The Republican Thread

[Jake]

By doing what?

 

First - let's talk about what a war crime is, because it's more than just a feeling one has.

 

War crimes, in this scenario, refer to the way non-combatants are treated in war. The overarching dictum is that nothing "of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination" of civilians is acceptable.

 

More specifically -

 

1. Collective punishments are war crimes: people cannot be punished for actions they have not personally committed. Cities, towns, neighborhoods, and countries cannot be shelled because their government/military have wronged you. Practices that "strike at guilty and innocent alike" are war crimes.

 

2. Occupying powers must care for and educate children, avoid damaging private or public property, and provide medical services to all.

 

3. Military operations must target military targets. A military target is slightly difficult to define, but here's a good look:

Additional Protocol I, Article 52, defines a legitimate military target as one “which by [its] nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” Any attack requires that it be justified, in the first place, by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. And if there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian.

 

4. When determining whether civilian loss of life is innocently incidental or not, the idea of proportionality is necessary. Is the response, which may cause civilian loss of life, proportional to the provoking attack/action? Here's a take on proportionality in this context from the International Criminal Court:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[7] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).

 

5. You can't kill civilians by proxy via destroying essential services. Water and food being primary, but also denial of medicine and things like this.

 

With that established, how does Israel stack up? We know Hamas is largely a terrorist organization - I'm not going to try to say they are above war crimes. They're not. It's probably in their nature. Of course, and this is a topic we should discuss, Israel has created an environment that would beg for terrorist uprisings to occur.

 

We can look to two incidents from July 30, where UN civilian camps were created at a school and a market. Israel's humanitarian spirit encouraged civilians to go to those places. Israel blew them up. Ban-ki Moon called the bombings "outrageous" and "unjustifiable," indicating an abundance of evidence that demonstrates IDF's responsibility.

 

As for the frequent shelling of places like hospitals where Hamas supposedly has stashed weapons, both parties have committed a war crime. The UN humanitarian chief explains:

"Locating rockets within schools and hospitals, or even launching these rockets from densely populated areas are violations of international humanitarian law," Pillay said, referring to Hamas, but added that doesn't "absolve" Israel from disregarding the same law.

 

Around 1,300 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and 59 Israelis, mainly soldiers, have been killed in the latest violence.

 

Israeli's initial aerial campaign against Hamas broadened to a ground offensive on July 17. Pillay said the government has defied international law in Gaza by attacking civilian areas with schools, hospitals, homes and U.N. facilities.

 

"None of this appears to me to be accidental," Pillay said of Israel at a news conference in Geneva to mark the end of her six-year term. "They appear to be defying -- deliberate defiance of -- obligations that international law imposes on Israel."

 

She also criticized Israel's strikes on Gaza's power plant, sewer systems and water wells as part of a similar pattern of destruction during the 2009 Gaza war.

 

"What I'm seeing now is a recurrence of the very acts that the Gaza fact-finding mission indicated as constituting war crimes and crimes against humanity," she said.

 

The general fact that independent aid agencies continue to count the casualties at 10-20 Gazans per 1 Israeli, with 80% of Gazan deaths being civilians per the UN and few enough Israeli civilian casualties to count on one hand, should give an indication as to whether Israel is acting proportionally.

 

Today there was another bombing of a UN location killing several and injuring enough to completely overwhelm the nearest hospital. With the morgue full, they were using freezers to store the bodies of dead children. Even the US State Department termed this "disgraceful" and called for Israel to do "more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties." Israel says they're looking into it but they're pretty sure there was a bad guy on a motorcycle over there.

 

Speaking of hospitals, the UN says a third of all hospitals in this region have been destroyed in the fighting. People cannot access many essential services, including sanitation. A huge portion of people went from being in one of the most densely populated places in the world to hiding in tiny spaces in the one of the most densely populated places in the world.

 

That was right after the cease fire was broken because Hamas "captured" an IDF soldier until Israel realized that, no, he was killed in combat. Nobody batted an eye over that one.

 

Amnesty International is another international organization that claims to have an abundance of evidence regarding Israel war crimes.

 

I wonder why Israel wouldn't sign a 10-year truce document with the Palestinian unified government - its stipulations were essentially that Gaza be treated like a sovereign entity that can go more than three miles from its shore to practice its historically largest trade, fishing, and to be allowed to import materials to build houses for its growing population. Oh, they also wanted permission to visit Jerusalem to pray at their holy places. If convinced that they can't be trusted and would break the truce, let them; you can always do bulls*** like this war when they do that.

