Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

[Rajiv]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

Here is what Gideon Levy a prominant Israeli journalist had to say in Haaretz

The neighborhood bully strikes again

Israel embarked yesterday on yet another unnecessary, ill-fated war. On July 16, 2006, four days after the start of the Second Lebanon War, I wrote: "Every neighborhood has one, a loud-mouthed bully who shouldn't be provoked into anger... Not that the bully's not right - someone did harm him. But the reaction, what a reaction!"

Two and a half years later, these words repeat themselves, to our horror, with chilling precision. Within the span of a few hours on a Saturday afternoon, the IDF sowed death and destruction on a scale that the Qassam rockets never approached in all their years, and Operation "Cast Lead" is only in its infancy.

Once again, Israel's violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom.
.
.
.
.
.

[Guest]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

Rajiv - With respect, Gideon Levy's observations are grossly disingenuous. Ever since the six day war, Israel has quite consciously institutionalized the strategy of disproportionate response, for very good reasons. The political geography surrounding them to a depth of three or four countries in every direction is Muslim, and the Jewish state is an anathema and an artificially manipulated "casus belli" to all of them with the possible exceptions of Turkey, Egypt and Jordan. All the rest would sit on their hands if a local war turned the tables and threatened to overrun the Jewish state in their midst. This state also has no geographic depth. At it's thinnest, it has virtually zero strategic geography between it and the Mediterranean Sea.

You are far too well read and well informed a contributor here for any jot of this data to be lost on you, therefore the only conclusion left is that you post this article disingenuously, because you know full well that since the 1960's Israel formalized as an essential part of it's geopolitical stance in the region, a standard policy of "overresponse" as the only tool available to it to impress upon it's neighbors, that any hostilities against Israel would be met by double the response, expressly in order to instill in them that attempts to wipe out this lone non-Muslim state in the region would be rendered of a very poor "cost-benefit-analysis".

This was an entirely rational policy tailored to meet the needs of A) by far the smallest nation in the region geographically, B) the sole non Muslim nation, against which wars such as the six day war had pitted fully four to five other neighbors, C) a nation which had never sought to foment a new war with it's neighbors, but had always had to justify it's continuance by force rather than by reason or negotiation, precisely because reason and negotiation were forms of dialogue which all her neighbors have been utterly contemptuous of for 60 years with the sole exceptions of Jordan and Egypt.

Regarding the core issues complicating "lasting peace" for Israel within the Arab sphere of nations, the "Plight of the Palestinians" was given great fanfare, with huge cynicism by those same Arab nations. Meanwhile the Israelis themselves offered Arafat practically everything he asked for, at Camp David, in a wholly contiguous Palestinian State, with strategic water resources, ingress and egress, a whole and consistent Palestinian State - with no "funny tricks" or "traps".

The Israelis would have been delighted and profoundly relieved to have resolved this core issue to their permanence in the ME, but Arafat denied it to them on technicalities to do with 2% of the original demands. What is patently obvious, is that he would have denied it to them had they offered him 100% of his demands, because 2% as the crux of a failed agreement is rubbish to serious negotiators.

I really protest your cited article's mis-characterization. Yes, the Israli's have grown to become a small regional superpower and this has very deftly been commandeered to charicature them as the over-armed "bully in the region" - but the characterization as the neighborhood bully is so disingenuous of history as to render it's proponents highly suspect of opinions tainted by pure knee-jerk ideology, IMO. There is no shortage of Socialist leaning merciless critics of Israel among the Jews living there. Proponents such as yourself who fasten on their pronouncements are demonstrating some degree of a-historicism in the process. What depresses me about the Socialist International is the way all these people sort of line up thinking all in unison, in cookie cutter stereotypes. They remind me of iron filings dumped before a magnet. All point rigidly in the same direction.

My respectful suggestion to you, is to be more multi-dimensional in understanding the history of WHY Israel developed a national strategy of "overwhelming and disproportionate response". It is painstakingly described and substantiated, in ALL the historic analysis of the region. All you have to do is be willing to include it honestly and impartially in your reading, and digest the essential significance of why it emerged in the first place. And no, none of this is an endorsement of the children and innocents dying there now. The dangerously simplistic manipulations of insight rather, lie in either sincerly seeking, or actively obfuscating, who have in fact been the most active contributors to this outcome.

