Recommended. A BBC series "The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs".
Well researched and very informative. Available on iPlayer.
And who knew that President Truman, the man who decided to drop the atom
bomb on Hiroshima, defied his most reliable advisers and decided to give
his full backing to the creation of the new Jewish state, Israel,
displacing the resident Arab population. He ignored the advice of his
most trusted adviser, Secretary of State George Marshall, who predicted
that it would lead to a very long and bloody war.
On 16/11/2023 12:00, The Todal wrote:
Recommended. A BBC series "The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs".
Well researched and very informative. Available on iPlayer.
And who knew that President Truman, the man who decided to drop the atom
bomb on Hiroshima, defied his most reliable advisers and decided to give
his full backing to the creation of the new Jewish state, Israel,
displacing the resident Arab population. He ignored the advice of his
most trusted adviser, Secretary of State George Marshall, who predicted
that it would lead to a very long and bloody war.
Is George Marshall of Marshall Plan fame?
and who dropped one on Nagasaki?
Recommended. A BBC series "The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs".
Well researched and very informative. Available on iPlayer.
And who knew that President Truman, the man who decided to drop the atom
bomb on Hiroshima, defied his most reliable advisers and decided to give
his full backing to the creation of the new Jewish state, Israel,
displacing the resident Arab population. He ignored the advice of his
most trusted adviser, Secretary of State George Marshall, who predicted
that it would lead to a very long and bloody war.
On 16/11/2023 12:00, The Todal wrote:
Recommended. A BBC series "The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs".
Well researched and very informative. Available on iPlayer.
And who knew that President Truman, the man who decided to drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima, defied his most reliable advisers and decided to give his full backing to the creation of the new Jewish state, Israel, displacing the resident Arab population. He ignored the advice of his
most trusted adviser, Secretary of State George Marshall, who predicted that it would lead to a very long and bloody war.
The history of Israel demonstrates that right from the outset the policy
of Israel was to punish its enemies with overkill. Towns would be
destroyed and the inhabitants gunned down as retribution for the killing
of some Israeli settler or other.
It was important to deter enemies, whether they were individual
terrorists or neighbouring countries, by showing that Israel was
powerful enough to crush them with overwhelming might and that the
innocent must expect to be killed too.
See eg Deir Yassin massacre. At the time the official Israeli government claimed that it disapproved, but it rather looks as if the same attitude
has persisted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 3:10:29 PM UTC, The Todal wrote:
On 16/11/2023 12:00, The Todal wrote:
Recommended. A BBC series "The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs".The history of Israel demonstrates that right from the outset the policy
Well researched and very informative. Available on iPlayer.
And who knew that President Truman, the man who decided to drop the atom >>> bomb on Hiroshima, defied his most reliable advisers and decided to give >>> his full backing to the creation of the new Jewish state, Israel,
displacing the resident Arab population. He ignored the advice of his
most trusted adviser, Secretary of State George Marshall, who predicted
that it would lead to a very long and bloody war.
of Israel was to punish its enemies with overkill. Towns would be
destroyed and the inhabitants gunned down as retribution for the killing
of some Israeli settler or other.
It was important to deter enemies, whether they were individual
terrorists or neighbouring countries, by showing that Israel was
powerful enough to crush them with overwhelming might and that the
innocent must expect to be killed too.
See eg Deir Yassin massacre. At the time the official Israeli government
claimed that it disapproved, but it rather looks as if the same attitude
has persisted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
Deir Yassin may not have been the only massacre:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/25/study-1948-israeli-massacre-tantura-palestinian-village-mass-graves-car-park
'UK study of 1948 Israeli massacre of Palestinian village reveals
mass grave sites
'... Palestinian survivors and historians have long claimed that
men living in Tantura, a fishing village of approximately 1,500
people near Haifa, were executed after surrendering to the
Alexandroni Brigade and their bodies dumped in a mass grave
believed to be located under an area that is now a car park for
Dor Beach. Estimates have ranged from 40 to 200 people.
'In recent years, a growing body of evidence for the Tantura
massacre has generated significant controversy in Israel, where
atrocities committed by Jewish forces in 1948 remain a highly
sensitive subject: an Israeli-made documentary about what
happened in the village faced widespread backlash on its
release last year.'
----------------------
I recently came across a shortish video, which is produced from
a Palestinian point of view, but which seems reasonably credible
to me.
It starts off by mentioning Tantura, and goes on to say (among
other things) that Tantura is just one of over 400 Palestinian
towns and villages that were destroyed or ethnically cleansed
during the Nakba / the creation of Israel.
https://youtu.be/Gvcdk-GQnDY
How Israel buries Palestinian history
9min 30s
Is it a massacre if you are defending yourselves?
On 18 Nov 2023 at 16:41:27 GMT, "pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 3:10:29 PM UTC, The Todal wrote:
On 16/11/2023 12:00, The Todal wrote:
Recommended. A BBC series "The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs". >>>> Well researched and very informative. Available on iPlayer.The history of Israel demonstrates that right from the outset the policy >>> of Israel was to punish its enemies with overkill. Towns would be
And who knew that President Truman, the man who decided to drop the atom >>>> bomb on Hiroshima, defied his most reliable advisers and decided to give >>>> his full backing to the creation of the new Jewish state, Israel,
displacing the resident Arab population. He ignored the advice of his
most trusted adviser, Secretary of State George Marshall, who predicted >>>> that it would lead to a very long and bloody war.
destroyed and the inhabitants gunned down as retribution for the killing >>> of some Israeli settler or other.
It was important to deter enemies, whether they were individual
terrorists or neighbouring countries, by showing that Israel was
powerful enough to crush them with overwhelming might and that the
innocent must expect to be killed too.
See eg Deir Yassin massacre. At the time the official Israeli government >>> claimed that it disapproved, but it rather looks as if the same attitude >>> has persisted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
Deir Yassin may not have been the only massacre:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/25/study-1948-israeli-massacre-tantura-palestinian-village-mass-graves-car-park
'UK study of 1948 Israeli massacre of Palestinian village reveals
mass grave sites
'... Palestinian survivors and historians have long claimed that
men living in Tantura, a fishing village of approximately 1,500
people near Haifa, were executed after surrendering to the
Alexandroni Brigade and their bodies dumped in a mass grave
believed to be located under an area that is now a car park for
Dor Beach. Estimates have ranged from 40 to 200 people.
'In recent years, a growing body of evidence for the Tantura
massacre has generated significant controversy in Israel, where
atrocities committed by Jewish forces in 1948 remain a highly
sensitive subject: an Israeli-made documentary about what
happened in the village faced widespread backlash on its
release last year.'
----------------------
I recently came across a shortish video, which is produced from
a Palestinian point of view, but which seems reasonably credible
to me.
It starts off by mentioning Tantura, and goes on to say (among
other things) that Tantura is just one of over 400 Palestinian
towns and villages that were destroyed or ethnically cleansed
during the Nakba / the creation of Israel.
https://youtu.be/Gvcdk-GQnDY
How Israel buries Palestinian history
9min 30s
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that at least the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that the main march was relatively peaceful, but that the police had many battles dealing with violent
groups of opponents of the march "and a similar number of violent battles with
pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is part of the public record for people foolish enough to read these dishonest newspapers.
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by the papers
of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what side the above three papers which existed at the time were on.
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that at least the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that the main march was relatively peaceful, but that the police had many battles dealing with violent
groups of opponents of the march "and a similar number of violent battles with
pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is part of the public record for people foolish enough to read these dishonest newspapers.
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by the papers
of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what side the above three papers which existed at the time were on.
On 18/11/2023 17:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the
pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that at
least
the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that the main
march was
relatively peaceful, but that the police had many battles dealing with
violent
groups of opponents of the march "and a similar number of violent
battles with
pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with
anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is part
of the
public record for people foolish enough to read these dishonest
newspapers.
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by
the papers
of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what side the above three
papers which existed at the time were on.
We usually watch the BBC evening news. I am getting a feeling that they
are pro-Hamas. They've been forced to say that "Hamas are designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government". They use that phrase. ITV
just call them terrorists.
The BBC mentioned the number of arrests of people protesting at the pro-Palestine protests. They didn't mention the number of people
arrested from the original protest.
But the one that got me was the one where the BBC showed a video of a
West Bank teenager being shot by the Israeli forces. They carefully
didn't mention that when he was shot he dropped the rock that he was
about to throw at the soldier.
What sort of people send their children out to throw rocks at armed men?
On 18/11/2023 17:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the
pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that at least >> the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that the main march was
relatively peaceful, but that the police had many battles dealing with violent
groups of opponents of the march "and a similar number of violent battles with
pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with
anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is part of the >> public record for people foolish enough to read these dishonest newspapers. >>
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by the papers
of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what side the above three
papers which existed at the time were on.
We usually watch the BBC evening news. I am getting a feeling that they
are pro-Hamas. They've been forced to say that "Hamas are designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government". They use that phrase. ITV
just call them terrorists.
The BBC mentioned the number of arrests of people protesting at the pro-Palestine protests. They didn't mention the number of people
arrested from the original protest.
But the one that got me was the one where the BBC showed a video of a
West Bank teenager being shot by the Israeli forces. They carefully
didn't mention that when he was shot he dropped the rock that he was
about to throw at the soldier.
What sort of people send their children out to throw rocks at armed men?
Andy
On 20 Nov 2023 at 15:56:35 GMT, "Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 17:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the
pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that at least >>> the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that the main march was
relatively peaceful, but that the police had many battles dealing with violent
groups of opponents of the march "and a similar number of violent battles with
pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with
anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is part of the
public record for people foolish enough to read these dishonest newspapers. >>>
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by the papers
of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what side the above three >>> papers which existed at the time were on.
We usually watch the BBC evening news. I am getting a feeling that they
are pro-Hamas. They've been forced to say that "Hamas are designated a
terrorist organisation by the UK government". They use that phrase. ITV
just call them terrorists.
The BBC mentioned the number of arrests of people protesting at the
pro-Palestine protests. They didn't mention the number of people
arrested from the original protest.
But the one that got me was the one where the BBC showed a video of a
West Bank teenager being shot by the Israeli forces. They carefully
didn't mention that when he was shot he dropped the rock that he was
about to throw at the soldier.
What sort of people send their children out to throw rocks at armed men?
Andy
What sort of armed men murder teenagers with rocks?
On 18/11/2023 17:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the
pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that at
least
the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that the main
march was
relatively peaceful, but that the police had many battles dealing with
violent
groups of opponents of the march "and a similar number of violent
battles with
pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with
anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is part
of the
public record for people foolish enough to read these dishonest
newspapers.
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by
the papers
of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what side the above three
papers which existed at the time were on.
We usually watch the BBC evening news. I am getting a feeling that they
are pro-Hamas. They've been forced to say that "Hamas are designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government". They use that phrase. ITV
just call them terrorists.
The BBC mentioned the number of arrests of people protesting at the pro-Palestine protests. They didn't mention the number of people
arrested from the original protest.
But the one that got me was the one where the BBC showed a video of a
West Bank teenager being shot by the Israeli forces. They carefully
didn't mention that when he was shot he dropped the rock that he was
about to throw at the soldier.
What sort of people send their children out to throw rocks at armed men?
On 20/11/2023 15:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 18/11/2023 17:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the
pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that at
least the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that the
main march was relatively peaceful, but that the police had many
battles dealing with violent groups of opponents of the march "and
a similar number of violent battles with pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with
anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is
part of the public record for people foolish enough to read these
dishonest newspapers.
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by
the papers of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what
side the above three papers which existed at the time were on.
We usually watch the BBC evening news. I am getting a feeling that
they are pro-Hamas. They've been forced to say that "Hamas are
designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government". They use
that phrase. ITV just call them terrorists.
Nobody is pro-Hamas. Nobody.
I think the BBC regularly gives the benefit of the doubt to Israel.
After reporting on yet another mass killing of women and children the
BBC reporter will solemnly say "but the IDF assures us that there are
tunnels used by Hamas and that this military action is necessary"
without bothering to question this logic.
Even Jeremy Corbyn has at last said that Hamas is a terrorist
organisation, but alas too late. His refusal to say this when questioned
by Piers Morgan was so reckless that now he has finally scuppered any
chance of having the Labour whip restored to him.
The BBC mentioned the number of arrests of people protesting at the
pro-Palestine protests. They didn't mention the number of people
arrested from the original protest.
But the one that got me was the one where the BBC showed a video of a
West Bank teenager being shot by the Israeli forces. They carefully
didn't mention that when he was shot he dropped the rock that he was
about to throw at the soldier.
What sort of people send their children out to throw rocks at armed men?
Not your strongest argument. Shoot the child, shoot the parents, shoot
the neighbours. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance
and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.
And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
On 20/11/2023 05:29 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2023 15:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 18/11/2023 17:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the
pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that
at least the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that the >>>> main march was relatively peaceful, but that the police had many
battles dealing with violent groups of opponents of the march "and
a similar number of violent battles with pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with
anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is
part of the public record for people foolish enough to read these
dishonest newspapers.