 

This isn't a tit-for-tat game. Not liking Hamas is fine. However, if Israel is supposed to be an ally, we should expect better than what we expect from Hamas.

 

But maybe we shouldn't expect this stuff from Benjamin Netanyahu - this statement from a hot mic should make your blood boil as an American:

In a video from 2001, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in our way." Netanyahu also bragged how he undercut the peace process when he was prime minister during the Clinton administration. "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]," he said. "I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."

 

Prominent Israeli journalist Gideon Levy on those statements:

These remarks are profoundly depressing. They bear out all of our fears and suspicions: that the government of Israel is led by a man who doesn't believe the Palestinians and doesn't believe in the chance of an agreement with them, who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes. There's no point in talking about Netanyahu's impossible rightist coalition as an obstacle to progress. From now on, just say that Netanyahu doesn't want it.

 

 

[cabiness42]

^^^ Summary: Israeli civilians are dying because Hamas is hitting civilian targets that have no military value. Palestinian civilians are dying because Hamas is placing them with military targets that they know Israel is going to hit in retaliation for Hamas hitting civilian targets.

[EvilMonkey]

If the UN really wanted to solve this they would go in and disarm Hamas and occupy the country themselves, instead of setting up all these bogus schools and hospitals that serve dual purposes as military hiding places and ammo dumps. If Hamas stopped lobbing rockets at Israel forever, what do you think Israel would do? They would just go on about their lives and not worry about Gaza. If Israel were to stop responding to Gaza rocket attacks, all that would do is encourage more attacks from Hamas. Pillay is about as anti-Israel as you can get. While in his own statement was forced to admit that Hamas stored rockets in UN schools, he has NEVER, not even once, called them to the carpet for it, never a resolution, nothing. Just silence. The world either needs to disarm the bastards and let the Palis try and make something other than bombs and bunkers, or just back off and let Israel wipe every last Hamas member out.

 

And really, why wouldn't they sign the 'truce'? Did you even read the story? Free all prisoners, let them bring in more cement and ball bearings to rearm, let them move freely into Jerusalem, don't spy on us, don't watch us and oh, give us money for an 'industrial zone'. And what would Israel get? Hamas still refuses to recognize their right to exist. And the moment they break the cease fire, they would simply say the jews started it and the compliant UN and media will take them at their word.

[Jenksismyhero]

Terrorist group/governing body A bombs country B. Country B says "oh no you didn't" and defends itself. Country B is in the wrong.

 

How do smart people come to this moronic conclusion?

[GoSox05]

Terrorist group/governing body A bombs country B. Country B says "oh no you didn't" and defends itself. Country B is in the wrong.

 

How do smart people come to this moronic conclusion?

 

 

It really is that simple. You totally nailed it!

[southsider2k5]

Terrorist group/governing body A bombs country B. Country B says "oh no you didn't" and defends itself. Country B is in the wrong.

 

How do smart people come to this moronic conclusion?

 

The Israeli/Palestinian conflicts remind me of having your two kids arguing and fighting non-stop. Well except they have guns and bombs and don't mind killing each other in massive totals. There is no neutrality on this problem. Both sides commit horrible acts on the other side, and justify it by the previous horrible act by other side, which was justified by the previous horrible act by other side, etc. The reporting on the event just as bad. No one other balances out both sides and calls both sides to task for what they are responsible for. Only one side can be made to look bad, and then it has to be as bad as possible.

 

The entire situation is just sad.

[Jenksismyhero]

The problem is that it's the 4 year old picking fights with the 10 year old. And when the 10 year old goes "too far" you punish him, not for responding, but for going "too far" with it. And this despite the fact that the 4 year old is the real s***head and started the whole thing.

 

I don't recall some of the past conflicts, but does Israel ever start/provoke the conflict? Seems to me these last few conflicts we've had post-2000 were all responses to some unprovoked attack/kidnapping.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[illinilaw08]

The problem is that it's the 4 year old picking fights with the 10 year old. And when the 10 year old goes "too far" you punish him, not for responding, but for going "too far" with it. And this despite the fact that the 4 year old is the real s***head and started the whole thing.

 

I don't recall some of the past conflicts, but does Israel ever start/provoke the conflict? Seems to me these last few conflicts we've had post-2000 were all responses to some unprovoked attack/kidnapping.

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5902177/9-que...ct-you-were-too

 

I thought this was an interesting read on the conflict. I'm not well versed on the conflict myself, so I won't speak to the bias or lack thereof of the writing.

