All old Israel/Lebanon threads merged in here - Page 6  

That's just more propaganda.

Well, there are quite a few. But not too many "liberal democracies".


International law has as much sovereign authority as the international community wants to put into it. Look at the first Gulf War, the bombing of Serbia and the independance of East Timor.


Quite frankly, Realpolitik has never been a trademark of mid-eastern politics.

But there is no contradiction between Realpolitik and International law. Actually, the way this world going, International Law is very relevant in Realpolitik.
It is in Israels long term interest to start bothering about international law.


So say You. I say that's crap. I feel an urge to use ideological comparisons that would probaby close this thread.


Well, arabs in the 30s didn't.


Your definition of Realpolitik is starting to stink.


The right of Israel to exist, has hardly been a problem since the 60s. And if your gonna use religious puns, at least get your religions right. Especially in this conflict.


When was this then? Show me?


Err... That sentance would only make sense is you said; "therefore one should be bound by it. Or those atrocities will happen again and again.

Your sentence is equal to : "Since the law didn't prevent me from getting robbed, it's irrelevant." Even though the robber got sent to jail. and you got compensated.

So explain to me the "no", if international law is not to be abided, why was the holocaust wrong? Without international law, there wouldn't be any Israel. Is Nuremberg irrelevant too? Do you need more paint in that corner?

I was there. It isn't.

I've been there too - and I emerged with a completely different view to you.

People there are living in a propaganda-driven life too. They told you what the government told them.

Presicsely.
When actual sovereign states decide to implement treaties, conventions, and customs which form international law, that is: when it suits those states..
But there's no sovereign authority above nations the way the state is asovereign authority above citizens, which is why international law (law between nations) is not equivalent to the law within states.


It was the doing of sovereign states, with the international law as rubber stamp (it's not like Mr.Clinton went back and forth to the UN for a note saying he could bomb Serbia, as well he did).



Israel owes its successes to having realpolitik and its enemies not enough.


If Israel's government was persuaded of that it would act accordignly. You can always try convincing them, hint: calling names like land pludererers and the such won't help.


Perhaps you feel that law without sovereign authority, jurisdiction, or enforcement capability, is more relevant, I do not.


Perhaps they felt that Jews shouldn't be allowed to buy land freely. So what?


So I suppose you'd want to blame the ANC for having had its own partnership in the nineteen-seventies and eighties with regimes far worse than South Africa's (the USSR comes to mind).


It is a problem for Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and at least a two dozens other countries.


I don't have the slghtest clue what you're scribbling about.


Never heard of the Khartoum conference of 1967?
On June 19th 1967, the Israel government voted topropose a return of the Golan to Syria, the Sinai and Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan in return for peace treaties.
In September of that same year, the Arab League in conference in Khartoum voted a resolution rejection this proposal, known as the three nos: no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel.
Once rejected, that proposal was no longer on the table.



You are only bound by a law when you are forced to abide by it, if you can opt out it is not binding.
The fact that any country can opt out of international law proves it's not binding.


The holocaust was wrong because genocides are wrong, irrespective of what intenrational law says.


Which international law built Israeli infrastructures and institutions? Which international law sent soldiers and weapons to oppose the five armies which ganged up to destroy Israel on its first day?


The Nurnberg trials were the prerogative of the righteous victors dispensing justice on the abominable vainquished.
And since you might actually ask, the victors aren't always righteous and the vainquished aren't always abominable, but in this case they bloody were.

Perhaps you were there on different days of the week?

I was there, and it seemed like the Isralis and Palistinians got along pretty well. It is a much safer and nicer place than East Palo Alto, Philidelphia, or Manilla (the three most crappy and dangerous places that I have ever been).

Yes, and in most parts of the world, states have done a lot of that already, and are doing more as we speak.


I never said it was. Normally it shouldn't be necessary to put force behind international law. But the UN does have power to do that, though not very efficiently.


It would have to be. And that's a good thing.


Well, I havn't seen much Realpolitik from Israel since 67. And now it's more like a parody of Realpolitik, "making up new realities".


I didn't call names. I stated a fact about what has, and is still happening.



Well, luckily most nations don't agree with you, and see the need for international regulations. International law is a pretty young concept, and the world is a diverse place. But the need for it is there, and it's not going away.


Perhaps they felt that their land was being sold by absent landowners with questionable rights and a corrupt State / Government not representing them? But as I said, what happened before 47, (or 67 for that matter), can hardly be undone. The problem is that it's still going on every day, inch by inch and olive three by olive three, and THAT practice is by modern international law, illegal.


Well, pest or colera in my book. Personally I resent Apartheid more then communism.


obviously.


True. Once.
One can always wonder what would have happened if negotiations where started back then. But from that moment, the policies of those countries changed. They all knew that Israel was there to stay.



No. Any country cannot opt out of international law. Israel can opt out because the US allows it to. And the US, being the only superpower around, does have it's way with international law these days. Hopefully for the rest of us, that will change.


