Closer Anglosphere Alignment needed

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[Higgly]

... the use of collective punishment in the form of home demolitions.

Collective punishment is specifically interdicted by the Geneva Conventions.

[ft.niagara]

Well, since the Occupation itself is illegal, which one is the egg and which one the chicken?

Freedom from market square bombings would be first, followed by relaxed restrictions. IMO

Anyway, bulldozing homes after the fact is not a legitimate security response. It's an act of revenge, not prevention.

It actually might be both a security response AND revenge. Again, chicken or the egg.

[jbg]

But just one example, FYI, is the use of collective punishment in the form of home demolitions.

*snip*

“Israel’s conduct in southern Gaza stems from the assumption that every Palestinian is a suicide bomber and every home a base for attack,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “This policy of mass home destruction leads to serious violations of international humanitarian law meant to protect civilians.”"

Suicide bombing in market squares is a major issue. It is sponsored by the Palestinians and others. Tactics to prevent it are difficult, if not impossible. People have a RIGHT to live their lives free from terror. There comes the issue of which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Well, since the Occupation itself is illegal, which one is the egg and which one the chicken?

Anyway, bulldozing homes after the fact is not a legitimate security response. It's an act of revenge, not prevention.

OK. The occupation resulted from three unprovoked wars by the Arab powers against Israel. When the Arab powers had control over the "West Bank" and "Gaza" there was no move towards creatign a "Palestinian" state. The only change then, according to your logic, has been the identity of the occupying power.

The Geneva Convention only affords combatant status to those who fight in identifiable uniforms. Since suicide bombers don't "fight" that way the necessities of combat may have to address situations not contemplated by the Geneva Conventions.

[Figleaf]

[/b

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[ft.niagara]

Unprovoked? Don't be ridiculous! Israel STARTED the 1967 war in which it captured the territory in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

"The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים, Milhemet Sheshet Ha‑Yamim; Arabic: حرب الأيام الستة, ħarb al‑ayam as‑sita), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Third Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, an‑Naksah (The Setback), or the June War, was fought between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. When Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, and blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent attack by Egypt.[1] Jordan in turn attacked the Israeli cities of Jerusalem and Netanya.[2][3] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day."

A naval blockade by definition is an act of war, I do believe.

And besides, SOMEONE had to start hostilities. Better the offensive than defensive.

[Figleaf]

Unprovoked? Don't be ridiculous! Israel STARTED the 1967 war in which it captured the territory in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

"The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים, Milhemet Sheshet Ha‑Yamim; Arabic: حرب الأيام الستة, ħarb al‑ayam as‑sita), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Third Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, an‑Naksah (The Setback), or the June War, was fought between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. When Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, and blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent attack by Egypt.[1] Jordan in turn attacked the Israeli cities of Jerusalem and Netanya.[2][3] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day."

A naval blockade by definition is an act of war, I do believe.

[italics and bolding added by Figleaf.]

What definition?

And besides, SOMEONE had to start hostilities. Better the offensive than defensive.

So, you're agreeing with me ... Israel started it.

[ft.niagara]

And besides, SOMEONE had to start hostilities. Better the offensive than defensive.

So, you're agreeing with me ... Israel started it.

No. This is not the first time in world history that a naval blockade has provoked hostilities. A naval blockade is an act of war, period. There is no dictionary of war, but an act of war can be anything another nation considers an act of war. To Iran, an embargo may be considered to be an act of war, by them. In that way the war was started by Egypt. Active hostilities, ie firing bullets, was started by Israel.

[Figleaf]

... an act of war can be anything another nation considers an act of war. ...

So, any state can declare any action by any other state to be a cause for war? Well, okay, that's what we see in practice, but it tells us nothing about the right or wrong, or legal or illegalness of it.

And it doesn't help clarify who starts it.

Active hostilities, ie firing bullets, was started by Israel.

Right -- Israel started it.

[ft.niagara]

Right -- Israel started it.

Yep, you really cornered me on that one. Israel started it.

[jbg]

Right -- Israel started it.

Yep, you really cornered me on that one. Israel started it.

So, Israel should have waited until it was starved into submission, to be on the moral side of history?

[Figleaf]

Right -- Israel started it.

Yep, you really cornered me on that one. Israel started it.

So, Israel should have waited until it was starved into submission, to be on the moral side of history?

1. Well, they could have made peace.

2. Israel was not substantially dependent on shipping through the strait of Tiran.

[ft.niagara]

1. Well, they could have made peace.

How? Attack was imminent. Surrender?