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by
the papers of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what
side the above three papers which existed at the time were on.
We usually watch the BBC evening news. I am getting a feeling that
they are pro-Hamas. They've been forced to say that "Hamas are
designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government". They use
that phrase. ITV just call them terrorists.
Nobody is pro-Hamas. Nobody.
I think the BBC regularly gives the benefit of the doubt to Israel.
After reporting on yet another mass killing of women and children the
BBC reporter will solemnly say "but the IDF assures us that there are
tunnels used by Hamas and that this military action is necessary"
without bothering to question this logic.
How could the BBC do that without having pioneer reporters and camera
teams getting to the alleged military bases before the IDF manage to get there?
On 20/11/2023 18:24, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2023 05:29 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2023 15:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 18/11/2023 17:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the
pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that
at least the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that
the
main march was relatively peaceful, but that the police had many
battles dealing with violent groups of opponents of the march "and
a similar number of violent battles with pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with
anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is
part of the public record for people foolish enough to read these
dishonest newspapers.
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by
the papers of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what
side the above three papers which existed at the time were on.
We usually watch the BBC evening news. I am getting a feeling that
they are pro-Hamas. They've been forced to say that "Hamas are
designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government". They use
that phrase. ITV just call them terrorists.
Nobody is pro-Hamas. Nobody.
I think the BBC regularly gives the benefit of the doubt to Israel.
After reporting on yet another mass killing of women and children the
BBC reporter will solemnly say "but the IDF assures us that there are
tunnels used by Hamas and that this military action is necessary"
without bothering to question this logic.
How could the BBC do that without having pioneer reporters and camera
teams getting to the alleged military bases before the IDF manage to
get there?
Well, the BBC could say "well done for locating and exploring those
tunnels, Mr IDF spokesman, but can you just clarify why you need to
slaughter quite so many women and children and premature babies, in the process? Are they defiantly blocking the entrance to the tunnels, or what?"
On 18/11/2023 17:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the
pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that at least >> the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that the main march was
relatively peaceful, but that the police had many battles dealing with violent
groups of opponents of the march "and a similar number of violent battles with
pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with
anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is part of the >> public record for people foolish enough to read these dishonest newspapers. >>
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by the papers
of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what side the above three
papers which existed at the time were on.
We usually watch the BBC evening news. I am getting a feeling that they
are pro-Hamas. They've been forced to say that "Hamas are designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government". They use that phrase. ITV
just call them terrorists.
The BBC mentioned the number of arrests of people protesting at the pro-Palestine protests. They didn't mention the number of people
arrested from the original protest.
But the one that got me was the one where the BBC showed a video of a
West Bank teenager being shot by the Israeli forces. They carefully
didn't mention that when he was shot he dropped the rock that he was
about to throw at the soldier.
What sort of people send their children out to throw rocks at armed men?
On 20/11/2023 07:14 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2023 18:24, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2023 05:29 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2023 15:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 18/11/2023 17:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the
pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that >>>>>> at least the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that >>>>>> the
main march was relatively peaceful, but that the police had many
battles dealing with violent groups of opponents of the march "and >>>>>> a similar number of violent battles with pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with >>>>>> anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is
part of the public record for people foolish enough to read these
dishonest newspapers.
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by >>>>>> the papers of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what
side the above three papers which existed at the time were on.
We usually watch the BBC evening news. I am getting a feeling that
they are pro-Hamas. They've been forced to say that "Hamas are
designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government". They use
that phrase. ITV just call them terrorists.
Nobody is pro-Hamas. Nobody.
I think the BBC regularly gives the benefit of the doubt to Israel.
After reporting on yet another mass killing of women and children the
BBC reporter will solemnly say "but the IDF assures us that there are
tunnels used by Hamas and that this military action is necessary"
without bothering to question this logic.
How could the BBC do that without having pioneer reporters and camera
teams getting to the alleged military bases before the IDF manage to
get there?
Well, the BBC could say "well done for locating and exploring those
tunnels, Mr IDF spokesman, but can you just clarify why you need to
slaughter quite so many women and children and premature babies, in the
process? Are they defiantly blocking the entrance to the tunnels, or what?"
Does the Beeb ever do that to anyone other than con-men and dodgy
builders who have been filmed with a hidden camera?
On 21 Nov 2023 at 01:38:42 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 07:14 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2023 18:24, JNugent wrote:Does the Beeb ever do that to anyone other than con-men and dodgy
On 20/11/2023 05:29 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2023 15:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 18/11/2023 17:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
Truth is a rare commodity. Those who noticed the reporting of the >>>>>>> pro-Palestinian demonstration last Saturday will have noticed that >>>>>>> at least the Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Times reported that >>>>>>> the
main march was relatively peaceful, but that the police had many >>>>>>> battles dealing with violent groups of opponents of the march "and >>>>>>> a similar number of violent battles with pro-Hamas groups".
As far as I am aware the story of a similar number of clashes with >>>>>>> anti-fascists was a complete fabrication. But presumably this is >>>>>>> part of the public record for people foolish enough to read these >>>>>>> dishonest newspapers.
I imagine the situation in 1948 was equally dishonestly reported by >>>>>>> the papers of the time, but I would be fascinated to learn what
side the above three papers which existed at the time were on.
We usually watch the BBC evening news. I am getting a feeling that >>>>>> they are pro-Hamas. They've been forced to say that "Hamas are
designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government". They use >>>>>> that phrase. ITV just call them terrorists.
Nobody is pro-Hamas. Nobody.
I think the BBC regularly gives the benefit of the doubt to Israel.
After reporting on yet another mass killing of women and children the >>>>> BBC reporter will solemnly say "but the IDF assures us that there are >>>>> tunnels used by Hamas and that this military action is necessary"
without bothering to question this logic.
How could the BBC do that without having pioneer reporters and camera
teams getting to the alleged military bases before the IDF manage to
get there?
Well, the BBC could say "well done for locating and exploring those
tunnels, Mr IDF spokesman, but can you just clarify why you need to
slaughter quite so many women and children and premature babies, in the
process? Are they defiantly blocking the entrance to the tunnels, or what?" >>
builders who have been filmed with a hidden camera?
They've done that in every war I've ever seen them report, including the Falklands to our own forces. Do you remember: "I've counted them going out and
coming back in (paraphrased)"?
Nobody is pro-Hamas. Nobody.
I think the BBC regularly gives the benefit of the doubt to Israel.
After reporting on yet another mass killing of women and children the
BBC reporter will solemnly say "but the IDF assures us that there are
tunnels used by Hamas and that this military action is necessary"
without bothering to question this logic.
Even Jeremy Corbyn has at last said that Hamas is a terrorist
organisation, but alas too late. His refusal to say this when questioned
by Piers Morgan was so reckless that now he has finally scuppered any
chance of having the Labour whip restored to him.
The BBC mentioned the number of arrests of people protesting at the
pro-Palestine protests. They didn't mention the number of people
arrested from the original protest.
But the one that got me was the one where the BBC showed a video of a
West Bank teenager being shot by the Israeli forces. They carefully
didn't mention that when he was shot he dropped the rock that he was
about to throw at the soldier.
What sort of people send their children out to throw rocks at armed men?
Not your strongest argument. Shoot the child, shoot the parents, shoot
the neighbours. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance
and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.
And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
On 20/11/2023 17:29, The Todal wrote:
That's interesting. I greatly respect your legal knowledge, but had come
Nobody is pro-Hamas. Nobody.
to think you did support them. For that I apologise.
I think the BBC regularly gives the benefit of the doubt to Israel.There I will differ with you. I'll ask again, as I did the other day:
After reporting on yet another mass killing of women and children the
BBC reporter will solemnly say "but the IDF assures us that there are
tunnels used by Hamas and that this military action is necessary"
without bothering to question this logic.
What is your solution to this?
Even Jeremy Corbyn has at last said that Hamas is a terroristI have other reasons for being glad that Corbyn is not our PM!
organisation, but alas too late. His refusal to say this when questioned
by Piers Morgan was so reckless that now he has finally scuppered any
chance of having the Labour whip restored to him.
The Israelis have sent grunts (to use the usual term) out to police
The BBC mentioned the number of arrests of people protesting at the
pro-Palestine protests. They didn't mention the number of people
arrested from the original protest.
But the one that got me was the one where the BBC showed a video of a
West Bank teenager being shot by the Israeli forces. They carefully
didn't mention that when he was shot he dropped the rock that he was
about to throw at the soldier.
What sort of people send their children out to throw rocks at armed men? >>>
Not your strongest argument. Shoot the child, shoot the parents, shoot
the neighbours. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance
and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.
And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
things. They are armed, and hence dangerous. The local protestors are throwing stones at them. Big stones. Brick sized stones. I'm not
surprised that every so often one of the soldiers loses his temper, and
uses the weapon he has been issued with. It's an over the top response,
but probably the only one he can make.
And that soldier is not striking the child, or the parents, nor neighbour.
I don't blame the soldier; he's a young man put in an impossible
position. I blame the governments on both sides who cannot come to an agreement which could potentially leave both sides better off.
Andy
On 21 Nov 2023 at 15:15:26 GMT, "Vir Campestris" wrote:
The Israelis have sent grunts (to use the usual term) out to police
things. They are armed, and hence dangerous. The local protestors are throwing stones at them. Big stones. Brick sized stones. I'm not
surprised that every so often one of the soldiers loses his temper, and uses the weapon he has been issued with. It's an over the top response,
but probably the only one he can make.
And that soldier is not striking the child, or the parents, nor neighbour.
I don't blame the soldier; he's a young man put in an impossible
position. I blame the governments on both sides who cannot come to an agreement which could potentially leave both sides better off.
Two points; do you actually know whether the soldiers have been given orders to pre-emptively shoot youths gathering in groups or holding rocks? How do you
explain the number of mainly female civil rights workers, observers and journalists who have been shot by the IDF in the West Bank?
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 3:28:47 PM UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Nov 2023 at 15:15:26 GMT, "Vir Campestris" wrote:
The Israelis have sent grunts (to use the usual term) out to policeTwo points; do you actually know whether the soldiers have been given orders >> to pre-emptively shoot youths gathering in groups or holding rocks? How do you
things. They are armed, and hence dangerous. The local protestors are
throwing stones at them. Big stones. Brick sized stones. I'm not
surprised that every so often one of the soldiers loses his temper, and
uses the weapon he has been issued with. It's an over the top response,
but probably the only one he can make.
And that soldier is not striking the child, or the parents, nor neighbour. >>>
I don't blame the soldier; he's a young man put in an impossible
position. I blame the governments on both sides who cannot come to an
agreement which could potentially leave both sides better off.
explain the number of mainly female civil rights workers, observers and
journalists who have been shot by the IDF in the West Bank?
There seems to be an Israeli policy of shooting protesters
in the ankles or knees:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/04/gaza-strip-protesters-received-bullet-wounds-to-ankles-medics-report
'Gaza Strip protesters received bullet wounds to ankles,
medics report
'Influx of injuries may suggest deliberate targeting by Israel’s
army, which human rights groups say is unlawful'
------------------ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-03-06/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/42-knees-in-one-day-israeli-snipers-open-up-about-shooting-gaza-protesters/0000017f-f2da-d497-a1ff-f2dab2520000
"42 Knees in One Day": Israeli Snipers Open Up About Shooting
Gaza Protesters'
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 3:28:47 PM UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Nov 2023 at 15:15:26 GMT, "Vir Campestris" wrote:
The Israelis have sent grunts (to use the usual term) out to policeTwo points; do you actually know whether the soldiers have been given orders >> to pre-emptively shoot youths gathering in groups or holding rocks? How do you
things. They are armed, and hence dangerous. The local protestors are
throwing stones at them. Big stones. Brick sized stones. I'm not
surprised that every so often one of the soldiers loses his temper, and
uses the weapon he has been issued with. It's an over the top response,
but probably the only one he can make.
And that soldier is not striking the child, or the parents, nor neighbour. >>>
I don't blame the soldier; he's a young man put in an impossible
position. I blame the governments on both sides who cannot come to an
agreement which could potentially leave both sides better off.
explain the number of mainly female civil rights workers, observers and
journalists who have been shot by the IDF in the West Bank?
