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

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Nagasaki was "immoral" only if Japanese wanted to stop the war anyhow, and the bombing was only a "test" or a showcase of power... but if it was necessary to bomb in order to prevent the invasion than it was "moral" as it was the better choice. Will we ever know whether the Japanese would have unconditionally surrendered without the bomb and invasion - unlikely - so it is moot to speak about the morality of the nuke...

The case with Palis and Israelis is clear though - Israel has other options than total subjugation of those people, and cutting their land into constant checkpoints, sending settlers strategically to make a "proper" Pali state unviable etc... it immoral... this road just being one of the acts in long succession...

not saying that Palis are innocent or anything like that, but if you want to play "Democratic" high moral ground, Israel has not a shed of it left... they are morally going in the direction of Nazis who exterminated them 60 years ago... now they exterminate Palis... only concentration camps are missing with gas chambers to make lebensraum...

They are not exterminating them per se, but decades long oppression and mostly blanket persecution & military raids, are well making Gaza and Pali territories into one giant concentration camp... where Palis have to live in crowded conditions without work, living off rations and waiting for the next escalation to come... only gas chambers are missing...

as for Pali terrorists - well they have no other option left as they have lost their wars, and now are desperate people using only means available to them... does not help that they want to "detroy" the state of Israel, but surely Isreal itself is not doing the peaceful prospects any favors with their actions for at least last 10 years... as the side who is in control they should be "normalising" the situation, accept 1967 borders, remove the settlers, let Palis create the state... let them develop now and hope for better as the total war practiced leads precisely to nowhere... guaranteed hundreds of dead for every year the present situation continues...

in some way this part of the world is cursed... when Sharon went to remove settles and started building a wall to start the "normalization" process he died...once it is done this is the de-facto reason why it will be possible to create some sort of normalization without the suicide bombers moving through and proper Israeli tank excursions into Pali territory...

and while the "wall" is fundamentally right, again Israel as the one who controls the situation is "making a land grab" while constructing it... all in all pretty f.d up but Palis lost so they have to hope this present situation ends even if they lose more land but once they get a fully functional state(s) going they can hope for some sort of eventual normalcy...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wezil
Let me know when the pals even come close to complying with the GC.

Oh great, this again. Let's trot out the whole "they break it, so we can too" line of reasoning. You must likewise be pro-torture - it's only consistent.

They can't comply with that article of the GC anyways - the Israelis aren't "protected persons." That part of the Geneva conventions is about state conduct in occupied territories. It's not even relevant to how Palestinians treat Israelis.

Any at any rate we're back to "the pals" as a collective proxy for terrorists. Did you learn anything at all by reading that excerpt of the GC?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Did you learn anything at all by reading that excerpt of the GC?

Yes, that it is wide enough to drive a suicide bomb truck through.

I mean really, by that definition the wartime bombings were war crimes. I say again

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Given the vast numbers of attacks every where Palestinians are allowed it is only common sense that Palestinians, who are foreign nationals, should not be allowed to use the roads as citizens. This is a common sense approach to legitimate security concerns which have proven to be needed all to often.

[Dinner]

Did you read the follow up at all? The context was to separate combating parties.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wezil
I mean really, by that definition the wartime bombings were war crimes. I say again

When did we start talking about wartime bombings? I cited a specific article to refute the assertion that collective punishment was acceptable or just if a democratic government was in place, by showing that, according to generally recognized international law, it is not. The fact that one's government is elected does not give anybody the right to collectively punish the citizenry for the actions of the leadership.

I'm not even talking about wartime, or bombings, or the validity of the Geneva Conventions as a whole. No wonder you're bored - you're having a conversation with yourself.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


When did we start talking about wartime bombings?

Post #34. Please try and keep up.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wezil
Post #34. Please try and keep up.

Why do you think I care? I responded to this, and this only.

To collectively punish a population for the actions of their elected government is reasonable imho if that government is engaged in attempting to kill innocent and random civilians in my country.

And had America been on the losing side of WWII, I'd sure Dresden, et al. would have been prosecuted as war crimes. They certainly would be if they were done today. Times change? OMG! Sound the alarm!

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Why do you think I care? I responded to this, and this only.

So you admit you entered the discussion mid-stream but I'm the one that was having a conversation with myself?

Okay Donny.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wezil
So you admit you entered the discussion mid-stream but I'm the one that was having a conversation with myself?

Nobody forced you to respond, but if you are going to respond, it should at least be relevant.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Let's consider some of your "examples" of violence against Israel, 1956 and 1967. Both times, Israel started the war. Some may consider violence and war justified for closing the Straights of Tiran, but regardless, Israel initiated the violence in these cases.

Israel only 'started the violence' in 1967.
And it had to because their main access to resources and food was blocked.
One could claim that a blockade all by itself is already an act of war, btw.

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.

It is beyond question. In 1981, Israel launched an offensive war, in response to PLO shelling of Israel, that was in turn a response to Israel air strikes into Lebanon, which was a reprisal for an attempted assassination carried out by the Abu Nidal organization. "Abu Nidal, abu shmidal. We need to screw PLO!" was Israel's response.

Yes, Israel has started wars. So, what's your point?

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

It's the only democracy and the only free nation and the only place for Jews in the entire world.

#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.

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

In 1948, Israel was every bit as responsible for the war as the other countries. It was much less a war of all Arab countries against Israel as it was of all countries against Palestine, including Israel. Israel had a secret agreement with Tranjordan, which has come out, to divide Palestine between them. It was also a war with Arab states against each other, as one of Egypt's columns was aimed straight at Transjorden. Lebanon's [i]Christian[i] armies were only occupying the part of Palestine that was assigned to the Arabs. Syria tried to seize a part of Israel that the French maps had assigned to Syria. While at the conclusion of the first truce, all sides resumed fighting, it was Israel that violated the 2nd and 3rd truces.

yeah, sure.
Israel was to blame as well.
that we disagree about the interpretation of the facts, ok, I can accept that.
But you now even try to twist the facts.

Thus I demonstrate your ignorance. You deny well known facts.

[Robert]

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.

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

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.

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.

#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.

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

Whoms country? It was english.
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.

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

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.

[Geronimo]

nobody gave any consideration to my proposal at all? is it really no better to build the new road for those who crave security rather than for those who will now be excluded from using the existing road?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wezil


Let me know when the pals even come close to complying with the GC.

Which Palestinians? The Geneva convention is binding on State signatories. Israel is a signatory, and thus bound by the Geneva Convention.

As for any Palestinian entity:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P

Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council "that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto".

On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".

[Wezil]

Originally posted by GePap


Which Palestinians? The Geneva convention is binding on State signatories. Israel is a signatory, and thus bound by the Geneva Convention.

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.

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