Why is it wrong to call this Apartheid (Isreal)?

[Cyclotron]

Not only is it a matter for states, but the Fourth Geneva Convention in particular (the relevant one, on collective punishment) came into force in 1950. Of course the WWII Allies weren't bound by it - it didn't exist.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wezil
Who's going to enforce it? According to Cyclotron the GC is nothing more than Victor's Justice hence the non-application to the Allies in the past.

This is not what I said.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wezil


Much better points than the other fellow.

Who's going to enforce it? According to Cyclotron the GC is nothing more than Victor's Justice hence the non-application to the Allies in the past.

For the first question, no one is going to enforce it because the UNSC would never take punitive action against Israel for its actions. And since the Palestinians don't really have a state....

The fourth Geneva convention was ratified in 1949, so it is post WW2, and as for the other point, given that there is no real one world government, its up to the world powers to enforce international norms when they feel like it, and the world powers post WW2 were the victors, who were hardly going to prosecute themselves. That said, one of the reasons Karl Doenitz got only ten years as Nuremberg is because testimony was submitted on his behalf that the US Navy had breached the London Naval treaties just like the Germans had (by using submarines to sink merchant ships without doing anything to ensure the safety of the crew).

Who the hell are the pals going to defeat besides themselves?

While it has been a complete mistake for Palestinians not to seek peaceful resistance ala Gandhi mode to free themselves, the sad truth is that prior to widespread violence in the first Intifadah the Israelis had done diddly to make the Palestinians in the occupied territories any freer - experiments with limited local elections were scrapped after parties that were too upity for the Israelis won.

In fact, it took two violent uprising to basically force Israel to accept that there will be a Palestinian state one day, and for the US to have made its position on that openly clear (the only good thing Bush has done with regards to this whole mess). Its easy to say that violence is getting the pals nowhere, but history has shown otherwise.

[Edan]

nm

[Wezil]

Originally posted by GePap


For the first question, no one is going to enforce it because the UNSC would never take punitive action against Israel for its actions. And since the Palestinians don't really have a state....

Agreed.

The fourth Geneva convention was ratified in 1949, so it is post WW2,

Okay. Substitute any number of bombings by "good guys" since 1949-50 for Dresden and Hiroshima. There are lots to choose from and the same point applies - It is only "wrong" if someone decides to enforce the Convention and punish wrongdoers. Losing a conflict seems to be one of the requirements for this.

and as for the other point, given that there is no real one world government, its up to the world powers to enforce international norms when they feel like it, and the world powers post WW2 were the victors, who were hardly going to prosecute themselves.

Agreed.

That said, one of the reasons Karl Doenitz got only ten years as Nuremberg is because testimony was submitted on his behalf that the US Navy had breached the London Naval treaties just like the Germans had (by using submarines to sink merchant ships without doing anything to ensure the safety of the crew).

It was certainly a mitigating factor in his sentencing. I think a "less morally culpable" argument could also be made on Israel's behalf in view of the terror attacks they have been made to endure over the years by the pals (officially recognized "state" or not).

While it has been a complete mistake for Palestinians not to seek peaceful resistance ala Gandhi mode to free themselves,

There are many things the pals might have done differently over the years. The reputation for "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity" most certainly fits their leadership. Combined with the way they have been used by their "friends" in the arab world and the pressures from the Israeli side, the average pal is in a tough spot today.

the sad truth is that prior to widespread violence in the first Intifadah the Israelis had done diddly to make the Palestinians in the occupied territories any freer - experiments with limited local elections were scrapped after parties that were too upity for the Israelis won.

In fact, it took two violent uprising to basically force Israel to accept that there will be a Palestinian state one day, and for the US to have made its position on that openly clear (the only good thing Bush has done with regards to this whole mess). Its easy to say that violence is getting the pals nowhere, but history has shown otherwise.

I can deal with a "violent uprising" as I know it can produce results. In fact in some cases I can support it (an argument can certainly made that the pals would fit the criteria to me), but there is a world of difference between that and intentionally targetting random civilians for death.

Which leads back to my original point that "collective punishment" is sometimes justified, in that the people of Gaza have chosen as their government a political/social/military/terrorist group that publicly supports "terrorist" activity against the citizens of Israel.