Here is what Gideon Levy a prominant Israeli journalist had to say in Haaretz The neighborhood bully strikes again

[Supercilious]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

Has anybody heard about the unorthodox (haredi) jewish organization called Neturei Karta . A youtube search for Neturei Karta can lead to surprising results ...;)

I have a very good haredi friend. When I first met him and he started talking ... I couldn't believe my ears

[Chris]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

Rajiv (et al),

This article does a fine job of summarizing the legal context of this war and provides a refreshing view of the current situation.

I don't often engage in debates about this conflict (at least not much any more) because most discussions (at least the ones i've had here in Europe) quickly lead to heated and futile arguments (not to mention the drying up of invitations to social events ). In Europe it is rare to see accurate coverage of the situation in a mainstream newspaper (not to mention on the campuses of Universities) as Melanie describes in the article linked above:

Excerpt:

The disgusting fifth column in the Gaza conflict, however, is – as ever – the western media. It was telling to witness the sight of British TV camera crews heading out to Israel on Saturday night. The point was that they weren’t already there – because their editors had not thought it necessary to send them to cover the resumed rocket attacks on southern Israel. Indeed, hardly anyone in Britain is aware that Israel is only now finally responding to some 6000 rocket attacks since 2001, with a fifty per cent increase after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. British journalists were only dispatched to the battle zone when Israel finally retaliated – because, appallingly, it is only Jewish violence that is ever the story.

As a result, Israel is painted – wholly unjustly and untruthfully -- as the aggressor. The ineffable BBC reported in radio bulletins on Saturday that Israel’s attack had ‘put back the chance of peace in the region’. Most sane people would think that the reason peace in the region had been put back was that Hamas was continuing to wage aggressive war. And indeed, even now it is still firing rockets at Israel, including Katyushas and Iranian Grads which are reaching as far as Ashkelon and Ashdod. Today they killed another Israeli in Ashkelon and injured many more -- including several Israeli Arabs.

[Rajiv]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

I think you will be well served to read the following article in wikipedia in its entirety.

Eye for an eye

[Chris]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

Rajiv, I understand your point but consider this; are the Israelis fighting a religious war or is the state performing one of its basic duties, namely to protect the citizens within it?

[Rajiv]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

Chris,

I do not see any side as being right or wrong (the history of the region is such that there is a lot of blame to pass around) -- but rather the dynamics of the situation, and the immense human damage being caused.

Normally, in human interdynamics, it is the more powerful that have to give to the weaker parties -- if ultimate peace and harmony is to be established and maintained -- if one adopts a tit for tat or 2 tits for one tat that Israel apparantly is doing, then given the history and philosophical orientation of Judaism and Islam, one runs the into the danger of things escalating totally out of control -- and in words that have been attributed to Gandhi, "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"

[Sapiens]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

Chris,

I do not see any side as being right or wrong (the history of the region is such that there is a lot of blame to pass around) -- but rather the dynamics of the situation, and the immense human damage being caused.

Normally, in human interdynamics, it is the more powerful that have to give to the weaker parties -- if ultimate peace and harmony is to be established and maintained -- if one adopts a tit for tat or 2 tits for one tat that Israel apparantly is doing, then given the history and philosophical orientation of Judaism and Islam, one runs the into the danger of things escalating totally out of control -- and in words that have been attributed to Gandhi, "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"

Such is Natural Law that any abuses cannot be permanent or infinite, Israel's actions in abuse against the Palestinians will eventually corrupt, damage, and destroy Israel itself.

[ax]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

Chris,

I do not see any side as being right or wrong (the history of the region is such that there is a lot of blame to pass around) -- but rather the dynamics of the situation, and the immense human damage being caused.

