At least 6 dead in suicide attack in Jerusalem cafe

[newyorican]

At least six people were killed and 40 others
wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up
Tuesday night in a cafe on Emek Refaim Street in
Jerusalem.

*****

The military wing of Hamas, Iz a Din al-Kassam,
sent a statement to the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera
satellite channel, haling the attack and one
less than six hours earlier at a bus-stop
outside a military base near Rishon Letzion
that killed seven people, but stopped short of
claiming responsibility.

*****

"After the two attacks in Tel Arabiya
and Jerusalem, despite all the Israeli security
precautions, we told the Zionists it was
payback time," said the statement read by the
channel.

*****

Earlier Tuesday, IDF soldiers operating in
Hebron killed Ahmed Bader, the city's Hamas
military leader, as well as a second wanted
militant, who were believed to have been
involved in sending the suicide bomber who
struck on a Jerusalem bus on August 19, killing
22 people.

Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin vowed
revenge after Israel tried to assassinate him
and other leaders of the radical Islamic
movement on Saturday in the Gaza Strip. An F-16
jet dropped a quarter-ton bomb on a building in
Gaza City, but Yassin escaped with light
injuries.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/338449.html

What a smashing success Israeli policy has been to date.

[LeftCoast]

1. Depends on your goal I suppose

I believe all is going exactly to plan...

[drdon326]

2. Yawn

And inhumanly murdering innocent people sitting in a
cafe or bus has gotten them soooooo much closer to their
own country.

[LeftCoast]

3. What makes you think I was talking about the Palestinians?

[drdon326]

4. My response was to newyorican.....

not you.

[quilp]

5. Is there anything the Palestinians can do, or not do,

that get them "closer to their own country"? Is it possible they have given that up, and now it is just a matter of pure, endless revenge?

[drdon326]

6. Well,golly gee whiz....

do you think they should have negotiated the
90-95% offer israel offered them INSTEAD OF RELEASING
INTAFADA II ??

At this point I sadly conclude they dont want peace.
I had hoped I was wrong.

[quilp]

9. Actually it was 90% of 25% wasn't it?

Why did the Likudniks want that 10%? After all they already had the other 75%. The fact is the Israelis now have a people with little to lose, and even less to gain, on their doorstep. Something they will have to live, or die, with for the foreseeable future.

Have you also concluded that Sharon and the Lukudniks do want peace?

[Jackie97]

16. How could you say that?

For the Roadmap, most Palestinians (including the militant groups) agreed to starting no violence in return for IDF to give them back authority over the land which they live on and dismantling settlements.

Israel double crossed them with building of the fence (which goes right through a lot of their work places), and creating brand new settlements. In the meantime, they did more occuapation which wasn't mentioned much in the U.S. media. Israel is the one who showed not to want peace this time, not the Palestinians. They started everything up, when they could have possibly had peace. Yes, Arafat should have accepted the deal years ago. He tried to accept it during Operation Defense Shield, and Sharon wouldn't go for it. That doesn't make Isreal any less responsible for their bull right now.

Meanwhile, many Palestinians might starve because their funding just got cut off by the PA to "stop terrorism". Israel (which supposedly wants to save civilian lives) isn't doing a thing to keep a major amount of Palestinians from starving to death (after doing so much that took away many of their jobs).

Why don't any of the pro-Israelis here appear care about the Palestinians?! So much caring has been done for suicide bombings (including from pro-Palestinians like myself, who are a part of groups like Amnesty international, which condemns bombings and occupation), but many pro-Israelis aren't showing to care much about anybody but Israelis and Americans (when it comes to foreign policy). At least, that's how it looks in my opinion. Why?

I'm strongly holding back anger here.

[drewb]

7. There is nothing they can do...

They will never be allowed to have their own country.

It seems as though they too have come to that realization and are going to make life as miserable as possible for Israelis in the meantime...

Meanwhile the cycle goes on and on...

Lather, rinse, repeat...

[newyorican]

11. "the gloves are off"

And Israelis are going to pieces (literally) over the side-benefits of the Likkud policy.

Happy Intifada

[rini]

8. Murder vs self-defense

Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is a professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University.
Sep 10, '03


The cycle is familiar. Palestinian terrorists maim and murder defenseless Israeli civilians - usually women and children - while those who command and control the mayhem remain in their cities, always careful to place themselves amidst densely-packed Arab populations. Special IDF counterterrorism units then attempt, meticulously, to identify and target only the terrorist leaders while minimizing collateral harms. Sometimes, however, such harms simply can't be avoided.

At first glance, even essential Israeli self-defense reprisals that unwittingly harm noncombatants would appear to be a violation of the Law of War. In these instances, however, full legal responsibility for Arab civilian harms must fall entirely upon those Palestinian operational masterminds who deliberately place themselves alongside ordinary persons. More precisely, under international law, these Palestinian leaders are guilty of the long-established crime known as "perfidy."

