gunnut

OK, I see your point. Where are these "Philistinians?" now? They weren't muslims back then. All they have to do is cease being muslims and they won't feel occupied. In fact, that's going back to their roots. Why would anyone not want to go back to their roots while on their homeland, living in their ancestral homes?

In fact, the UN resolution in 1948 that created the state of Israel also created the state of Palestine, for the Arab muslims living in that region. They refused (actually their patrons in other Arab nations) to live side by side peacefully with the Jews. That's what those numerous wars were about. Israel repeatedly offered to give back the land and let the Arabs start the nation of Palestine. All they have to do is recognize Israel as a nation. They refused time and time again.

Also, were the original Philistinians Arabs? I don't think so. I thought Arabs were tribesmen from the other side of the pennisula, closer to Persians. Philistinians were Mediteranians, not Arabs. What are Palestinians today? Are they more Arab or mediteranian?

I concede nothing. I live on this land legally. Want to see my papers? That makes me not an "occupier." The American government is the occupier. And they did it fair and square by removing the original inhabitants and then improve the land with technology.

The Jews is actually playing by the same rule as all those who came before them. They take the land by force, just like all others. Given a chance, the Arabs will wipe Israel off the map and take their land. Might does make right. If the Palestinians can do take the land back by force, by all means. They can't. Because their culture doesn't stress success. Only vengeance and death. They are their own worst enemy.

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

Shek

1. Provide some cases of international law where cluster munitions have been ruled to be forbidden, i.e. case law that supports your tortured reading of the 1997 ban on AP mines.

2. Your last statement is fallacious and a non-sequitir, as it uses circular logic.

__________________
"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

ZFBoxcar

Yirmeyahu,

While we may be substantively in agreement about what the end result of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians should be, that is only because we both disagree with the right of return as demanded by Palestinians. I know Wikipedia is not an academic source, but here is their explanation (I will put in bold the relevant points):

The term Right of return reflects a belief that members of an ethnic or national group have a right to immigration and naturalization into the country that they, the country, or both consider to be that group's homeland, without prior personal citizenship in that country. This belief is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a country's immigration laws which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora or dispersed ethnic population.

The term "Right of Return", when applied to Palestinians with respect to the State of Israel differs significantly with the definition of the term atop of this article. It reflects a belief that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return to the homes their families had possessed prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The UN General Assembly Resolution 194 was passed on December 11, 1948 with Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voting against. The Resolution's text does not distinguish between Palestinian and Jewish refugees. Its Article 11 "[r]esolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property..."[12]

Significantly, the UN maintains a separate and distinct definition of the word "refugees" for Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 and/or 1967. Palestinian refugees from Israel are classed as both the individuals who left Israel and any descendants of those individuals. This stands in contrast to the UN definition of refugee as it applies to displaced persons connected with territories other than those of the State of Israel: in the latter case it refers only to those individuals who were forced to flee, not to their lineal descendants.[13]

Me:

This means, that if the Palestinian side is to be satisfied, the right of return can only be compensation if the person and all of their descendants choose not to move to Israel. It also includes all "refugees" which under the strange definition created by the UN agency that runs their camps includes 5-8 million people, most of whom have never been to Israel.

Stan187

Interesting how you bounce around between moral and legal standards as it suits your argument. That is EXACTLY why I call you cherry picker.

zraver

Yirmeyahu, Boxcar

The Palestinians do not have any legal rigth of return under the "displacing the hostile populations of an agressor state precedent". This legal precedent both pre and post dates the 1948 UN vote. Nor is Gaza or the West bank legally Palestinian territory (it would have been until the violated the Olso accords). Following the end of the 48-49 war Egypt and Jordan annexed these areas and this was never contested by the arab population. In 1979 and 1980 Egypt and Jordan ceeded these areas to Israel in perpetutity.

Israel would be legaly justifed in simply forcing the Palestinian population out. Similar moves were used between the Greek and Turks, the post WW2 de-Germinisation of Prussia, Sudenteland, Alsace-Lorraine, the Arabs expulsion of jewish populations and most recently in the de-Serbinsation of Kosovo and de-Russinisation of several of the Stans. Becuase the Arabs have been the agressors they have forfieted any right to territorial intergrity or claim which is laso based on massive prededent. East Timor, Cyprus, Golan Heights, Prussia, Sudetenland, Formosa, Sakhalin Islands, Saipan etc etc etc

The recent war in lebanon are also not illegal. Hezzbollah attacke Israel while being an ative part of the Lebanese goverment. israel moved in to secure it's kidnapped soldiers and found itself under rocket attack. Lebanon via Hezzbollah plated the target civillians first card and Israel legally used it's air froce to hiunt these rockets and warne dthe civillian populations to flee. Hezzbollah could have stopped the rocket attacks on Jewish civillians at any time. Any nation has the right to absolute self defense specially when the UN has absolutely failed in its duty-

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

The UN has stood by for more than 50 years as naked Arab agression has attacked Israel again and again and again. The UN only seems albe to motivate itself to action against Israel eggged on by the Arab oil brokers who block any and all censuring of Palestinian terorism.