Normally, in human interdynamics, it is the more powerful that have to give to the weaker parties -- if ultimate peace and harmony is to be established and maintained -- if one adopts a tit for tat or 2 tits for one tat that Israel apparantly is doing, then given the history and philosophical orientation of Judaism and Islam, one runs the into the danger of things escalating totally out of control -- and in words that have been attributed to Gandhi, "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"

I wonder if this thread shouldn't end soon. I'm beginning to feel like I'm reading a BBC transcript, not unlike the one Chris pointed out earlier. It's easy to see Israel as the stronger, aggressive party now after fighting for their survival on countless occasions. I suggest reading Gideon's Spies for a brief recounting of all of the people who have tried to blow Israel up over the last 60 years.

[Basil]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

Rajiv (et al),

This article does a fine job of summarizing the legal context of this war and provides a refreshing view of the current situation.

I don't often engage in debates about this conflict (at least not much any more) because most discussions (at least the ones i've had here in Europe) quickly lead to heated and futile arguments (not to mention the drying up of invitations to social events ). In Europe it is rare to see accurate coverage of the situation in a mainstream newspaper (not to mention on the campuses of Universities) as Melanie describes in the article linked above:

Excerpt:

If you are going to cite something from a media outlet as something that is going to relieve the bias of other media outlets, then at least cite something worth reading. The notion that Hamas is in any position to preform genocide against Israelis is utterly preposterous. Citing people such as Dore Gold and Barry Rubin should be a dead give away that this is a very one sided piece. The notion that Israel is not going after civilian targets is preposterous. Even MSM outlets such as the Washington Post acknowledge that Israel is attempting to go after every facet of Hamas, including the civilian support network.

And how wonderfully generous it is of Israel to prevent the construction of adequate medical care facilities in Gaza and then treat some of the Palestinians in its own hospitals. This is like starving a family and then lauding yourself for feeding the youngest child.

And who really cares what Mahmoud Abbas has to say about Hamas. He was voted out of power by Hamas and has been desperately working to regain his power.

This piece is sheer propaganda. Removing the settlements from Gaza, followed by the systematic starvation of Gaza has all been part of the plan leading to this phase of the Palestinian holocaust. If there is a genocidal terrorist in this equation it is the Israeli army. State sponsored terrorism is still terrorism.

I am no fan of what the militant elements within Hamas advocate or of what they do, but I would advocate citing more balanced articles, rather than those that are so clearly biased.

[metalman]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

I wonder if this thread shouldn't end soon. I'm beginning to feel like I'm reading a BBC transcript, not unlike the one Chris pointed out earlier. It's easy to see Israel as the stronger, aggressive party now after fighting for their survival on countless occasions. I suggest reading Gideon's Spies for a brief recounting of all of the people who have tried to blow Israel up over the last 60 years.

look, israel is in an impossible position. they are perceived as stronger, with the usa behind them, so everything they do to defend themselves against poor little palestinian radical group hamas hiding with their missiles among the civilian population looks like overkill.

the missiles came from the gaza strip, ending the ceasefire... again... crude missiles falling on southern israel. what nation can sit around and let a group lob missiles into it? the kids in southern israel go to kindergarten in bunkers. they scared all of the time. would your country put up with that? if it were the usa and the missiles came from, say, cuba, what do you think the usa would do? flatten cuba, that's what.

noticed this thread was moved to 'political abyss.' where it belongs.

[jtabeb]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

look, israel is in an impossible position. they are perceived as stronger, with the usa behind them, so everything they do to defend themselves against poor little palestinian radical group hamas hiding with their missiles among the civilian population looks like overkill.

the missiles came from the gaza strip, ending the ceasefire... again... crude missiles falling on southern israel. what nation can sit around and let a group lob missiles into it? the kids in southern israel go to kindergarten in bunkers. they scared all of the time. would your country put up with that? if it were the usa and the missiles came from, say, cuba, what do you think the usa would do? flatten cuba, that's what.

noticed this thread was moved to 'political abyss.' where it belongs.

That's all well and good but the fact of the matter is what is Israel is doing constitutes War Crimes as outlined in the 4th Geneva Convention.

You can argue for or against what ever side any of you choose, but a fact is a fact and not open to opinion, so please keep that in mind in the course of this discussion. In this case, a spade is a spade, no matter whom you support.