Deception can be legally acceptable in armed conflict, but the Hague Regulations clearly disallow placement of military assets or personnel in densely populated civilian areas. Further prohibition of perfidy is found at Protocol I of 1977, additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and it is widely recognized that these rules are also binding on the basis of customary international law. Indeed, it is generally agreed that perfidy represents an especially serious violation of the Law of War, one identified as a "grave breach" at Article 147 of Geneva Convention IV. Significantly, the legal effect of perfidy committed by Palestinian terrorist leaders is to immunize Israel from any responsibility for counter-terrorist harms done to Arab civilians. Even if Hamas and its sister terror groups did not deliberately engage in perfidy, any Palestinian-created link between civilians and terrorist activities would give Israel full legal justification for appropriate military action.

All combatants, including Palestinian fighters, are bound by the Law of War of international law. This requirement is found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and at the two protocols to these Conventions. Protocol I applies humanitarian international law to all conflicts fought for "self-determination," the stated objective of all Palestinian fighters. A product of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (1977), this Protocol brings all irregular forces within the full scope of international law. In this connection, the terms "fighter" and "irregular" are exceptionally generous in describing Palestinian terrorists, who normally target only noncombatants and whose characteristic mode of "battle" is not military engagement, but rather premeditated murder.

Israel has both the right and the obligation under international law to protect its citizens from criminal acts of terrorism. Should it ever decide to yield to Palestinian perfidy in its indispensable war against Arab terror, Israel would surrender this essential right and undermine this fundamental obligation. The net effect of such capitulation would be to make victors of the terrorists, a result that would (a) doubtlessly increase, rather than diminish, the overall number of noncombatant Jewish victims in the region; and (b) strengthen the resolve of al-Qaeda and its allied Islamic groups in their related terror war against the United States.

The reciprocal obligation of Israel's citizens to the Government in Jerusalem is dependent upon the Government's assurance of protection. Many major legal theorists throughout history - notably Bodin, Leibniz and Hobbes - understood that the provision of security is the first obligation of the state. "The obligation of subjects to the sovereign," says Thomas Hobbes in Chapter XXI of Leviathan, "is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them."

Just wars arise from a love of the innocent. Now, in the midst of such a war against uniquely barbarous Arab terrorists, Israel must continue to use all necessary military force in order to avoid further mass murder of its citizens. Although perfidious provocations by Hamas or other Palestinian terror groups may again and again elicit Israeli reprisals that bring harms to Arab noncombatants, it is always these provocations - not Israel's defensive responses - that would be in violation of the Law of War.

In the final analysis, Israel will have no alternative to launching periodic self-defense attacks against terrorist targets. Such operations need not be injurious to noncombatant Palestinian populations so long as the terrorists do not seek to hide amongst these populations, using them as human shields. Bound by the Law of War of international law, these terrorists - whenever they choose to commit perfidy - will be legally responsible for all harms done to Arab civilians.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Wow, that was crap...

Nothing like a professor of International Law trying to bring up the Geneva Conventions while ignoring the fact that Israel itself has violated them as well as a slew of other Conventions. I might go for a wander later and see what he's had to write on that stuff. I expect nothing more than a bunch of emotive spin....

What he said is pretty badly flawed. While a state does have an obligation to protect it's own citizens, it does not then have the justification to violate international law in doing so, or to claim everything it does is in order to protect it's citizens. He talks about Palestinian civilians being used as human shields, yet omits the fact that the IDF uses the same tactics and uses Palestinian civilians as human shields...

There's some other stuff in that which seems a bit warped to me. I'm just glad that particular professor isn't teaching me because if he's indicative of what passes for academia in the US, they sure set the bar pretty low...


p.s. I wonder if he was a fan of Iraq's General Adnan Khairallah? They both sound the same when it comes to crushing what they percieve to be a threat to the state with any means necessary. On what was being done to the Kurds, "Iraq's defense minister, General Adnan Khairallah, was more revealing in hsi statements. Iraq was entitled to defend itself with "whatever means is available." When confronting "one who wants to kill you at the heart of your land," he asked, "will you throw roses on him and flowers?" Combatants and civilians looked alike: "They all wear the Kurdish costume, and so you can't distinguish between one who carries a weapon and one who does not." (from a book I'm reading right now)

Awfully familiar sounding, eh?
Violet..

[Darranar]

14. Israel hasn't gassed the Palestinians...

though it does sound similar, the Iraqi government was far crueler and more despicable.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. No, it hasn't...

Apart from the fact that Israel hasn't gassed the Palestinians, what Iraq did to the Kurds was genocide, something that isn't happening in the Occupied Territories. I posted the comments to point out the similarity in thought and where that thought-process can sometimes lead, not to say that they were doing the same thing....

Violet...

[Darranar]

32. I know...

the similarity is certainly there.

[tinnypriv]

26. Actually

There is considerable evidence Israel has used experimental gas fired in tear gas canisters on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

See "Gaza Strip" by James Longley.

[rini]

28. give one

CREDIBLE SOURCE,

[tinnypriv]

29. I did

The source is video evidence.

Must try harder.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Shame on you, tinnypriv!!

