you conveniently fail to mention.

But you are wrong. The burden was upon Israel to demonstrate that the military necessity of its actions outweighed the potential risk to civilians. Deliberately targetting civilian infrastructure, populated areas, and using inherently indiscriminate weaponry such as cluster munitions are war crimes.

That's just as true for Israel as it is for Hezbollah. The comparison ends there, however. Israel's violations of international law were on a far greater scale than Hezbollah's.

The pirate and the emperor.

I said "the bombing of populated civilian areas" was a war crime. A "populated civilian area" is never a "military target".

gunnut,

I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but if the occupied country/nation/state/people consented to the occupation, it would be legal.

Let's examine this a moment. You think Muslims illegally occupy Palestine today because they "marched in" and "displaced the original inhabitants". Let's assume this was true. By the same logic, since the Jews "marched in" and "displaced the original inhabitants" of the land, they illegally occupy Palestine.

Other examples abound. Perhaps you are an indigenous American. If not, however, by your own reasoning, you are illegally occupying the continent of North America.

Shek

Yirmey,

1. The use of protected areas by combatants nullifies the specific protections afforded to the protected area.

By your logic, you cannot fight in cities because they are populated. This is not the case. This is why the Geneva Conventions as well as just war theory addresses the concept of proportionality.

2. As far as cluster munitions being inherently a war crime - if this were the case, then they'd be a prohibited munition. Care to produce the international law that prohibits cluster munitions?

3. Bombing of civilian infrastructure is not inherently wrong, as most infrastructure has dual roles. You need to start addressing specifics and then provide the case that it wasn't necessary.

So far, your argument has been that civilians died and stuff has civilian uses, neither of which is sufficient enough to support your claims of illegality.

ZFBoxcar

I gave a more nuanced answer afterwards, but as is your way, you only assume people said what is easiest for you to argue with.

I have no problem with the people who literally inhabited Israel moving back provided there is some proof that they did live there at some point (a deed, a lease, a bill, etc). My problem is stripping Israel of its right to control its own immigration policies by forcing it to allow an entire nation to move within its borders where it will be a majority and replace the Israeli nation with their own.

Stan187

Not to mention that those people claim its their right to bring their children with them as well, who never lived there.

Even the qualification for having lived there is bias. The UN considers anyone who lived in the area for two years prior to the 1948 war a refugee. So people who were more or less nomadic in some cases came, lived there from 1946 to 1948, moved, and now are considered refugees as well as their children and their children's children to infinity.

Would someone be considered an American, for example, if they lived here for two years and then moved somewhere else? Of course not. But as always, Palestinians are special refugees, who have special rules and qualifications made for them in order that their grievances have more legal-rational claim to them then they actually should if they were treated like any other refugee group.

astralis

yirmeyahu,

you seriously need to educate yourself on the terms jus en bello and jus ad bellum. try reading st. augustine, or st. thomas aquila, for starters. you have very little idea of what a "war crime" is, and this ignorance makes you look like a relativist moron.

i HAVE defined it, which apparently missed you the first...and second time. here it is, maybe third time is the charm. if you don't understand this definition, that means you don't understand the political-science terms "state", "nation", "nation-state", nor the influence of culture, demographics, and civil society on a state.

going on...

and unless you show me some method by which this right of return is possible without fundamentally altering the characteristics of (and thereby destroying) the israeli nation-state, your support of a "two-state solution" is de facto BS.

did they change the fundamental justice of the war against japan? my point was that you are mixing up jus en bello and jus ad bellum, and demonstrating that the numbers game of "who killed more" is moot in determining justness in this case.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Shek

Yirmey,

Michael Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars" is the gold standard book for college texts on this subject.

Shek

Maybe because Nasrallah is on the record stating that Hizbollah deliberately targeted the Israeli civilian population.

gunnut

Very true. But at least they aren't illegally occupying Palestine from the muslims. Therefore, only the non-muslims in Gaza can complain. In fact, who was there before the Jews? Jews were there before the Ottomans, before the muslims, before Byzentines, before the Christians, before the Romans.

Actually my family occupies America legaly, as far as the American government is concerned. The native Americans might object, but then I'll just defer that to the American government.

Yirmeyahu

shek,

Under international law, "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character".

