Is it time for Israel to re-take Gaza?

[Coyote]

For Israel to obey international law and end the blockade and occupation.

Hamas is a brutal regime. Amnesty Intl and the NY Times says that. They don't obey Intl law which is a large part of the reason for the embargo. They want to end the embargo? Form a govt again. Elect credible representation. Hamas is not credible representation. Ask most any Arab neighbor country. It's not just the US and Israel that take that position. Being an Iran Proxy -- they are a DIRECT threat to stability in the Levant.

There is nothing to negotiate. Israel just needs to stop the slaughter of innocent lives. Stop committing crimes against humanity. Stop acting like the Nazis in the 1930's.

A city state, which is what Gaza is WITHOUT a unified Palestine, under Hamas will never adhere to the norms and international law. And it will continue to DEFEAT the creation of Palestine. It's not a good plan if anyone EXPECTS a real Palestinian nation..

Flac...why couldn’t a city state be a solution? It is an intriguing concept discussed here...The Palestinian Emirates "Solution"

I actually LIKE the concept of a loose confederation of City States for Pali autonomy. Let them all self-govern under different levels of tolerance and govt. But the idea has slammed by "purists" as establishing a chain of ghettos surrounded by Israel. There would still have to be leadership to negotiate trade/travel corridors and liberal boundaries of open space around these cities.

I've read a lot about the different character of many WB cities. Some are quite secular. Others not no much. You could connect them with a SuperHiway with limited access to Israel proper. There's a lot of "DESIGN" that should be used as a carrot to get closer to Pali autonomy. Those "city-states" could be on a trade route that connects the entire Levant to the Arabian Peninsula and beyond.

Add your input to the thread...it kind of died

 

[flacaltenn]

I think the right folks could design a solution that doesn't just involve marking up a map. You could ENRICH the entire region with the right visions of prosperity and trade. If you build them a FUTURE -- maybe they'll stop living in the past...

 

[Billo_Really]

Why not just be honest with yourself and take steps to fix your faults.

I am honest with myself. I have no reason to lie. You do.

 

[Billo_Really]

You've reversed cause and effect.

So no Israeli insurgents (settlers) take down Palestinian olive trees?
There are no housing demolitions?
No settlement expansion?
No administrative detention?
No treating the entire population of Palestinians, as the enemy?
No drone strikes?
Or missile strikes?
No blockade that restricts the flow of goods to barely enough to sustain a population that size?
No blaming of the victims forcing you to take their lives?

Your argument gets more strange by the day.

 

[Billo_Really]

He's missed the analogy altogether.

First, we need to understand the social and political dynamics which caused Hitler’s rise to power. Following Germany’s humiliation at the end of WWI, caused in part by Allied insistence that a percentage of the land area of the German empire be annexed to various countries, and its humiliating concessions to the Allies, Germany was on the verge of collapse. It’s not difficult to envision an outspoken individual garnering recognition. It was certainly easier to blame the "verming Juden" for Germany's problems than it is the overall failed political maneuvering of a lame duck Republic that is chastised by having lost a war of imperialism? We’re basically examining an eccentric use of power and greed under the veil of both Democracy and religion. A hapless nation had suffered 10 years of runaway inflation and political isolation. A charismatic leader told the people what they wanted to hear, ie: the glory of the Fatherland, Arian supremacy, etc., etc.

It shouldn’t be missed by anyone that there are several striking parallels between Germany during the 1930’s and the Middle East currently which we should take notice of.

The Nazis wanted an Aryan Nation, you want a Jewish State. What's the difference?
Both groups think they were "chosen" by divine intervention.
Both groups scapegoated an entire population of people as the "bad guys".
Both groups tried to exterminate these respective populations.
Both groups tried to acquire land by force.
And both groups lied about their intentions to the rest of the world.

 

[Billo_Really]

ell RE: Is it time for Israel to re-take Gaza?
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Is that what the law says? Or is that your interpretation of what the Law says?

I'm wondering if you actually read either the rules or statues.

They have undrinkable water because you bombed their water treatment plant. Another war crime. You cannot target civilian infrastructure.

