Senate Approves Resolution Backing Israel in Hamas Conflict

[pfife]

you are still being disingenuous.

How does it feel to want?

I am not being disingenuous.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Comparing the GOP in 2004 to HAMAS is moronic. There should be less war? Army Generals often say that. You are being disingenuous because you are attempting to frame Israel's actions as punishment of the Palestinians.

Israel has a legal (and moral lol) right to do what it is doing.

end of story

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not being disingenuous.

you are.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Perfection never having made a mistake in your life. Having never done something you should not have and never having failed to do anything you should have. If you have told a white lie you aren't perfect. Yes the standard is impossibly high. That is why the perfect pluperfect tense of perfect actually imply less than perfect.

do you act this way in real life?

 

[garyd]

Actually they took control by throwing out their loyal (more or Less) opposition. They controlled most of the government already but as usual for such regimes that wasn't good enough.

Devnell, act what way? I don't claim to be perfect. As I said the standard is impossibly high.

If you mean try to be forth rightly logical the answer would be yes. When we fiorst got married 35 years ago my wife accused me of being too Spock like. She got used to it after a while though.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually they took control by throwing out their loyal (more or Less) opposition. They controlled most of the government already but as usual for such regimes that wasn't good enough.

Devnell, act what way? I don't claim to be perfect. As I said the standard is impossibly high.

If you mean try to be forth rightly logical the answer would be yes. When we fiorst got married 35 years ago my wife accused me of being too Spock like. She got used to it after a while though.

 

[toomuchtime_]

On what article of the Geneva conventions are you basing your contention that hiding weapons among civilians is a war crime?



Israel's inability to discriminate between innocent and not innocent, and the consequent desire to reduce casualties to their own ranks does not justify the killing of people who did not attack you, paradoxically under the proclamation of self defense.



Yes. Clearly that means I want the US less involved. I want them to not give the weapons to Israel, which would be less involvement.


Giving less weapons to Israel constitutes less involvement, not more involvement.

Your post is unresponsive and clearly disingenuous, so I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your post is unresponsive and clearly disingenuous, so I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.

ditto

 

[pfife]

you are.

Mere repetition of an obviously baseless, and factually incorrect accusation does not make it more true.

 

[pfife]

Comparing the GOP in 2004 to HAMAS is moronic.

Are you contending that the GOP in 2004 was not a war party? The Democrats were as well. Both parties ran on a pro-war platform. That's historical fact.

There should be less war? Army Generals often say that. You are being disingenuous because you are attempting to frame Israel's actions as punishment of the Palestinians.

Please, elaborate on what you meant by this quote:

Israel is within it's rights and the cost to the Palestinian civilians is put at their own door. They voted for HAMAS who had a platform that included going to war with Israel.

Are you not saying that they're responsible for Hamas's actions because of how they voted? Are you not also saying that people who did not vote for Hamas are responsible for Hamas's actions when you fail to discriminate between Hamas and Palestinians?

Israel has a legal (and moral lol) right to do what it is doing.

end of story

Israel has a right to kill people that did not attack them? Could you post a link to the international law supporting your assertion?

 

[pfife]

Your post is unresponsive and clearly disingenuous, so I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.

Its unfortunate that you feel the need to quit a respectful discussion because of baseless accusations.

 

[garyd]

Israel has a right to kill those who attack it. That means those who occupy the same space as those attacking it are at risk and should exit the place of those attackers ASAP. Until someone invents an actual working Phaser Israel is doing the best it can under the circumstances.

 

[pfife]

Israel has a right to kill those who attack it. That means those who occupy the same space as those attacking it are at risk and should exit the place of those attackers ASAP. Until someone invents an actual working Phaser Israel is doing the best it can under the circumstances.

and if they fail to leave, they lose their right to live?

 

[garyd]

Yep if you are trying to protect those attackers by shielding them with your body. then you are in essence one of the attackers. If the attackers won't permit you to leave then your death is the fault of the attakers not the israelis.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...do so in the myopic manner...focusing on Palestinian suffering to the exclusion of such key issues as terrorism, Israel's right to exist, security in general, the territorial dispute, and other economic and social concerns—is greatly to prejudice Israel's legitimate positions on those matters.

a cut and paste worthy of a posting.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

hmmm...

The Fourth Geneva Convention Does Not Apply to the West Bank

As the state with the strongest claim to sovereignty in the West Bank, Israel cannot be held to be an occupying power obliged to follow the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It would be a logical absurdity, and without textual foundation, to call a state an occupying power when it has taken territory over which no other state had recognized sovereign rights.25

Moreover, even if Israel were not considered sovereign of the West Bank, the West Bank is not automatically to be considered occupied territory within the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 2 of the Convention specifies that it applies in the cases of armed conflict between High Contracting Parties, or in the case of occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party. While Israel is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the nonexistent state of Palestine is not. In fact, in 1989, when the Palestine Liberation Organization informed the Swiss Federal Council (official registrar of the Convention) that it would adhere to the provisions of the four Geneva Conventions and their protocols, the Council refused to recognize the act as an accession to the treaty "due to the uncertainty...as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine."26

This conclusion is further amplified by Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention, which is the basis for the modern law of occupation. The article recognizes an occupation when "authority of the legitimate power" passes in fact "into the hands of the occupant." Thus, an occupation only arises where a legitimate power is dispossessed. Since Jordan was not the "legitimate power" in the West Bank, Israel cannot be considered an occupant.

Israel has declared itself willing to be bound to humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the West Bank and Gaza as a matter of good will, as part of a larger Israeli willingness to withhold application of its full sovereign rights in order to hold the territory open for a negotiated peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

However, this merely underscores the inapplicability of any provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that are designed to protect the sovereign rights of the true sovereign party whose territory is being occupied. Since "Palestine" is not sovereign, it has no sovereignty to defend, and it cannot claim the benefit of such provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that are designed to benefit the party whose sovereign territory is occupied.

 

[garyd]

Now that is intriguing.

 

[pfife]

Yes, it is intriguing. Considering its the 4th Geneva Convention that regulates the use of human shields, are you sure you want to maintain that it doesn't apply to Gaza?

 

[pfife]

hmmm...

You spend a lot of time justifying Israel's actions considering

Israel does not need to justify it's actions to you or me..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You spend a lot of time justifying Israel's actions considering

my statements end up justifying Israel's actions to you? wow, you really do have an open mind.