There seems to be an Israeli policy of shooting protesters
in the ankles or knees:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/04/gaza-strip-protesters-received-bullet-wounds-to-ankles-medics-report
'Gaza Strip protesters received bullet wounds to ankles,
medics report
'Influx of injuries may suggest deliberate targeting by Israel’s
army, which human rights groups say is unlawful'
------------------ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-03-06/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/42-knees-in-one-day-israeli-snipers-open-up-about-shooting-gaza-protesters/0000017f-f2da-d497-a1ff-f2dab2520000
"42 Knees in One Day": Israeli Snipers Open Up About Shooting
Gaza Protesters'
There seems to be an Israeli policy of shooting protesters
in the ankles or knees:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/04/gaza-strip-protesters-received-bullet-wounds-to-ankles-medics-report
'Gaza Strip protesters received bullet wounds to ankles,
medics report
'Influx of injuries may suggest deliberate targeting by Israel’s
army, which human rights groups say is unlawful'
------------------ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-03-06/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/42-knees-in-one-day-israeli-snipers-open-up-about-shooting-gaza-protesters/0000017f-f2da-d497-a1ff-f2dab2520000
"42 Knees in One Day": Israeli Snipers Open Up About Shooting
Gaza Protesters'
On 21/11/2023 15:42, pensive hamster wrote:
There seems to be an Israeli policy of shooting protesters
in the ankles or knees:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/04/gaza-strip-protesters-received-bullet-wounds-to-ankles-medics-report
'Gaza Strip protesters received bullet wounds to ankles,
medics report
'Influx of injuries may suggest deliberate targeting by Israel’s
army, which human rights groups say is unlawful'
"At least one person has been killed and dozens more wounded since demonstrations by groups of young men, some of them throwing stones and molotov cocktails, began in mid-September."
"Many people in Gaza, however, said that they believed Hamas was
ultimately responsible for stoking the violence along the periphery. The latest round of protests do not seem to have significant public support."
Should the Palestinians just surrender? Do the Palestinians have
any right to defend themselves?
On 24/11/2023 17:53, pensive hamster wrote:
Should the Palestinians just surrender? Do the Palestinians have
any right to defend themselves?
Essentially, that is Netanyahu's argument: They aren't going to forgive
us, so the less resources they have the less they can hurt us.
Any suggestions for breaking that vicious circle gratefully received.
On 25/11/2023 in message <ujsscj$2qbph$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 24/11/2023 17:53, pensive hamster wrote:
Should the Palestinians just surrender? Do the Palestinians have
any right to defend themselves?
Essentially, that is Netanyahu's argument: They aren't going to
forgive us, so the less resources they have the less they can hurt us.
Any suggestions for breaking that vicious circle gratefully received.
Israel must return to its 1947 boundaries and return Palestine to the Palestinians.
David Cameron has shown more courage and more good sense than any of our other leading politicians.
Prosecute the lawless settlers who keep assaulting and robbing the Palestinians. Stop the massacre of ordinary civilians in Gaza which is plainly in breach of international law.
On 24/11/2023 17:53, pensive hamster wrote:
Should the Palestinians just surrender? Do the Palestinians have
any right to defend themselves?
Essentially, that is Netanyahu's argument: They aren't going to forgive
us, so the less resources they have the less they can hurt us.
Any suggestions for breaking that vicious circle gratefully received.
On 24/11/2023 17:53, pensive hamster wrote:
Should the Palestinians just surrender? Do the Palestinians have
any right to defend themselves?
Essentially, that is Netanyahu's argument: They aren't going to forgive
us, so the less resources they have the less they can hurt us.
Any suggestions for breaking that vicious circle gratefully received.
On 25/11/2023 13:21, GB wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Stop aid, sanctions,
Prosecute the lawless settlers who keep assaulting and robbing the Palestinians. Stop the massacre of ordinary civilians in Gaza which is plainly in breach of international law.
Beyond that, we need to reform our political system to limit lobbying, and >consequent influence, by well funded minority interests. Additionally, >increase protection of free speech. Limit discrimination by powerful >organisations based upon ideology. Encourage a diverse and free media.
On 24/11/2023 17:53, pensive hamster wrote:
Should the Palestinians just surrender? Do the Palestinians have
any right to defend themselves?
Essentially, that is Netanyahu's argument: They aren't going to forgive
us, so the less resources they have the less they can hurt us.
Any suggestions for breaking that vicious circle gratefully received.
On 25/11/2023 in message <ujsscj$2qbph$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 24/11/2023 17:53, pensive hamster wrote:
Should the Palestinians just surrender? Do the Palestinians have
any right to defend themselves?
Essentially, that is Netanyahu's argument: They aren't going to
forgive us, so the less resources they have the less they can hurt us.
Any suggestions for breaking that vicious circle gratefully received.
Israel must return to its 1947 boundaries and return Palestine to the Palestinians.
It could be said that Italy (the Romans) or Greece have as good a claim
to the area as the Arabs. The Jews were there first, other claimants are
only due to conquest and now Israel has the West Bank and Golan Heights
due to conquest, (in a conflict that it did not start).
'Blood Brothers: Palestinians and Jews Share Genetic Roots
'Jews break down into three genetic groups, all of which have
Middle Eastern origins – which are shared with the Palestinians
and Druze.'
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt" Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis
pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
On 26/11/2023 pensive hamster wrote:
'Blood Brothers: Palestinians and Jews Share Genetic Roots
'Jews break down into three genetic groups, all of which have
Middle Eastern origins – which are shared with the Palestinians
and Druze.'
It does make me think that the case argued before the UN was very much
based on "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so".
Does the Bible have any legal authority? If so which version?
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt"
Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis
pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the means to
hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's
probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.)
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
Prosecute the lawless settlers who keep assaulting and robbing the
Palestinians. Stop the massacre of ordinary civilians in Gaza which is
plainly in breach of international law.
I linked to a Nato document on the law, but you weren't interested in
that and continue to put forward your version of what you think
international law ought to be. You are far from alone in this, by the way.
I agree the death toll of civilians in Gaza is unacceptable, but that's
on moral grounds.
On 26/11/2023 11:58, GB wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
Prosecute the lawless settlers who keep assaulting and robbing the
Palestinians. Stop the massacre of ordinary civilians in Gaza which
is plainly in breach of international law.
I linked to a Nato document on the law, but you weren't interested in
that and continue to put forward your version of what you think
international law ought to be. You are far from alone in this, by the
way.
I don't recall ever seeing your link to the NATO document so feel free
to repost it. I would have been very interested to read it, if you had
posted it and I had noticed your post.
I am especially interested to see what NATO's opinion of international
law is, and whether it in any way resembles the redefinition of torture invented by US lawyers Jay Bybee and John Yoo, to suit the requirements
of the CIA.
I agree the death toll of civilians in Gaza is unacceptable, but
that's on moral grounds.
By the same token, the gassing of Jews in Auschwitz was unacceptable but
only on moral, not legal, grounds. Really?
On 27/11/2023 09:44, The Todal wrote:
On 26/11/2023 11:58, GB wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
Prosecute the lawless settlers who keep assaulting and robbing the
Palestinians. Stop the massacre of ordinary civilians in Gaza which
is plainly in breach of international law.
I linked to a Nato document on the law, but you weren't interested in
that and continue to put forward your version of what you think
international law ought to be. You are far from alone in this, by the
way.
I don't recall ever seeing your link to the NATO document so feel free
to repost it. I would have been very interested to read it, if you had
posted it and I had noticed your post.
We are all getting on a bit. My recollection is that you quoted from the document! :)
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority
of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain
points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.”
Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related
infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces
(IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.
The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on
an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties,
Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of
committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide
array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible
to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while
continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level
of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning
the outcomes of the operation.
KEY POINTS
The use of human shields can be considered an example of ‘lawfare’ –
i.e. the use of the legal system against an enemy by damaging or delegitimising them, tying up their time or winning a public
relations victory.
Even if a targeted strike may be justifable from a legal perspective, first impressions frame the narrative. Public opinion tends to be
influenced more by images depicting the suffering of innocent
civilians than by well-thought-out legal arguments.
National governments should be able to publicly justify their
position, and reveal their adversary’s use of civilians in combat. This
can only be accomplished by thoroughly documenting incidents, preparing supportive messages, and working across multiple channels to convey
those narratives.
Priority should be given to information activities aimed at the very civilians who are used as human shields, in order to undermine the
adversary and convince civilians to actively or passively
refuse to serve as human shields. Such activities need to be coherent, consistent and coordinated.
I am especially interested to see what NATO's opinion of international
law is, and whether it in any way resembles the redefinition of torture
invented by US lawyers Jay Bybee and John Yoo, to suit the requirements
of the CIA.
I'm inclined to prefer Nato's view of the law in this particular area
over yours. OTOH, I expect you are better at conveyancing, say, than
they are.
I agree the death toll of civilians in Gaza is unacceptable, but
that's on moral grounds.
By the same token, the gassing of Jews in Auschwitz was unacceptable but
only on moral, not legal, grounds. Really?
My point is that it's a matter of fact whether something is illegal.
Nato's view is that Hamas's use of civilians as shields is unlawful.
On 26/11/2023 11:58, GB wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
Prosecute the lawless settlers who keep assaulting and robbing the
Palestinians. Stop the massacre of ordinary civilians in Gaza which
is plainly in breach of international law.
I linked to a Nato document on the law, but you weren't interested in
that and continue to put forward your version of what you think
international law ought to be. You are far from alone in this, by the
way.
I don't recall ever seeing your link to the NATO document so feel free
to repost it. I would have been very interested to read it, if you had
posted it and I had noticed your post.
I am especially interested to see what NATO's opinion of international
law is, and whether it in any way resembles the redefinition of torture invented by US lawyers Jay Bybee and John Yoo, to suit the requirements
of the CIA.
I agree the death toll of civilians in Gaza is unacceptable, but
that's on moral grounds.
By the same token, the gassing of Jews in Auschwitz was unacceptable but
only on moral, not legal, grounds. Really?
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt"
Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis
pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the means to
hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's
probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.)
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to attack the German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to *then* the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean this, which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of Palestinians.
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt"
Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis
pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the means to
hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's
probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.)
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to attack the
German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to *then* >> the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean this, which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of
Palestinians.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer.
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until the ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent
from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to
preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the lives
of the gentile population.
Andy
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt"
Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis
pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the means to
hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's
probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.)
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to
attack the
German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to
*then*
the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean this,
which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of
Palestinians.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer.
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until the ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent
from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to
preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the lives
of the gentile population.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
My point is that it's a matter of fact whether something is illegal.
Nato's view is that Hamas's use of civilians as shields is unlawful.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with NATO, but in this case it is just acting as a mouthpiece for the Israeli government. NATO is an American alliance that works closely with Israel, which is a close ally of America, and Israel is effectively a member of NATO in all but name.
So they are hardly offering an independent legal opinion.
You might just as well ask the legal opinion of the Belarus government on the legality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Likely their opinion will be that
is legal, especially since they participated in it.
On the legal point, Hamas may well deliberately hide in civilian areas, but given the population density of Gaza it would be hard for them to operate very
far away from them.
So it is probably a matter of degree rather than a straightforward fact. Also, even if Hamas is committing a war crime by hiding in civilian areas this
does not necessarily excuse the Israelis committing another war crime by attacking those civilians indiscriminately.
On 27/11/2023 12:16 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
[ ... ]
[On the subject of the legality of the use of "human shield" tactics]
[GB:]
My point is that it's a matter of fact whether something is illegal.
Nato's view is that Hamas's use of civilians as shields is unlawful.
But NATO isn't an internationally (still less globally) recognised adjudicating authority on such matters.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with NATO, but in this case it is just acting
as a mouthpiece for the Israeli government. NATO is an American alliance that
works closely with Israel, which is a close ally of America, and Israel is >> effectively a member of NATO in all but name.
So were the USA, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, old
uncle Tom Cobleigh and all then obliged to regard the October attack on Israel as an attack on them all?
That is what membership of NATO entails.
So they are hardly offering an independent legal opinion.
Is NATO competent to do so?
You might just as well ask the legal opinion of the Belarus government on the
legality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Likely their opinion will be that
is legal, especially since they participated in it.
On the legal point, Hamas may well deliberately hide in civilian areas, but >> given the population density of Gaza it would be hard for them to operate very
far away from them.
Ah... so it's perfectly alright then?
So it is probably a matter of degree rather than a straightforward fact.
Also, even if Hamas is committing a war crime by hiding in civilian areas this
does not necessarily excuse the Israelis committing another war crime by
attacking those civilians indiscriminately.
On 27 Nov 2023 at 16:44:40 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/11/2023 12:16 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
[ ... ]
[On the subject of the legality of the use of "human shield" tactics]
[GB:]
My point is that it's a matter of fact whether something is illegal.
Nato's view is that Hamas's use of civilians as shields is unlawful.
But NATO isn't an internationally (still less globally) recognised
adjudicating authority on such matters.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with NATO, but in this case it is just acting
as a mouthpiece for the Israeli government. NATO is an American alliance that
works closely with Israel, which is a close ally of America, and Israel is >>> effectively a member of NATO in all but name.
So were the USA, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, old
uncle Tom Cobleigh and all then obliged to regard the October attack on
Israel as an attack on them all?
Well firstly Israel is not actually a member.
Secondly the NATO treaty does
not force members to "regard" an attack on one of them as anything, let alone an "attack on them all".
It obliges NATO to defend a nation attacked by
another nation and members to play their part in that. Not necessarily for each member to severally declare war on the attacker. America, and probably our special forces, are indeed defending Israel, both by financial support and
by the Americans providing surveillance over the whole region and attacking targes in Yemen and Syria that we know about. I am not sure that a few lightly-armed fanatical murders from an enclave Israel controls counts as an attack by another country anyway. In some ways it is more a civil war. So I think NATO is treating Israel just about the same as a NATO member, really.