 

This is a terrible conflict on both sides - neither side has clean hands - and every civilian that dies on both sides makes peace that much less likely...

[illinilaw08]

Terrorist group/governing body A bombs country B. Country B says "oh no you didn't" and defends itself. Country B is in the wrong.

 

How do smart people come to this moronic conclusion?

 

The massive disparity in civilian deaths between the two sides certainly leads to a more nuanced review of the conflict than Israel good, Palestine bad.

 

You can certainly be pro-Israel, pro-Israel's right to peace and prosperity, anti-Hamas, and still condemn certain actions of Israel.

[Jenksismyhero]

The massive disparity in civilian deaths between the two sides certainly leads to a more nuanced review of the conflict than Israel good, Palestine bad.

 

You can certainly be pro-Israel, pro-Israel's right to peace and prosperity, anti-Hamas, and still condemn certain actions of Israel.

 

Sure, but the counter is what else is Israel supposed to do? Hamas purposefully puts their weapons and people in large public places like schools and hospitals SPECIFICALLY so that when Israel knocks them out they can tell the world how awful Israel is. And the world eats that crap up and they forget Hamas started the whole thing by kidnapping and killing Israeli citizens and/or launching rockets.

 

edit: and the disproportionate numbers just comes down to military strength and sophistication. It's getting mad at the 10 year old for being more physical than the 4 year old. Hamas (and Palestinians who support Hamas) picked the wrong fight and they're hoping the world takes pity on them. If Hamas could they'd go back to their car/bus bombing days. But security is too good for that now.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[EvilMonkey]

[GoSox05]

 

This is like a propaganda video from the IDF.

[Jenksismyhero]

 

Good summary. It's a little biased (doesn't really acknowledge the settling issues), but really it comes down to this: the Palestinians gambled and lost, twice. And after the 2nd war in the 60's, and after many decades of dealing with people who don't acknowledge their right to exist and actively promote and incite violence to "destroy" them, Israel finally decided that it had enough of it. And it moved to not only defend itself from future attacks, but occupy Palestinian territory to prevent war #3. IMO they're entirely within their right to do it.

 

Really, with all the crap they've had to deal with, i'm not sure why Israel hasn't just taken over Gaza and the West Bank and forced those people to Syria, Jordan or Egypt. Especially after Egypt signed that peace pact in the 80's. But I guess now Egypt's all f***ed up and who knows how that'll play out. In a way the civil war in Syria is delaying any involvement there, but with the rise of extremist Muslims on all sides of Israel, war #3 could be on the horizon. I hope we and the rest of the civilized world continue to back Israel.

[EvilMonkey]

This is like a propaganda video from the IDF.

While like jenks said he left a few things out, do you dispute any of the things that were in it? The very compelling point was his last questions. If the jews were to announce that they would fight no more and lay down their arms, what would happen? And if the Palistinians were to announce that they would fight no more and turned in all their weapons, what do you think would happen?

[GoSox05]

First of all Dennis Prager is a bigot who hates Muslims. Even the Anti-Defamation League has called him out on it. There is a ton of garbage in this video that is wrong and spun to make Israel the good guys and Palestinians the evil people.

 

Second you should never get all your info on this situation from a 5 minute video. I don't care if Dennis Prager made it or Noam Chomsky.

 

 

What Jenks mentioned in his second paragraph is Ethnic cleansing. Which I'm against.

[Jenksismyhero]

First of all Dennis Prager is a bigot who hates Muslims. Even the Anti-Defamation League has called him out on it. There is a ton of garbage in this video that is wrong and spun to make Israel the good guys and Palestinians the evil people.

 

Second you should never get all your info on this situation from a 5 minute video. I don't care if Dennis Prager made it or Noam Chomsky.

 

 

What Jenks mentioned in his second paragraph is Ethnic cleansing. Which I'm against.

 

No, it's displacement, which is also bad, but looking at the history I wouldn't blame Israel for doing it. They're surrounded by people who don't recognize them as a legitimate state and want them annihilated. And yet you want them to play nice with those people? Why?

[illinilaw08]

Sure, but the counter is what else is Israel supposed to do? Hamas purposefully puts their weapons and people in large public places like schools and hospitals SPECIFICALLY so that when Israel knocks them out they can tell the world how awful Israel is. And the world eats that crap up and they forget Hamas started the whole thing by kidnapping and killing Israeli citizens and/or launching rockets.

