Thread: Israel Must Be Held Accountable For Its International Law Violations

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Um, ever hear of the Reuben James? And there were many other instances of American sailors, civilian and military, losing their lives during Lend-Lease operations. Now of course you can say that the Germans were justified because Lend-Lease was preferentially aiding one side, a definite no-no for a "neutral" nation, but it's undeniable that Americans were killed by Germans prior to the declaration of war.

I don't think the Germans were justified in practically anything they did in that war.

As you say later, U-boats were often attacked and shadowed by American ships.

Also, America did not declare war on Germany until Germany declared war on America. Again, the Germans had legitimate grievances, as American ships had been firing upon U-Boats for quite some time. But technically, America responded to Germany's declaration of war, not the other way around.

Declarations of war are documents. Germany posed no de facto direct threat to America, yet the latter - or FDR? - thankfully did not take a bandwagonesque line of 'logic' and recognised that Nazism had to be destroyed.

Originally Posted by Confed999

The one where the Lebanese end up policing themselves. Then, just like Jordan, for example, the fighting between the two can stop.

Yes, that's the best solution, but how do we persuade them to do something that, in the short term, probably would result in more Lebanese deaths?

Hezbolla is still attacking.

You took that entirely out of context. My question was, if Israel stops attacking Hezbollah, has Hezbollah offered to halt the rocket attacks? And then I made that remark, trying to say that if that scenario did occur, it wouldn't cause Hezbollah to cease its attacks forever, although it might result in less total Israeli casualties. I just wonder whether it might be wiser for Israel to live with the occasional rocket attack or cross border raid, without trying to eliminate the source of those attacks once and for all, which might cause more casualties than simple retaliation.

If Hezbolla can freely attack Israel, then so can everyone else.

If Israel retaliates proportionally every time Hezbollah attacks, then logically anyone else who attacks Israel would face the certainty of retaliation. Thus, pinpricks would continue to occur, but serious assaults with serious loss of life would be met with serious retaliation, and any WMD strike would result in nuclear retaliation. I'm imagining kind of a Cold War scenario here, with scattered regional conflicts corresponding with scattered bombings and rocket attacks. We did everything to avoid escalation in the Cold War, because we wanted to avoid large scale conflict, with the possiblity of nukes. Perhaps Israel should follow a similar policy. Just an idea, I don't know if it actually matches reality or not.

Ending it sooner will cost the least lives.

Not necessarily. Certainly ending it will cost less lives than allowing it to continue forever, but ending it sooner rather than later would only save lives if the rate of death did not go up as a result of intensified fighting. And that also assumes that we know for sure that we can end it sooner. To my mind, there is a very real possibility that Israel's attempts to eliminate Hezbollah will intensify and expand the Arab hatred of Israel, thus possibly both extending and intensifying the fighting and the loss of life.

If Lebanon is policing itself, and it adopts a non-aggression policy with regards to Israel, what are the chances a WMD strike would come from Lebanon?

Yes, that would be the ideal solution, but what if Lebanon attempts to police itself, a civil war ensues, and Hezbollah wins? Then you have a very hostile Lebanon, with a greater likelihood of fighting.

This is all very hypothetical, of course, but I'm just trying to point out that there may be consequences to a full scale Israeli attack on Hezbollah that are much worse than the current situation.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

I don't think the Germans were justified in practically anything they did in that war.

As you say later, U-boats were often attacked and shadowed by American ships.

These two statements kind of cancel each other out. Were the German submariners justified, or were they not justified in attacking American ships when the American ships attacked them?

Declarations of war are documents. Germany posed no de facto direct threat to America, yet the latter - or FDR? - thankfully did not take a bandwagonesque line of 'logic' and recognised that Nazism had to be destroyed.

So you're saying that the declaration of war simply recognized what was already occuring? And America's Lend-Lease was effectively a declaration of war?

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Yes, that's the best solution, but how do we persuade them to do something that, in the short term, probably would result in more Lebanese deaths?

Like I've said, they have to decide that for themselves. Their choices so far have led them here, and they have from now until their extinction to change their minds.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

You took that entirely out of context. My question was, if Israel stops attacking Hezbollah, has Hezbollah offered to halt the rocket attacks?

I was simply stating the Hezbollah has not stoped it's attack, or sued for any kind of peace. They started a war, and now either they stop it, or Israel continues towards it's objectives.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

I'm imagining kind of a Cold War scenario here

Which would work, if death was a deterant to these folks.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Certainly ending it will cost less lives than allowing it to continue forever, but ending it sooner rather than later would only save lives if the rate of death did not go up as a result of intensified fighting.

Unless we're talking literally generations, and that's a lot of killing, it's going to come to a fight anyway.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

but what if Lebanon attempts to police itself, a civil war ensues, and Hezbollah wins? Then you have a very hostile Lebanon, with a greater likelihood of fighting.

Not trying makes them responsible for what happens because of their inaction.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

This is all very hypothetical, of course, but I'm just trying to point out that there may be consequences to a full scale Israeli attack on Hezbollah that are much worse than the current situation.

There certainly may be, but then, there may not be. Either way people are going to die, a lot of people, and doing something is better than hoping for the best.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Germany posed no de facto direct threat to America, yet the latter - or FDR? - thankfully did not take a bandwagonesque line of 'logic' and recognised that Nazism had to be destroyed.

