[sebbysteiny]

All

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

Here are the first clear signs of the destruction of the peace process caused by this. I think it is now becoming undisputable that the goldstone report is now an obsticle to peace.


Tailz

There is a serious point here. International law is being destroyed by those abusing its noble ideals for political ends.

I don't give a damn about the politics. If international law genuinely condemns Israel then so be it. But it doesn't and I do give a damn about international law's abuse.

This White Phosphorous fiasco is absolutely disgusting abuse of international law by NGOs.

And it's not just about Israel. International law is raped by NGOs criticising Afghanistan, Iraq, campaigns against the death penalty. And the abuse of international law is only increasing.

And now you have this rediculous situation where barbaric schumcks (your words not mine) think they get not just legal immunity but military immunity too BY committing war crimes. After all, does it not seem strange to you that the people that committed more battlefield war crimes than any other organisations on Earth that has ever fought a war are the ones championing Goldstone's report? Who exactly is international law supposed to protect?

And like it or not, if you do not pledge to support Israel actions against Palestinian terrorists that are militarily necessary even in heavily built up areas, then how do you expect Israel to ever agree to make concessions like demolishing settlements again?

[Tailz]

Yes Sebby, I know you’re going to disagree with me, but I’m going to write this anyway.

There is a serious point here. International law is being destroyed by those abusing its noble ideals for political ends.

I agree, but in difference to you, I think both Israel and the Palestinian resistance groups are making a mockery of International Laws.

I don't give a damn about the politics. If international law genuinely condemns Israel then so be it. But it doesn't and I do give a damn about international law's abuse.

Politics is what motivates people to fight – so politics are important.

If you did give a damn about international law, then our previous discussions about the settlements would have been quite different rather than the goal post shifting you engaged in the legitimise the settlement activity. So you don’t convince me of your sincerity on the issue of your love of International Laws.

This White Phosphorous fiasco is absolutely disgusting abuse of international law by NGOs.

I agree NGO’s went bananas; it was not a breach of international law because Israel has not signed up to that law. Even if I think the criticism regarding deliberately exposing/targeting civilians to white phosphorous was warranted on ethical grounds – it was not a breach of International Law.

And it's not just about Israel. International law is raped by NGOs criticising Afghanistan, Iraq, campaigns against the death penalty. And the abuse of international law is only increasing.

Because International laws are being breached and the criminals are getting away with it only because they wear our uniforms. We cannot outlaw torture and violence against prisoners and then conveniently change those laws when we want to engage in torture and violence. Or just because the other side does not abide by the same ethics and moral standards we do.

And now you have this rediculous situation where barbaric schumcks (your words not mine) think they get not just legal immunity but military immunity too BY committing war crimes.

What immunity are they demanding? The article you posted is about a dispute between Fatah and Hamas over:

“PA leadership's decision to withdraw support for a resolution calling for the UN Human Rights Council to endorse the findings of the Goldstone report on Operation Cast Lead”

I do not see anything about a demand for immunity?

After all, does it not seem strange to you that the people that committed more battlefield war crimes than any other organisations on Earth that has ever fought a war are the ones championing Goldstone's report?

Firstly, Palestinian and Israeli forces have both committed war crimes, so you can get off your high horse on that issue. Secondly, the Palestinian Authority withdrew its support for the Goldstone report.

Who exactly is international law supposed to protect?

Who indeed.

And like it or not, if you do not pledge to support Israel actions against Palestinian terrorists that are militarily necessary even in heavily built up areas, then how do you expect Israel to ever agree to make concessions like demolishing settlements again?

So in order for there to be peace, we must support Israeli actions, even if it means killing innocent people. No thanks. I’ll support nether side.

Indiscriminate destruction only beings you indiscriminate revenge – and that is a cycle of violence Israel and the Palestinians are already stuck in.

To make a long story short Sebby, you’re just pissed that Israel cops flak every time it breaks the rules while the other side breaks the rules all the time. You seem to think that Israel’s infractions, Israel’s momentary lapses in judgement, ethics, and morality, should be just ignored because the other side, as far as you’re concerned, gets away with it all the time. This is not the case; you can’t hop off your moral and ethical high horse when it is convenient and expect to be so readily accepted back in the saddle by your peers.

