Israeli ground forces enter southern Gaza - CNN

[Arrian]

Seems like agreement to me.

-Arrian

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I forgot the obvious, of course.

**** international law.

If it means what you say it means... even though it is not legitimate anyway, **** it, because it is blatantly immoral and morality overides all concerns of legality.

I wasn't being ironic. I meant what I said. something that is illegal by international law can still be good and proper.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

I forgot the obvious, of course.

**** international law.

If it means what you say it means... even though it is not legitimate anyway, **** it, because it is blatantly immoral and morality overides all concerns of legality.

why? cuz you think youre above the law? cuz you want to act like savages without regard and without consequences?

If "acting like savages" means defend ourselves and our citizens then sure.

acting like savages

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I wasn't being ironic. I meant what I said. something that is illegal by international law can still be good and proper.

From what LOA has said, and i can gather from other sources, international law gives no right for a state X to attack the forces of another state Y, due to state Y's support of a non-state actor commiting acts of violence, including large scale acts of terror, against the citizens and territory of state X. This is recognized as a lacunae in international law, and is being addressed. Painfully slowly, however. The United States treated such international law on THIS issue as a dead letter in October of 2001, and a large number of states which are usually firm supporters of the strengthening of international law firmly supported the US action in Afghanistan. Indeed the UN itself cooperated actively with the invasion of Afghanistan, helping to set up the new regime. It is hardly meaningful to assert the old law in this matter - the international community has moved on.

Of course the PA is NOT a state, but this is nonetheless the legal background to the discussion.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I wasn't being ironic. I meant what I said. something that is illegal by international law can still be good and proper.

Which I agree on whole heartedly. I was focusing so greatly on disproving the legitimacy of the U.N. factually that I also forgot the obvious, #### the U.N.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


From what LOA has said, and i can gather from other sources, international law gives no right for a state X to attack the forces of another state Y, due to state Y's support of a non-state actor commiting acts of violence, including large scale acts of terror, against the citizens and territory of state X. This is recognized as a lacunae in international law, and is being addressed. Painfully slowly, however. The United States treated such international law on THIS issue as a dead letter in October of 2001, and a large number of states which are usually firm supporters of the strengthening of international law firmly supported the US action in Afghanistan. Indeed the UN itself cooperated actively with the invasion of Afghanistan, helping to set up the new regime. It is hardly meaningful to assert the old law in this matter - the international community has moved on.

Of course the PA is NOT a state, but this is nonetheless the legal background to the discussion.

Feel free to respond to my whole post and not pick and choose.

You can not declare war on a non state entity so a war can not be illegal.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Its one thing to not be moved by death of stranger X. Its quite another thing to bring up in conversation "if X were to die, I wouldnt care" Its obnoxious, and its a perverse why of arguing - if you have a point to make, make it, dont tell me about your psychological reaction to it. the poster in question has a tendency to do that, to say "well I dont care about X" Normally its just childish and annoying, but in this context it was worse.

Shame I always enjoyed Gepap and LotM scuffles. Two good posters generally speaking even if Gepap is a obnoxious git at times.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Shame I always enjoyed Gepap and LotM scuffles. Two good posters generally speaking even if Gepap is a obnoxious git at times.

maybe he can take gepap off of ignore as a favor to the rest of us if we ask nicely

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Vesayen



Feel free to respond to my whole post and not pick and choose.

You can not declare war on a non state entity so a war can not be illegal.

The question that would come up, I suppose, is what was the status of those areas that were transferred from to the control of the PA under the Oslo accords. Was Israel still "the occupying power" under international law, as some claimed she had been prior to 1992? The PA was not granted independence by Oslo, and has never declared independence. OTOH Israel didnt enforce law and security in the areas under PA control, and the international community certainly preferred it that way. Now if the PA were a state, Israel could go to war against it (subject to the caveat that international law is all screwed up even in that situation) If the territory were occupied by Israel, Israel would have both rights and duties as such - but rights and duties largely inconsistent with the status quo under Oslo (leaving aside the ambiguity introduced by Israels denial that the territories were "occupied" in the international legal sense of the term) Now the govt of the PA is controlled by men who deny the validity of the Oslo accords, which however are STILL the governing agreement about the statues of the territories. So does Israel state that the Oslo accords are dead, and simply attempt to restore the pre-1992 status quo? Some on the Israeli right think it should, IIUC, but the govt of Israel has refused to do that, and the international community certainly doesnt encourage that. Hamas, though not accepting Oslo, isnt declaring independence either - nor does Hamas affirm the sovereignty of Jordan, say, over the West Bank. Ergo the territories are in legal limbo. Meanwhile Israel is not going to let the legal limbo prevent it from defending itself. The predominant reaction of the international community has been to focus on calls for restraint, relating to the political situation, not invokations of international law.