Don't you know that unless something comes from the Daniel Pipes mailing list or israel-us.org it just ain't a credible source?? And don'tcha go trying that ploy where you pretend if it's not on the internet it's worth looking at! We all know that if something's on the internet, it's TrUe and an impeccible source, but if it's just in some mouldy book, or part of a documentary etc, then it's ExCrEmEnT of the worst kind!!

Violet...

[tinnypriv]

53. You're right

I guess we're all idiotarians in here.

:D

[LastDemInIdaho]

40. More information on Longley

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0305/film-miller.shtml

Longley waves the bloody shirt (literally) of Palestinian suffering; we see the dead, mangled children and frenzied funeral-procession chanting--just like on CNN every night, with no attempt at deeper understanding. Israeli rockets and bulldozers level apartment blocks while Palestinian men loiter inside hospital ERs as a form of entertainment. (One casualty gets hauled in holding his cell phone.) The entire system of rock-throwing provocation and camera-ready grief is sick and overdetermined. Little Mohammed is little more than a puppet, a robot programmed to weep for his slain buddies and mumble rote phrases about wanting to be a martyr. (How small do they make those suicide bomber belts, anyway?)

Meanwhile (let's open The New York Times for a sec), unsuspecting bus riders and cafe patrons have their entrails scattered across Tel Aviv and Haifa. Schoolchildren's brains and yarmulkes are spattered on the pavement. You can be the most liberal, Labor-voting, Peace Now-supporting Israeli citizen imaginable and still be mown down by Hamas or Hezbollah. But in place of those atrocities, Longley gives us images of saucer-eyed Palestinian children playing tag (oooh, how innocent, how cute!).

It's victimology, plain and simple, but Longley fails to grasp who's making a victim out of whom. Yes, Israel's policies toward the Gaza Strip and West Bank are reprehensible, but blame runs in both directions on what the Times' Thomas L. Friedman calls the Arab Street. Little Mohammed parrots defiant phrases without any idea what they mean. "We want weapons. We don't want food," he insists. And what about education? Or women's rights? Or a secular multiparty government for Palestine?

[tinnypriv]

41. Sorry, unless you have a point

I don't take 17 post Googlers seriously I'm afraid.

Especially when they pull up some irrelevent BS.

[LastDemInIdaho]

43. The point is that he is as pious and one-sided

as the supporters of Israel you condemn. Your "17 post" slur appears to be a facade you have presented because you can't handle the truth.

[tinnypriv]

44. Well if you're going to go all Jack Nicholson on me, I surrender!

n/t

[tinnypriv]

46. As an irrelevent matter of fact

The video in question has an author and content. I assumed anybody rational would have understood that distinction.

The content:

Palestinian and foreign doctors in front of several writhing children recently teargassed, saying this is "nothing like tear-gas effects" as they attempt treatment. Video of the recovery of tear-gas canisters which have different Hebrew markings compared to standard ones, plus related statements from Red Cross officials.

The author:

James Longley.

---

Please demonstrate how the author alters the content in this case, in light of my statement that there is "considerable (video) evidence" that Israel has used gas on Palestinians.

Unless you can demonstrate that the primary source video evidence in this case is in some way affected by the person holding the camera (beyond direction, angles, editing), now would be the time for you to admit you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

Have you seen "Gaza Strip", since you are commenting on it?

Of course you haven't. That alone invalidates whatever you have to say on the matter.

Ciao, Jack.

[LastDemInIdaho]

47. Enjoy your soliloquy

I know Jack and he ain't me.

[tinnypriv]

51. Send me his autograph, I'll send you "Gaza Strip"

:evilgrin:

[Resistance]

45. so?

the point here is whether or not Israel has gassed Palestinians, possibly using experimental gas in their tear gas canisters - not a film critic's opinion of Longley's documentary.

[LastDemInIdaho]

48. Gas may be your point

Credibility is mine.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. If that's the case...

then addressing what the author actually said, rather than trotting out a film reviewers attack on the author, would make any credibility you claim to cherish much more obvious to us interested observers...

Violet...

[LastDemInIdaho]

55. The reviewer put it much better than I could

I agree with his take on the film. He seemed to be credible and better received than a "17 post" nobody like me.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. How would you know?

Have you actually bothered to watch the film? And if you think that some fool carrying out a character assasination on a man because he dares to bring some attention to the plight of the Palestinians is putting it much better than you could, I have to take a stab and guess you'd also find character assassinations of Pilger, Chomsky, Fish, etc, to be some sort of compelling rebuttal to what they're saying. And an interesting thing when it comes to civilians being gassed is that it would have been very easy to accuse those who first brought the gassing of the Kurds to the world's attention as being 'one-sided' (which is what the US administration basically did), because most of those who paid attention to it had spoken out before about the treatment of the Kurds...

Violet...

[quilp]

13. Why should the Palestinians care about "International Law"?

What has "International Law" ever done for them? Especially if this temporate Professor of International law's impartial judicial opinion is an example.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Failure to obey international law

Encourages others to do the same. Truly, there are far harsher measures Israel could use against the Palestinians but hasn't done so.