[redcarpet]

International law is raped by NGOs criticising Afghanistan, Iraq, campaigns against the death penalty

The Iraq, Afghan campaigns and the death penalty(esp. for minors) are illegal, so what's your problem?

[pugsville]

International law *IS* a joke. If you're powerful or useful to the power the chances of any real action being taken is vanishing close to zero. The IDF should not get a free pass to do whatever it likes. The chances of anything happening about Gaza is zip.

[sebbysteiny]

Pugsville

International law *IS* a joke. If you're powerful or useful to the power the chances of any real action being taken is vanishing close to zero. The IDF should not get a free pass to do whatever it likes. The chances of anything happening about Gaza is zip.

I think you do not fully understand what international law is.

In 1938-1945, not a single mustard gas, nerve gas or other chemical WMD was fired at any city or any troops. The reason was, both sides complied with international law in this respect. The same happened in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. And you say international law is a joke?

In the war in Gaza, Israel dropped hundreds of thousands of leaflets and made thousands of telephone calls. There are many people who are alive today in Gaza thanks to these efforts. Israel did this to comply with international law. And you say it is a joke?

What, in your opinion, is international law? What makes internaitonal law legitimate? How is it enforced? And what happens to "international law" that is not intended to be enforced?


Taliz

I agree, but in difference to you, I think both Israel and the Palestinian resistance groups are making a mockery of International Laws.

How so?

I agree that the Palesitnian groups think they are above the law. But I'm not convinced the Israelis feel and act this way.

Politics is what motivates people to fight – so politics are important.

Not from the point of view of international law. Politics and law must never mix.

Read the Wikipedia articles on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

If you did give a damn about international law, then our previous discussions about the settlements would have been quite different rather than the goal post shifting you engaged in the legitimise the settlement activity. So you don’t convince me of your sincerity on the issue of your love of International Laws.

Okay, Tailz, then perhaps you can have a go at presenting a reasonable case.

Firstly, explain to me how you can argue that Arial is illegal when the Road Map to peace, as passed by a UN SC resolution, expressly states that whether or not Arial falls within Israels or the new Palestinian state's final borders is to be resolved only by negotiations between the parties.

I agree NGO’s went bananas; it was not a breach of international law because Israel has not signed up to that law.

Firstly, it was not even a breach of that law EVEN IF Israel had signed up to the law.

Secondly, Tailz. Have you ever had a job? This type of thing is absolutely unacceptable, even once. Amnesty and HRW should be having an internal or even an external investigation into what went wrong with their methodology. Yet instead, they continue to support this deceiptful position. It is a disgrace of the highest order and an insult and a threat to international law.

Even if I think the criticism regarding deliberately exposing/targeting civilians to white phosphorous was warranted on ethical grounds – it was not a breach of International Law.

Are you trying to tell me that armies cannot use a sodding smokescreen that works against IR vision goggles without you feeling the army has acted unethically?

Because International laws are being breached and the criminals are getting away with it only because they wear our uniforms. We cannot outlaw torture and violence against prisoners and then conveniently change those laws when we want to engage in torture and violence. Or just because the other side does not abide by the same ethics and moral standards we do.

What international laws are being breached by those wearing uniforms? You must surely understand the difference between legal military confrontation that many (particularly pacifists) might feel is unethical and declaring such acts are war crimes?

What immunity are they demanding? The article you posted is about a dispute between Fatah and Hamas over:

“PA leadership's decision to withdraw support for a resolution calling for the UN Human Rights Council to endorse the findings of the Goldstone report on Operation Cast Lead”

I do not see anything about a demand for immunity?

You read the wrong link. Earlier, on 7 October, I posted a link that suggested Hamas are now basing their military strategy on using civilians to maximise Palestinian deaths and therefore make Israel look bad in the court of world opinion due to Hamas' war crimes.

So these groups are playing an active role not merely in making Hamas think they have immunity from war crimes, but in actively encouraging the commission of war crimes. Thus we are going to be the cause of many innocent dead in the next conflict.