[Vesayen]

The question that would come up, I suppose, is what was the status of those areas that were transferred from to the control of the PA under the Oslo accords.

Innocence is assumed until proven in the international court of justice. The prohabition on war is a prohabition in all countries. The U.N. does not recognize the existance of a Palestinian state, they do not have a seat in the general assembly.

Israel has not violated the law and waged an illegal war because it has not waged a war. You can not wage a war on any entity but a country and from the same legal standards that that line of reasoning comes from, Palestine is not a recognize country.

Was Israel still "the occupying power" under international law, as some claimed she had been prior to 1992?

No. You can only occupy the territory of another nation. The U.N. does not recognize the existance of a nation of Palestine. No general assembly seat.

OTOH Israel didnt enforce law and security in the areas under PA control, and the international community certainly preferred it that way.

Both are irrelevant to the eyes of the U.N-this does not change the fact that Palestine has no seat in the general assembly.

Now if the PA were a state, Israel could go to war against it (subject to the caveat that international law is all screwed up even in that situation) If the territory were occupied by Israel, Israel would have both rights and duties as such

But as you said and as I have said about a dozen times, it is not occupying another countries territory so laws on occupation are not applicable.

So does Israel state that the Oslo accords are dead, and simply attempt to restore the pre-1992 status quo? Some on the Israeli right think it should, IIUC, but the govt of Israel has refused to do that, and the international community certainly doesnt encourage that.

This question is irrelevant to the legitimacy of international law, whether or not Israel has waged an illegal war or occupied another country illegaly. This is, an entirley seperate and different issue.

Ergo the territories are in legal limbo.

I would say it is clearly not limbo and the answer is clear, but I could say that it could potentially, be limbo.

Meanwhile Israel is not going to let the legal limbo prevent it from defending itself.

Would you, if you lived in Israel?

The predominant reaction of the international community has been to focus on calls for restraint, relating to the political situation, not invokations of international law.

The international community does not have to deal with its own citizens dying. No leader in a DEMOCRATIC NATION is going to listen to international douche bags following their own agendas, over the will of their own citizens.

The international community includes such racist assbackwards states as Saudi Arabia.

The international community includes such rampant rights violators as Saudia Arabia and China.

The international community is pandering to its own citizens(see nations only have interests above) such as France, who is racist anyway, but because it is a welfare state has attracted a huge number of Muslim immigrants who must be pacified. See similar comments for a number of other European nations.

The international community has no damn say and most of the world does not stand on an ethical platform nearly as high as Israel does, so lets not throw stones in our international glass house.

The international community must respect the ultimate law of international law, that sovreignty reigns supreme inside a nations borders.



So Israel has NOT violated international law and waged an illegal war because their target is not the sort which can be target of war in the eyes of international law.

That said, Hamas supported thugs kidnapped an ISRAELI SOLDIER inside the borders of Israel. This is not the disputed terrotories or the Gaza strip, this was in "Israel proper". They grabbed him and high tailed it back to the Gaza strip. They kidnapped him. Morally, Israel is justified in defending the lives of its citizens.

[lord of the mark]

somehow I think youre missing the gist of my approach.

[Vesayen]

Could you clarify?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Thats it. Red line crossed. Going on the ignore list.

Thank God.

VICTORY IS MINE!

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The Hamas leadership are leaders of a terrorist organization. Nonetheless I wouldnt go posting about whether I cared or not if they died - who here cares what deaths I care about - Im not so narcissitic to think anyone does. But yes, what offended me was reference to the deaths of Ehud Olmert, Haim Ramon, Amir Peretz, Nobel Laureate Shimon Peres, etc. The democratically elected govt of Israel, the govt composed of those who had the courage to support the Gaza withdrawl plan, the govt that has exercized restraint by NOT going into Gaza until now despite constant baiting by Netanyahu and the Likud, the govt that still holds out a hand of peace to Abbas, the govt that has directed its troops in the current operation to try to limit harm to civilians, the govt that is the best hope for peace that Israel has had in years.

The government that still carries out policies that violate the civil rights of millions of human beings? That bombs the power supplied for hundreds of thousands in the name on one man? Yes, I am terrible for nor caring about them. As for Nobles, I thought Yasser was the gold standard for them

Oh, and democratically elected means ****, since the masses can always back hateful policies meant to hurt others. Like, well, the democratically elected Hamas! As as for "courage" to pull out of Gaza...since when is unilateraly seeking to ignore the other side in a dispute a "brave act"? That is a weird definition of "brave". But hey, that is what LoTM is doing himself! So I guess he is brave...

[Vesayen]

Actually just about the power.... it was a transformer station. All Palestinian power comes from Israeli power plants and Israel owned the transformer too.... so that really is not a problem, is it?