In some cases, a protected area may lose its protected status, yes. But not in all cases whatsoever. A hospital that has been taken over by combatants and is being used as a base from which to engage in hostilities would lose its protected status and could be attacked, provided no unreasonable threat to civilians would be manifest. However, as I've already noted, the mere presense, at a hospital being used as a hospital and filled with civilians, of non-civilians is not sufficient for a civilian protected location to become a target for military action.

I've already produced the international law that prohibits indiscriminate warfare. Cluster munitions, by their very nature, are indiscriminate weapons.

Incorrect. The burden of proof is not to demonstrate that bombing civilian infrastructure is NOT necessary, but to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that it IS necessary and that all precautions are taken to avoid civilian casualties.

ZFBoxcar

Well, it seems to me, then, that you agree with the right of return, only that you recognize certain matters of practicality as limiting any such possibility.

If so, I agree with you. The alternative is to compensate those who were forced from their homes. Surely, you agree that this would be an equitable alternative, do you not?

astralis,

Here's another latin term: ad homineum. Merely stating that I am ignorant and a "relativist moron", without demonstrating where I made any error in fact or logic, is insufficient.

Nonetheless, while I can't claim to share in your astounding knowledge of the subject, I am, at least, familiar with just war theory, including the differentiation between acceptable practices in war and the justification for war itself. I fail to see where anything I've said is in contention with these two principles.

Yes, you defined "destruction" of a state as as the dramatic alteration of the demographics. By this definition, it was the Zionist intention to "destroy Palestine" by creating a massive influx of Jewish immigrants into the region.

As for the right of return, there must be a remedy for injustice. An alternative remedy would be to offer just compensation. Such a solution would allay your fears over the "destruction" of Israel, so perhaps you would find it more to your liking.

Do you know the latin term for "strawman"? I never argued that the war was unjust. I merely observed that the firebombings and nukings of populated civilian cities were unspeakable war crimes. It was a comment made regarding jus in bello not jus ad bellum.

Furthermore, I'm not familiar with any "numbers game" designed to determine the "justness" of a situation.

I would, however, reiterate that the crimes committed by Israel this summer during the violence in Lebanon were on a far greater scale than those commited by Hezbollah.

Which brings us back to St. Augustine's pirate and emperor story.

shek,

Thanks for that suggestion. I'll put it on my list.

One needn't have an acknowledgment from Nasrallah to know that Hezbollah targeted the Israeli civilian population through indiscriminate use of rockets. Similarly, denials on the part of Israel that the civilian population and infrastructure of Lebanon were targeted are equally meaningless.

I'm not familiar with the statement you're referring to, but assuming it was made, the only thing it would demonstrate, besides Nasrallah's contempt for law and human life, is that he's at least more honest about it than Israel's leaders.

gunnut,

It was populated by various Canaanite tribes, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Philistines, and the Phoenicians, among others, and also came under Babylonian rule, prior to the arrival of the Jews and other Israelites.

In fact, the name "Palestine" comes from "Philistine", and was given that name by the Romans in reference to those original inhabitants.

We're not discussing the American government's opinion of the matter, we're discussing yours. And by your logic, your family illegally occupy the land. So unless you're willing to re-examine your argument, that's a fact you'll have to concede.

Stan187

There is a reason that cluster munitions are not mentioned anywhere as being illegal under international law. That is because no one agreed that they are not. What you think is indiscriminate does not make the law, ans we're all better off for it, that your opinion is not the basis of any laws. Having admitted to not knowing about military science as much as any of us, what you consider the nature of certain munitions is pretty irrelevant.


Um, no. That's not an effective argument. "No, the burder of proof is on you". You're making a claim. Prove it.




He said he agrees for people who originally lived there to come back. The right of return specifies all people currently considered refugees, including offspring and about 4.5-5 million people who never actually lived there. So you're twisting his words around to make him agree with you more than anything. And that's called putting words into someone's mouth, and is generally not respected around here any more than your idiot remarks of calling people racists or saying that they support apartheid.

They were "forced" from their homes, much less so than Jews were forced out of Arab countries. So if there is talk of compensation, it can only be at the same time as Jews who were forced out of their Arab countries of residence are also being talked to about compensation for THEIR suffering.


He's demonstrated your errors in both fact and logic quite a few times. The fact that he reiterates that, and then you pick only that statement out to quote simply demonstrates that you're a cherry picker, and only goes to back up the claim that you're an ignorant and relativist moron.