(COMMENT)

•• ICRC IHL Database, Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) ••

• Rule 10. Civilian objects are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they are military objectives.
• ICC Rome Statutes, Article 8(2)(b)(ii); see also Article 8(2)(b)(ix) and (e)(iv) (concerning attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected) and Article 8(2)(b)(v) (concerning attacks against towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended).​

This is NOT something new. This is a well know and well established practice; employed for more than a decade.

Hamas is increasingly using sensitive civilian facilities in Gaza to protect its military assets from being targeted by Israel, ahead of a further round of conflict. It is also digging dozens of “terror tunnels” into Israel, The Times of Israel has learned.

Gaza’s Islamist rulers have been placing rocket launching pads next to water reservoirs, and attaching reconnaissance cameras to mosque minarets and water towers, The Times of Israel was told, in a bid to avoid IAF airstrikes during an upcoming round of confrontation.

Read the rule and then collect your data. We know that the Arab Palestinians always cheer for their side. BUT, that doesn't make it true.

Most Respectfully,
R

The law is very clear. If civilian casualties are greater than military necessity, then you cannot target civilian infrastructure. And how can their be any military necessity when you shoot missiles at a trapped population that doesn't even have the right to defend themselves?

 

[Billo_Really]

Hamas is a brutal regime. Amnesty Intl and the NY Times says that. They don't obey Intl law which is a large part of the reason for the embargo. They want to end the embargo? Form a govt again. Elect credible representation. Hamas is not credible representation. Ask most any Arab neighbor country. It's not just the US and Israel that take that position. Being an Iran Proxy -- they are a DIRECT threat to stability in the Levant.

First off, the "embargo" is not because of Hamas violations of international law. It is punitive punishment by the Israelis, because Gazans wouldn't vote for Israels bitch Fatah. But for the sake of argument, lets say that was the reason for the embargo. There are almost 400 UN resolutions regarding Israeli violations of international law. So Israel needs to be quarantined by the rest of the world until it capitulates.

Secondly, who Gazans vote for, is none of Israels goddamn business! You think you can tell others what to do on their own property?

And third, how can a population under occupation be anyone's proxy?

A city state, which is what Gaza is WITHOUT a unified Palestine, under Hamas will never adhere to the norms and international law. And it will continue to DEFEAT the creation of Palestine. It's not a good plan if anyone EXPECTS a real Palestinian nation..

It doesn't matter as to whether they are a nation or not, all parties have agreed the 4th Geneva Convention applies and Israel has failed miserably in honoring that Rome Statute.

 

[rylah]

Why not just be honest with yourself and take steps to fix your faults.

I am honest with myself. I have no reason to lie. You do.

Honest?
Haven't seen You hold a single argument without resorting to boldly lying about Your own posts.

 

[Billo_Really]

I actually LIKE the concept of a loose confederation of City States for Pali autonomy. Let them all self-govern under different levels of tolerance and govt. But the idea has slammed by "purists" as establishing a chain of ghettos surrounded by Israel. There would still have to be leadership to negotiate trade/travel corridors and liberal boundaries of open space around these cities.

I've read a lot about the different character of many WB cities. Some are quite secular. Others not no much. You could connect them with a SuperHiway with limited access to Israel proper. There's a lot of "DESIGN" that should be used as a carrot to get closer to Pali autonomy. Those "city-states" could be on a trade route that connects the entire Levant to the Arabian Peninsula and beyond.

And such a City State needs a theme song and I got the perfect one for THAT city!



In the words of Shaquille O'Neil, "Can you dig it?"

 

[Billo_Really]

Add your input to the thread...it kind of died

I prefer to think............metastasized.

But look at the bright side. At least he's not as bad as I am?

 

[Billo_Really]

Honest?
Haven't seen You hold a single argument without resorting to boldly lying about Your own posts.

Why would I lie? This conflict doesn't affect me in any way. I have no dog in this hunt. I have nothing to gain; nor anything to lose. So why would I lie?

You, on the other hand, have every reason in the world to lie.

 

[rylah]

Honest?
Haven't seen You hold a single argument without resorting to boldly lying about Your own posts.

Why would I lie? This conflict doesn't affect me in any way. I have no dog in this hunt. I have nothing to gain; nor anything to lose. So why would I lie?

You, on the other hand, have every reason in the world to lie.

How many times has Palestinian propaganda refuted Your crazy big claims just in the recent weeks?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Is it time for Israel to re-take Gaza?
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Here, you have jumped the context. You are confusing two different rules and statutes.