 

edit: and the disproportionate numbers just comes down to military strength and sophistication. It's getting mad at the 10 year old for being more physical than the 4 year old. Hamas (and Palestinians who support Hamas) picked the wrong fight and they're hoping the world takes pity on them. If Hamas could they'd go back to their car/bus bombing days. But security is too good for that now.

 

When there is fighting like this, I don't really know what else Israel is supposed to do to avoid civilian casualties. But that doesn't mean that we should overlook the massive amount of civilian deaths.

 

As far as what can Israel do generally? My understanding is that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have had a pretty awful time over the last several decades. Their economy is beyond awful. They deal with checkpoints and Israeli soldiers everywhere. Palestine has been referred to as the largest open air prison in the world.

 

Generally speaking, it's a lot easier for extremism to take root and take hold when people are living in squalor. Between that and the settlement issues, Israel could certainly do more to facilitate resolution of the conflict.

 

Note, that I certainly agree that Israel is in a pretty crappy situation, that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and that Israel has a right to protect itself from rocket attacks. That establishes the rationale behind Israel's actions.

 

But I think we need to recognize that there are shades of grey to this conflict beyond one side wants to destroy the other, and one side wants to survive.

[illinilaw08]

No, it's displacement, which is also bad, but looking at the history I wouldn't blame Israel for doing it. They're surrounded by people who don't recognize them as a legitimate state and want them annihilated. And yet you want them to play nice with those people? Why?

 

Displacement led to some of this in the first place didn't it? The 700,000 Palestinians who fled in 1948 or whatever and have never been allowed back. Pushing refugees into Syria, Egypt, whatever probably leads to worse, direct conflicts for Israel with those states.

 

It's in the best interest of Israel to have a happy and prosperous Gaza because happy and prosperous people are more likely to condemn terrorist organizations like Hamas rather than embrace them.

 

Again, this isn't to say that Israel doesn't have a right to protect itself. Israel doesn't have to roll over and take Hamas shooting rockets into their territories. But this is a much more nuanced conflict than it is often reported as...

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree with you. It's a very tough position for Israel to be in. I'm not Jewish and have no dog in this fight, but I see where they are coming from. They're surrounded by an enemy who wants them destroyed and has tried to destroy them in the past.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

First of all Dennis Prager is a bigot who hates Muslims. Even the Anti-Defamation League has called him out on it. There is a ton of garbage in this video that is wrong and spun to make Israel the good guys and Palestinians the evil people.

 

Second you should never get all your info on this situation from a 5 minute video. I don't care if Dennis Prager made it or Noam Chomsky.

 

 

What Jenks mentioned in his second paragraph is Ethnic cleansing. Which I'm against.

OK, what is wrong? All you did was play the race card hard and fast there. "he's a bigot! OMG!" The basics of the video are that JEws are there, and all the neighbors want to kill them. They tried a few times and lost. They have made peace agreements and had them broken.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/ndtv-exc...-rockets-571033

 

Real good. Yeah, these people want peace and care about innocent people getting killed, for sure. And these are a bunch of Indian reporters reporting this, not some secret Jew sympathizers.

 

Gaza: In the minutes before the ceasefire kicked in at Gaza this morning, Hamas fired a flurry of rockets towards Israel - 30 according to some counts.

 

Israel has argued that that these rockets are fired from civilian areas, and this is why its retaliatory strikes can result in civilian casualties.

 

But this morning, NDTV witnessed one such rocket silo being created under a tent right next to the hotel where our team was staying. Minutes later, we saw the rocket being fired, just before the 72-hour ceasefire came into effect.

[illinilaw08]

OK, what is wrong? All you did was play the race card hard and fast there. "he's a bigot! OMG!" The basics of the video are that JEws are there, and all the neighbors want to kill them. They tried a few times and lost. They have made peace agreements and had them broken.

 

What's wrong is that it starts and stops the conversation with Palestine hates Israel because Israel. It does not discuss the settlement issue. It does not address the rampant unemployment in Gaza, or any of the reasons that the Palestinians might have allowed a terrorist organization like Hamas to come into being. And it does not distinguish between Hamas and Palestinians that want peace. It's an overly broad, one-sided description of the conflict.

 

There are no shortage of Palestinians living peacefully as Israeli citizens (per Wikipedia, around 21% of Israel's population are of Arab descent). What is the difference between those Palestinians and the ones in Gaza? Israel has a real, functioning economy and is a fairly prosperous place.