Many here whine and complain that Israel will do this or that, but it hasn't. It continues to suffer an ongoing terror war. And continues to respond more moderately than most would in the same situation. If the U.S. had the same problem in this country, we would have done far worse to the terrorists and their supporters. MOST nations would do far worse.

[quilp]

31. It could be the Palastinians are beyond even thinking like that.

That the Likudniks have not used harsher methods has more to do with PR than concern over International Law. In fact they have shown even less respect for it than Hamas. The war may not now be between "Palestinians" and "Israelis". It may be between the Likudniks and Hamas. Two groups that are never going to stop regardless of "International Law". There is no "politics" to any of this. It is just "two eyes for one eye" revenge.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't respect international law...

I've never seen any comment from you to indicate otherwise. Or is it that you believe that international law is important, but only when it applies to wrongs done to Israel and not to another group like the Palestinians?

Sure, there's far harsher measures Israel could use that don't bear thinking about, but how does that justify the harsh measures Israel does use? That's kind of similar to saying that what Pol Pot did could have been worse because his was a Holocaust without the technology and didn't reach the same far-reaching totality that Hitler did...

Saying what other nations MIGHT do if they were in the same situation is pointless. That's purely wishful conjecture on yr part, and it's better to deal in reality. Can you show me where any other Western nation that's been subjected to terrorist attacks has responded in the same way as Israel? Strange, but I don't recall us taking over Bali and setting up Australian-only settlements and checkpoints everywhere after the Bali bombings...

Violet...

[quilp]

36. Violet: You are right and wrong.

If the question is whether I want International Law WITH THE MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT, of course I do. But I have little but contempt for the cynical and selective use that is made of it by the Israelis, the USA and others. It is a joke!

Which country conforms to "International Law" when its interests are at stake? None! What restrains the actions of governments is fear, money, trade, military capability, territory, and PR. It is never regard for International Law, and never will be until there is a realistic means of enforcement and retribution.

If governmental criminal violent acts were pursued with the same enthusiasm as international trade agreement violations I'd be cheering from the peanut gallery.

I repeat my question: What has "International Law" done for the Palestinians that they should respect it? Where has it protected them and their rights? If it hasn't then it is worthless. If it has and this is the result, then it is worthless.

[The Magistrate]

37. That Is Very Far From The Point You Have Pressed At Length, Dear

You have maintained at great length that nothing the various armed irregular bodies of Arab Palestine do can be considered a crime of war, because they fight to resist occupation, and all citizens of an occupying power are combatants.

You have similarly maintained that anything the Israeli forces do is criminal, because all acts of an occupying power are criminal. You have not been particularly clear whether this occupation applies to only lands over-run in '67, or to areas inside the Armistice line of '49, or even to the lands alloted the Jewish zone in the initial Partition of '47.

[quilp]

38. M: Do you ever actually read a post before you make dumb comments?

n/t

[The Magistrate]

39. Well, That Will Settle It Beyond Doubt, Dear

Who could fail to be moved by such eloquence and command?

[tinnypriv]

42. I'm readying my PayPal donation to Hamas as we speak...

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

52. My donations come out of my pay each fortnight as direct debits!!

I'm still waiting for the bumper sticker and the monthly newsletter where they explain why they're not committing war crimes while everything Israel does is a war crime to arrive in the mail ;)


Violet...

[tinnypriv]

54. See I was going to do that

But I like to rotate payments between Al-Asqa, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

More bang for the buck.

No pun intended. :eyes:

[quilp]

56. Violet : You still haven't answered the question have you?

Forget the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Now imagine this:

You are a citizen of a country that has been invaded by a foreign power.

Clearly, since your country has been invaded, "International Law" hasn't worked very well. Has it?

And then none of the countries telling you to rely on "International Law" come to your aid while your people are being driven out of their own land.

WHY WOULD YOU CARE ABOUT "INTERNATIONAL LAW"!!!!!

[The Magistrate]

58. Your Hypothetical Does Not Matter, Dear

It remains the case that any armed force taking the death of enemy civilians as the sole object of its operations commits a grave crime in international law. You may dance around this all you please, but it cannot be evaded.

It is precisely this reliance on criminal means that has prevented political success for the people of Arab Palestine. While their cause may be legitimate, the means by which it is pursued are not. Therefore, a great many people are unmoved by their cause, and their enemies are handed a tool of immense value in pressing for its disregard. Until this behavior alters, their situation, and the prospects of meaningful pressure being brought against Israel, will remain as they are at present: nil.

[quilp]

59. But if there is no punishment for the "crime what difference does it make?

You are in effect saying the "crimes" of the Palestinians are not being tried in a "court", but in the arena of "public opinion". Have there been no Israeli crimes? And I am not at all convinced that the rest of the world see the Palestinians as the villians.

You say their cause may be legitimate. I think it certainly is. But I don't see how "law" has helped them in any way. I believe the first "suicide bombing" was in 1998. Before that time how was the cause of the Palestinians helped either in law or in public opinion? They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Where is this "meaningful pressure" against the Israelis going to come from?