From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Fourth Geneva Convention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Fourth Geneva Convention


The Fourth Geneva Convention (or GCIV) relates to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any military occupation by a foreign power. This should not be confused with the better known Third Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war. The convention was published on August 12, 1949, at the end of a conference held in Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949. The convention entered into force on October 21, 1950.
As of 27 June 2006, when Nauru adopted the convention, it has been ratified by 194 countries.
Contents

• 1 Part I. General Provisions
• 2 Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War
• 3 Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons
  • 3.1 Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories
    • 3.1.1 Collective punishments
    • 3.1.2 Right of return
• 4 Part IV. Execution of the Convention
• 5 Annexes
• 6 See also
• 7 Notes
• 8 References
• 9 Further reading

[edit] Part I. General Provisions

This sets out the overall parameters for GCIV:

• Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.
• Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;(b) taking of hostages;(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
• Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations with in the State in whose hands they are.
• A number of articles specify how Protecting Powers, ICRC and other humanitarian organizations may aid Protected persons.

Protected person is the most important definition in this section because many of the articles in the rest of GCIV only apply to Protected persons.
Article 5 is currently one of the most controversial articles of GCIV, because it forms, (along with Article 5 of the GCIII and parts of GCIV Article 4,) the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" currently in use by the out-going government of the United States.

[edit] Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War

Article 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.

[edit] Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons


[edit] Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories

Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment' While popular debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of torture (see discussion on the Torture page), the ban on corporal punishment simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical abuse is thereby forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against alternate definitions of torture.
The prohibition on scientific experiments was added, in part, in response to experiments by German and Japanese doctors during World War II, of whom Josef Mengele was the most infamous.

[edit] Collective punishments

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."
Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted.

[edit] Right of return

Article 49. The second paragraph of Article 49 provides that persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. This right of displaced persons is often referred to as the "right of return" and has been reaffirmed in later international treaties and conventions. State Practice also establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

[metalman]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

ok, so how do you fight an enemy that does not abide by the geneva convention as hamas does not?

the palestinians need a GANDHI to gain the upper hand. they keep electing militants. what do they expect?

[jtabeb]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

ok, so how do you fight an enemy that does not abide by the geneva convention as hamas does not?

the palestinians need a GANDHI to gain the upper hand. they keep electing militants. what do they expect?

Within international law, of course.

I like to state facts and argue opinions. The first post was fact according to the 4th Geneva Conventions, so argue what you want about prosecuting the conflict or whom ever you support in it, but please don't dismiss this fact from the discussion.

Go read haaretz about the current operation.

"they keep electing militants. what do they expect?"

I didn't expect this logical fallacy from you but so be it.

That's sort of like "we'll gee those americans re-elected (GWB, republicans, people that didn't support their own economic interests, etc.... )So, they deserve what they get"

Or kind of like, "well she was asking for it, just look how she was dressed."

And kind of like " well what was he expecting? A colored should know better than to go down there after dark"

I could almost give you the above if there were now interventions in the outcome of the fate of the Palestinian people, but there were more than a few. Self-determination has been something that they have longed for but but been unable to capture. I'm sure you know that HAMAS was brought about into being by the Shien Beit, Isreal's security service and that the inital blow was supposed to be to destabilize Fateh, the political movement founded by Yassir Arafat. It was attempt to de-stabilize internal palestinian politics so that political consensus could not be achieved. It worked rather well as you can see.

So to suggest "that people deserve what they get" may be an axiom to you, it is a logical fallacy of monumental proportions. And, I might add, that is fact, not an opinion.

Again the bottom line is Facts are facts, and opinions are not.

War crimes conducted by Israel against the Palestinians are not opinion, which should be obvious to you as you (rightly) didn't argue with this fact.

Hopefully, this will add some perspective to this debate.

V/R

JT

[Chris]

Re: Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192

That's all well and good but the fact of the matter is what is Israel is doing constitutes War Crimes as outlined in the 4th Geneva Convention.

But this is untrue. As I posted yesterday, Israel would be breaking the Genocide convention by not attacking (see here).


Anyway, to lighten the tone of this thread...

Middle East Conflict Intensifies As Blah Blah Blah, Etc. Etc.