Would they be in violation of the GC? Possibly, but so what? I think we all agree it won't be enforced for a number of reasons including (but not limited to) the "Doenitz factor" you mention above.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can deal with a "violent uprising" as I know it can produce results. In fact in some cases I can support it (an argument can certainly made that the pals would fit the criteria to me), but there is a world of difference between that and intentionally targetting random civilians for death.

An argument can easily be made that targeting random civilians was what brought the Palestinians' cause to the world media. Before that, they were completely ignored.

Which leads back to my original point that "collective punishment" is sometimes justified, in that the people of Gaza have chosen as their government a political/social/military/terrorist group that publicly supports "terrorist" activity against the citizens of Israel.

You do realize that this sort of argument can also justify 9/11 attacks as the American people chose as their government a violent, neo-colonial power, which has overthrown a number of popularly elected governments. Basically, the American people suffered "collective punishment" for their government's meddling in the world.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
An argument can easily be made that targeting random civilians was what brought the Palestinians' cause to the world media. Before that, they were completely ignored.

Perhaps but it wasn't all (or enough) positive "attention". A violent uprising against state apparatus is one thing, blowing up cafes is quite another. Rather than generate sympathy it generated disgust.

You do realize that this sort of argument can also justify 9/11 attacks as the American people chose as their government a violent, neo-colonial power, which has overthrown a number of popularly elected governments. Basically, the American people suffered "collective punishment" for their government's meddling in the world.

Yes, but not exactly. The argument would be stronger if the WTC wasn't attacked. But yes, the US is guilty of many of the things you list. I'm not an american so I can get away with saying that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You do realize that this sort of argument can also justify 9/11 attacks as the American people chose as their government a violent, neo-colonial power, which has overthrown a number of popularly elected governments. Basically, the American people suffered "collective punishment" for their government's meddling in the world.

The difference being, of course, that Israeli "collective punishment" is not purposeful killing of civilians; in an earlier thread we were comparing it (at worst) to negligent homicide. The basic point, however, stands - if individuals are understood as bearing responsibility for their elected government, there's no end of terrorist attacks that could be considered, in some way, justified.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wezil
There are lots to choose from and the same point applies - It is only "wrong" if someone decides to enforce the Convention and punish wrongdoers. Losing a conflict seems to be one of the requirements for this.

The other requirement is not being a world power.

I think a "less morally culpable" argument could also be made on Israel's behalf in view of the terror attacks they have been made to endure over the years by the pals (officially recognized "state" or not).

Far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military action than by Palestinian attacks, so even if the only thing we are going to measure is pain at people killed, the Palestinians have been on the losing end. A person killed while walking down the street by shrapnel from a bomb used in an extralegal assasination is no less dead, and no less innocent, than someone killed by a bomb in a bus.

On top of that, it is the Palestinians who are besieged, impoverished, and until the last few years faced a variety of collective punishments far worse that these road closures, like the old israeli policy of bulldozing the houses of the families of suicide bombers, meaning that at any time many people would be left homeless, and of course the Israelis would deny them permission to rebuild.

As for this road, if the issue is security for Israeli citizens, the solution is simple, ban Israelis from using it because it is unsafe. As the article notes, all this road is for israelis is a way to avoid bad traffic elsewhere, while for many Palestinians there is no other option.

Which leads back to my original point that "collective punishment" is sometimes justified, in that the people of Gaza have chosen as their government a political/social/military/terrorist group that publicly supports "terrorist" activity against the citizens of Israel.

So why is collective punishment against Israelis not OK for the Palestinians?

Israel is a democracy. Those Israeli civilians have over and over elected governments that suported and approved all sorts of harsh policies against Palestians, and that deny palestinians their civil rights. So why is it okay for an Israeli to vote for a government that oppresses Palestinians, and they are innocent, but is a Palestinian supports a group urging violent resistance, they are not? Notice that the rule against collective punishment in the Geneva Concention is on the same line also banning terrorism. Both bans are based on the premise that some people aren't combatants, and that people should be dealt with according to their own actions. Both collective punishment and terorrism are based on the notion that everyone in a society is responsible, and that we can punish (with a variety of actions, including death) those that provide the support and underpinning of the "enemy."