Firstly, Palestinian and Israeli forces have both committed war crimes, so you can get off your high horse on that issue. Secondly, the Palestinian Authority withdrew its support for the Goldstone report.

Firstly, only the Palestinains committed war crimes. I invite you to give me a single case of a single war crime committed by Israel.

But secondly, Hamas have become the leading voice in criticising this decision by the PA. The PA wasn't even involved. So I repeat. Does it not seem strange to you that the people that committed more battlefield war crimes than any other organisations on Earth that has ever fought a war are the ones championing Goldstone's report?

So in order for there to be peace, we must support Israeli actions, even if it means killing innocent people. No thanks. I’ll support nether side.

Well then why should Israel take any risks for peace that may result in Israel being forced to kill innocent people?

Indiscriminate destruction only beings you indiscriminate revenge – and that is a cycle of violence Israel and the Palestinians are already stuck in.

You don't seem to me to understand what "Indiscriminate" means. Neither the savage brutality of war where innocent people die in large numbers nor the innevitable destruction of virtually the entire battlefield both civilian and military count as being examples of "indiscriminate". Look it up. It's in the fourth Geneva Convention I believe.

To make a long story short Sebby, you’re just pissed that Israel cops flak every time it breaks the rules while the other side breaks the rules all the time.

Wrong. I'm pissed that when Israel does not break the rules, others seem to still try their best to make up and abuse international law for cheap political point scoring. And its not just Israel, it's Iraq, its Afghanistan, it's Kosovo.

This abuse of international law is not just immoral it is positively dangerous.

[pugsville]

Sebby what about Japanase use of has in China?
What about the atomic bombings?

Gas wasnt used not due to laws, agreements, conventions but because those running the war didnt see it as advantagous. All sides were willingly and did target civilians when they felt it was advantagous. Unrestricted submarine warfare, the carpet bombing of cities how are somehow less reprehensible than killing them with gas?

[sebbysteiny]

Pugsville

Sebby what about Japanase use of has in China?

This doesn't make sense.

What about the atomic bombings?

What about atomic bombings?

Gas wasnt used not due to laws, agreements, conventions but because those running the war didnt see it as advantagous.

Nerve gas kills every person that comes into contact with it. It kills every living thing it touches as when it comes into contact with any skin, it travels through the nevervious system and kills the person. It can get through holes in wall, through protective clothes, into tanks, into the heart of a building, and can cause total decimation.

As long as it is deployed against military targets, it is unthinkable to suggest it has no military benefits. And yet it's not used. Why?

All sides were willingly and did target civilians when they felt it was advantagous.

How can targeting civilians be advantageous?

Unrestricted submarine warfare, the carpet bombing of cities how are somehow less reprehensible than killing them with gas?

Or even a grenade that kills a soldier and an innocent civilian. I rebound the question to you. Why are these acts less reprehesible than killing them with gas? The answer lies with WW1, the last time two armies ever traded gas weapons on the battlefield.

[pugsville]

The japanse used Gas in china, so gas WAS used in WW2.

Nerve gas was not available in the second world war we are dealing we much more primitive gases that are much more chancy in their use on the battlefield. While a lot of vetrans of the first war had a deep repugemce of gas and to some extent that may have been a factor in the non use of gas. Gas was not very sucessfull in the first world war and there had not been a lot research into developing better gases (this is where laws may of had some effect but given most advanced nations were in a state of serve cost cutting for military in the period perhaps not) But with good gas masks widely available. Gas was useful as a surprise and shock weapon, it needs the right conditions, delivery can be chancy and the mobile battles of the second war made much less useful, the battlefields were much much bigger delivery from bigger distances, if the war had bogged down to prolonged trench warfare it might well have been used. . I repeat it was not deployed for basically military reasons.

How can targeting civilians be advantageous?