And genocides are wrong because? </ Jon Stewart Voice>



The UN partitioned palestine, which might have been very wrong, put still laid down the legal basis of what became Israel. Hey, You knew that allready!


Quite true, but it's still the basis of modern International Law and The Human Rights, leading to The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, The Convention against Torture, The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and so on blah blah blah.

Lucky us, right?

Heh. Philly isn't that bad.

Omar at Iraq the Model:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/200...-where-to.html

HAHAHAHAHAH.

No, Sammi. The anti-semitism comes from claims that people are oppressed by the international jewry, which is what you are saying here isn't it?

Speaking out is fine. Claiming that you cannot speak out because of some international pressure from jewish groups is complete bullshit and is the fundamental basis for anti-semitism. Has been, will always be.

the way i see it, lebanon is just as responsible as the palestinian authority regarding the abduction of the israeli soldiers. they have both allowed terrorist groups such as hamas and hezbollah to operate with impunity within their territories. if you are going to allow these pricks to walk among you, don't be surprised if you wind up staring down the barrel of an israeli tank.

I don't think either the Lebanese government, nor the PA have any control over what Hizbollah does. To suggest otherwise is to not recognize the divisions and independent nature of such organizations.

Then why do people accuse other people of being anti-semitic when it's clear that they don't agree with Israel's policies? Most, if not all, of those people are of Jewish descent.

Everyone I spoke to could play a little variation of six degrees of Kevin Bacon but with someone hurt or killed in a terrorist attack. Being sent into harms way is taken in stride...it was rather sad how mundane it seemed to the Israelis...1 of the 8 Israelis with us on our tour got called up to active duty in Gaza on the last day of our tour. It hit all of us Americans pretty hard but to all of the Israelis it was just a part of life. I think that all of us can agree to hope for the obsolescence of that attitude.

And of course if you just look at the history of Israel you'd also see that from the very start the rest of the rather new states (Syria, Lebanon, et cetera all formed in the 1930s...not much more history there than Israel born in 1948) have had it out for Israel.

I'm not saying Israel is perfect...far from it in fact. However, you really don't paint a very accurate picture of what's going on there.

27 more civilians killed by Israel last night - including 10 children.

Are we just going to focus on who Israel kills and leave out who Hezbollah kills? A little one sided, don't ya think?

Why is it one-sided? You are here, so why don't you take on the job to report the killings by Hezbollah to make it even-steven, hm?

Nightcrawler

Lets do statistics then, to get things right:

Civilians this week:
Lebanese killed by Israel : 36
Palestinians killed by Israel : at least 23
Israelis by Hizbollah : 1
Israelis by Palestinians : 0

Millitary / millitants this week:
Lebanese killed by Israel : ?
Palestinians killed by Israel : at least 12
Israelis by Hizbollah : 8
Israelis by Palestinians : 1

And then there is the material damage; Israel has done damage for several 100 million dollars. Possibly billions.

True and this is just what Iran,Iraq,Syria, Hizbollah,Hamas want? Israel is surrounded with countrys happy to interfere in Lebanon,Palestine,Gaza,etc. They want a war and have since 1948.

And Israel seems happy to interfere as well, right?

Yes, when and where it suits them (and not when it doesn't).


As said previously: to be effective, any law should always have the ability to use force, even if it doesn't have to use it in the end. International law hasn't.


The UN doesn't take away sovereignity from states, it doesn't have sovereignity over states.


Two examples: the unileateral withdrawal from Lebanon, the evacuation of the Gaza settlers.


I responded to your statemement of fact earlier.



And those who cannot help themsleves get no help from those international regualtions, which is why when faced with threats to their national security or interests, states might disregard those regulations.


Your claim that as a general rule, settlements were built on stolen land is still unsubstantiated, and so it doesn't stand.


Comapring the communism of the nineteen-eighties to the then apartheid, one notices that the USSR was killing more than a million Afghans in that decade and displacing some five millions of them, while South Africa was not; and that while there were Africans migrating to South Africa from neighbouring countries (voting with their feet) people in the Soviet bloc were dreaming of getting out of there, so I say communism was worse.


So let them recognise Israel and negociate with it now. Yet they don't.


And Sudan can opt out, and France, and every country if it so chooses, and not because of any US favours.


For that to change, international law would have to change, so countries see as an advantage, not a hindrance, to their national security and interests, and so opting-out is not allowed to no none.


Because I said so.


Which in deeds equals, well, nothing.


Alltoo well.


I was under the impression the basis of modern international law was the law of the sea, the nineteenth century hunt against pirates and the maritime slave-trade and all that
My bad.


