2343 of 62457 members online
Coffee Machines 720 GetFrank GymJunkie Menu Mania Snow Surf Varsity

Forgot Your Password? Create Account
[quote]
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072228.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22BRONNER.html

quote:
The soldier was quoted as saying that the rabbis had “brought in a lot of booklets and articles,” adding, “their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle. God brought us back to this land, and now we need to fight to expel the non-Jews who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land.”

Way to turn it into a holy war on both sides.
[quote]
Theres idiots on both sides, israel would be far better off without its orthodox jews but at least they are under *some* control.
[quote]
bob said:
Theres idiots on both sides

Undoubtedly. It would be nice if the democratic, supposedly "Western" nation of Israel were the ones to operate at a slightly higher level of moral authority than the nutjobs in Hamas though.
[quote]
Hamas et al wouldn't exisit if not for the nut bars of Israel and their policies of genocide
[quote]
quote:
In the end, the haunting question is whether the war crimes concerns raised by Israel’s behaviour in Gaza matters, and if so, how. I believe it matters greatly in what might be called “the second war” – the legitimacy war that often ends up shaping the political outcome more than battlefield results. The US won every battle in the Vietnam war and lost the war; the same with France in Indochina and Algeria, and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Shah of Iran collapsed, as did the apartheid regime in South Africa, because of defeats in the legitimacy war.

It is my view that this surfacing of criminal charges against Israel during and after its attacks on Gaza resulted in major gains on the legitimacy front for the Palestinians. The widespread popular perceptions of Israeli criminality, especially the sense of waging war against a defenceless population with modern weaponry, has prompted people around the world to propose boycotts, divestments and sanctions. This mobilisation exerts pressure on governments and corporations to desist from relations with Israel, and is reminiscent of the worldwide anti-apartheid campaign that did so much to alter the political landscape in South Africa. Winning the legitimacy war is no guarantee that Palestinian self-determination will be achieved in the coming years. But it does change the political equation in ways that are not fully discernable at this time.

The global setup provides a legal framework capable of imposing international criminal law, but it will not be implemented unless the political will is present. Israel is likely to be insulated from formal judicial initiatives addressing war crimes charges, but will face the fallout arising from the credibility that these charges possess for world public opinion. This fallout is reshaping the underlying Israel/Palestine struggle, and giving far greater salience to the legitimacy war (fought on a global political battlefield) than was previously the case.


http://mondediplo.com/
[quote]
bob daktari said:
Hamas et al wouldn't exisit if not for the nut bars of Israel and their policies of genocide


I'm not so sure, Palestinian terrorism exists because Israel exists.
[quote]
bob said:
I'm not so sure, Palestinian terrorism exists because Israel exists.

At certain ranges-of-the-argument yes.

But I think there is merit in saying that if Israel was back at 67 borders, took a much less hardline approach to Palestine, acted as a neighbour/friend etc that much of the root cause of Palestinian youth joining Hamas etc would be removed and Hamas and their ilk would find it much harder to get internal recognition and support as they do now.
Both sides have now got themselves to a point where that will be incredibly difficult of course, but an Israel that helped the people of Palestine and allowed them self-rule would be a long-run safer one I believe.
[quote]
i mostly agree but i think its also easy to forget that in the days the times gone, israel had *every* reason to expect wholesale attack and needed to defend itself.

Its only that the arab states failed in a direct assault that they have spent so much effort supprting more indirect routes.

In the same way that hamas is a product of israeli actions israeli fundamentalists are a product of arab aggression.

It will take both sides and a whole lot of trust to sort this mess out. So far i hold more faith in the israeli people.
[quote]
bob said:
In the same way that hamas is a product of israeli actions israeli fundamentalists are a product of arab aggression.


no isreali fundamentalists existed well before the state of israel... this is why the place is so fucked up

for there to be peace it needs Israel to broker it as they are the ones with the power, the palestinians have shown the ability to compromise many times, only to be shat on by the Israelis... thus the groups like Hamas have gotten more and more militant and extreme
[quote]
By the same token arab nationalism existed before 'israel'.

There was no 'start' it has been a conflict zone for human history.

I blame the British Razz

timeline of the conflicts interpret as you will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
[quote]
bob said:
By the same token arab nationalism existed before 'israel'.

There was no 'start' it has been a conflict zone for human history.


agreed - I should have pointed out I don't for a second believe the Arabs have behaved well over the creation of nor since the State Of Israel was formed

the area has a long history of being a mess.. this doesn't mean that lastiung peace can't be achieved... it just takes a HUGE effort on all sides, one that puts people before race and culture (a huge ask for our species)
[quote]
History proves that the only stable border is an expanding one.
[quote]
Wonder if Israel will have to face the ICC. I highly doubt it as Gaza/Palestine is not recognised as a state therefore they have not breached international law.

Despite breaching 4 different sections of the Geneva Convention.

Not a huge fan of the way Israel conducted it's attack, in saying that Hamas hasn't exactly made this a clear cut issue. Neutral
[quote]
why have Hamas not made this clear cut?

of course Israel won't be held accouutable as their allies won't allow it
[quote]
quote:
Last week Human Rights Watch wrote to European Union foreign ministers calling for an international inquiry into war crimes in Gaza. In the case of Israel, the organisation cited the siege of Gaza as a form of collective punishment; the use of artillery and white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas, including schools; the shooting of civilians holding white flags; attacks on civilian targets; and "wanton destruction of civilian property".