The law is very clear. If civilian casualties are greater than military necessity, then you cannot target civilian infrastructure. And how can their be any military necessity when you shoot missiles at a trapped population that doesn't even have the right to defend themselves?

(COMMENT)

In Posting #529 ("They have undrinkable water because you bombed their water treatment plant. Another war crime. You cannot target civilian infrastructure.") Your definitive statement was: "You cannot target civilian infrastructure." I responded with the exact Customary and IHL Rule that addresses that definitive issue. Now you've switched the definitive issues to:

• Military Necessity
• Trapped Population
• A Population in its own defense.​

In the #529 response, your focus seems to have shifted away from the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, resulting in damage to the Water Processing Facility, and more to the current discussion on whether there should be an attempt to take "effective control" of the entire Gaza Strip.

• Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

The principle of proportionality: In addition, under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “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 … which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.​

First, the military necessity → in this particular case → at this particular time is (of course) the focus on whether or not current events are a significant enough to have the consequence. And we need to untangle the new issues that you bring to the discussion.

Is there a "Military Necessity: Of course, I cannot speak for the Israelis, but it would seem obvious to me that there is a question as to whether the protection of Israeli Territorial Sovereignty against the chaos of a rampant horde of Hostile Arab Palestinians is a "military necessity" to deal with; and I think it is.

On the matter of the "Trapped Population." That is a consequence of their own making. IF the Arab Palestinians did not pose a demonstrated "THREAT" [Article 2(4) threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence] against Israel → THEN there would not be the establishment of border protection between the people of the Gaza Strip and that of Israel. The duty here is that the Israel Government has a fiduciary responsibility to its citizens, to protect them against the threat. Thus, the purpose of that aspect of the barrier, now under protest, is → not to keep the Gazan Arab Palestinian in the Gaza Strip → but rather → to keep the threat out of Israel.

The question of "its own defense" is a variation on the theme of "self-defense." While it is covered in Article 51 of the Charter, it does not address a "Right" in either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

In regards to present day activities by the Hostile Arab Palestinians:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

The HAMAS Organized event (March to Return) is recognizable activity driven to be held as the cause of civilian casualties. The March was a calculated attempt, on the part of HAMAS, to create a violent confrontation. HAMAS cannot manipulate of pressure the population in order to shield the infiltration of Jihadists into Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

How many times has Palestinian propaganda refuted Your crazy big claims just in the recent weeks?

I don't know. Why don't you tell me?

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: Is it time for Israel to re-take Gaza?
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Here, you have jumped the context. You are confusing two different rules and statutes.

The law is very clear. If civilian casualties are greater than military necessity, then you cannot target civilian infrastructure. And how can their be any military necessity when you shoot missiles at a trapped population that doesn't even have the right to defend themselves?

(COMMENT)

In Posting #529 ("They have undrinkable water because you bombed their water treatment plant. Another war crime. You cannot target civilian infrastructure.") Your definitive statement was: "You cannot target civilian infrastructure." I responded with the exact Customary and IHL Rule that addresses that definitive issue. Now you've switched the definitive issues to:

• Military Necessity
• Trapped Population
• A Population in its own defense.​

In the #529 response, your focus seems to have shifted away from the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, resulting in damage to the Water Processing Facility, and more to the current discussion on whether there should be an attempt to take "effective control" of the entire Gaza Strip.

• Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

The principle of proportionality: In addition, under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “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 … which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.​

First, the military necessity → in this particular case → at this particular time is (of course) the focus on whether or not current events are a significant enough to have the consequence. And we need to untangle the new issues that you bring to the discussion.

Is there a "Military Necessity: Of course, I cannot speak for the Israelis, but it would seem obvious to me that there is a question as to whether the protection of Israeli Territorial Sovereignty against the chaos of a rampant horde of Hostile Arab Palestinians is a "military necessity" to deal with; and I think it is.

On the matter of the "Trapped Population." That is a consequence of their own making. IF the Arab Palestinians did not pose a demonstrated "THREAT" [Article 2(4) threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence] against Israel → THEN there would not be the establishment of border protection between the people of the Gaza Strip and that of Israel. The duty here is that the Israel Government has a fiduciary responsibility to its citizens, to protect them against the threat. Thus, the purpose of that aspect of the barrier, now under protest, is → not to keep the Gazan Arab Palestinian in the Gaza Strip → but rather → to keep the threat out of Israel.