2. Israel was not substantially dependent on shipping through the strait of Tiran.

Who are you to comment on what is substantially dependent or not? How would you know a countries needs, and thresholds.

[Figleaf]

1. Well, they could have made peace.

How? Attack was imminent. Surrender?

Ah, but attack was not at all imminent.

2. Israel was not substantially dependent on shipping through the strait of Tiran.

Who are you to comment on what is substantially dependent or not? How would you know a countries needs, and thresholds.

I can make educated comparisons.

[ft.niagara]

1. Well, they could have made peace.

How? Attack was imminent. Surrender?

Ah, but attack was not at all imminent.

2. Israel was not substantially dependent on shipping through the strait of Tiran.

Who are you to comment on what is substantially dependent or not? How would you know a countries needs, and thresholds.

I can make educated comparisons.

Ah, but how would you know an attack was not at all imminent? Were you there? I know, tea leaves and educated comparisons.

AND

Educated comparisons to what? That is your answer to 'How do you know'? Kind of silly if you ask me.

[Figleaf]

1. Well, they could have made peace.

How? Attack was imminent. Surrender?

Ah, but attack was not at all imminent.

2. Israel was not substantially dependent on shipping through the strait of Tiran.

Who are you to comment on what is substantially dependent or not? How would you know a countries needs, and thresholds.

I can make educated comparisons.

Ah, but how would you know an attack was not at all imminent? Were you there? I know, tea leaves and educated comparisons.

AND

Educated comparisons to what? That is your answer to 'How do you know'? Kind of silly if you ask me.

1. Historical records, historical results, and comments of those who would know.

2. Educated comparisons of facts and data.

[Higgly]

The Geneva Convention only affords combatant status to those who fight in identifiable uniforms. Since suicide bombers don't "fight" that way the necessities of combat may have to address situations not contemplated by the Geneva Conventions.

Charles de Gaulle would like to have a word with you, sport.

[Higgly]

Israel launched a pre-emptive attack...

Exackly.

[Higgly]

... an act of war can be anything another nation considers an act of war.

O boy. War everywhere. War, war, war....

[Higgly]

1. Well, they could have made peace.

Or at least negotiated in good faith and kept their word.

[jbg]

Israel launched a pre-emptive attack...

Exackly.

And what word is that "Canadian" for?

[bradco]

I usually take issue with the carte blanche of support that is given to Israel. I prefer to try to take a non-biased approach to the issue. With that being said the following quote is ridiculous:

"Unprovoked? Don't be ridiculous! Israel STARTED the 1967 war in which it captured the territory in question"

-A war was clearly being pushed on Israel in 1967. Nasser, on May 17, "armed with Soviet tanks and planes demanded and obtained the removal of the UN force that had been keeping the peace between Egypt and Israel on the Sinai peninsula ever since the Suez incident" (Keylor, The Tweintieth Century World, Oxford UP, p265). He then followed that up by closing the Straits of Tiran days later. This is clearly an aggressive act that instigated the conflict. Any argument that Israel could have looked for peace is ridiculous.....the other side wanted war. The attacks on Egypt and Syria were not pre-emptive in the face of these hostilities which can be considered as acts of war.

Even if you choose to not consider tEgyptian actions as "acts of war" Israel's actions were not pre-emptive but rather anticaptory. Anticapatory self defense exists in customary international law dating back to the Caroline Incident. It is part of the inherent right of self-defense that is allowed under article 51 of the UN Charter. Basically this very limited anticaptory right is allowed when there is "necessity of self-defense, instant,over-whelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation". In this case war was CLEARLY coming at any second. There was, therefore, an "instant, overwhelming" threat. This is different than the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense where the threat is not imminent. For an article on the difference between anticaptory and pre-emptive force see "International Law and Preemptive Force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida and Iraq" San Diego International Law Journal (San Diego, 2003) by Christopher Greenwood.

[jbg]

In this case (the 1967 War) war was CLEARLY coming at any second. There was, therefore, an "instant, overwhelming" threat. This is different than the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense where the threat is not imminent. For an article on the difference between anticaptory and pre-emptive force see "International Law and Preemptive Force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida and Iraq" San Diego International Law Journal (San Diego, 2003) by Christopher Greenwood.

In all fairness to Bush, the US has greater responsibilities as the world's sole superpower to police disorderly areas. Saddam needed to be gone.

[Remiel]

You're statement contains an oxymoron, jbg. You cannot police by breaking the law.

[jbg]

You're statement contains an oxymoron, jbg. You cannot police by breaking the law.

Better break a few arbitrary "laws" that protect serious wrongdoers than die.