Exactly, there is no numbers game, because you cannot have a situation be more or less moral because of numbers. So you are in fact contradicting yourself.


Philistines were not there prior to the arrival of Jews. Archeologists have established pretty clearly where they came from, they were traders and sea merchants who gradually moved to the region from Greece. So they were not there first, and certainly not original inhabitants. The Canaanite, Amorite and Hittite ethinicities and cultures died out. The first people there who still go on till this day are, in fact, Jews.

The Romans named it Palestine in order to undermine and subjugate the Jews that they conquered as punishment, in order to destroy their claim over the land, as the sent them into slavery or exile. It was a political move, not a move of establishing historical correctness by the Romans.

ZFBoxcar

I agree completely, except that what you are describing is totally at odds with the right of return as defined by ALL Palestinian factions, as Stan said.

As well, I support compensation and/or right of return for the Jewish refugees forced out of Arab countries, although I doubt those countries would be swamped with Jews wanting to immigrate there...

Yirmeyahu

Stan187,

Cluster munitions are inherently indiscriminate, particularly since unexploded munitions become de facto land mines.

The fact that no law currently exists explicitly forbidding cluster munitions is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) I am speaking of a moral standard irrespective of a legal one and 2) Under a proper reading of the spirit of international law, as opposed to an inproper reading of the letter, cluster munitions are, by nature, indiscriminate weapons.

The 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Landmines and on their Destruction, otherwise known as the Mine Ban Treaty, prohibits the use of antipersonnel landmines.

Under a Pharisaic legalistic interpretation of this law, cluster bombs are not forbidden since, although they kill innocent victims, they are not designed to be "victim-activated". In other words, that is not their designated purpose. It just so happens to be a "side-effect", if you will, of their flawed design (manufacturers calculate dud-rates).

Similarly, when U.S. legislation was proposed in 1997 to ban landmines, defined as those munitions, “designed, constructed, or adapted to be detonated or exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons”, the Pentagon insisted that the word “primarily” be inserted at the beginning of the definition lest the ban also be interpreted to cover cluster munitions.

I already have. See above. It's called international law. Aside from that, it's one of the most elementary and fundamental principles of justice. You might as well ask me to prove that committing murder is immoral.

1) Your assertion that I've put "words into someone's mouth" is false. ZFBoxcar said he agrees that he has no problem with people who originally lived in the land returning there. I therefore opined that, "it seems to me, then, that you agree with the right of return, only that you recognize certain matters of practicality as limiting any such possibility." If I have misunderstood ZFBoxcar, ZFBoxcar is welcome to correct me. As is, he's agreed "completely" (in his own words), so, clearly, your assessment of the situation is faulty.

2) Your assertion that I've called anyone "racists" or accused anyone of supporting apartheid is false. I merely opined that I, myself, do not support racism or apartheid.

Absolutely. But if you agree Jews wrongly forced from their homes in Arab countries have a right to compensation, then you must, unless you are a hypocrite, also agree that Arabs wrongly froced from their homes in Israel have a right to compensation.

You just repeated his fallacy. This is yet another ad hominem. If you care to actually demonstrate any error in fact or logic, rather than just falsely claiming to have done so, I'd love to hear it.

Yes, there is no numbers game. That's what I said. I fail to see any contradiction in anything I've said.

I am aware of where the Philistines came from. I never said they were indigenous to Palestine. I said they were there first.

The question was asked, "Who was there before the Jews?" and I answered it.

However, I was basing that statement on the fact that the Bible refers to the Philistines inhabiting the land prior to the birth of Israel. In fact, "Philistines" were in the land when Abraham arrived there (Gen. 21). As you say, archaological evidence suggests the Philistines didn't arrive until much later, and references in the Bible prior to that are anachronisms. So thank you for the correction.

However, as you also know, neither were the Israelites (not synonymous with "Jews", by the way) the original inhabitants of the land. They, like the Philistines, immigrated to the region and expelled the original inhabitants, some of whom I've named above, in answer to a question.

Again, thank you for correcting my error in doing so.

Quite right.

ZFBoxcar,

Well, I wasn't discussing what Palestinian factions believe, I was trying to arrive at a concensus about what you and I believe. We seem to have come substantially closer to an agreement on the matter.

However, I'm not sure we are at odds with "ALL Palestinian factions