But I realize my argument has limits. What happens in the case where the invaders are so entrenched and so powerful that there is no hope whatever that the indigenous people can drive out the invaders. So further violent action cannot achieve that objective. And it degenerates into simply making the occupation as costly as possible for the enemy, and is really just a matter of revenge? In this case my hard line doesn't hold. But what is their proper course of redress?

Let us call the "Palestinians" the "West Bankers". And concede the rest of Palestine to the Israelis. Now, this is their country, and it is occupied by the Israeli army and the "settlers". They cannot now, acccording to my rules, cross their own borders. What would you have them do within their borders? Try to take on the Israeli army and get slaughtered in the name of "international law"?

[The Magistrate]

60. Do Not Mis-Underestimate The Powers Of The Court Of Public Opinion, Q.

Remember that you have yourself acknowledged concern for bad public relations as the reason Israel does not take such measures as expulsion to end its difficulties in this matter. A century, even three-quarters of a century ago, no state on earth would have refrained from extreme measures in a case like this, nor been concerned by any public outcry: it is the existance of international law, gaining political impact and precedential weight incrementally with each passing year, that best accounts for the difference.

The pecise mechanism by which people are killed is meaningless. The great difficulty the cause of Arab Palestine has labored under since the end of the Great War is the resolve of Arab Palestinian leaders to pursue it by indiscriminate killing. This began with murderous riots in Jerusalem in 1920, continued through the early years of that decade, and resumed in its final years, to continue on into the thirties. It resumed, after a flirtation with Nazism, after the Second World War, and has continued with only a few breaks since the war of '48. The tactic is bankrupt: it has never succeeded, and it will not succeed now. All it does is solidify the resolve of the people attacked. That the Israelis have, at times, indulged in equally bankrupt tactics does not alter this. As a method for securing the rights of the people of Arab Palestine, whether as initially contrued by liquidating the Zionist endeavor, or construed as securing a sovereign state of Arab Palestine, the method of indiscriminate killing of Jewish civilians has failed utterly. To continue it will only bring further disaster; to argue in justification or extenuation of it works in fact to the detriment of the people of Arab Palestine, to the degree that it encourages continuation of the practice.

One thing which must be recognized is that it may be too late. It may not be possible by now, as a practical matter, to achieve any real degree of vindication for the legitimate aspirations of the people of Arab Palestine. Nigh on a century of feckless blunder by the leaders of that people may have extinguished that possibility. It is an unfortunate fact that there are permanent reverses and defeats in this world, events that have consequences that cannot be undone. The people of Arab Palestine do not possess any military capability that can impose their will in any degree on Israel. They are, in fact, defeated, and dependent on the good will of the conqueror, conditioned by the murmer of a crowd of bystanders. Their only hope is that law will be imposed on the victor, and even that will be denied them if they do not themselves abide by the law.

[quilp]

81. Were Arabs any less "feckless" under the Turks than under the Jews?

Of course not. Then how did the Palestinians get to where they are now? The difference is solely in the ambitions of the rulers. The Turks wanted "empire". The Jews wanted land and a democratic form government for themselves. The indigenous Arab Palestinians were in the way of both. So the Israelis, with superior power, removed them.

As to "indiscriminate killing" by Arabs. The Israelis may have been more "discriminating". But they seem to have killed many more Palestinians than the Palestinians have Israelis.

We can agree that the Palestinians are a defeated people. But are you really comfortable with the idea they count on the "good will" of the likes of Sharon and Bush?

MOST IMPORTANT. I notice that you admit their fate is in fact dependant on the "good will" of conquerors conditioned by the "murmer of bystanders", and not on any claim for the efficacy of "international law" you espouse in your first paragraph. It's what I call progress.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. I probably haven't answered that question...

And the reality is that the vast majority of people in situations similar to that aren't even aware that there's international law on matters like that. They just want the world to pay attention to what's happening and to stop it. But my argument has never been that the Palestinian people themselves should be knowlegable of international law. It's been that groups like Hamas KNOW that they're violating international law and don't give a shit, exactly the same way successive Israeli govts has done the same thing. If you want to try telling me that Hamas are somehow nothing but innocent people doing what they do because they've been driven from their homes, I'm going to disagree with you strongly on that. There's a world of difference between the Palestinian people and Hamas...

Violet...

[quilp]

83. I'm not the one claiming "innocence" for anyone. Remember?

I don't see where the word applies. The fact that I believe the people invaded country has the right to any means to drive out an invader has nothing to do with INNOCENCE. I am saying they are NOT GUILTY of a war crime.

The word "innocence" implies a level of "purity", or "lack of knowledge or taint". I don't see how either side of a conflict can make any such claim. Exercising a "right" doesn't make you "innocent". Even the right of self defence. If you killed someone you have killed them. Even if you had a "right" to do so to defend yourself you cannot claim "innocence".

Of course the Hamas know they are violating "International Law". And, of course they don't care. So is Israel, America, and just about every other country when it suits them. And they don't care either.