I for one am on the side of judging individuals, not peoples.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by GePap
Far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military action than by Palestinian attacks, so even if the only thing we are going to measure is pain at people killed, the Palestinians have been on the losing end. A person killed while walking down the street by shrapnel from a bomb used in an extralegal assasination is no less dead, and no less innocent, than someone killed by a bomb in a bus.

Yes, dead is dead. I can however take a look at the intent of the ones that did the killing. That's a debate you and others have done to death here however so let's not go there again.

On top of that, it is the Palestinians who are besieged, impoverished, and until the last few years faced a variety of collective punishments far worse that these road closures, like the old israeli policy of bulldozing the houses of the families of suicide bombers, meaning that at any time many people would be left homeless, and of course the Israelis would deny them permission to rebuild.

I've already said their condition is terrible. I don't lay all of this at Israel's doorstep however.

As for this road, if the issue is security for Israeli citizens, the solution is simple, ban Israelis from using it because it is unsafe. As the article notes, all this road is for israelis is a way to avoid bad traffic elsewhere, while for many Palestinians there is no other option.

Sorry, but this wasn't my point or argument. I tire over the endless **** out of the mideast from all players. Is Israel correct and just in this case? It doesn't sound like it but I am not informed enough to know.

So why is collective punishment against Israelis not OK for the Palestinians?

I guess we would need a better or agreed upon definition of the term. I don't view suicide bombers as administering "collective punishment".

Israel is a democracy. Those Israeli civilians have over and over elected governments that suported and approved all sorts of harsh policies against Palestians, and that deny palestinians their civil rights. So why is it okay for an Israeli to vote for a government that oppresses Palestinians, and they are innocent, but is a Palestinian supports a group urging violent resistance, they are not?

Again, I think we have a problem with definition.

Notice that the rule against collective punishment in the Geneva Concention is on the same line also banning terrorism.

Ah, there it is. They aren't the same but seen as equivalent of sorts. Okay.

Both bans are based on the premise that some people aren't combatants, and that people should be dealt with according to their own actions. Both collective punishment and terorrism are based on the notion that everyone in a society is responsible, and that we can punish (with a variety of actions, including death) those that provide the support and underpinning of the "enemy."

I for one am on the side of judging individuals, not peoples.

So where does this leave us? Are we talking about the chicken and egg?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wezil
Sorry, but this wasn't my point or argument. I tire over the endless **** out of the mideast from all players. Is Israel correct and just in this case? It doesn't sound like it but I am not informed enough to know.

We know from the article that in this case that this road was built on expropriated Palestinian lands and when built the reason given by authorities for the road was that it was to be used by Palestinians, which made grabbing Palestinian lands okay. That being the case, if the Israelis really want to keep their people safe, bar them from an unsafe Palestian road. That would lead to far less hardship overall.

So where does this leave us? Are we talking about the chicken and egg?

"Who started it" is irrelevant. The question should be to make sure all sides fulfil their obligations and act according to those principles they have agreed to as a start. If the Palestinian Authority has chosen to follow the Geneva Convention, they must abide by it, and Israel, as a signatory, must abide by it as well.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by GePap
We know from the article that in this case that this road was built on expropriated Palestinian lands and when built the reason given by authorities for the road was that it was to be used by Palestinians, which made grabbing Palestinian lands okay. That being the case, if the Israelis really want to keep their people safe, bar them from an unsafe Palestian road. That would lead to far less hardship overall.

As I said. Not my debate. I leave that to those of you that never tire of it.

"Who started it" is irrelevant. The question should be to make sure all sides fulfil their obligations and act according to those principles they have agreed to as a start. If the Palestinian Authority has chosen to follow the Geneva Convention, they must abide by it, and Israel, as a signatory, must abide by it as well.

And if they (PA) choose not to follow the GC is there to be two standards at play? I can see hope in/with the PA these days, quite frankly it is Hamas that is useless to peace.