Stan187

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Yirmeyahu

gunnut

They don't just "feel" occupied, their land is occupied. It's not a perception, it's a matter of fact.

Christian Palestinians, too, live under occupation.

First, Israel was not "created" by any UN resolution. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution advising a partition of Palestine into two states. It was merely a proposal, not legally-binding.

Second, the partition plan that was created gave most of the land to the minority population. The Arabs, who were the majority and who owned most of the land, naturally rejected. It was an inherently unequitable proposal.

Third, aside from the proportion of land proposed for each state, the proposed "states" were non-contiguous, so even if the proportions had been more just, rejection would still have been reasonable.

Israel was "created" when the Jews unilaterally declared its existence.

There was nothing "fair and square" about it, but I'm sure you know that. Indigenous people were forcibly expelled from their land, or worse, killed. Treaty after treaty was broken. The nation was founded by ethnic cleansing.

Back to the point, applying your logic, you are an illegal occupant upon the land.

So, if you insist this isn't the case, then obviously there's a problem with your logic.

I strongly disagree. The acquisition of land by force is theft, and it is illegal. By any standard, it is a crime as well as immoral, if one espouses even the most elementary moral standards.

shek,

I have already provided you with the laws whereby cluster munitions are illegal weapons.

1) International law forbids indiscriminate warfare (see above). The use of cluster munitions in populated areas is inherently indiscriminate warfare.

2) International law forbids indiscriminate weapons, which includes weapons whose effects cannot be limited to military targets. Cluster munitions, on account of the fact that they have a built in dud rate and unexploded munitions become de facto landmines, are inherently indiscriminate weapons.

3) Landmines have been explicitly outlawed. Unexploded cluster munitions are de facto landmines.

It is a tortured reading of the letter of law indeed that allows cluster munitions to be regarded as "legal". The spirit of the law is unambiguous.

Incorrect.

Stan187

The title doesn't fit, I'm afraid, since I don't "bounce around between" moral and legal standards, but accept and apply them both.

They both suit my argument. The moral standard just so happens to be irrespective of any legal one.

zraver,

The Palestinians absolutely do have the right of return.

The Israeli occupation of the territories is absolutely illegal.

That is, in fact, a crime under international law.

The destruction of Lebanon was the result of massive war crimes, including destruction of civilian infrastructure and indiscrimate attacks in populated ares, resulting in massive civilian casualties.

That's illegal for Hezbollah. It's illegal for Israel.

I absolutely agree. This failure is in no small part due to the US, which uses its veto to diplomatically support Israeli crimes and aggression.

Stan187

No, it is not fact. What Palestinians call occupied territory, Israelis call disputed territory. There is no fact. It is only opinion. Any labeling of nature is by the very nature of statement political, and that is based on the FACT of power and nothing else.




It is not at all unabmiguous. If it was, it would say "no cluster bombs". This was not said because participants were not willing to draft something like this, they did not want to ban them. It is not international law, but your OPINION, that they are indiscriminate, and that's final. Any weapon is discriminate or indiscriminate based on circumstance and nothing more, there is no objective precision standard.

Landmines are explicitly outlawed. You have to be signatory to the ban. Neither Israel nor Lebanon are signatories.


The fact that you actually do bounce around between them at your own convenience makes you a CHERRY PICKER. The fact that you deny it after clearly showing throughout the discussion that you are, makes you an IDIOT.

Yirmeyahu

It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. The occupied territories are legally the land of the Palestinian people. The Israeli occupation of those lands is illegal. That is a matter of fact, repeatedly reiterated by the UN, as well as by the World Court.

FACT: The Israeli occupation of and settlement of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is illegal.

The spirit of the law is perfectly unambiguous. It is designed to protect civilians.

a) International law forbids indiscriminate warfare and weapons which are inherently indiscriminate because they cannot be limited to military targets.

b) Cluster munitions are inherently indiscriminate weapons.

You can do the math. A + B = C. It's elementary logic.

If you want to dispute (a), see above. I've already cited relevant international law. If you want to dispute (b), you're welcome to try to explain how cluster munitions aren't inherently indiscriminate.

Nor the US, for that matter.

You must also be a signatory of the Geneva Conventions for them to apply to you, but this doesn't mean that if you haven't signed them, it's okay for you to commit what would otherwise be considered "war crimes".

Take a Biblical example. Cain was never shown the tablets upon which were enscribed the Ten Commandments. Yet it was still a crime for him to murder Able.

It's a matter of "customary international law" and of "common law".

The spirit of both is as unambigious as the commandment "Thou shalt not murder".

As I've said, I don't "bounce around between" moral and legal standards, but accept them both.

Since you insist otherwise, please quote me where I ever rejected either a moral or a legal standard.

If you can produce such a quote, I'd be happy to acknowledge that you are correct.

If you are unable to produce such a quote, I'd be happy to accept your apology.