That is what membership of NATO entails.
So they are hardly offering an independent legal opinion.
Is NATO competent to do so?
You might just as well ask the legal opinion of the Belarus government on the
legality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Likely their opinion will be that
is legal, especially since they participated in it.
On the legal point, Hamas may well deliberately hide in civilian areas, but >>> given the population density of Gaza it would be hard for them to operate very
far away from them.
Ah... so it's perfectly alright then?
So it is probably a matter of degree rather than a straightforward fact. >>> Also, even if Hamas is committing a war crime by hiding in civilian areas this
does not necessarily excuse the Israelis committing another war crime by >>> attacking those civilians indiscriminately.
On 27/11/2023 11:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Nov 2023 at 16:44:40 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/11/2023 12:16 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
[ ... ]
[On the subject of the legality of the use of "human shield" tactics]
[GB:]
My point is that it's a matter of fact whether something is illegal. >>>>> Nato's view is that Hamas's use of civilians as shields is unlawful.
But NATO isn't an internationally (still less globally) recognised
adjudicating authority on such matters.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with NATO, but in this case it is just acting
as a mouthpiece for the Israeli government. NATO is an American alliance that
works closely with Israel, which is a close ally of America, and Israel is >>>> effectively a member of NATO in all but name.
So were the USA, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, old
uncle Tom Cobleigh and all then obliged to regard the October attack on
Israel as an attack on them all?
Well firstly Israel is not actually a member.
Well that's MOST odd.
You just said that Isreal was a member of NATO in *all* but name.
Did you not mean it?
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
Well that's MOST odd.
You just said that Isreal was a member of NATO in *all* but name.
Did you not mean it?
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like that.
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
On 28 Nov 2023 at 11:19:15 GMT, "Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm
absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like that.
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
Give everyone a comfortable, fulfilled life and citizenship rights and they will largely reject the extremists. It's not hard, except when the fundamentalists are in charge.
On 28/11/2023 13:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 11:19:15 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm
absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like that. >>>
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
Give everyone a comfortable, fulfilled life and citizenship rights and they >> will largely reject the extremists. It's not hard, except when the
fundamentalists are in charge.
Caesar
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.
Strangely, although they have had since 1979 to do so, the Iranians have
yet to reject the extremists. So, I'm not sure your theory holds water.
On 28/11/2023 15:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 14:44:44 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 28/11/2023 13:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 11:19:15 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm >>>>> absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like that. >>>>>
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
Give everyone a comfortable, fulfilled life and citizenship rights and they
will largely reject the extremists. It's not hard, except when the
fundamentalists are in charge.
Caesar
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.
Strangely, although they have had since 1979 to do so, the Iranians have >>> yet to reject the extremists. So, I'm not sure your theory holds water.
And Iran, since America, with our help, installed the Shah, and he was
deposed, has been under constant economic and varying levels of military
attack (remember the war with Iraq the Americans contrived) which have made it
a much poorer and underdeveloped country than it ought to be.
Iran and Iraq have been at war for the whole of history. What makes you
think the Americans contrived that particular war?
I agree that the Shah received Western help to stay in place, and he
seems to have run a ghastly regime - almost as oppressive as the present
one.
Probably with the scale of economic warfare America is applying, and forcing the EU to apply, they are probably the only choices at the moment. Again this illustrates my thesis that poverty and oppression lead to war and other ill effects. The only people to gain from it are the American arms industries.
I think this proves my point rather than refutes it; their may be a lot of >> dissatisfaction with the fundamentalist government in Iran but they are too >> proud a people to welcome another American puppet government.
Are those actually the only choices?
On 28 Nov 2023 at 14:44:44 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 28/11/2023 13:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 11:19:15 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm
absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like that. >>>>
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
Give everyone a comfortable, fulfilled life and citizenship rights and they >>> will largely reject the extremists. It's not hard, except when the
fundamentalists are in charge.
Caesar
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.
Strangely, although they have had since 1979 to do so, the Iranians have
yet to reject the extremists. So, I'm not sure your theory holds water.
And Iran, since America, with our help, installed the Shah, and he was deposed, has been under constant economic and varying levels of military attack (remember the war with Iraq the Americans contrived) which have made it
a much poorer and underdeveloped country than it ought to be.
I think this proves my point rather than refutes it; their may be a lot of dissatisfaction with the fundamentalist government in Iran but they are too proud a people to welcome another American puppet government.
On 28/11/2023 15:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 14:44:44 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 28/11/2023 13:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 11:19:15 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm >>>>> absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like
that.
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
Give everyone a comfortable, fulfilled life and citizenship rights
and they
will largely reject the extremists. It's not hard, except when the
fundamentalists are in charge.
Caesar
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.
Strangely, although they have had since 1979 to do so, the Iranians have >>> yet to reject the extremists. So, I'm not sure your theory holds water.
And Iran, since America, with our help, installed the Shah, and he was
deposed, has been under constant economic and varying levels of military
attack (remember the war with Iraq the Americans contrived) which have
made it
a much poorer and underdeveloped country than it ought to be.
Iran and Iraq have been at war for the whole of history. What makes you
think the Americans contrived that particular war?
I think this proves my point rather than refutes it; their may be a
lot of
dissatisfaction with the fundamentalist government in Iran but they
are too
proud a people to welcome another American puppet government.
Are those actually the only choices?
On 28 Nov 2023 at 16:20:55 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 28/11/2023 15:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
Probably with the scale of economic warfare America is applying, and forcing the EU to apply, they are probably the only choices at the moment. Again this illustrates my thesis that poverty and oppression lead to war and other ill effects. The only people to gain from it are the American arms industries.I think this proves my point rather than refutes it; their may be a lot of >>> dissatisfaction with the fundamentalist government in Iran but they are too >>> proud a people to welcome another American puppet government.
Are those actually the only choices?
On 27/11/2023 17:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt" >>>>> Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis
pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the means to >>>> hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's
probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.)
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to
attack the
German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to
*then*
the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean this,
which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of
Palestinians.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer.
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until the
ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent
from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to
preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the lives
of the gentile population.
Hmm.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26055/chapter-abstract/193982670
In much the same way bankers were blamed for the credit crunch in the
late 2000s much of the blame for Germany's ills during the depression
was directed at the banking community of it's time.
It all depends on your definition of 'risk'. Subjecting people to being destitute and homeless is pretty good at stirring hatred.
On 28/11/2023 00:06, JNugent wrote:
Well that's MOST odd.
You just said that Isreal was a member of NATO in *all* but name.
Did you not mean it?
I've just been reading John Nichols book "Tornado - In the eye of the
storm". It's about the Tornado aircraft and its role in the Gulf War.
One of the points made was that Saddam fired missiles at Israel.
Apparently the diplomats were sending messages to Israel on the lines of
"FFS don't get involved". Some Muslims automatically regard Jews as the enemy, and if Israel became involved would fight against them. Whatever
they thought of Saddam, who was their enemy.
On 28/11/2023 13:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 11:19:15 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm
absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like
that.
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
Give everyone a comfortable, fulfilled life and citizenship rights and
they
will largely reject the extremists. It's not hard, except when the
fundamentalists are in charge.
Strangely, although they have had since 1979 to do so, the Iranians have
yet to reject the extremists. So, I'm not sure your theory holds water.
On 28 Nov 2023 at 00:06:42 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/11/2023 11:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Nov 2023 at 16:44:40 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/11/2023 12:16 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
[ ... ]
[On the subject of the legality of the use of "human shield" tactics]
[GB:]
My point is that it's a matter of fact whether something is illegal. >>>>>> Nato's view is that Hamas's use of civilians as shields is unlawful.
But NATO isn't an internationally (still less globally) recognised
adjudicating authority on such matters.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with NATO, but in this case it is just acting
as a mouthpiece for the Israeli government. NATO is an American alliance that
works closely with Israel, which is a close ally of America, and Israel is
effectively a member of NATO in all but name.
So were the USA, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, old
uncle Tom Cobleigh and all then obliged to regard the October attack on >>>> Israel as an attack on them all?
Well firstly Israel is not actually a member.
Well that's MOST odd.Basic English comprehension will tell you that someone who is a member in "all
You just said that Isreal was a member of NATO in *all* but name.
Did you not mean it?
but name" of anything is by definition not a member!!!
On 28/11/2023 16:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 16:20:55 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 28/11/2023 15:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
<snip>
Probably with the scale of economic warfare America is applying, and forcing >> the EU to apply, they are probably the only choices at the moment. Again thisI think this proves my point rather than refutes it; their may be a lot of >>>> dissatisfaction with the fundamentalist government in Iran but they are too
proud a people to welcome another American puppet government.
Are those actually the only choices?
illustrates my thesis that poverty and oppression lead to war and other ill >> effects. The only people to gain from it are the American arms industries.
I think it's worse than that. Sanctions, for no good reason, often
create alliances you would perhaps rather not be made.
https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2023/may/18/iran-russia-burgeoning-military-ties
On 2023-11-27, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/11/2023 17:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt" >>>>>> Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis >>>>>> pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the means to >>>>> hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's
probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.)
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to
attack the
German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to
*then*
the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean this, >>>> which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of
Palestinians.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer. >>>
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until the
ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent
from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to
preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the lives
of the gentile population.
Hmm.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26055/chapter-abstract/193982670
In much the same way bankers were blamed for the credit crunch in the
late 2000s much of the blame for Germany's ills during the depression
was directed at the banking community of it's time.
It all depends on your definition of 'risk'. Subjecting people to being
destitute and homeless is pretty good at stirring hatred.
"This was brought on by the wartime food shortages, the continuation
of the Allied blockade after the armistice, postwar transportation
problems, the dismantling of state rationing, and the effects of
soaring inflation." That last phrase is the closest thing in that
abstract to banking.
In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were not
Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
Roald Dahl.
On 28 Nov 2023 at 16:48:55 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 28/11/2023 16:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 16:20:55 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 28/11/2023 15:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
<snip>
I think it's worse than that. Sanctions, for no good reason, oftenProbably with the scale of economic warfare America is applying, and forcingI think this proves my point rather than refutes it; their may be a lot of
dissatisfaction with the fundamentalist government in Iran but they are too
proud a people to welcome another American puppet government.
Are those actually the only choices?
the EU to apply, they are probably the only choices at the moment. Again this
illustrates my thesis that poverty and oppression lead to war and other ill >>> effects. The only people to gain from it are the American arms industries. >>
create alliances you would perhaps rather not be made.
https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2023/may/18/iran-russia-burgeoning-military-ties
Maybe worse for us, but I think starvation and poverty is actually worse for the Iranians.
On 2023-11-27, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/11/2023 17:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt" >>>>>> Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis >>>>>> pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the means to >>>>> hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's
probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.)
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to
attack the
German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to
*then*
the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean this, >>>> which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of
Palestinians.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer. >>>
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until the
ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent
from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to
preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the lives
of the gentile population.
Hmm.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26055/chapter-abstract/193982670
In much the same way bankers were blamed for the credit crunch in the
late 2000s much of the blame for Germany's ills during the depression
was directed at the banking community of it's time.
It all depends on your definition of 'risk'. Subjecting people to being
destitute and homeless is pretty good at stirring hatred.
"This was brought on by the wartime food shortages, the continuation
of the Allied blockade after the armistice, postwar transportation
problems, the dismantling of state rationing, and the effects of
soaring inflation." That last phrase is the closest thing in that
abstract to banking.
In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were not
Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
Roald Dahl.
On 28/11/2023 18:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 16:48:55 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 28/11/2023 16:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 16:20:55 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>>
On 28/11/2023 15:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
<snip>
I think it's worse than that. Sanctions, for no good reason, oftenProbably with the scale of economic warfare America is applying, and forcingI think this proves my point rather than refutes it; their may be a lot of
dissatisfaction with the fundamentalist government in Iran but they are too
proud a people to welcome another American puppet government.
Are those actually the only choices?
the EU to apply, they are probably the only choices at the moment. Again this
illustrates my thesis that poverty and oppression lead to war and other ill
effects. The only people to gain from it are the American arms industries. >>>
create alliances you would perhaps rather not be made.
https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2023/may/18/iran-russia-burgeoning-military-ties
Maybe worse for us, but I think starvation and poverty is actually worse for >> the Iranians.
Sorry, I don't see any of either poverty or starvation occurring in Iran.
On 28 Nov 2023 at 18:29:27 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 28/11/2023 18:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 16:48:55 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 28/11/2023 16:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2023 at 16:20:55 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 28/11/2023 15:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
<snip>
Probably with the scale of economic warfare America is applying, and forcingI think this proves my point rather than refutes it; their may be a lot of
dissatisfaction with the fundamentalist government in Iran but they are too
proud a people to welcome another American puppet government.
Are those actually the only choices?
the EU to apply, they are probably the only choices at the moment. Again this
illustrates my thesis that poverty and oppression lead to war and other ill
effects. The only people to gain from it are the American arms industries.
