Tel Aviv bombing is part of self-defense: Hamas

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Israel doesn;t want responsibility for the Palestinians-it ruins their dream of a state both Jewish and democratic. Of course, I doubt they have a clue as to how to really do either a trully democratic state based on ehtnic identity, or how to divorce themsleves from the Palestinians without becoming resoonsible for a humanitarian crisis.

Oh well. Too bad for everyone between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

I think Olmerts plan for seperation, though still somewhat vagues, is a good basis for thinking about how to achieve seperation unilaterally, should that prove necessary. Certainly how to implement it with miminal humanitarian side effects should be addressed.

What the course of Israeli politics and identity will look like AFTER such a seperation, is ultimately a matter for Israelis to deal with.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Perfectly good final peace deal?! A deal that splits your country into 4 enclaves with 3 enclaves (in the West Bank) fully enclosed by the other side is NOT a perfectly good final peace deal!

A complete mistatement of the offers made at Camp David and Taba. The 3 major Pal blocks in the WB would have been connected by corridors under Pal soveriegnty, and the Israeli retention of the Jordan Valley, which seperated the Pal West Bank from Jordan, was to be only temporary.

If a narrow corridor means youre cut up into enclaves, than Israel pre-1967 was cut into two enclaves.

As for Gaza being a seperate enclave, it has been seperate from the west bank since 1948. Unless you plan to take the Negev from Israel, thats going to be true in any peace plan. The Taba plan proposed a corridor under Israeli sovereignty, but the minimum feasible Israeli control (i believe a sunken highway was envisioned) connecting Gaza to the West Bank.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by techumseh
Most of the Palestinians are refugees, whose land was confiscated by Israel. You can't solve the crisis until you deal fairly with that.

Most of the Pals in the West Bank are NOT refugees. Most of those in Gaza are, though many Gazans are not. Most of the refugees live elsewhere, esp Jordan, Lebanon, etc.

Compensation for land claims has always been considered an essential element of any peace deal.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yep yep. After all, Sharon is the one who managed to make the most serious steps the Israelis ever made.

Not every extremist proves to be a "De Gaulle". Sharon, who grew up on a kibbutz, IIRC, was always a nationalist imbued with the pragmatism thats been a deep part of Zionism, esp Labour Zionism, since its beginnings, and he kept that pragmatism when he joined his party with Herut to found Likud, and when, as a Likud Minister, he invaded Lebanon, founded settlements, etc. All he needed was a different view of reality, for his pragmatism to guide him in a different direction, and that had happened already by 2001, IMO.

I dont know if anyone in the Hamas leadership is like that, and if so, if those individuals are the true dominant figures of Hamas.

I do think that if they do exist, now is the time for them to break with the policy of condoning terrorism, and refusing to accept Oslo, and that all who want peace must continue to insist on these prerequisites.

I also think Israel cannot wait forever for Hamas to moderate itself, and must consider other courses of action.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by techumseh
Most of the Palestinians are refugees, whose land was confiscated by Israel. You can't solve the crisis until you deal fairly with that.

The situation is a 'little bit' more complex than you are trying to portray.

Most palestinians today are grandchildren of refugees who fled an area of war, whose borders were under conflict at the time. The refugees then, as they are now, were not well intentioned and resolution 194 acknowledges that Israel could not house regarding refugees who wish its destruction.

As for compensations - the palestinian side has been flatly refusing compensations instead of the right of return.

I suggest you refer to other cases of mass refugee situations in the 20th century. How this refugee situation was dealt with? It is the single case where refugees were not repatriated or dealt with, but instead perpetuated, and kept in "Ghetto" camps for 60 years.

But if I respond by firing missiles at my neighbors and those missiles hit something they shouldn't have, then I still have to take responsibility for that because no matter what anyone else did and no matter what I meant to hit, I was the one who fired the missiles

Incorrect.

If combatants hide inside civilian population, and use that as a base for military activity, it renders the facilities and combatants themselves, perfectly legal targets of military action (say, a direct missile strike).

It is noted that any such strike should not cause excessive damage to civilians. That implies however, that some damage to civilians is indeed accepted, since - after all it is a region of war, and used as a base for military operations by one of the sides.

I just spent 30 minutes reading the convention myself, to be sure.

[Az]

you shouldn't have. I've read it many times.

Btw,Siro, how about a beer on sunday? Somewhere in S. Tel Aviv? Trade top-secret info, and so?

[Sirotnikov]

I couldn't on sunday - unless it is very late (around 23:00)

I have evening math classes.

I'll be in Tel Aviv on thursday though.

[Sirotnikov]

you shouldn't have. I've read it many times.

Good - a question then.
I had the impression from several books I've read that the convention has a paragraph which directly puts blame for civilian casualty on unmarked combatants who put civilians in jeopardy.
I couldn't find any such specific passage.

It can be inferred to an extent, as long as the damage of a military assault is not "extensive" which as we all know is a crap measurement unit.

[Az]

I'll be in Tel Aviv on thursday though.

umm, sorry, I can't. if you study math, you probably can doing on tuesday, right?

[Sirotnikov]

tuesday - probably yes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Shhh... not in front of tecumseh

[atawa]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

If combatants hide inside civilian population, and use that as a base for military activity, it renders the facilities and combatants themselves, perfectly legal targets of military action (say, a direct missile strike).

It is noted that any such strike should not cause excessive damage to civilians. That implies however, that some damage to civilians is indeed accepted, since - after all it is a region of war, and used as a base for military operations by one of the sides.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt every healthy Israeli required to do 2 years in the army after witch time they are constantly on standby should something happen?

If this is true then every Israeli over 18 could be considdered a military target. If they choose to hide among the civilian population then according to your post the whole country makes "perfectly legal targets of military action"

[The Mad Monk]

It's not the same as active military (by any stretch of the imagination), so no.

[Az]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt every healthy Israeli required to do 2 years in the army after witch time they are constantly on standby should something happen?

actually, it's 3 years.

If this is true then every Israeli over 18 could be considdered a military target. If they choose to hide among the civilian population then according to your post the whole country makes "perfectly legal targets of military action"

I guess it's ok to kill civilians in countries with a draft - duh, obvious!

[Sirotnikov]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt every healthy Israeli required to do 2 years in the army after witch time they are constantly on standby should something happen?

If this is true then every Israeli over 18 could be considdered a military target. If they choose to hide among the civilian population then according to your post the whole country makes "perfectly legal targets of military action"

"People on standby" as in - reserves - don't count. Because potentially if each Israeli is a soldier then each palestinian is a terrorist ;-)
I think that you didn't see me use that line.

There is a difference between a potencial combatant, and a person who currently actively participates in combat - even if he is not in the middle of a battle at this single moment.

The difference is clear both legally (killing a person who is not a vital military threat would clearly be illegal) and counter productive (wasting ammunition on unimportant targets).