The question of "its own defense" is a variation on the theme of "self-defense." While it is covered in Article 51 of the Charter, it does not address a "Right" in either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

In regards to present day activities by the Hostile Arab Palestinians:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

The HAMAS Organized event (March to Return) is recognizable activity driven to be held as the cause of civilian casualties. The March was a calculated attempt, on the part of HAMAS, to create a violent confrontation. HAMAS cannot manipulate of pressure the population in order to shield the infiltration of Jihadists into Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no proof Hamas organized the protest. Even if they did, you have no right to shoot peaceful protesters.

 

[Shusha]

There is no proof Hamas organized the protest.

Hamas governs the territory. They are responsible for policing the "protest" AND for keeping the safety of their citizens as their highest priority. If Hamas had prevented the protest from turning violent, had prevented people from attempting to breach the boundary, had prevented people from bringing weapons and using them, had prevented tires from being burned as a smokescreen, had prevented children from attending -- there would have been no cause for Israel to respond.

Not only did Hamas FAIL to do any of these things -- they actively incited civilians to act violently, provided information on how to best breach the border and reach Israel's nearby towns, PAID civilians to act violently, and burned the boundary crossing through which aide is delivered. THEN they refused to accept urgently needed medical supplies.

Your attempt to claim that Hamas is innocent of wrong-doing is simply ridiculous.

 

[rylah]

How many times has Palestinian propaganda refuted Your crazy big claims just in the recent weeks?

I don't know. Why don't you tell me?

I'm sure You'll try to convince even Hamas that the protests are "peaceful":

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Is it time for Israel to re-take Gaza?
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

The short answer is!

There is no proof Hamas organized the protest. Even if they did, you have no right to shoot peaceful protesters.

(COMMENT)

WHEN a peaceful protest becomes whipped-up, turns violent and threatens the integrity of Israel's sovereign territory, THEN it voids its status of protection.

WHEN a peaceful protest is whipped-up, turns violent and becomes threatening as a result of HAMAS malfeasance and intentional influence, THEN it takes on the character of "cover and concealment."

The greater impact is: HAMAS either has governmental control over Gaza or it doesn't. I am glad that you admit that HAMAS is not in control of Gaza...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no proof Hamas organized the protest.

Hamas governs the territory. They are responsible for policing the "protest" AND for keeping the safety of their citizens as their highest priority. If Hamas had prevented the protest from turning violent, had prevented people from attempting to breach the boundary, had prevented people from bringing weapons and using them, had prevented tires from being burned as a smokescreen, had prevented children from attending -- there would have been no cause for Israel to respond.

Not only did Hamas FAIL to do any of these things -- they actively incited civilians to act violently, provided information on how to best breach the border and reach Israel's nearby towns, PAID civilians to act violently, and burned the boundary crossing through which aide is delivered. THEN they refused to accept urgently needed medical supplies.

Your attempt to claim that Hamas is innocent of wrong-doing is simply ridiculous.

Hamas governs the territory. They are responsible for policing the "protest" AND for keeping the safety of their citizens as their highest priority.

How can they police something that is not illegal?

 

[Shusha]

There is no proof Hamas organized the protest.

Hamas governs the territory. They are responsible for policing the "protest" AND for keeping the safety of their citizens as their highest priority. If Hamas had prevented the protest from turning violent, had prevented people from attempting to breach the boundary, had prevented people from bringing weapons and using them, had prevented tires from being burned as a smokescreen, had prevented children from attending -- there would have been no cause for Israel to respond.

Not only did Hamas FAIL to do any of these things -- they actively incited civilians to act violently, provided information on how to best breach the border and reach Israel's nearby towns, PAID civilians to act violently, and burned the boundary crossing through which aide is delivered. THEN they refused to accept urgently needed medical supplies.

Your attempt to claim that Hamas is innocent of wrong-doing is simply ridiculous.

Hamas governs the territory. They are responsible for policing the "protest" AND for keeping the safety of their citizens as their highest priority.

How can they police something that is not illegal?

Um. The same way all nations police protests. Wow. This whole "government" thing really is hard for you, isn't it?