I think it's worse than that. Sanctions, for no good reason, often
create alliances you would perhaps rather not be made.
https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2023/may/18/iran-russia-burgeoning-military-ties
Maybe worse for us, but I think starvation and poverty is actually worse for
the Iranians.
Sorry, I don't see any of either poverty or starvation occurring in Iran.
Do you go there often?
On 28/11/2023 10:06, Adam Funk wrote:
In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were not
Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
Roald Dahl.
While that is obviously true, many were seen as landlords evicting their tenants, and key positions in banks, and indeed their heritage was
generally seen as jewish.
In much the same way many 'bankers' in the 2007/8 crunch were just till operators with no power to make a decision.
On 2023-11-28, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 28/11/2023 10:06, Adam Funk wrote:
In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were not
Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
Roald Dahl.
While that is obviously true, many were seen as landlords evicting their
tenants, and key positions in banks, and indeed their heritage was
generally seen as jewish.
In much the same way many 'bankers' in the 2007/8 crunch were just till
operators with no power to make a decision.
Nobody who has ever said "bankers caused the 2008 financial crisis"
has ever meant "cashiers caused the 2008 financial crisis".
On 11/28/23 10:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-27, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/11/2023 17:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt" >>>>>>> Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis >>>>>>> pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the means to >>>>>> hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's
probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.)
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to
attack the
German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to >>>>> *then*
the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean this, >>>>> which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of >>>>> Palestinians.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer. >>>>
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until the >>>> ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent >>>> from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to
preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the lives >>>> of the gentile population.
Hmm.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26055/chapter-abstract/193982670
In much the same way bankers were blamed for the credit crunch in the
late 2000s much of the blame for Germany's ills during the depression
was directed at the banking community of it's time.
It all depends on your definition of 'risk'. Subjecting people to being
destitute and homeless is pretty good at stirring hatred.
"This was brought on by the wartime food shortages, the continuation
of the Allied blockade after the armistice, postwar transportation
problems, the dismantling of state rationing, and the effects of
soaring inflation." That last phrase is the closest thing in that
abstract to banking.
Some banks in Germany Collapsed in 1931 and that is often cited as a
major cause of the rise in Nazi popularity.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_banking_crisis_of_1931>
In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were not
Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
Roald Dahl.
Perhaps you could explain what Roald Dahl quote you mean, and what you
think was bad about it.
People may not agree with Dahl, but I can see that his comments fall
outside the realm of respectable free speech. The kind of thing we
should tolerate in a liberal society.
You didn't explain what you thought was wrong with it.
On 2023-11-28, Pancho wrote:
On 11/28/23 10:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-27, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/11/2023 17:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt" >>>>>>>> Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis >>>>>>>> pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the means to >>>>>>> hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's >>>>>>> probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.) >>>>>>>
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to >>>>>> attack the
German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to >>>>>> *then*
the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean this, >>>>>> which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of >>>>>> Palestinians.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer. >>>>>
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until the >>>>> ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent >>>>> from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to >>>>> preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the lives >>>>> of the gentile population.
Hmm.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26055/chapter-abstract/193982670
In much the same way bankers were blamed for the credit crunch in the
late 2000s much of the blame for Germany's ills during the depression
was directed at the banking community of it's time.
It all depends on your definition of 'risk'. Subjecting people to being >>>> destitute and homeless is pretty good at stirring hatred.
"This was brought on by the wartime food shortages, the continuation
of the Allied blockade after the armistice, postwar transportation
problems, the dismantling of state rationing, and the effects of
soaring inflation." That last phrase is the closest thing in that
abstract to banking.
Some banks in Germany Collapsed in 1931 and that is often cited as a
major cause of the rise in Nazi popularity.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_banking_crisis_of_1931>
In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were not
Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
Roald Dahl.
Perhaps you could explain what Roald Dahl quote you mean, and what you
think was bad about it.
"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity,
maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean,
there's always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a
stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason."
On 29/11/2023 18:40, Pancho wrote:
People may not agree with Dahl, but I can see that his comments fallSorry, I meant can't, not can. As in, but I can't see that his comments
outside the realm of respectable free speech. The kind of thing we
should tolerate in a liberal society.
You didn't explain what you thought was wrong with it.
fall outside the realm of respectable free speech.
On 29/11/2023 12:40, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-28, Pancho wrote:
On 11/28/23 10:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-27, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/11/2023 17:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to "hurt" >>>>>>>>> Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis >>>>>>>>> pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the means to
hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's >>>>>>>> probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.) >>>>>>>>
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to >>>>>>> attack the
German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to >>>>>>> *then*
the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean this, >>>>>>> which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of >>>>>>> Palestinians.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer. >>>>>>
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until the >>>>>> ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent >>>>>> from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to >>>>>> preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the lives >>>>>> of the gentile population.
Hmm.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26055/chapter-abstract/193982670
In much the same way bankers were blamed for the credit crunch in the >>>>> late 2000s much of the blame for Germany's ills during the depression >>>>> was directed at the banking community of it's time.
It all depends on your definition of 'risk'. Subjecting people to being >>>>> destitute and homeless is pretty good at stirring hatred.
"This was brought on by the wartime food shortages, the continuation
of the Allied blockade after the armistice, postwar transportation
problems, the dismantling of state rationing, and the effects of
soaring inflation." That last phrase is the closest thing in that
abstract to banking.
Some banks in Germany Collapsed in 1931 and that is often cited as a
major cause of the rise in Nazi popularity.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_banking_crisis_of_1931>
In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were not
Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
Roald Dahl.
Perhaps you could explain what Roald Dahl quote you mean, and what you
think was bad about it.
"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity,
maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean,
there's always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a
stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason."
But this isn't a terrible thing to say.
It is common for groups to promote the interests of members above the interests of outsiders. This has the consequence that outsiders often
tend to think negatively of the group. This is a common underlying
cause of sectarian friction. It will be especially true that a
successful group triggers a response of envy.
My general perception is that there is significant effort from members
of the Jewish community to promote the interests of the Jewish
community, and that this is to some extent to the detriment of other
groups. It certainly seems true of the Palestinians, a group which
motivated Dahl's comments.
People may not agree with Dahl, but I can see that his comments fall
outside the realm of respectable free speech. The kind of thing we
should tolerate in a liberal society.
You didn't explain what you thought was wrong with it.
The idea that there is a "Jewish character", the idea that that "character" is
actively discriminatory against non-Jews in general and the proposition that substantially all Jews do it is what makes it racist and offensive. If he had said that a lot of Jews do support pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian policies then really no-one could possibly take exception. Explaining it by an underlying character defect or disloyalty to the country they live in is straight, traditional anti-semitism.
A lot of Hindus support Indian policies,
and Pakistanis support Muslim policies but they are not all traitors or bigots.
The Americans immediately provided Israel with anti-missile defences in
order to be able to counter Iraq's attacks.
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like that.
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
On 27/11/2023 09:44, The Todal wrote:
On 26/11/2023 11:58, GB wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
Prosecute the lawless settlers who keep assaulting and robbing the
Palestinians. Stop the massacre of ordinary civilians in Gaza which
is plainly in breach of international law.
I linked to a Nato document on the law, but you weren't interested in
that and continue to put forward your version of what you think
international law ought to be. You are far from alone in this, by the
way.
I don't recall ever seeing your link to the NATO document so feel free
to repost it. I would have been very interested to read it, if you had
posted it and I had noticed your post.
We are all getting on a bit. My recollection is that you quoted from the document! :)
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority
of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain
points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.”
Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related
infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces
(IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.
The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on
an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties,
Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of
committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide
array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible
to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while
continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level
of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning
the outcomes of the operation.
KEY POINTS
The use of human shields can be considered an example of ‘lawfare’ –
i.e. the use of the legal system against an enemy by damaging or delegitimising them, tying up their time or winning a public
relations victory.
Even if a targeted strike may be justifable from a legal perspective, first impressions frame the narrative. Public opinion tends to be
influenced more by images depicting the suffering of innocent
civilians than by well-thought-out legal arguments.
National governments should be able to publicly justify their
position, and reveal their adversary’s use of civilians in combat. This
can only be accomplished by thoroughly documenting incidents, preparing supportive messages, and working across multiple channels to convey
those narratives.
Priority should be given to information activities aimed at the very civilians who are used as human shields, in order to undermine the
adversary and convince civilians to actively or passively
refuse to serve as human shields. Such activities need to be coherent, consistent and coordinated.
I am especially interested to see what NATO's opinion of international
law is, and whether it in any way resembles the redefinition of
torture invented by US lawyers Jay Bybee and John Yoo, to suit the
requirements of the CIA.
I'm inclined to prefer Nato's view of the law in this particular area
over yours. OTOH, I expect you are better at conveyancing, say, than
they are.
I agree the death toll of civilians in Gaza is unacceptable, but
that's on moral grounds.
By the same token, the gassing of Jews in Auschwitz was unacceptable
but only on moral, not legal, grounds. Really?
My point is that it's a matter of fact whether something is illegal.
Nato's view is that Hamas's use of civilians as shields is unlawful.
On 27/11/2023 09:44, The Todal wrote:
On 26/11/2023 11:58, GB wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
Prosecute the lawless settlers who keep assaulting and robbing the Palestinians.
Stop the massacre of ordinary civilians in Gaza which is plainly in breach of
international law.
I linked to a Nato document on the law, but you weren't interested in that and
continue to put forward your version of what you think international law ought to be.
You are far from alone in this, by the way.
I don't recall ever seeing your link to the NATO document so feel free to repost it. I
would have been very interested to read it, if you had posted it and I had noticed
your post.
We are all getting on a bit. My recollection is that you quoted from the document! :)
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
Who wrote it? What are their qualifications? This document is the one
that you regard as somehow authoritative?
I am inclined to prefer the UN's view of the law to that of NATO, and to
view the passages you have quoted as patently wrong in law.
Here's what you should prefer over anything I have said. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
Your document offers the same old Israeli concept of "human shields".
It's against international law to use human shields, of course. But to
the Israelis, as they have always made clear, a human shield is someone
they feel free to bomb and kill, so rather than being a "shield" the
person is more likely to be a "target" as far as the IDF are concerned.
Or they are a shield, but nevertheless totally expendable, merely
collateral damage.
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
Apologies in advance if I've overlooked something, but the only reference
I can find to NATO in that document, is in one footnote on page 160 to a
NATO definition of "Information Warfare" as to be found in
" MC 0422/5 NATO Military Policy on Information Operations"
bb
On 01/12/2023 12:51, billy bookcase wrote:
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
Apologies in advance if I've overlooked something, but the only reference
I can find to NATO in that document, is in one footnote on page 160 to a
NATO definition of "Information Warfare" as to be found in
" MC 0422/5 NATO Military Policy on Information Operations"
bb
Quote:
NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence is multi-nationally constituted and NATO-accredited international military organization,
which is not part of the NATO Command Structure, nor subordinate to any
other NATO entity. As such the Centre does not therefore speak for NATO.
Cite:
<https://stratcomcoe.org/about_us/about-nato-stratcom-coe/5>
On 01/12/2023 12:14, The Todal wrote:
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
Who wrote it? What are their qualifications? This document is the one
that you regard as somehow authoritative?
There's an 'about' section on the website that will give you more information, if you are interested.
On 01/12/2023 12:51, billy bookcase wrote:
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
Apologies in advance if I've overlooked something, but the only reference
I can find to NATO in that document, is in one footnote on page 160 to a
NATO definition of "Information Warfare" as to be found in
" MC 0422/5 NATO Military Policy on Information Operations"
bb
Quote:
NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence is multi-nationally constituted and
NATO-accredited international military organization, which is not part of the NATO
Command Structure, nor subordinate to any other NATO entity. As such the Centre does
not therefore speak for NATO.
Cite:
<https://stratcomcoe.org/about_us/about-nato-stratcom-coe/5>
On 01/12/2023 12:14, The Todal wrote:
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
Who wrote it? What are their qualifications? This document is the one
that you regard as somehow authoritative?
There's an 'about' section on the website that will give you more information, if you are interested.
I am inclined to prefer the UN's view of the law to that of NATO, and
to view the passages you have quoted as patently wrong in law.
Assuming you are not expert in this area of international law, then your 'patently wrong' doesn't really count for all that much, unfortunately.
Here's what you should prefer over anything I have said.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
To quote you: Who wrote it? What are their qualifications?
Who says it is more authoritative than Nato? Apart from you, of course.
In any case, reading that document, it doesn't begin to answer the fundamental question regarding the legality or otherwise of Israel's
actions in Gaza:
If an enemy takes refuge within a civilian population, does
international law really say that that enemy is untouchable? If not,
then what degree of harm to the civilian population is lawful?
I expect that later analysis will show that particular acts during the conflict were unlawful, but that's not really your point, is it? You are appalled at the injury and loss of life, as am I. But, you have gone
far further than that, and declared that Israel's actions in Gaza as a
whole are unlawful.