Lucky are those who have nations-states (or sometimes, benevolent foreign states eager to help) to protect them because international law can't, and so it won't.

i'm not discounting those divisions at, those are well documented. however, the reality is that pa and the lebanese governments know who they (the terrorist) are, where they operate and what they are doing. either they choose to do nothing about it for internal political reasons or they just don't have the ability to act, which i believe is bullshit. either case, israel is just addressing the situation as they have always done, right or wrong. their actions should not be a surprise to anyone.

and where are the figures for israelis killed in the last year due to suicide bombings, rocket attacks and the such. a bit one sided, don't you think?

Which people are you referring to, the ones being accused of anti-semitism or the ones accusing?

Lets turn this around for a moment, where are most claims of racism coming from? Whites or blacks?

It is the subjected group's right to claim unfair or irrational treatment.

Regardless, I don't think you can prove that the claims of anti-semitism are due to the fact that people solely disagree with Israel. I have never been called anti-semitic because I think and actively express that Israel is pursuing idiotic methods to solve its problems, of course I don't couch my discussion in terms of Jews being every bit evil and subjugating the palestinians and forcing the world to follow their misguided paths via a secret back room cabal. See the difference?

You can make criticism of the vatican's policies without being anti-catholic, or you can be anti-catholic in your rhetoric, even if the point is the same.

So will you please take some time to figure out if you hate jews, or the actions of a state?

Exactly - and what about the running totals from Israeli aggression and 'reprisals' for the last God knows how long? A bit one-sided don't we think?

And if it's a numbers game then does the fact that Israel has killed vastly more than their enemies mean that they've come out on top? And if so then surely all is ok no?

Or is it merely that the only deaths worthy of any significance are Israeli ones?

The point, sego, is that there is no winner in armed conflict. Israel doesn't invade countries unprovoked, it doesn't respond militarily unprovoked. Terrorists and indeed the nations around Israel don't follow the same rules. It doesn't matter who has killed more people, what one only obtains from that is a sense that one side is making more irrational sacrifices to a conflict that only consumes lives.

True - but it is the excessive nature and the attitude that enflame the situation - coupled with an absolute disregard for any civilized behaviour.

I would not argue that they do not have the right to respond. I would argue that in doing so they should not indulge in the rhetoric of 'war' in an already enflamed situation (it's called 'diplomacy'), avoid playground machismo like 'we will cause great pain' (we all know war is pain - we don't need the braggadoccio) and preferably avoid things like cutting off the water supply to Gaza as happened last night.

These things serve to enflame the situation more - which is of course, the purpose. Israel can only benefit from any situation like this because A0 the world has given it carte blanche to commit whatsoever atrocities it can devise and b) they will be supported by the US and most people regardless of any right or wrong.

Fighting against the army is not terrorism. That's what Hizbollah is doing. Take off your glasses and understand that.

so i should feel sorry for the hamas and hezbollah because israel is better at killing than they are. i hate to see innocent people die, especially children, but at least israel is not trying to target them. can the same be said for the other guys?

Israel has no more received carte blanche than any other nation, and the reasons for their actions (although perhaps, as you suggest not the severity) are generally rational -- and thus 'noted' but not supported necessarily.

i don't wear glasses and you are stretching if you don't think hezbollah is a terrorist organization. nor does it change the fact that if the lebanese government isn't either willing or capable of doing something about these guys, then israel has every right to go after them.

They are obviously not trying 'not' to target them either.

To be quite honest, neither side probably care about killing anyone on the other. Let's just not paint one side as 'civilized' and 'moral'.

If it comes down to the final analysis those with the fingers on the triggers and rocket-launch buttons on both sides are undoubtedly scum. It all depends on whose side you're on in the bigger picture.

No matter what they are - fighting against the army is not terrorism. Bombing bridges, power plants, civilian airports, on the other hand, is.

so what should israel do, seg? wait for their targets to go stand in the middle of an empty parking lot? these guys choose to hide within the population. most of the people around them know who they are and what the risks are associated with being in close proximity to them.

i'd say israel "has" gone out of it's way. why do you think many of these guys get hit while they are moving from one hiding place to the next? less collateral damage. chance are that they only hit them at home if the know they are unlikely going to catch them in the open.

in a time of war it is quite acceptable. in israel eyes, hezbollah's recent actions and lebanon's continued inaction was an act of war.

Imo, the US should withdraw support for Israel - ie stop veto all UN resolutions - on condition that all sides get around the negotiating table then ALL sides should bring EVERY grievance and issue to the table and stay there till they thrash it out however many years it takes.

During this period special laws should be in force regarding unprovoked attacks, killing civilians, cutting off water or other collective punishments and of course terrorism. Anyone breaking these - ie Israel or any Arab State or cell - should be punished.

The situation we have now is exactly what happens when the law is applied selectively and some are exempt from it.

That needs fixing - not just here but right across the globe.

No, it's not, exagerated targeting of civilian infrastructure is against the Geneva Convention.

Here are some figures on the death toll from October 2000 and til today, as you can see, they arn't much better.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Stati...Casualties.asp