Israel and others also accuse Hamas of war crimes. But while both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have echoed that charge, particularly in relation to the indiscriminate rocketing of towns such as Sderot, an exhaustive investigation by Human Rights Watch has found no evidence, for example, of Hamas using human shields in the clearly defined legal sense of coercion to protect fighters in combat. And as Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights, argued recently, any attempt to view the two sides as "equally responsible" is an absurdity: one is a lightly-armed militia, effectively operating underground in occupied territory – the other the most powerful army in the region, able to pinpoint and pulverise targets with some of the most sophisticated weaponry in the world.

There is of course no chance that the UN security council will authorise the kind of International Criminal Court war crimes indictment now faced by Sudan's leaders over Darfur. Any such move would certainly be vetoed by the US and its allies. And Israel's own courts have had no trouble in the past batting away serious legal challenges to its army's atrocities in the occupied territories. But the use of universal jurisdiction in countries such as Spain or even Britain is making Israeli commanders increasingly jumpy about travelling abroad.

With such powerful evidence of violations of the rules of war now emerging from the rubble of Gaza, the test must be this: is the developing system of international accountability for war crimes only going to apply to the west's enemies – or can the western powers and their closest allies also be brought to book?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza
[quote]
resist said:
I highly doubt it as Gaza/Palestine is not recognised as a state therefore they have not breached international law.


Are you 100% sure it's necessary that Palestine is recognised? I haven't heard that raised in the discussions I've followed on it
[quote]
International law is very much based around the state. Because Gaza is not a recognized 'state' it means that they are not protected by international law.
[quote]
quote:
The ICC prosecutor initially dismissed the Palestinians' appeals to the ICC, saying he could not build a case against Israel as it is not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome. However, he said he was reexamining the possibility of launching an investigation against Israel after the Palestinian Authority submitted documents it said proved Palestine was a legal state with the right to request such a probe.


The Rome Statute that created the ICC determines that only a state could accept the court's jurisdiction for such an investigation to be launched.
[quote]
Perhaps the UN should send their peace keepers in to secure the borders and separate the sides?
[quote]
good idea bob, the US needs another case to allow them to exercise its power of veto in the security council

it seems the only people in the world that can even attempt to hold Israel to account is the worlds media... and they have no power except to shame
[quote]
resist said:
International law is very much based around the state. Because Gaza is not a recognized 'state' it means that they are not protected by international law.

Well that's a bucket of ass then isn't it!
[quote]
garethw said:
resist said:
International law is very much based around the state. Because Gaza is not a recognized 'state' it means that they are not protected by international law.

Well that's a bucket of ass then isn't it!


I dont think that is correct entirely - they cant make a submission to the court. Israel can be brought in front of it.

I think there's more to why Israel isn't being hauled into the IC than just the protection of the US etc. Israel have every right to turn around and say well why don't you help us prevent the attacks. There is some proof that even with disengagement the Arabs continue to attack, continuing the cycle.

Its not as simple as many people (on boths sides) like to make it.
[quote]
bob said:
I dont think that is correct entirely - they cant make a submission to the court. Israel can be brought in front of it.

Right, yes this is more what I would have expected but don't know for a fact.
[quote]
it is not even close to simple... this is complicated shit

Even Hamas can't prevent the attacks, for example - they have tried and managed during the ceasfire to seriously reduce them but not stop them outright - there are many factions fighting for power in the occupied territories - many whom hate each other as much as they hate the jews/isrealis
[quote]
bob daktari said:
it is not even close to simple... this is complicated shit

Even Hamas can't prevent the attacks, for example - they have tried and managed during the ceasfire to seriously reduce them but not stop them outright - there are many factions fighting for power in the occupied territories - many whom hate each other as much as they hate the jews/isrealis


If Hamas can't control the attacks they fail the first test of statehood don't they? The monopoly of violence...
[quote]
by ignoring the PLO israel just strengthened hamas.

Hamas are a bunch of freaking loons that have no desire for peace and as long as they exist there will never be peace.

Peace will only happen once hamas has been destroyed. Simple.

The tricking bit is figuring out how to destroy hamas, because it's pretty much a hydra.
[quote]
neil_armstrong said:

Hamas are a bunch of freaking loons that have no desire for peace and as long as they exist there will never be peace.


Rolling Eyes Completing ignoring of course the social / economic benefits that Hamas provide. One of the primary reasons why they still popularity with Palestinians despite it's other activities.

"The group devotes much of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programs, and funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. Such services arent't generally provided by The Palestinian Authority. According to the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz "approximately 90 percent of the organization's work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Provision_of_social_welfare_and_education
[quote]
bit like Scientology really.
[quote]
bob said:
bit like Scientology really.


exactly..

It's irrelevant what hamas provides. Doesn't make them any less crazy. Like the rest of the world's religious nuts they are completely divorced from reality, and there will be no peace as long as they exist. The PLO was essentially a secular organisation and peace would have been possible with the PLO (many countries have seen revolutionary organisations transition into legitimate governments). But Hamas is different. They're freaking loons.
[quote]
garethw said:
resist said:
International law is very much based around the state. Because Gaza is not a recognized 'state' it means that they are not protected by international law.

Well that's a bucket of ass then isn't it!


Many inroads are being made into the state-oriented set up of international law.

The ICC only has jurisdiction over crimes occurring on the territory of the state parties. I'm not sure if Palestine is a party to the ICC statute.

But Palestine itself could, if it wanted to and provided it had the domestic legislative framework, seek to prosecute Israeli officials individually. Third states also (eg Spain, Belgium, France, UK etc) could seek to prosecute Isreli officials for international crimes committed in Gaza by exercising universal jurisdiction which attaches to international crimes. The problem for third states in getting involved, are immunities attaching to serving officials. But those who have left office are certainly at risk, and once the current Israeli administration leaves office, it too will be at risk.