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

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So since a few Palestinians blew up stuff, ALL Palestinians should be prohibited from using the road, which was supposed to be built FOR THEM, according to the Israeli Supreme Court's decision in 1982?

If you convince would-be assassins to walk around with signs and not use this road, I'm sure we'd have no reason to keep it closed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Does that justify the murder of civilians, OB?

Unless you can name a "national liberation" struggle in which the group trying to get their own national homeland has only attacked military targets. it would seem so.

[Sirotnikov]

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.

There are absolutely no exemptions for self-determination struggles.

to quote Additional Protocol 1

PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Art 1. General principles and scope of application

1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.

2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience.

3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions.

4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

If you claim the Palestinian struggle is for self determination against an alien (even racist) regime, you have to comply with the GC as well.

AFAIK, The PLO even took part in in composing this protocol, and you yourself prove that they accepted the additional protocols in a letter.


In any case, within this discussion the GC are used as a basic ethical ground against which everyone measure up.

I don't imagine that had Israel not been been a signatory, you would suddenly drop your claims against its behavior.

[GePap]

Siro:

read posts #75 and #84 in their entirety.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Unless you can name a "national liberation" struggle in which the group trying to get their own national homeland has only attacked military targets. it would seem so.

India.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
India.

You mean before of after over a million Hindus and Muslims were slaughtered during partition?

[DinoDoc]

2 different events. Confusing them does your arguement no good especially since neither of those populations were the one's opressing the other.

[Sirotnikov]

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.

Facts Commander Chegitz :

Bringing in Cyprus is about as relevant as bringing in Albania, and is a sure give away that you're struggling.

Turkey is a real democracy, but is not part to the conflict, and is irrelevant as such.

Lebanon is a semi-real democracy, because half of its parliament and its previous president are Syrian puppets, and because it has a huge factor which does not obey the government at all (Hizbullah). If you lose independency (like lebanon does) and you lose sovereignty (like lebanon does) you're not even a real country, much less a real democracy.

Having elections every few years is not enough for a democracy, Facts Commander Chegitz.

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.

The arabs had overthrown the Ottomans?
cool

So were the ottomans the legal rulers?
Because the ottomans clearly granted european Jews a right to settle.

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.

The methods for counting population in Palestine are problematic because you have to have definable borders, and you have to consider differences between permanent settlement and temporary settlement (like beduins, traders going in and out etc).
Current methods are sadly always politicised for one side or the other.

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?

The "country" existed as a name given to an area.

The real difference is that there has never been a Palestinian people.

I won't deny that it exists since approx the 1950s, and even more clearly since 1967.

If you can find any prominent political or cultural relics from the 19th century, that refer to the idea of a Palestinian people, i'll be proven wrong.

In the 19th century, the area was a collection of city states with little to no political affiliation, beduins, and rural vassals.

There was more than half a million people living in Palestine before the Zionist movement began emigrating.

there were 530 thousands, with 43 thousands being jews.
and 430 muslims.
Look at the huge jump between 1800 (275 thousands) and 1890 (532 thousands). That can only be explained by emigration.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap


Unless you can name a "national liberation" struggle in which the group trying to get their own national homeland has only attacked military targets. it would seem so.

if we use this logic it is also justified to use collective punishment against civilian population, because each and every regime protecting itself from terrorist attacks / popular uprising, has done so.

I'm glad your circular logic always justifies the oddest stuff.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
2 different events. Confusing them does your arguement no good especially since neither of those populations were the one's opressing the other.

Not two different events. The partition was part of the fact that India was a multiethnic society, and clearly a significant faction disagreed with Gandhi about the possibility of a single multi-ethnic state in which no group would predominate. Gandhi's notion of what constituted an Indian "nation" was no universally shared.

Besides, India and Pakistan gained independence on the same date, so the huge waves of violence that were occurring were part of the "national liberation" of both states.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
if we use this logic it is also justified to use collective punishment against civilian population, because each and every regime protecting itself from terrorist attacks / popular uprising, has done so.

I'm glad your circular logic always justifies the oddest stuff.

OB asked what would a group do if a foreign power forced a foreign people on them and then acted out a political partition. Dinodoc asked if that justified kmudering civilians.

I gave the sad faxctual answer that national liberations movements always do. Just look at what happened in Jaffa in 1948....

The underlying problem, as always, is the notion of "national liberation,", mainly the "national" part.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Siro:

read posts #75 and #84 in their entirety.

why?
I am not interested in discussing whether GC apply to WWII atrocities (or supposed atrocities).

I am also not interested in defending capital punishment, because I do not support it, nor do I agree that most of Israel's actions can be explained away using such a logic.

As to your "Dead is dead" logic - it has been countlessly proven silly, in previous threads. There is a legal and ethical difference between intentional murder, and a death resulting of a mistake or recklessness.

In any case my defense of Israeli actions is as follows:

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
(iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

(b) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

(c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

7. A locality loses its status as a non-defended locality when its ceases to fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 or in the agreement referred to in paragraph 5. In such an eventuality, the locality shall continue to enjoy the protection provided by the other provisions of this Protocol and the other rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

7. If one of the Parties to the conflict commits a material breach of the provisions of paragraphs 3 or 6, the other Party shall be released from its obligations under the agreement conferring upon the zone the status of demilitarized zone. In such an eventuality, the zone loses its status but shall continue to enjoy the protection provided by the other provisions of this Protocol and the other rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

[Sirotnikov]

I gave the sad faxctual answer that national liberations movements always do. Just look at what happened in Jaffa in 1948....

it is the sad factual answer that powers defending from terrorists almost always have to put civilians at some risk.

And it is the sad factual answer that the most effective anti-terrorist campaigns have been the bloodiest (think Hama in Syria, or Black September in Jordan)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Facts Commander Chegitz :

Bringing in Cyprus is about as relevant as bringing in Albania, and is a sure give away that you're struggling.

Turkey is a real democracy, but is not part to the conflict, and is irrelevant as such.

Lebanon is a semi-real democracy, because half of its parliament and its previous president are Syrian puppets, and because it has a huge factor which does not obey the government at all (Hizbullah). If you lose independency (like lebanon does) and you lose sovereignty (like lebanon does) you're not even a real country, much less a real democracy.

Having elections every few years is not enough for a democracy, Facts Commander Chegitz.

Siro, Cyprus and Turkey are clearly in the region, so when someone claims that Israel is the only democracy, they are wrong. We can debate over and over about Lebanon and get no where. So there isn't a real point.

The arabs had overthrown the Ottomans?
cool

So were the ottomans the legal rulers?
Because the ottomans clearly granted european Jews a right to settle.

The right of Jews to settle in Palestine is not under question here. The right of Britain to give Palestine to European settlers is.

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.

The methods for counting population in Palestine are problematic because you have to have definable borders, and you have to consider differences between permanent settlement and temporary settlement (like beduins, traders going in and out etc).
Current methods are sadly always politicised for one side or the other.

Ottoman records become significantly more accurate during the last years of their rule. Rejecting them simply because they don't jive with the Israeli myth of an empty land is being disingenuous.

The "country" existed as a name given to an area.

The real difference is that there has never been a Palestinian people.

Yes, they were Syrians up to that point. It is irrelevant as to whether or not they were disposed of their land.

There was more than half a million people living in Palestine before the Zionist movement began emigrating.

there were 530 thousands, with 43 thousands being jews.
and 430 muslims.
Look at the huge jump between 1800 (275 thousands) and 1890 (532 thousands). That can only be explained by emigration.

That is ridiculous. A doubling of population in seventy five years is hardly evidence of a massive wave of immigration. It's about 1.5% annual growth.