I'm just asking you to back that up with some sort of legal argument.
Or, a reference to a document that applies to these specific circumstances.
The NATO document specifically addresses these issues. You are welcome
to come up with an alternative.
Your document offers the same old Israeli concept of "human shields".
It's against international law to use human shields, of course. But to
the Israelis, as they have always made clear, a human shield is
someone they feel free to bomb and kill, so rather than being a
"shield" the person is more likely to be a "target" as far as the IDF
are concerned. Or they are a shield, but nevertheless totally
expendable, merely collateral damage.
Yet more rhetoric, but zero legal analysis to back up your claim of
unlawful.
On 01/12/2023 17:47, Pancho wrote:
On 01/12/2023 12:51, billy bookcase wrote:
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
Apologies in advance if I've overlooked something, but the only reference >>> I can find to NATO in that document, is in one footnote on page 160 to a >>> NATO definition of "Information Warfare" as to be found in
" MC 0422/5 NATO Military Policy on Information Operations"
bb
Quote:
NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence is multi-nationally
constituted and NATO-accredited international military organization,
which is not part of the NATO Command Structure, nor subordinate to any
other NATO entity. As such the Centre does not therefore speak for NATO.
Cite:
<https://stratcomcoe.org/about_us/about-nato-stratcom-coe/5>
It's worth noting that the UK is one of the founding sponsors:
"The Centre is staffed and financed by its sponsoring nations and contributing participants. The centre was initially founded by Latvia, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, and the United Kingdom in
2014. The Netherlands and Finland joined in 2016, Sweden in 2017, Canada
in 2018 and Slovakia in early 2019. Denmark and USA joined in 2020.
Hungary joined in 2021, but France and Australia have initiated the
joining process."
Bizarrely, Sweden and Finland both sponsored the COE several years ago,
even though they weren't Nato members.
As I said, if anyone has an alternative respected source on the
legalities of dealing with an enemy that goes to ground (literally in
the case of Hamas) amongst a civilian population, I'm sure we will all
be interested to hear.
Call me cynical, but I can't entirely dispel the suspicion that stratcomcoe.org might be an Israeli government propaganda
front group, or a Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence,
as they might put it.
On 01/12/2023 18:09, pensive hamster wrote:
Call me cynical, but I can't entirely dispel the suspicion that
stratcomcoe.org might be an Israeli government propaganda
front group, or a Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence,
as they might put it.
"Centres of Excellence (COEs) are international military organisations
that train and educate leaders and specialists from NATO member and
partner countries. They assist in doctrine development, identify lessons learned, improve interoperability and capabilities, and test and
validate concepts through experimentation. They offer recognised
expertise and experience that is of benefit to the Alliance, and support
the transformation of NATO, while avoiding the duplication of assets, resources and capabilities already present within the Alliance."
Apparently, Nato has over 20 of them.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68372.htm
In any case, reading that document, it doesn't begin to answer the
fundamental question regarding the legality or otherwise of Israel's
actions in Gaza:
If an enemy takes refuge within a civilian population, does
international law really say that that enemy is untouchable? If not,
then what degree of harm to the civilian population is lawful?
You're really not trying, are you? Did you even bother to read the page?
quote
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 8
War Crimes
The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means: [snip]
Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in
international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
unquote
And then we have the report of Judge Goldstone relating to Operation
Cast Lead. I've supplied a link several times.
So on the one hand, a small team of NATO public relations people
anonymously giving advice about how best to make Israel's crimes look acceptable.
Quote: "Public opinion tends to be influenced more by
images depicting the suffering of innocent civilians than by
well-thought-out legal arguments". Why should lawyers care about public opinion? Only spin-doctors and diplomats care about public opinion.
I expect that later analysis will show that particular acts during the
conflict were unlawful, but that's not really your point, is it? You
are appalled at the injury and loss of life, as am I. But, you have
gone far further than that, and declared that Israel's actions in Gaza
as a whole are unlawful.
I'm just asking you to back that up with some sort of legal argument.
Or, a reference to a document that applies to these specific
circumstances.
https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/a-hrc-12-48.pdf
The NATO document specifically addresses these issues. You are welcome
to come up with an alternative.
Your document offers the same old Israeli concept of "human shields".
It's against international law to use human shields, of course. But
to the Israelis, as they have always made clear, a human shield is
someone they feel free to bomb and kill, so rather than being a
"shield" the person is more likely to be a "target" as far as the IDF
are concerned. Or they are a shield, but nevertheless totally
expendable, merely collateral damage.
Yet more rhetoric, but zero legal analysis to back up your claim of
unlawful.
The current slaughter perpetrated by Israel is a carbon copy of the
tactics they used in Operation Cast Lead.
The Mission found numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians
and civilian objects ...
On 28/11/2023 11:19, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:There may be extreme Muslims in Birmingham who think that Israel should
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years ago,
treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm
absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like
that.
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
be wiped off the map and its citizens exterminated.
Would that justify the carpet-bombing of Birmingham?
On 01/12/2023 18:39, The Todal wrote:
In any case, reading that document, it doesn't begin to answer the
fundamental question regarding the legality or otherwise of Israel's
actions in Gaza:
If an enemy takes refuge within a civilian population, does
international law really say that that enemy is untouchable? If not,
then what degree of harm to the civilian population is lawful?
You're really not trying, are you? Did you even bother to read the page?
quote
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 8
War Crimes
The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in
particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a
large-scale commission of such crimes.
For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means: [snip]
Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in
international armed conflict, within the established framework of
international law, namely, any of the following acts:
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population
as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in
hostilities;
Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that
is, objects which are not military objectives;
unquote
That clearly does not answer the key question. Why are you being
disingenuous about it?
If you think I have misdefined the key question, I am happy to discuss
that, but you are the one asserting that something is illegal, and you
really ought to be able to back that up.
And then we have the report of Judge Goldstone relating to Operation
Cast Lead. I've supplied a link several times.
"Judge Goldstone said in a Washington Post comment piece on April 1 that
he would have compiled a different report now with the benefit of
hindsight.
Although he declined to ask the UN formally to withdraw the report, he
said that he had been wrong to accuse Israel of intentionally targeting civilians and admitted that the HRC had "a history of bias against
Israel"."
That's the report you are relying on? The one repudiated by Judge
Goldstone?
A statute isn't going to be so specific as to say "if an enemy is taking refuge in a civilian population it is/is not permissible to slaughter
all the surrounding people and demolish all the buildings".
What it does say is:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to
civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated
I think everyone but you knows that it's illegal to slaughter the
civilian population of Gaza, but for some reason you cling to the hope
that someone other than a Nato "centre of excellence" will back you up.
And then we have the report of Judge Goldstone relating to Operation
Cast Lead. I've supplied a link several times.
"Judge Goldstone said in a Washington Post comment piece on April 1
that he would have compiled a different report now with the benefit of
hindsight.
Although he declined to ask the UN formally to withdraw the report, he
said that he had been wrong to accuse Israel of intentionally
targeting civilians and admitted that the HRC had "a history of bias
against Israel"."
That's the report you are relying on? The one repudiated by Judge
Goldstone?
He didn't repudiate the report.
He may fool you.
And when
James O'Brien did an LBC phone in this week, plenty of Jews were
emailing him or messaging him to say that all the Palestinians are
supporters of Hamas and fully deserve to be wiped out. Are you proud of
the company you keep?
On 02/12/2023 14:07, The Todal wrote:
A statute isn't going to be so specific as to say "if an enemy is taking
refuge in a civilian population it is/is not permissible to slaughter
all the surrounding people and demolish all the buildings".
What it does say is:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will
cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to
civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the
concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated
That just reinforces the point I was making:
It is lawful to cause loss of life or injury to civilians provided it is
not clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall
military advantage anticipated.
So, to prove unlawful behaviour, the very first thing you need to know
is what "the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated"
of a particular attack was. Which, of course, we can't know from just looking at the news.
Besides that, what does 'excessive' mean in the context of an enemy that
has gone to ground amongst civilians?
It's insufficient to argue that war is brutal, so it must be illegal.
On 02/12/2023 14:07, The Todal wrote:
A statute isn't going to be so specific as to say "if an enemy is
taking refuge in a civilian population it is/is not permissible to
slaughter all the surrounding people and demolish all the buildings".
What it does say is:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack
will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to
civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to
the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated
That just reinforces the point I was making:
It is lawful to cause loss of life or injury to civilians provided it is
not clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall
military advantage anticipated.
So, to prove unlawful behaviour, the very first thing you need to know
is what "the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated"
of a particular attack was. Which, of course, we can't know from just looking at the news.
Besides that, what does 'excessive' mean in the context of an enemy that
has gone to ground amongst civilians?
It's insufficient to argue that war is brutal, so it must be illegal.
I think everyone but you knows that it's illegal to slaughter the
civilian population of Gaza, but for some reason you cling to the hope
that someone other than a Nato "centre of excellence" will back you up.
More rhetoric, so I'll patiently ask you again to back up your claim of illegality. Or, perhaps, gracefully to withdraw it?
And then we have the report of Judge Goldstone relating to Operation
Cast Lead. I've supplied a link several times.
"Judge Goldstone said in a Washington Post comment piece on April 1
that he would have compiled a different report now with the benefit
of hindsight.
Although he declined to ask the UN formally to withdraw the report,
he said that he had been wrong to accuse Israel of intentionally
targeting civilians and admitted that the HRC had "a history of bias
against Israel"."
That's the report you are relying on? The one repudiated by Judge
Goldstone?
He didn't repudiate the report.
Well, he didn't repudiate every word, of course, but he repudiated the
key point you were relying on.
He may fool you.
I'm simply asking you to prove an allegation, and I sympathise that it
may be annoying for you. In response, you have used words like facile,
trite, and fool, and you suggested that I think it would be legal to slaughter the entire population of Gaza.
And when James O'Brien did an LBC phone in this week, plenty of Jews
were emailing him or messaging him to say that all the Palestinians
are supporters of Hamas and fully deserve to be wiped out. Are you
proud of the company you keep?
You are using the Daily Mail tactic of 'sharing a platform'.
On 02/12/2023 05:02 pm, GB wrote:
On 02/12/2023 14:07, The Todal wrote:
A statute isn't going to be so specific as to say "if an enemy is
taking refuge in a civilian population it is/is not permissible to
slaughter all the surrounding people and demolish all the buildings".
What it does say is:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack
will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to
civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to
the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated
That just reinforces the point I was making:
It is lawful to cause loss of life or injury to civilians provided it is
not clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall
military advantage anticipated.
So, to prove unlawful behaviour, the very first thing you need to know
is what "the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated"
of a particular attack was. Which, of course, we can't know from just
looking at the news.
Besides that, what does 'excessive' mean in the context of an enemy that
has gone to ground amongst civilians?
It's insufficient to argue that war is brutal, so it must be illegal.
I think everyone but you knows that it's illegal to slaughter the
civilian population of Gaza, but for some reason you cling to the hope
that someone other than a Nato "centre of excellence" will back you up.
More rhetoric, so I'll patiently ask you again to back up your claim of
illegality. Or, perhaps, gracefully to withdraw it?
And then we have the report of Judge Goldstone relating to Operation >>>>> Cast Lead. I've supplied a link several times.
"Judge Goldstone said in a Washington Post comment piece on April 1
that he would have compiled a different report now with the benefit
of hindsight.
Although he declined to ask the UN formally to withdraw the report,
he said that he had been wrong to accuse Israel of intentionally
targeting civilians and admitted that the HRC had "a history of bias
against Israel"."
That's the report you are relying on? The one repudiated by Judge
Goldstone?
He didn't repudiate the report.
Well, he didn't repudiate every word, of course, but he repudiated the
key point you were relying on.
He may fool you.
I'm simply asking you to prove an allegation, and I sympathise that it
may be annoying for you. In response, you have used words like facile,
trite, and fool, and you suggested that I think it would be legal to
slaughter the entire population of Gaza.
And when James O'Brien did an LBC phone in this week, plenty of Jews
were emailing him or messaging him to say that all the Palestinians
are supporters of Hamas and fully deserve to be wiped out. Are you
proud of the company you keep?
You are using the Daily Mail tactic of 'sharing a platform'.
Under what is usually referred to as "the Geneva Conventions" and before that, the rules and customs of war, shouldn't a besieged force surrender
and declare an "open city" in order to spare the civilian population
from privation and worse?
On 2 Dec 2023 at 17:58:15 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 05:02 pm, GB wrote:
On 02/12/2023 14:07, The Todal wrote:
A statute isn't going to be so specific as to say "if an enemy is
taking refuge in a civilian population it is/is not permissible to
slaughter all the surrounding people and demolish all the buildings".
What it does say is:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack
will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to >>>> civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to
the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated
That just reinforces the point I was making:
It is lawful to cause loss of life or injury to civilians provided it is >>> not clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall
military advantage anticipated.
So, to prove unlawful behaviour, the very first thing you need to know
is what "the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" >>> of a particular attack was. Which, of course, we can't know from just
looking at the news.