What makes you do think that such a line would prevent America from setting out to destroy Naziism.

You tried to show that the US was not fighting a defensive war, and I suggested that it was. I didn't suggest that America should not make a judgement about the prudence of fighting Naziism by military action in either case.

Same with your question about genocide. Yes of course I think nations should militarily intervene to prevent genocide. The same judgement applies: Degree of Need PLUS chance of success should outweigh killing and devastation and other outfall hereby caused.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Ah, here comes the "Hezbollah can't be militarily defeated"...?

As long as an organisation is made up of men with flesh and blood, it can be defeated. There are varying levels of difficulty, but it can be defeated.

They are well dug in and have a good supply of angry men, (foreign if need be) and arms. I haven't seen a reduction in firepower yet. What proportion of the Lebanese population are you prepared to exterminate.

Originally Posted by bandwagon

They are well dug in and have a good supply of angry men, (foreign if need be) and arms.

Sounds like most every war.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

I just wonder whether it might be wiser for Israel to live with the occasional rocket attack or cross border raid, without trying to eliminate the source of those attacks once and for all, which might cause more casualties than simple retaliation.

I seriously doubt that any Israeli government would; or rather could, sit idly by while its cities and towns are subjected to regular rocket attacks, and its citizens killed, without being voted out of power and replaced by one promising retaliation.

To my mind, there is a very real possibility that Israel's attempts to eliminate Hezbollah will intensify and expand the Arab hatred of Israel, thus possibly both extending and intensifying the fighting and the loss of life.

IMO the hatred and intransigence that Arabs feel towards the State of Israel is so darn near 100%, that any intensified action on the part of the IDF could hardly inflame them any further.

Originally Posted by Amled

I seriously doubt that any Israeli government would; or rather could, sit idly by while its cities and towns are subjected to regular rocket attacks, and its citizens killed, without being voted out of power and replaced by one promising retaliation.

I seriously doubt any government anywhere could survive that policy for long.

Originally Posted by Amled

I seriously doubt that any Israeli government would; or rather could, sit idly by while its cities and towns are subjected to regular rocket attacks, and its citizens killed, without being voted out of power and replaced by one promising retaliation.

You missed the last part of my quote. I made a distinction between Israel's attempts to destroy Hezbollah, and lesser retaliation, i.e., "you shoot a rocket at us, and we'll shoot a rocket back at you," rather than "you shoot a rocket at us, and we'll invade your country and wipe you from the face of the earth."

IMO the hatred and intransigence that Arabs feel towards the State of Israel is so darn near 100%, that any intensified action on the part of the IDF could hardly inflame them any further.

How do you know this? Have you visited these countries? My only contact with Arabs/Muslims is on this board, where most of them don't seem to be the rabid kill the jews type that you seem to believe to be the majority.

I'm outta here, got a wedding to prepare for. (And no, it's not my own, thank God) Great discussions, talk more later maybe. Ciao.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

I'm outta here, got a wedding to prepare for. (And no, it's not my own, thank God) Great discussions, talk more later maybe. Ciao.

Have fun!!!!

Originally Posted by bandwagon

What makes you do think that such a line would prevent America from setting out to destroy Naziism.

Because Nazi Germany posed no direct threat.

You tried to show that the US was not fighting a defensive war, and I suggested that it was.

Difference is, I explained why it was not a directly defensive war.

I didn't suggest that America should not make a judgement about the prudence of fighting Naziism by military action in either case.

But it doesn't fit your definition of "war in direct self-defence". Apart from U-boat skirmishes...

Same with your question about genocide. Yes of course I think nations should militarily intervene to prevent genocide. The same judgement applies: Degree of Need PLUS chance of success should outweigh killing and devastation and other outfall hereby caused.

Ah, so your maxim of "war in direct self-defence" only stands, just with a few glaring exceptions.

They are well dug in and have a good supply of angry men, (foreign if need be) and arms. I haven't seen a reduction in firepower yet.

"Yet." Be patient. The rocket attacks will soon either dwindle or stop abruptly.

What proportion of the Lebanese population are you prepared to exterminate.

As little as possible.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

These two statements kind of cancel each other out. Were the German submariners justified, or were they not justified in attacking American ships when the American ships attacked them?

They weren't justified, but it was a predictable reaction. But that's not the point. Germany posed no direct threat beyond those naval skirmishes.

Regardless, the military assets of a tyrannical regime should always be fair game.

So you're saying that the declaration of war simply recognized what was already occuring?

No, it recognised Hitler's foolish desires.

And America's Lend-Lease was effectively a declaration of war?

Er... I didn't say that.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

And America's Lend-Lease was effectively a declaration of war?

In contrast to Sweden's and Switzerland's supplying of ball-bearings or Turkey's supplying of chromium to Nazi Germany??

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

But you could also say that America had a right to ship supplies to Britain, and a right to defend its ships from attack. My knowledge of Admiralty and Neutrality laws is kinda sketchy, but I believe that neutral nations were traditionally free to deliver goods to belligerents. This may not apply to military goods however.
.

Infact it applies to anything you damn well like. American trade with France during the Napoleonic wars as an example. It gutted the English to see the American flagged ships sail past the blockades, but the only way for them to do anything about it was to declare war on America which in the 20th century context, is exactly what Hitler did. In all reality, Hitler had such a poor impression of America that he probably would have declared war anyway, just to take out the eastern seaboard shipping lanes.