My problem is the relentless propaganda war claiming the only violators are the Hamas. They are NO MORE guilty than anyone else. But they don't have the microphones or the media. The Israelis do. Why else are we discussing Hamas violations rather than Israeli violations?

[Jackie97]

67. True....

but do legal representatives go by who broke international law for reasons of desperation or do they go by the fact that they broke laws?

Laws are there for a reason. We can't excuse particular groups of people from breaking the law. If we're going to do that, then we shouldn't have that law on the books in the first place.

[quilp]

80. First ask "who made the law".

Hydrogen bombs are "legal". Mustard gas is not. It may be worse to die by mustard gas than radiation sickness, but I imagine the distinction is marginal to the people afflicted. The real reason of course is to maximise the options of response by the powerfull while minimising the response of the powerless. This is why missile attacks by Israelis are propagandized as more "acceptable" than suicide bombings by Palestinians. The method of delivery is really irrelevant. Except, of course, it takes a lot more desperation and poverty to do one than the other. But there is little to choose between the actual explosive material, or the effects on human bodies.

Laws are usefull and we couldn't live without them. But laws are generally made by the powerfull in the interests of the powerfull. Will Ken Lay and his ilk ever see the inside of one of our prisons that currently incarcerate bicycle thieves?

Have the Israelis and the Americans broken "International Law". Of course they have. Have they killed as many people as the Palestinians in the process? Of course they have. What have been the consequences to them? None. So why all this righteous indignation about Palestinian violations?

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I don't think it's worthless..

My post was in reply to something that Muddle said, not anything you'd said, quilp. The threads can be hard to follow the way they're laid out, though....

International law isn't worthless. It's not enforced, and 'national interests' always trump human rights abuses, but that's not a flaw with international law, but with the way it's enforced...

Violet...

[quilp]

57. If laws are not enforced they are WORSE than useless.

It either gives false hopes to the oppressed, or it provides a propaganda platform for the oppressor.

Unenforceable or selectively enforced laws are very very corrosive of ALL laws.

Sorry. I see now your question wasn't to me. I imagined it was because I am usually so critical of International Law and the way it is used and misused.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. So, Lemkin's law should be thrown out?

Y'know, the guy who coined the term genocide and made it his life's mission to have genocide made a crime under international law? I don't agree. I think there's only one case where it's been invoked, but that doesn't mean it's worse than useless. If it didn't exist, rather than trying to slither out of an obligation to act against acts of genocide by using cute substitutes like something being 'tantamount to genocide' , states like the US could just wash their hands of it and say there's no law against what's being done and they have to respect the sovereignty of the state doing it....

So the answer for me isn't to throw out laws that aren't being enforced across the board, it's to educate people that those laws exist and that if their politicians are more worried about what pig-farmers in LameButt USA think about their sales being affected by trade sanctions on states committing crimes like that than about what's happening to people who can be ignored because they live thousands of miles away sometimes, then their politicians need a good, swift kick up the backside from the people they're supposed to be representing...

Violet...

[Darranar]

64. I woudn't advocate either trade sanctions...

or military intervention against countries that break international law. Those cases can almost always be solved, or at least made far better, by peaceful means.

[The Magistrate]

65. As A Practical Matter, Sir

Both are necessary as enforcement tools, with military action preferrable to economic. Sanctions are merely a form of blockade, and where they are effectively enforced, in physical terms, tend to impact most disproportinately on the most helpless and least responsible sections of the country in question: the effect is analogous to periodic bombardment of geriatric homes and maternity wards, only slower. The leaders involved in such things are immune to words, and the sufferings of their people.

[Darranar]

68. It doesn't seem very practical to me...

all the Iraqi sanctions accomplished was the deaths of some huge number of innocent Iraqi civilians and the weakening of the Iraqi military - a rather pointless pursuit, since that military was far inferior to that of the US anyway.

[The Magistrate]

69. That Is My View Of Sanctions, Sir

Generally ineffective, mostly done to give the illusion something is being done. Military force would have caused less harm than a decade of sanctions, if it had been used by an appropriate agency operating under U. N. auspices.

[Darranar]

70. But, IMO...

doing neither - though mantaining the no-fly zones - would have caused less harm than either option.

[The Magistrate]

66. As A Practical Matter, Sir

Both are necessary as enforcement tools, with military action preferrable to economic. Sanctions are merely a form of blockade, and where they are effectively enforced, in physical terms, tend to impact most disproportinately on the most helpless and least responsible sections of the country in question: the effect is analogous to periodic bombardment of geriatric homes and maternity wards, only slower. The leaders involved in such things are immune to words, and the sufferings of their people.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. I would...

I'm talking about the cases where it's obvious that peaceful means isn't going to achieve anything. I've got a real distrust of military force, but when it comes to things like mass-murder and genocide, I become a hawk about it and think it's one of the few situations where military intervention has to happen swiftly. I don't think my view is an unusual one or hypocritical. It's been shared in the past by the Quakers and various human rights groups over what was happening in Bosnia...

a bit of a p.s. here just in case anyone misunderstands me. I don't in any way think that the I/P conflict is one where mass-murder or genocide is happening...