Besides that, what does 'excessive' mean in the context of an enemy that >>> has gone to ground amongst civilians?
It's insufficient to argue that war is brutal, so it must be illegal.
I think everyone but you knows that it's illegal to slaughter theMore rhetoric, so I'll patiently ask you again to back up your claim of
civilian population of Gaza, but for some reason you cling to the hope >>>> that someone other than a Nato "centre of excellence" will back you up. >>>
illegality. Or, perhaps, gracefully to withdraw it?
And then we have the report of Judge Goldstone relating to Operation >>>>>> Cast Lead. I've supplied a link several times.
"Judge Goldstone said in a Washington Post comment piece on April 1
that he would have compiled a different report now with the benefit
of hindsight.
Although he declined to ask the UN formally to withdraw the report,
he said that he had been wrong to accuse Israel of intentionally
targeting civilians and admitted that the HRC had "a history of bias >>>>> against Israel"."
That's the report you are relying on? The one repudiated by Judge
Goldstone?
He didn't repudiate the report.
Well, he didn't repudiate every word, of course, but he repudiated the
key point you were relying on.
He may fool you.
I'm simply asking you to prove an allegation, and I sympathise that it
may be annoying for you. In response, you have used words like facile,
trite, and fool, and you suggested that I think it would be legal to
slaughter the entire population of Gaza.
And when James O'Brien did an LBC phone in this week, plenty of Jews
were emailing him or messaging him to say that all the Palestinians
are supporters of Hamas and fully deserve to be wiped out. Are you
proud of the company you keep?
You are using the Daily Mail tactic of 'sharing a platform'.
Under what is usually referred to as "the Geneva Conventions" and before
that, the rules and customs of war, shouldn't a besieged force surrender
and declare an "open city" in order to spare the civilian population
from privation and worse?
If they have already been told that they are to summarily killed or prosecuted
and imprisoned or executed, and *not* treated as prisoners of war, then I doubt that applies. Under the Geneva convention once a country has surrendered
prisoners of war can reasonably be expected to be released and treated the same as the general population of the losing country, unless there are specific crimes they, as individuals, can be demonstrated to have committed. There seems no expectation that Israel would treat them this way.
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority
of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain
points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.”
Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related
infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces
(IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.
On 02/12/2023 08:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 17:58:15 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 05:02 pm, GB wrote:
On 02/12/2023 14:07, The Todal wrote:
A statute isn't going to be so specific as to say "if an enemy is
taking refuge in a civilian population it is/is not permissible to
slaughter all the surrounding people and demolish all the buildings". >>>>
What it does say is:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack
will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to >>>>> civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to
the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated
That just reinforces the point I was making:
It is lawful to cause loss of life or injury to civilians provided it is >>>> not clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall
military advantage anticipated.
So, to prove unlawful behaviour, the very first thing you need to know >>>> is what "the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" >>>> of a particular attack was. Which, of course, we can't know from just >>>> looking at the news.
Besides that, what does 'excessive' mean in the context of an enemy that >>>> has gone to ground amongst civilians?
It's insufficient to argue that war is brutal, so it must be illegal.
I think everyone but you knows that it's illegal to slaughter theMore rhetoric, so I'll patiently ask you again to back up your claim of >>>> illegality. Or, perhaps, gracefully to withdraw it?
civilian population of Gaza, but for some reason you cling to the hope >>>>> that someone other than a Nato "centre of excellence" will back you up. >>>>
And then we have the report of Judge Goldstone relating to Operation >>>>>>> Cast Lead. I've supplied a link several times.
"Judge Goldstone said in a Washington Post comment piece on April 1 >>>>>> that he would have compiled a different report now with the benefit >>>>>> of hindsight.
Although he declined to ask the UN formally to withdraw the report, >>>>>> he said that he had been wrong to accuse Israel of intentionally
targeting civilians and admitted that the HRC had "a history of bias >>>>>> against Israel"."
That's the report you are relying on? The one repudiated by Judge
Goldstone?
He didn't repudiate the report.
Well, he didn't repudiate every word, of course, but he repudiated the >>>> key point you were relying on.
He may fool you.
I'm simply asking you to prove an allegation, and I sympathise that it >>>> may be annoying for you. In response, you have used words like facile, >>>> trite, and fool, and you suggested that I think it would be legal to
slaughter the entire population of Gaza.
And when James O'Brien did an LBC phone in this week, plenty of Jews >>>>> were emailing him or messaging him to say that all the Palestinians
are supporters of Hamas and fully deserve to be wiped out. Are you
proud of the company you keep?
You are using the Daily Mail tactic of 'sharing a platform'.
Under what is usually referred to as "the Geneva Conventions" and before >>> that, the rules and customs of war, shouldn't a besieged force surrender >>> and declare an "open city" in order to spare the civilian population
from privation and worse?
If they have already been told that they are to summarily killed or prosecuted
and imprisoned or executed, and *not* treated as prisoners of war, then I
doubt that applies. Under the Geneva convention once a country has surrendered
prisoners of war can reasonably be expected to be released and treated the >> same as the general population of the losing country, unless there are
specific crimes they, as individuals, can be demonstrated to have committed. >> There seems no expectation that Israel would treat them this way.
And do you say / claim that that entitles them to put the civilian
population at continued risk?
A straightforward "Yes" or "No" would be helpful.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 01:14:42 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 08:37 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 17:58:15 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 05:02 pm, GB wrote:
On 02/12/2023 14:07, The Todal wrote:
A statute isn't going to be so specific as to say "if an enemy is
taking refuge in a civilian population it is/is not permissible to >>>>>> slaughter all the surrounding people and demolish all the buildings". >>>>>
What it does say is:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack >>>>>> will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to >>>>>> civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the >>>>>> natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to >>>>>> the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated
That just reinforces the point I was making:
It is lawful to cause loss of life or injury to civilians provided it is >>>>> not clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall >>>>> military advantage anticipated.
So, to prove unlawful behaviour, the very first thing you need to know >>>>> is what "the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" >>>>> of a particular attack was. Which, of course, we can't know from just >>>>> looking at the news.
Besides that, what does 'excessive' mean in the context of an enemy that >>>>> has gone to ground amongst civilians?
It's insufficient to argue that war is brutal, so it must be illegal. >>>>>
I think everyone but you knows that it's illegal to slaughter theMore rhetoric, so I'll patiently ask you again to back up your claim of >>>>> illegality. Or, perhaps, gracefully to withdraw it?
civilian population of Gaza, but for some reason you cling to the hope >>>>>> that someone other than a Nato "centre of excellence" will back you up. >>>>>
And then we have the report of Judge Goldstone relating to Operation >>>>>>>> Cast Lead. I've supplied a link several times.
"Judge Goldstone said in a Washington Post comment piece on April 1 >>>>>>> that he would have compiled a different report now with the benefit >>>>>>> of hindsight.
Although he declined to ask the UN formally to withdraw the report, >>>>>>> he said that he had been wrong to accuse Israel of intentionally >>>>>>> targeting civilians and admitted that the HRC had "a history of bias >>>>>>> against Israel"."
That's the report you are relying on? The one repudiated by Judge >>>>>>> Goldstone?
He didn't repudiate the report.
Well, he didn't repudiate every word, of course, but he repudiated the >>>>> key point you were relying on.
He may fool you.
I'm simply asking you to prove an allegation, and I sympathise that it >>>>> may be annoying for you. In response, you have used words like facile, >>>>> trite, and fool, and you suggested that I think it would be legal to >>>>> slaughter the entire population of Gaza.
And when James O'Brien did an LBC phone in this week, plenty of Jews >>>>>> were emailing him or messaging him to say that all the Palestinians >>>>>> are supporters of Hamas and fully deserve to be wiped out. Are you >>>>>> proud of the company you keep?
You are using the Daily Mail tactic of 'sharing a platform'.
Under what is usually referred to as "the Geneva Conventions" and before >>>> that, the rules and customs of war, shouldn't a besieged force surrender >>>> and declare an "open city" in order to spare the civilian population
from privation and worse?
If they have already been told that they are to summarily killed or prosecuted
and imprisoned or executed, and *not* treated as prisoners of war, then I >>> doubt that applies. Under the Geneva convention once a country has surrendered
prisoners of war can reasonably be expected to be released and treated the >>> same as the general population of the losing country, unless there are
specific crimes they, as individuals, can be demonstrated to have committed.
There seems no expectation that Israel would treat them this way.
And do you say / claim that that entitles them to put the civilian
population at continued risk?
A straightforward "Yes" or "No" would be helpful.
Are you channeling Norman?
It's insufficient to argue that war is brutal, so it must be illegal.You are talking about at the most a few thousand lightly armed irregular fighters
who are bound to be replaced as any remaining population of Gaza
grows up.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 11:47:37 AM UTC, GB wrote:
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority
of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel
since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the
presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain
points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.”
Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related
infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces
(IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.
So if using human shields encompasses "utilizing the presence of
a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas,
or military forces immune from military operations", are there any
areas in Gaza which have been rendered immune from military
operations?
I don't get the impression there are, but I could be wrong. Or in
other words, Hamas' (alleged) human shields seem rather
ineffective as shields
On 03/12/2023 12:15, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't get the impression there are, but I could be wrong. Or in
other words, Hamas' (alleged) human shields seem rather
ineffective as shields
That's a good point. However, do bear in mind that, according to Hamas,
the civilian population (every man, woman, and child) desires to
sacrifice themselves in this way.
On 11/28/23 10:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-27, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/11/2023 17:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to
"hurt"
Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis >>>>>>> pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the
means to
hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's
probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.)
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to
attack the
German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to >>>>> *then*
the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean this, >>>>> which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of >>>>> Palestinians.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a
lawyer.
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until the >>>> ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent >>>> from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to
preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the lives >>>> of the gentile population.
Hmm.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26055/chapter-abstract/193982670
In much the same way bankers were blamed for the credit crunch in the
late 2000s much of the blame for Germany's ills during the depression
was directed at the banking community of it's time.
It all depends on your definition of 'risk'. Subjecting people to being
destitute and homeless is pretty good at stirring hatred.
"This was brought on by the wartime food shortages, the continuation
of the Allied blockade after the armistice, postwar transportation
problems, the dismantling of state rationing, and the effects of
soaring inflation." That last phrase is the closest thing in that
abstract to banking.
Some banks in Germany Collapsed in 1931 and that is often cited as a
major cause of the rise in Nazi popularity.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_banking_crisis_of_1931>
In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were not
Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
Roald Dahl.
Perhaps you could explain what Roald Dahl quote you mean, and what you
think was bad about it.
On 03/12/2023 18:54, GB wrote:
On 03/12/2023 12:15, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't get the impression there are, but I could be wrong. Or in
other words, Hamas' (alleged) human shields seem rather
ineffective as shields
That's a good point. However, do bear in mind that, according to
Hamas, the civilian population (every man, woman, and child) desires
to sacrifice themselves in this way.
If Hamas were to declare that you personally desire to be a human
sacrifice, should the world accept that they are your designated spokesmen?
On 02/12/2023 19:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
It's insufficient to argue that war is brutal, so it must be illegal.You are talking about at the most a few thousand lightly armed irregular
fighters
Hamas alone has (or had) an estimated 30,000 fighters, organised into 24 battalions. Plus, there are the other, smaller terrorist organisations.
When you say "lightly armed irregular[s]", they have RPGs, mortars, and
HMGs. I am no military expert, but those seem like more or less the
ideal weapons for urban combat?
who are bound to be replaced as any remaining population of Gaza
grows up.
I tend to agree. But, it does take two to make peace.
It's one of the ugly aspects of democracy, when you have an electorate
baying for the blood of muslims and supports ethnic cleansing.
On 03/12/2023 12:15, pensive hamster wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 11:47:37 AM UTC, GB wrote:
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority
of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel >> since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court >> (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the >> presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain
points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.”
Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related
infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces
(IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.
So if using human shields encompasses "utilizing the presence of
a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas,
or military forces immune from military operations", are there any
areas in Gaza which have been rendered immune from military
operations?
I don't get the impression there are, but I could be wrong. Or in
other words, Hamas' (alleged) human shields seem rather
ineffective as shields
That's a good point. However, do bear in mind that, according to Hamas,
the civilian population (every man, woman, and child) desires to
sacrifice themselves in this way.
It's worth listening to Ali Baraka (a Hamas spokesman) talking about this:
"And we are not afraid. We fight and die [head on]."
"We, on the other hand, sacrifice ourselves. ... We consider our dead to
be martyrs. The thing any Palestinian desires the most is to be martyred
for the sake of Allah, defending his land."
You'll note that he was speaking from the safety of Beirut. In fact all
the Hamas leaders and their families are safely outside Gaza, whilst exhorting others to sacrifice themselves.