(1) Submarine warfare is about denying the enemy the ability to import material for war (subs rarely sunk actual warships). If the submarines surface and actually search the merchantmen to see if they are actually carrying goods that contraband by various international laws about search, seizure and naval blockades. It takes a lot of time and exposes the submarine to great risk. Submarines of all nations found it much easier to adopt just sink them all. Regardless of the nationality of the ship, warship or not, armed or not , carrying war material or not. The German U-boat campagian was unrestricted , see it sink it. The US in the pacific ran much the same show. The actual International Law on naval blockades was unchnaged from the age of sail and close blockades where ships could be intercepted near port and actually searched. All submarine operations just ripped this up. hey targeted all ships there was no attempt in any way to save civilian lives. Ships were sunk without warning and in the north atlantic crews could face a very low survival prospects, sinking ships attempting to rescue crew from an earlier sinking was common practice. There was a lot of talk and rumour about hanging or trying u-boat crews after the war but nothing came of it. Note the first world war submarine operations we waged as ruthlessly (the germans regulary deliberately targeted hospital ships in the first world war, instructions were issued from high command ) there was a sort of phony war were some serach and seizure was attempted buit as experince was gained it was determined that sinking everything on sight without warning was rthe most effective policy. So in submarine warfare the targeting of civilian cargo ships was deemed to be a very effective strategy. International law said you had to search and seize, you had to actually board the ship and find the contraband and then put a prize crew aboard.

(2) Bombing. Early in the war the germans adopted terror bombing (eg rotterdam) as a way of demoralizing the enemy and it was beleieved to be effective that bombing civilains reduced a nations will to continue the war. Now onto the allied bombing operations. Now for mist of the war this was the main theatre of offensive operations in britain, the early bombers and bombs were not able to be delivered accurate to the targets. They discovered that they could not hit targets accurately, they adopted a carpet bombing as the way of operating. The reasons are a bit murkey, in all air forces strategic bombing has it zealots in the interwar period, so many high ranking officers were committed to strategic bombing working, revenge was perhaps also a factor. But for most of the bombings of the second world war the target was just the city, flatten all the city get the strategic targets within the city. It was deemed targeting civilians but targeting large population centres was advantagous

[sebbysteiny]

I notice that fool Goldstone has not said much recently.

He must be looking at the papers seeing how he has caused Abbas' demise and realised the extent to which he has damaged the peace process.

Gone are his daily self riteous rants about how everybody needs to take his pacifist interpretation of international law seriously. He no doubt is feeling sick at the core that he has played a leading role in the destruction of the peace process for the foreseeable future. What a moron. This is the sort of 'blood on your hands' that people acting from ignorance get.

Goldstone in effect made war illegal, at least in the public arena. He demonstrated that where there is doubt, and there is always doubt in war, the army must be publically lynched. This made Israel guilty in the eyes of the public no matter what it did as long as it used military force. Israel said quite reasonably that if it was not going to be given any pretection by the international community when it needed to defend itself, then the peace process would be dead. Obama realising the long term and irreversible damage this would cause put pressure on Abbas to drop the legal attack against Israel. Abbas agreed to keep the peace process alive. The Palestinian street was furious and now Abbas is finished along with the only prospects for Middle East peace the region has. Hamas now stands an excellent chance of taking over the West Bank and then the West Bank will become another Gaza. Thus, Goldstone has in effect given many many Palestinians and some Israelis a death sentence with grim prospects for the future.

This how history will remember Goldstone.

[ThereBeDragons]

Never mind. Arguing in this thread is worthless.

[sebbysteiny]

Therebedragons

You havn't even said anything!

[ThereBeDragons]

Millions of Israelis may now die as a consequence.

This seems highly unlikely.

Edited for civility.

[sebbysteiny]

Therebedragons

I never said your quote above.

If you have something on your mind, feel free to say it.

[ThereBeDragons]

I misread and thus misquoted you. You referenced the fact in your original post that "millions of people" might die because of Goldstone. This seems highly unlikely.

[sebbysteiny]

Granted it was a worst case scenario, but still valid.

How many do you think may die if the Israeli Palestinian conflict continues 20 years more?

Remember to include all those other conflicts around the world that use the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to fuel their own conflicts.

For example, Al-Quaeda are using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as propaganda. Because of this, a country may get attacked by terror. This might cause a new war in another region. And all the time the body count goes up.

[danholo]

There will be no peace as we are brought up on stolen land and brought up to steal more.