 

The civilians that die in Gaza are not Hamas. It's reprehensible that Hamas uses civilians as shields. The point of the difference in civilian deaths is that it illustrates that these conflicts disproportionately impact the innocents in Gaza vs. anyone else.

 

Hamas will survive this conflict (and probably grow stronger given the conditions in Gaza). Iron Dome will make Israeli civilian casualties very, very low. And the cycle will continue. It's a tragic situation on both sides.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

What's wrong is that it starts and stops the conversation with Palestine hates Israel because Israel. It does not discuss the settlement issue. It does not address the rampant unemployment in Gaza, or any of the reasons that the Palestinians might have allowed a terrorist organization like Hamas to come into being. And it does not distinguish between Hamas and Palestinians that want peace. It's an overly broad, one-sided description of the conflict.

 

There are no shortage of Palestinians living peacefully as Israeli citizens (per Wikipedia, around 21% of Israel's population are of Arab descent). What is the difference between those Palestinians and the ones in Gaza? Israel has a real, functioning economy and is a fairly prosperous place.

 

The civilians that die in Gaza are not Hamas. It's reprehensible that Hamas uses civilians as shields. The point of the difference in civilian deaths is that it illustrates that these conflicts disproportionately impact the innocents in Gaza vs. anyone else.

 

Hamas will survive this conflict (and probably grow stronger given the conditions in Gaza). Iron Dome will make Israeli civilian casualties very, very low. And the cycle will continue. It's a tragic situation on both sides.

 

70 years of action have proven that this is 100% true though. Israel does not deny that Palestinians should have their own state and have offered land many times in an attempt at peace. Palestinians have done the opposite. Palestinians could be controlling the majority of modern day Israel had they taken the UN deal, but they decided they wanted it all instead and attacked. They did the same thing (with other Arab-country support) in the 60's and lost again.

 

Yes, it's wrong to say "they" as if 100% of the population thinks that way, but they did just vote in Hamas so at least the majority of them think this way.

 

Also, I find it interesting that you're almost blaming Israel for the plight of the Palestinians - which I sort of can see - but we have to keep in mind they brought it on themselves and they continue to do so. They're being "occupied" because they can't be trusted. And what the world appears to be asking is for Israel to just ignore that very real threat and play nice when decades of action have proven that's not what the Palestinians want.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[illinilaw08]

70 years of action have proven that this is 100% true though. Israel does not deny that Palestinians should have their own state and have offered land many times in an attempt at peace. Palestinians have done the opposite. Palestinians could be controlling the majority of modern day Israel had they taken the UN deal, but they decided they wanted it all instead and attacked. They did the same thing (with other Arab-country support) in the 60's and lost again.

 

Yes, it's wrong to say "they" as if 100% of the population thinks that way, but they did just vote in Hamas so at least the majority of them think this way.

 

Also, I find it interesting that you're almost blaming Israel for the plight of the Palestinians - which I sort of can see - but we have to keep in mind they brought it on themselves and they continue to do so. They're being "occupied" because they can't be trusted. And what the world appears to be asking is for Israel to just ignore that very real threat and play nice when decades of action have proven that's now what the Palestinians want.

 

Israeli policies in Gaza since 1967, based on my limited knowledge and research, appear to have largely been about securing Israel (understandable), but that occupation has had very, very negative consequences on the Palestinian economy and the quality of life for those living in Palestine. Think Germany after World War I and World War II. Germany was treated punitively after World War I which created a Germany ripe for Hitler's ascendancy and World War II. After World War II, the Marshall Plan rebuilt West Germany and Germany is a prosperous, stable country.

 

So yes. Israeli policies play a role in the current situation in Gaza. So, too, does anti-Israel sentiment generally in the Arab world (see the 1948 and 1967 invasions). And the Palestinians have, obviously, contributed to their own plight by supporting Hamas who does have a mission statement to eliminate Israel.

 

My point in this entire thread is that the conflict is significantly more complex than what we generally see and hear...

 

Finally, on the two state solution. Both sides have pursued a two-state solution. Neither side can come to an agreement because there are disputes about borders, settlements, refugees, and security (obviously a huge issue for Israel and rightfully so).

 

It's tragic that the Arab invasion in 1948 destroyed the best possible peaceful resolution here (and created all these ensuing issues). And it's tragic that there is no end in sight for this conflict as a whole...

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

We'll never know, but I wonder how that 1948 plan really would have worked. Jerusalem as an "internationally controlled" city? How does that even being to work?