I've tried to be an optimist wrt the Israeli/Pal/mideast issue over the years but it is a painful view to hold. Elements on all sides seem to prefer endless misery and strife over any lasting peace with few exceptions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by CyberShy
chegitz guevara

So violence is acceptable if it's from your side? Nice Christian you are. In any event, you said Israel was attacked in 1967. I am contradicting you here with reality.

1. The blockade was a declaration of war. Israel started the violence, it didn't start the war of 1967. Claiming that Israel 'started' the war of 1967 can only be funded by lawyer fundamentalism. Yes, it started the violence, but it didn't start the war.

The blockade was not an act of war, as Egypt considers the Straits of Tiran to be their territorial waters. Every state has the right to close their own waters to other parties. The Straits are less than five miles from land at any point, meaning the water falls entirely under the jurisdiction of Egypt and Saudi Arabia (all the passages are in Egyptian waters). It is only with the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1978 that the Straits became international waters.

2. I putted 'started the violence' between ''

IN YOUR FIRST POST you state: "I'd say that after the decades of violence against Israel, both from nations (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1991) and terrorists (1st intifada, 2nd intifada, Hamas Gaza) Israel's reaction is still quite proportional." This clearly implies that that Israel is the aggrieved party.

3. Christianity isn't against violence. If violence is needed to defend the weak or punish the criminals, then then that's a pitty, but not to be not done.

So all that stuff that Christ said about turning the other cheek doesn't count. What other of Christ's words have you decided to throw out?

My point is that when you say that the Arabs started every war, you were talking out your ass.

No, what I said is that Israel has been threathened by surrounding nations and terrorists for 60 years.
It's existence has been subject of 'debate', terror and war for 60 years.
That's what I said.

Already proven wrong.

#1, it's not the only democracy. Cyprus, Lebanon, and Turkey are all democracies in the region. Iraq and Iran were until the U.S. overthrew their governments in the 50s and 60s.

I don't consider Cyprus and Turkey arabic nations. But that's up for debate. I don't consider Lebanon a real democracy.

You wrote, "It's the only democracy and the only free nation," clearly meaning Israel. As Israel is not an Arab nation, you have to be referring to the region. Whether you consider Lebanon to be a real democracy is beside the point. Your command of facts has consistently shown to be exceedingly weak.

As for the only place for Jews, that's true, but only because they stole someone else's country.

Whoms country? It was english.

The fact that the English conquered the region from the Arabs, who had overthrown the Ottomans doesn't mean that the British had a legitimate claim. They were foreign invaders.

And before jews and arabs started to immigrate it in the 19th century about nobody lived there, of which 50% was jewish and 50% arabic.

That is complete and total BS. At no point, prior to the expulsion of the Arabs in 1948 was there ever parity between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Demographics_in_the_late_Ottoman_and_British_Mandate_periods

Do you know the history of Israel / Palestine?
It's never been a 'palestinian' state.

There's never been a Kurdish state, does that mean there is no Kurdistan? There's never been a Basque state, does that mean there's no Basque country?

98% of the ancestors of the current population came from other regions of the world, originally. Not only the jews, but also the palestinians and the arabas.

Guess what, if you go back far enough, everyone is from someplace else. The Arabs of Palestine, however, can largely trace their ancestry in the region back prior to the European invasion. Ottoman records are pretty sketchy, but the last few decades before their rule ended aren't. There was more than half a million people living in Palestine before the Zionist movement began emigrating.

"From abroad, we are accustomed to believe that Eretz Israel is presently almost totally desolate, an uncultivated desert, and that anyone wishing to buy land there can come and buy all he wants. But in truth it is not so. In the entire land, it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled; only sandy fields or stony hills, suitable at best for planting trees or vines and, even that after considerable work and expense in clearing and preparing them- only these remain unworked. ... Many of our people who came to buy land have been in Eretz Israel for months, and have toured its length and width, without finding what they seek." -- 1891, Ahad Ha'am (one of the leaders of the Zionist movement)

[Fake Boris]

Question to the Israel fanboys :

What about China occupies your country, splits it in two, and gives away the other half to an ethnic group that was there 2,000 years ago ?

[DinoDoc]

Does that justify the murder of civilians, OB?