Germany's Merkel vows to protect Israel... - Page 13

Kelzie · 05-21-08, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

Israel does not deliberately target civilians, so it's not called terrorism.

Yet they seem to be so uncareful with them (like dropping cluster bombs all over urban aeras) that they are sometimes not so different

I agree their carelessness can be deplorable. I don't agree that makes them the same as terrorists. Intention does make a difference. If a carelessly run over a mother and child, am I the same as someone who aims for them and speeds up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

EDIT: doesn't Israel target civilians when it destroys the houses of the terrorist's families? That fits with most of the definitions of terrorism: "use of violence, perpetrated for a political goal and carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact, deliberately targeting non-combatants"

Not if they have a reasonable belief that he is in that house. They don't target his family, only him.

bub · 05-21-08, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelzie

I agree their carelessness can be deplorable. I don't agree that makes them the same as terrorists. Intention does make a difference. If a carelessly run over a mother and child, am I the same as someone who aims for them and speeds up?

Of course its less bad if he doesn't want to kill the mother & child, but he would still deserve to be jailed. Article 1383 of the civil code.

Legifrance - Le service public de l'accès au droit

Quote:

Not if they have a reasonable belief that he is in that house. They don't target his family, only him.

I'm talking about Israeli army destroying the house of the family of a terrorist, after he has commited a suicide attack (= they clearly target the family, as the guy is already dead; it's called collective punishment and it's against human rights)

Volker · 05-21-08, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelzie

The "unlawful" part would be in regards to civilians. Attacking the military is lawful. Try again.

You are married to a man from the military. Is it clear to you what you have said here? Kelzie, Kelzie, ...

Kelzie · 05-21-08, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

Of course its less bad if he doesn't want to kill the mother & child, but he would still deserve to be jailed. Article 1383 of the civil code.

Legifrance - Le service public de l'accès au droit

So there is a difference. What Israel is doing though isn't illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

I'm talking about Israeli army destroying the house of the family of a terrorist, after he has commited a suicide attack (= they clearly target the family, as the guy is already dead; it's called collective punishment and it's against human rights)

Do you have a non-biased source on this?

Kelzie · 05-21-08, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

You are married to a man from the military. Is it clear to you what you have said here? Kelzie, Kelzie, ...

Do you have a response to my post?

And trust me, we disagree allllll the time on stuff like this.

John1234 · 05-21-08, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new coup for you

They built their nuclear weapons as a reaction to Israel. Israel nuclearized the Middle East, and America's support of that action is why we will never have any moral leverage in any debate about the issue with the Arabs or Persians.

You simply cannot tell the Muslim world that it's ok that Israel has the bomb, but it's not ok for them to have the bomb.

This is a really good point.

I doubt it would happen, but I would love to see Obama tell both Israel AND Iran that they must give up their nuclear weapons programs.
If it was approached in this way and Israel was willing to work with it, Iran would be forced to comply.

Israel does not even need nukes.
It is pointless.
They do not lose 1 ounce of deterrence by giving them up.
But by keeping them, they have started a Middle East arms race.
30 years from now, The Middle East might not be as lucky as The USA and Russia.

Volker · 05-21-08, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelzie

Do you have a response to my post?

To target civilians is unlawful, but other things are unlawful, too. To attack a soldier from another country on the borderline is unlawful, too, for instance. So this definition goes more far than targeting civilians. It includes other actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelzie

And trust me, we disagree allllll the time on stuff like this.

Yes, this is, what I thought

Kelzie · 05-21-08, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

To target civilians is unlawful, but other things are unlawful, too. To attack a soldier from another country on the borderline is unlawful, too, for instance. So this definition goes more far than targeting civilians. It includes other actions.

Yes, this is, what I thought

Unlawful according to who? The Geneva convention? I don't recall it being unlawful to target soldiers ever.

bub · 05-21-08, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelzie

So there is a difference. What Israel is doing though isn't illegal.

I'm not an expert of international law, but if we take the case of the guy who kills somebody because of his carelessness, he will be sued and jailed (in France and Belgium with the article 1383, and there must be a rule like that in the USA too)

Quote:

Do you have a non-biased source on this?

You don't believe that they destroy the houses of dead terrorist's families? (that shows you are shocked and even if you won't admit it I may have convinced you

)

Sure they do:
B'Tselem - House Demolitions as Punishment
House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's compare with a general definition of terrorism:

1) Use of violence > I think we both agree that making a house explode or burn is violence
2) With a political goal > Here too, we may agree that it is obviously a form of detterence
3) Against non-combatants > Yes, those who live there are not terrorists (they are parents of terrorists. If somebody kills another guy, you jail him, not his parents)
4) In order to have a psychological impact > yes, the goal is to frighten other Pals

Quote:

A number of Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, oppose the practice. Human Rights Watch has argued that the practice violates international laws against collective punishment, the destruction of private property, and the use of force against civilians.[

Kelzie · 05-21-08, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

I'm not an expert of international law, but if we take the case of the guy who kills somebody because of his carelessness, he will be sued and jailed (in France and Belgium with the article 1383, and there must be a rule like that in the USA too)

I'm not an expert on international law, but I do know that accidently killing civilians while striking a military objective is not illegal

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

You don't believe that they destroy the houses of dead terrorist's families? (that shows you are shocked and even if you won't admit it I may have convinced you

)

Sure they do:
B'Tselem - House Demolitions as Punishment
House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Huh. From the website, these are the reasons given for house demolition:

Quote:

Deterrence, achieved by harming the relatives of those who carry out, or are suspected of involvement in carrying out, attacks.[3]
Counter-terrorism, by destroying militant facilities such as bombs labs, headquarters, and offices.
Forcing out an individual barricaded inside a house, which may be rigged with explosives, without risking soldiers' lives.
Self-defence, by destroying possible hideouts and RPG/gun posts.
Combat engineering, clearing a path for tanks and heavy APCs.

Now the only one I wouldn't agree with and say definately crosses over into the terrorism side is the first one. The other ones seem like valid military reasons. The first one just sucks and I can't believe Israel justified it. It looks like they've stopped doing it for punitive reasons:

Quote:

In 2005 an Israeli Army commission to study house demolitions found no proof of effective deterrence and concluded that the damage caused by the demolitions overrides its effectiveness. As a result, the IDF approved the commission's recommendations to end punitive demolitions of Palestinian houses.

Which is only partially to their credit. I say partially because while they stopped doing it, it was because it wasn't effective, not because it was a morally questionable action.

So yeah, I guess I give you that one. Some of Israel's house demolition practices were terrorist in nature.