Violet...

[Darranar]

72. Sanctions...

are plainly worthless, except against a democracy. They affect the weakest and the least powerful first, who happen to be the ones who are generally most oppressed; the governments we're talking about here likely wouldn't care as those people dwindled away.

Military intervention in cases of mass murder and genocide has a way of making things worse, not better. Though I agree that it is justified in certain situations, I think that those situations are extremely rare; the use of military intervention in Kosovo, for instance, failed to solve much of anything that couldn't have been solved by other means. That's also ignoring the fact that there was much incompetence on the part of NATO during the Kosovo bombing - the main reason I have major reservations about General Wesley Clark.

Most oppressive regimes in the world end up losing whatever ideology that might have brought them to power and end up being most concerned with their own survival. This can be used to force them to stop whatever they are doing; there are certain cases, however, such as World War II, where the situation was different and intervention was needed.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. But in those cases how could things get worse?

The problem with the military intervention in Kosovo was that it was too little, too late. In cases like Bosnia and Rwanda, how could things get any worse than they were for the groups being targetted by genocidal regimes? How can negotiation work with those sorts of leaders? Negotiation plays into their hands because it gives them time to stall while they continue carrying out their plans to exterminate people. In the case of Rwanda, threatening to withdraw the few remaining UN peacekeepers who were there played right into the hands of the Rwandan leadership, because those few peacekeepers protecting thousands of Tutsi were the only thing that stood between them and the soldiers who wanted to butcher them. One of the excuses made for that horrendous decision not to bomb the train tracks leading to Auschwitz was that bombing would make things worse for the Jews. It's incomprehensible to think that things could have been any worse for them than they already were....

Violet...

[Darranar]

76. What about the groups NOT being targeted?

What about those innocent people who are not falling victim to genocide, but at the same time aren't perpentrating it? Those people are hurt greaty in a military intervention of the sort in Kosovo.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. 90% of Kosovans were Albanians...

The 10% who weren't and who weren't helping perpetrate it were being hurt greatly already by what was happening around them. I think military intervention should have happened way before Milosovich turned his sights on Kosovo. As it was, the NATO bombing of Belgrade did target power grids and transmitters that were considered dual military/civilian targets and that's the stuff I guess the Magistrate was referring to when he said some folk had gone so far to claim NATO committed war crimes. But international law states that when bombing targets like that, they have to minimise the risks of civilian casualties, but that it's not illegal to do it. And in a case of genocide, I think when it comes to civilians not being able to watch their tellies and actually doing something to try to save the lives of people who are being rounded up and executed solely because of what they are, I think saving lives has to trump all else. NATO could have minimised civilian casualties to a much greater extent if their action hadn't been confined to aerial bombing, but unfortunately the US refused to allow them to send in ground-troops because they didn't want to risk any troop casualties....

A mistake that was made with Milosovich was that during the extermination of Muslim men and boys, he was threatened with military action from NATO, which actually had the Serbs fall back for a little while until they realised NATO wasn't going to do anything to them, and then they just thumbed their noses at NATO and went back to their exterminations. If a threat of force is used like that, it should have been followed through on, because it gave the Muslims of Bosnia in the 'safe havens' false hope....

The idea of negotiating peace was brought up and the US demanded that the Serbs and Muslims get together and work out a peace deal, but as one Muslim leader said, that was like asking Hitler and the European Jews to get together and negotiate while Hitler was exterminating the Jews. I think it's pretty clear that trying to negotiate with genocidal butchers is useless, because right from the outset their plan to have an ethnically pure territory is non-negotiable and the killings won't stop....

Violet....

[Darranar]

82. I'm talking about the bombing of Belgrade...

in which innocent Serbs were killed.

Your points are indeed reasonable; however, I do think that there was an opposition party that was capable of placing a moderate in office with US non-military aid. I'll need to research this.

[The Magistrate]

74. Here we Must Disagree, My Friend

Butcher Slobo could be halted only by force, and plenty of it. That force ought to have been applied sooner, but it is well it was at last applied. The loss of face the helplessness of his forces before NATO was the key ingredient in the subsequent over-throw of Butcher Slobo: this commonly occurs when dictators are so humiliated by an outside power.

The NATO campaign did not strike me as incompetent, but as a fairly typical application of military power on a large scale. The thing is not a tidy art, and there are inevitably mishaps. Claims by some that NATO bombings constituted war crimes are ludicrous.

The situation in Kossovo today is not perfect, but thousands are alive today there who would not be otherwise, and the level of violence is greatly reduced from what it was in the months before the intervention.

[Darranar]

75. There are others...

who would be alive today but aren't due to the NATO bombings. Slobodan Milosevic was a horrible war criminal; however, the attention and effort was never applied to find a peaceful solution to that conflict.

Perhaps at that point, military intervention was the only option. However, had effort and energy been applied earlier, the whole affair might have been avoided.

This is why we need a Department of Peace; it will hopefully be able to manage such things.