As for fighting and dying head on, there are agricultural areas of Gaza
where the Hamas fighters could have set up defensive positions, well
away from the civilian population.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh9ySTbYlnA
On 03/12/2023 20:46, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2023 18:54, GB wrote:
On 03/12/2023 12:15, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't get the impression there are, but I could be wrong. Or in
other words, Hamas' (alleged) human shields seem rather
ineffective as shields
That's a good point. However, do bear in mind that, according to
Hamas, the civilian population (every man, woman, and child) desires
to sacrifice themselves in this way.
If Hamas were to declare that you personally desire to be a human
sacrifice, should the world accept that they are your designated
spokesmen?
The stuff I quoted, and which you snipped, shows that it is clearly
Hamas policy not to worry about civilian deaths.
On 03/12/2023 20:46, The Todal wrote:I don't think that is in dispute. Your other statement that Hamas tells us
On 03/12/2023 18:54, GB wrote:
On 03/12/2023 12:15, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't get the impression there are, but I could be wrong. Or in
other words, Hamas' (alleged) human shields seem rather
ineffective as shields
That's a good point. However, do bear in mind that, according to
Hamas, the civilian population (every man, woman, and child) desires
to sacrifice themselves in this way.
If Hamas were to declare that you personally desire to be a human
sacrifice, should the world accept that they are your designated spokesmen?
The stuff I quoted, and which you snipped, shows that it is clearly
Hamas policy not to worry about civilian deaths.
On 28/11/2023 21:11, Pancho wrote:
On 11/28/23 10:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-27, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/11/2023 17:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to >>>>>>>> "hurt"
Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the Nazis >>>>>>>> pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the
means to
hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly clearly. (It's >>>>>>> probably a minority, but I have no idea how to distinguish them.) >>>>>>>
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to >>>>>> attack the
German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones were likely to >>>>>> *then*
the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean
this,
which I
doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the slaughter of >>>>>> Palestinians.
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a
lawyer.
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until
the
ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the innocent >>>>> from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy to >>>>> preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the
lives
of the gentile population.
Hmm.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26055/chapter-abstract/193982670
In much the same way bankers were blamed for the credit crunch in the
late 2000s much of the blame for Germany's ills during the depression
was directed at the banking community of it's time.
It all depends on your definition of 'risk'. Subjecting people to being >>>> destitute and homeless is pretty good at stirring hatred.
"This was brought on by the wartime food shortages, the continuation
of the Allied blockade after the armistice, postwar transportation
problems, the dismantling of state rationing, and the effects of
soaring inflation." That last phrase is the closest thing in that
abstract to banking.
Some banks in Germany Collapsed in 1931 and that is often cited as a
major cause of the rise in Nazi popularity.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_banking_crisis_of_1931>
In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were not
Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
Roald Dahl.
Perhaps you could explain what Roald Dahl quote you mean, and what you
think was bad about it.
I think this may enlighten you. I don't know enough to say whether he
was genuinely anti-jew, or if the mere suggestion there were reasons why members of the faith are disliked is sufficient:
The stuff I quoted, and which you snipped, shows that it is clearlyI don't think that is in dispute. Your other statement that Hamas tells us that the civilians are all happy with this policy seemed to imply that you believed that statement to be credible.
Hamas policy not to worry about civilian deaths.
On 03/12/2023 20:46, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2023 18:54, GB wrote:
On 03/12/2023 12:15, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't get the impression there are, but I could be wrong. Or in
other words, Hamas' (alleged) human shields seem rather
ineffective as shields
That's a good point. However, do bear in mind that, according to
Hamas, the civilian population (every man, woman, and child) desires
to sacrifice themselves in this way.
If Hamas were to declare that you personally desire to be a human
sacrifice, should the world accept that they are your designated
spokesmen?
The stuff I quoted, and which you snipped, shows that it is clearly
Hamas policy not to worry about civilian deaths.
On 03/12/2023 20:59, GB wrote:
On 03/12/2023 20:46, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2023 18:54, GB wrote:
On 03/12/2023 12:15, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't get the impression there are, but I could be wrong. Or in
other words, Hamas' (alleged) human shields seem rather
ineffective as shields
That's a good point. However, do bear in mind that, according to
Hamas, the civilian population (every man, woman, and child) desires
to sacrifice themselves in this way.
If Hamas were to declare that you personally desire to be a human
sacrifice, should the world accept that they are your designated
spokesmen?
The stuff I quoted, and which you snipped, shows that it is clearly
Hamas policy not to worry about civilian deaths.
But everyone knows that, and it seems quite irrelevant.
If terrorists don't care about civilian deaths, that is no justification
for exterminating innocent civilians.
On 04/12/2023 13:07, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2023 20:59, GB wrote:
The stuff I quoted, and which you snipped, shows that it is clearly
Hamas policy not to worry about civilian deaths.
But everyone knows that, and it seems quite irrelevant.
Not irrelevant, as you also snipped the point about it being perfectly feasible for Hamas to fight in the agricultural districts if they
preferred. Clearly, they don't prefer, and my point is that Hamas is indifferent to civilian casualties.
In fact, it probably goes beyond that, as they need to incur very high civilian casualties for political purposes.
Of course, the IDF don't have to oblige by attacking Hamas, and if I had
been in charge I would not have done so.
On 04/12/2023 13:07, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2023 20:59, GB wrote:
On 03/12/2023 20:46, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2023 18:54, GB wrote:
On 03/12/2023 12:15, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't get the impression there are, but I could be wrong. Or in
other words, Hamas' (alleged) human shields seem rather
ineffective as shields
That's a good point. However, do bear in mind that, according to
Hamas, the civilian population (every man, woman, and child)
desires to sacrifice themselves in this way.
If Hamas were to declare that you personally desire to be a human
sacrifice, should the world accept that they are your designated
spokesmen?
The stuff I quoted, and which you snipped, shows that it is clearly
Hamas policy not to worry about civilian deaths.
But everyone knows that, and it seems quite irrelevant.
Not irrelevant, as you also snipped the point about it being perfectly feasible for Hamas to fight in the agricultural districts if they
preferred. Clearly, they don't prefer, and my point is that Hamas is indifferent to civilian casualties.
In fact, it probably goes beyond that, as they need to incur very high civilian casualties for political purposes.
Of course, the IDF don't have to oblige by attacking Hamas, and if I had
been in charge I would not have done so.
If terrorists don't care about civilian deaths, that is no
justification for exterminating innocent civilians.
Can I have your comments on the British Army in the Battle of Surabaya?
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 4:21:14 PM UTC, GB wrote:
On 04/12/2023 13:07, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2023 20:59, GB wrote:
The stuff I quoted, and which you snipped, shows that it is clearly
Hamas policy not to worry about civilian deaths.
But everyone knows that, and it seems quite irrelevant.
Not irrelevant, as you also snipped the point about it being perfectly
feasible for Hamas to fight in the agricultural districts if they
preferred. Clearly, they don't prefer, and my point is that Hamas is
indifferent to civilian casualties.
In fact, it probably goes beyond that, as they need to incur very high
civilian casualties for political purposes.
Of course, the IDF don't have to oblige by attacking Hamas, and if I had
been in charge I would not have done so.
As a matter of interest, what would you have done, if you had been
in charge?
On 28/11/2023 11:19, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm
absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like that.
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
There may be extreme Muslims in Birmingham who think that Israel should
be wiped off the map and its citizens exterminated.
Would that justify the carpet-bombing of Birmingham?
On 01/12/2023 12:05, The Todal wrote:
On 28/11/2023 11:19, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm
absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like that. >>
I don't how to square that circle.
There may be extreme Muslims in Birmingham who think that Israel should
be wiped off the map and its citizens exterminated.
The ideology of the Hilltop Youth, a derivation of Kahanism, ...
On 01/12/2023 12:05, The Todal wrote:
On 28/11/2023 11:19, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 27/11/2023 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
They can't, except by invoking religious rules from 3000 years
ago, treat them as a foreign tribe to be exterminated at will.
I'm pretty sure there are Jews in Israel who do think like that. I'm
absolutely certain there are extreme Muslims in Gaza who think like
that.
I don't how to square that circle.
Andy
There may be extreme Muslims in Birmingham who think that Israel
should be wiped off the map and its citizens exterminated.
Would that justify the carpet-bombing of Birmingham?
No, it wouldn't.
But I'll be interested to know what your solution to the situation in Israel/Palestine is.
The history of Israel demonstrates that right from the outset the policy
of Israel was to punish its enemies with overkill. Towns would be
destroyed and the inhabitants gunned down as retribution for the killing
of some Israeli settler or other.
It was important to deter enemies, whether they were individual
terrorists or neighbouring countries, by showing that Israel was
powerful enough to crush them with overwhelming might and that the
innocent must expect to be killed too.
Something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Scheme
Power sharing in a secular government. There are lots of solutions but
the current situation will stay as it is unless the West mandates
change. At the moment Israel, or it's government, can do nothing wrong.
On 05/12/2023 14:48, Fredxx wrote:
Something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Scheme
Power sharing in a secular government. There are lots of solutions but
the current situation will stay as it is unless the West mandates
change. At the moment Israel, or it's government, can do nothing wrong.
I can see why the Zionists didn't like that scheme. Israel is to them
the promised land. Given to them by God. No other place would be the same.
On 03/12/2023 14:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/11/2023 21:11, Pancho wrote:No. The article criticises the concept of “the sins of the fathers” and the idea of atonement for one's ancestors. Under this reasonable
On 11/28/23 10:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-27, Fredxx wrote:Some banks in Germany Collapsed in 1931 and that is often cited as a
On 27/11/2023 17:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/11/2023 23:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 21:30:38 GMT, "Vir Campestris"Perhaps I should have worded that better. I'm an engineer, not a
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/11/2023 15:27, The Todal wrote:
The ordinary civilians have no resources which they can use to >>>>>>>>> "hurt"
Israelis. Israel pretends otherwise, in the same way that the >>>>>>>>> Nazis pretended that all Jews were dangerous.
Some of the occupants of Gaza clearly do have the will and the >>>>>>>> means to hurt Israelis. They have demonstrated this fairly
clearly. (It's probably a minority, but I have no idea how to
distinguish them.)
I'm not sure that was the case with the Jews in Germany.
Andy
So you are saying that *if* some of the German Jews were likely to >>>>>>> attack the German state *and* you couldn't easily tell which ones >>>>>>> were likely to *then*
the holocaust would have been justified? Unless you really mean >>>>>>> this,
which I doubt, then your post is irrelevant to the issue of the
slaughter of Palestinians.
lawyer.
Israel is being attacked by people living in Gaza (or was, up until >>>>>> the ceasefire). Israel doesn't have a good way to distinguish the
innocent from the guilty.
Israel has decided that its current actions are its best strategy
to preserve the lives of its citizens and get the hostages back.
I don't know of any case where Jews in Germany were a risk to the
lives of the gentile population.
Hmm.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26055/chapter-abstract/193982670
In much the same way bankers were blamed for the credit crunch in
the late 2000s much of the blame for Germany's ills during the
depression was directed at the banking community of it's time.
It all depends on your definition of 'risk'. Subjecting people to
being destitute and homeless is pretty good at stirring hatred.
"This was brought on by the wartime food shortages, the continuation
of the Allied blockade after the armistice, postwar transportation
problems, the dismantling of state rationing, and the effects of
soaring inflation." That last phrase is the closest thing in that
abstract to banking.
major cause of the rise in Nazi popularity.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_banking_crisis_of_1931>
In any case, most Jews were not bankers and many bankers were notPerhaps you could explain what Roald Dahl quote you mean, and what you
Jews. This is a bit dangerously close to the notorious quote from
Roald Dahl.
think was bad about it.
I think this may enlighten you. I don't know enough to say whether he
was genuinely anti-jew, or if the mere suggestion there were reasons
why members of the faith are disliked is sufficient:
comment, the article implicitly assumes Dahl did something bad, attempts
to reinforce the idea Dahl did something bad. i.e. an intellectual
Trojan Horse. It does not say why Dahl's comments were bad, and now we
see Dahl's comments used as a canonical example of what is bad.
My point was that I think it is reasonable to make criticisms of groups,
of community behaviour. I believe Dahl's criticism of the Jewish
diaspora for it support of Zionism is reasonable, that it was, and is, justified by the behaviour of Israel. I also believe it is reasonable to question Jewish influence in banking, publishing, and politics. Question
the power of the Jewish lobby.
AIUI, the UK anti-discrimination laws allowed for criticism of groups,
such as religious criticism. To my mind, the law is now being perverted
to reimpose a new type of blasphemy. Become a law such that dogma cannot
be questioned.
You might criticise Dahl for hyperbole, but given his life's work, why
would we expect anything else.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:38:09 PM UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/12/2023 14:48, Fredxx wrote:
Something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Scheme
Power sharing in a secular government. There are lots of solutions but
the current situation will stay as it is unless the West mandates
change. At the moment Israel, or it's government, can do nothing wrong.
I can see why the Zionists didn't like that scheme. Israel is to them
the promised land. Given to them by God. No other place would be the same.
People who believe they get messages from God can be dangerous,
especially if they have a role in, or access to, government.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:38:47 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,929 |
| Posted today: | 1 |