European Union takes tougher stance on Israeli settlements

[OzzyKP]

The other thread about the death of Helen Thomas made me think of the latest news regarding Israel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/16/eu-israel-settlement-exclusion-clause/print

Seems like the EU finally put its money where its mouth is.

[regexcellent]

To put it in simple terms for you, if someone walks into your house and kills your baby, you are not morally justified in walking into theirs and doing the same. Even if by doing so you prevented them from repeating their actions.

In the context of war, I categorically disagree. One of the most effective measures Israel has taken against suicide bombers is bulldozing the houses of their families.

The Geneva Conventions prior to 1949 were much less rigorous than the later ones, which were largely shaped by reaction to WW2. It was primarily concerned with the treatment of prisoners of war, which is why the full name of the convention is 'Geneva Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field'.

This is totally irrelevant. It does not change what is morally right. What is morally right does not change by its very nature and it is not the same as what is "legal." You follow the Geneva Conventions because broadly speaking they preserve human life and dignity, and if you follow them other people will too. Thing is, Israel's enemies don't follow them, and therefore Israel shouldn't either.

[Colon™]

Worst advocate for Israel ever.

[Sava]

One of the most effective measures Israel has taken against suicide bombers is bulldozing the houses of their families.

Worst advocate for Israel ever.

reg at least isn't shy about his true colors. He's not a conservative. He's just another nazi piece of ****.

[C0ckney]

Worst advocate for Israel ever.

i'm actually starting to think that reg has got a job with the PLO's PR department.

[Sava]

he's just an unfunny troll

[Elok]

In the context of war, I categorically disagree. One of the most effective measures Israel has taken against suicide bombers is bulldozing the houses of their families.

Wait, what? Do you mean "their families" in an abstract/figurative way, as in bulldozing Palestinian villages (most of whose inhabitants are related to suicide bombers in some way) to build settlements? Or is that seriously a policy, where they inflict collective punishment on the family of a bomber by rendering them all homeless? I'm seriously hoping it's the former. If it's the latter, well, that's possibly the most ****ed-up thing Israel does. That I've heard of. So far.

[Elok]

This is totally irrelevant. It does not change what is morally right. What is morally right does not change by its very nature and it is not the same as what is "legal." You follow the Geneva Conventions because broadly speaking they preserve human life and dignity, and if you follow them other people will too. Thing is, Israel's enemies don't follow them, and therefore Israel shouldn't either.

Crap, I overlooked this before, and it also merits a "wait, what?" You're telling me morals don't change regardless of anything--unless your enemy behaves immorally, in which case you ought to sink to his level at once?

[regexcellent]

Wait, what? Do you mean "their families" in an abstract/figurative way, as in bulldozing Palestinian villages (most of whose inhabitants are related to suicide bombers in some way) to build settlements? Or is that seriously a policy, where they inflict collective punishment on the family of a bomber by rendering them all homeless? I'm seriously hoping it's the former. If it's the latter, well, that's possibly the most ****ed-up thing Israel does. That I've heard of. So far.

It's the latter. Saddam Hussein and later Saudi princes as well as the PA were paying suicide bombers' families money in return for their children blowing themselves up. Destroying the houses removed the financial incentive.

[Sava]

Destroying the houses removed the financial incentive.

Did it make the bombers not believe they'd get the 72 virgins?

[regexcellent]

Crap, I overlooked this before, and it also merits a "wait, what?" You're telling me morals don't change regardless of anything--unless your enemy behaves immorally, in which case you ought to sink to his level at once?

I'm saying the Geneva Conventions aren't a description of what is moral, and moreover just because something was allowed in 1945 but forbidden in 1960 or vice versa doesn't make it moral or immoral. Moreover, the Geneva Convention is only enforceable through the threat of not following it if your enemy doesn't.

[regexcellent]

Did it make the bombers not believe they'd get the 72 virgins?

I don't know if the bombers were motivated by the promise of 72 virgins or not, but in my experience people tend to care way more about concrete stuff like their families getting a big windfall.

[Sava]

but in my experience

Which is what?

[Elok]

I'm saying the Geneva Conventions aren't a description of what is moral, and moreover just because something was allowed in 1945 but forbidden in 1960 or vice versa doesn't make it moral or immoral. Moreover, the Geneva Convention is only enforceable through the threat of not following it if your enemy doesn't.

No, you can also refuse to deal with people who break it, if you happen to be a third party. See OP.

[Elok]

It's the latter. Saddam Hussein and later Saudi princes as well as the PA were paying suicide bombers' families money in return for their children blowing themselves up. Destroying the houses removed the financial incentive.

It would be tragically hilarious if they had to blow up two more kids to afford a new house. Failing that, creating a large, homeless, unemployed, angry underclass is really not conducive to long-term peace; either Israel is planning to liquidate these people, or they're idiots. Dumb, evil, or a little of both? Who knows?