I think that Milosevic's fall was bound to happen anyway; however, his replacement isn't that much better, and the situation there hasn't improved much since he was removed.

[The Magistrate]

77. People Were Going To Die, Sir

The fates were simply rearranged, and the total much diminished. On balance the result was a good one. It is certainly true that a sharp application of force, much earlier, perhaps as early as the Slovenian seccession, would have spared many more. There was no possibility whatever of persuading Butcher Slobo to a peaceable course short of a gun to his head and the cvertainty it would be fired.

The situation is immensely improved in the Balkans today, by the crude score of yearly death and destruction. If Serbia remains a shabby, poor place, that is the price of a glut of loot and dreams of glory. The gentleman who was recently assassinated was a great improvement on Butcher Slobo. His successors seem to be following in his footsteps, and making some effort to clear up the nationalist criminals, if only in self-defense.

[Darranar]

78. Had negotiations...

been initiated as soon as Yugoslovia began to break up, and been applied well, perhaps this nationalistic movement would never have happened in the first place. Unfortunately, many of the negotiations ended up being late and half-hearted; much damage could have been avoided otherwise.

If Slobodan had never came to power, none of this would have occured; perhapsfar more peaceful action should have been taken to prevent that.

The person who succeeded Milosevic was nationalistic himself; he was, however, far less extreme.

[quilp]

84. I have no problem with International Laws that are enforced.

My problem is with how they are made, and how selectively enforced. The USA may, as you say, choose to intervene in the affairs of another country like Iraq using "International Law" as a basis. Unless they didn't use this as a basis in which case they are in violation. And who is going to take them to court?

What is one of the claims of the USA against Saddam? He was gassing the Kurds with mustard gas twenty years ago. Apparently "illegal". Of course the USA, only ten years earlier, were frying the Vietmanese with napalm. Apparently "legal".

I can't understand an argument that seeks to persuade me that burning people from the inside out is more inhumane than burning people from the outside in.

The real difference is a solely a matter of technology. Napalm takes a fairly sophisticated technical process to produce and deliver. Mustard gas can be made in a basement and delivered by a tin can. The law's clear intention is to limit the military options of poor nations while retaining the military advantages of the wealthy ones.

I fully share your wish for these laws. But I am very skeptical about who makes them. Why they are made. And when, why, and how they are enforced. I largely suspect that "International Laws" are made for and by the same interests as those that make "Domestic Laws". And are enforced accordingly.

[Jackie97]

19. Request...

Show me where it says that terrorists committing perfidy are responsible for all of the violations done to Arab civilians?

According to Interntional law, a country is not supposed to purposely harm civilians. However, Israel is purposely harming civilians whenever they kill several people with a bomb for the purpose of killing one Hamas member. Legally, they're killing civilians with their assassination policy because even if they're legally unproven terrorists, they're still civilians until proven otherwise in court. It's one thing to kill right in the middle of self-defense, but it's completely different to plan the killing of a person that hasn't been proven guilty in court yet. In the United States, this would be called depriving a person of their right to life without due process of law. International law says similar things.

And as Violet pointed out, Israel also uses Palestinians for human shields by making them "volunteer" to confront militants or suspected militants.

How did Israel become above the law?

[Dem4EverMore]

12. "What a smashing success Israeli policy has been to date"

If Israel would just stop bombing their enemies for a few days I'm sure these defensive Hamas bombings would cease. Why can't Israel see that Hamas is just trying to defend themselves?

[newyorican]

15. Happy Intifada!

:thumbsup:

[Dem4EverMore]

17. Right on!

Perhaps now Israel will see that killing the people trying to help the oppressed is not worthwhile.

[Darranar]

18. Uh, no...

Hamas doesn't help the oppressed at any reasonable amount. It simply slaughters Israelis, mostly innocent civilians.

[Dem4EverMore]

20. What choice do they have?

The only way to get attention is to draw blood. Should they just let Israel walk all over them?

[Darranar]

22. That's not true...

I just gave a reply to a similar post of yours in another thread. please read it, for I do not want to repeat it.

[Jackie97]

21. Now, wait a minute.

There is no excuse for Hamas killing Israeli civilians that didn't kill them. If it was truly self-defense, then they would kill members of the IDF or of the government instead (I'm not saying that's legal, but I am saying that it would be true self-defense).

I swear that if it's not one extreme, it's another in this thread.

Perhaps I should call in the night.

[Darranar]

23. Thank you, Jackie!

Once again, you post a very reasonable post that I can agree with completely. Your contribution to this forum is exceptional.

[Gimel]

25. Update on casualties

08:21Shaarei Tzedek hospital trauma chief and his daughter, killed in Jerusalem bombing, to be buried Wednesday morning. (Haaretz)

The daughter was to be married today (Israel radio)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/338755.html

On edit: To add the link which I found later.

[tinnypriv]

27. That is heart-breaking

The groom and both families must be utterly devastated. :mad:

[Darranar]

33. Indeed...

those Hamas militants are truly despicable extremists.