Stan187

No it really is. There never was any Palestinian lands being occupied or even disputed from 1967-1994, because those were Egyptian and Jordanian.



"The abduction and killing of Israeli soldiers in this case was wrong. However, it is a far more serious crime to kidnap civilians."

"It's a factual observation. The crimes of Israel were far greater than the crimes of Hezbollah."

"I am an American. I do not support Palestinian crimes, such as suicide bombings or the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel."

"You are one hundred percent correct that while grievances may be legitimate, responding with acts of terrorism is not."



"Do you believe in democracy and the notion that the people are the government and have a responsibility for what their government does and a duty to ensure that their government is a lawful one?"

"I am opposed to an 'Islamic state' I don't believe in apartheid or second-class citizenry any more than I believe in state religion."

"I do, however, recognize the Hamas politicans that were democratically elected as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, just as I recognize Likud or Labor politicians as the legitimate representatives of Israelis."

"You mentioned this notion of Palestinians wanting "the destruction of Israel". That phrase has various misleading connotations. I highly doubt any member of Hamas seeks the "destruction" of Israel."

"The reality is that Israel exists, and Hamas certainly recognizes this fact."

"So the basic theory behind suicide bombings is that Palestinains can intimidate Israelis into ending the occupation through violence. I would agree with you that this is not irrational. I would also agree with you that it is immoral, criminal, and counter-productive."

"Israeli terrorism is on a far greater scale"



"The fact that "embargo" is not synonymous with "blockade" is irrelevant.
The logic employed in both cases is precisely the same."

"8 miles is less than 12 nautical miles, the distance which is recognized under international law as the "territorial waters" of a state. Hence, as I noted, Egypt regarded the Strait as its territorial waters. For a counter-attack to be "pre-emptive" an attack must have been imminent."

Shek's qoute: "http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...torial_sea.pdf

Article 16, paragraph 4

There shall be no suspension of the innocent passage of foreign ships through straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign State."

"I simply observed the fact that Egypt regarded the Strait as territorial waters, and that under international law this was a reasonable position."

Shek

There is no international law that explicitly prohibits cluster munitions. There is also no customary law that prohibits cluster munitions. A cluster munition is not a landmine. (This is why there are proposed conventions coventions covering cluster munitions). Thus, the only prohibition of cluster munitions is inappropriate use, i.e. deliberately targeting non-combatants as opposed to military targets, disproportionate use of force, etc.

No, if you want to claim that the "spirit" of the law provides some sort of customary law, then you need to provide case law to support your case. To date, you have not done so. Therefore, your "spirit" argument is nothing but thin air or hot air, depending on how you want to label it.

Next, I got us going down the wrong track when asking about whether cluster munitions are inherently indiscriminate. In reality, all munitions are indiscriminate. Once you fire a bullet, it does not discriminate between combatant and non-combatant. Once you fire an artillery shell, it does not discriminate between combatant and non-combatant. I could provide numerous more examples, but you should be able to get the picture. Thus, the appropriate question is whether or not a weapon can be discriminately used. For example, a bullet can be aimed at combatants. An artillery shell can be aimed at combatants. Likewise, a cluster munition can be aimed at combatants. It can be used within the laws of land warfare.

Stan187

Indeed, I made this point a bit earlier, and he ignored it of course, because it doesn't prop up his already weak argument. Any weapon can be used to kill combatants or non-combatants equally.

Yirmeyahu

stan187

The Israeli occupation of and settlement of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is illegal. I'm not really sure how the above is a response to that fact.

I said: As I've said, I don't "bounce around between" moral and legal standards, but accept them both.

Since you insist otherwise, please quote me where I ever rejected either a moral or a legal standard.

If you can produce such a quote, I'd be happy to acknowledge that you are correct.

If you are unable to produce such a quote, I'd be happy to accept your apology.

You quoted a number of statements. In none of these statements have I rejected any moral standard. In none of them have I rejected a legal standard. Quite the contrary, they are all predicated upon either a moral or a legal standard, or both. The adoption of any of the above moral standards does not preclude the adoption of any legal standard, and, similarly, the adoption of any of the above legal standards does not preclude the adoption of any moral standard.

So, again, I find nothing mutually exclusive about moral and legal standards. On the contrary, I find them mutually supportive.

This "contradiction" is your own invention.

shek

That is correct.

International law does, however, explicitly prohibit both indiscriminate warfare and weapons which are by nature indiscriminate. I've already cited the Geneva Conventions on both those points, but I don't think either point is in dispute. They are certainly not controversial.

Cluster munitions are, by nature, indiscriminate, and using them in populated areas is indiscriminate warfare.

Stan187 and Shek

I'm applying the standard of international law: Geneva Protocol I, Article 51, Paragraphs 4 and 5:

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Stan187

I've posted plenty of contradictory statements on your part. Why do you think there aren't other people responding? Because there is no argument. You either a. contradict yourself or b. repeat the same thing over and over again after being proven wrong. Face it, you're a waste of breath. How me an shek keep tolerating your idiocy is only a testament to our patience, not to your intelligence.

Bluesman