What do normal people - think of Israel?

[Billo_Really]

If one looks at the central attitude to "should Israel exist" and the historic answers to that then one gets the idea about historic bias. Not ONE Islamic country voted for Israel in 1947/48. Why? Because they didn't want them to have their homeland back. That is why ANY set of data will be skewed IF a large number of islamic countries are included in the data set.

Those who claim as has been claimed here that Israel is a Pariah state then for them a reality check is in order. Israel targets terrorists and murderers. Hamas aims at any Jew, Israeli Arab or visitor they can get. Hamas apologists are just as guilty of the killing as Hamas themselves.

Greg

75% of the people Israel targeted in Gaza, were innocent civilians.

 

[Billo_Really]

Sovereignty of the West Bank
It is sometimes said that Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (as opposed to civilian settlements in the territory) is illegal. There is no basis for this claim.

Except for the fact that was the conclusion of the ICC.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

I think you might be mistaken. I believe you are talking about the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as opposed to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICJ responded to five (5) key questions. None of which address the Legal Status of the Occupation.

Reference:

• 2004 9 July General List No. 131 Advisory Opinion LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

THE HAGUE, 9 July 2004. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Advisory Opinion in the case concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (request for advisory opinion).

In its Opinion, the Court finds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assembly and decides by fourteen votes to one to comply with that request.

The Court responds to the question as follows:

¾ “A. By fourteen votes to one,
The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”;

¾ “B. By fourteen votes to one,
Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”;

¾ “C. By fourteen votes to one,
Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;

¾ “D. By thirteen votes to two,
All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;

¾ “E. By fourteen votes to one,
The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”
​

Sovereignty of the West Bank
It is sometimes said that Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (as opposed to civilian settlements in the territory) is illegal. There is no basis for this claim.

Except for the fact that was the conclusion of the ICC.

(OBSERVATION)

Assessing the legal status of Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands
21 March 2014 – An independent United Nations human rights expert today called for an assessment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of the legal status of Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian Territory. “Special steps must be taken ...Spy Ghana · 3/21/2014

World Court urged to assess legal status of Israeli occupation of Palestine
The International Court of Justice has been urged to assess the legal status of the prolonged Israelioccupation of Palestine. The call was made on Friday by Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied ...unmultimedia.org · 3/21/2014

ICJ should assess legal status of Israeli occupation
GENEVA (21 March 2014) – The United Nations Special Rapporteur on occupied Palestine, Richard Falk, today called for an assessment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal status of the prolongedIsraeli occupation of Palestine, and ...Scoop · 3/23/2014​

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, neither the ICC or the ICJ has expressed either a legal opinion on the legality of the Occupation. However the question has been asked (informally) again in recent months (See Observations, supra).

I suspect that there is no answer to this question.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[gtopa1]

If one looks at the central attitude to "should Israel exist" and the historic answers to that then one gets the idea about historic bias. Not ONE Islamic country voted for Israel in 1947/48. Why? Because they didn't want them to have their homeland back. That is why ANY set of data will be skewed IF a large number of islamic countries are included in the data set.

Those who claim as has been claimed here that Israel is a Pariah state then for them a reality check is in order. Israel targets terrorists and murderers. Hamas aims at any Jew, Israeli Arab or visitor they can get. Hamas apologists are just as guilty of the killing as Hamas themselves.

Greg

75% of the people Israel targeted in Gaza, were innocent civilians.

Your source: Hamas. No cred at all, and yet those like you hang on to every word of Hamas as if it is enlightened truth. Why is that when you KNOW Hamas are murdering terrorists!!\

Re the ICC decision.

"The Prosecutor's decision marks the first time a State referral by an ICC States Party has ever been rejected by ... Prosecutor without even initiating an investigation," said lawyers Rodney Dixon and Geoffrey Nice in a statement.

Global court says will not investigate Israeli raid on Turkish flotilla Reuters

If you meant the ICJ ruling on the security fence....non-binding opinion. It was dismissed as biased. Wonder of wonders!!!!

Greg

 

[Kondor3]

75% of the people Israel targeted in Gaza, were innocent civilians.

75% of the people Israel hit in Gaza were innocent civilians?

...or...

75% of the people Israel targeted in Gaza were innocent civilians?

Huge difference.

 

[Billo_Really]

Billo_Really, et al,

I think you might be mistaken. I believe you are talking about the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as opposed to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICJ responded to five (5) key questions. None of which address the Legal Status of the Occupation.

¾ “D. By thirteen votes to two,
All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall​

​

In this case, I was referring to the settlements themselves, which are illegal. They are the "illegal situation" the ICJ was referring to above. Furthermore, it is against the 4th Geneva Convention, to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

So the legality of the settlements, is not a debatable issue.

 

[Billo_Really]

75% of the people Israel targeted in Gaza, were innocent civilians.

75% of the people Israel hit in Gaza were innocent civilians?

...or...

75% of the people Israel targeted in Gaza were innocent civilians?

Huge difference.

Except in this case, it was both.

Both were targeted; both were hit.

 

[Kondor3]

75% of the people Israel targeted in Gaza, were innocent civilians.

75% of the people Israel hit in Gaza were innocent civilians?

...or...

75% of the people Israel targeted in Gaza were innocent civilians?

Huge difference.

Except in this case, it was both.

Both were targeted; both were hit.

So, let me get this straight...

It is your contention that Israel intentionally targeted all (or a large percentage of) the civilians that it hit?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

There were no "innocent civilians" targeted by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) during any of the Gaza Strip Operations.

If one looks at the central attitude to "should Israel exist" and the historic answers to that then one gets the idea about historic bias. Not ONE Islamic country voted for Israel in 1947/48. Why? Because they didn't want them to have their homeland back. That is why ANY set of data will be skewed IF a large number of islamic countries are included in the data set.

Those who claim as has been claimed here that Israel is a Pariah state then for them a reality check is in order. Israel targets terrorists and murderers. Hamas aims at any Jew, Israeli Arab or visitor they can get. Hamas apologists are just as guilty of the killing as Hamas themselves.

Greg

75% of the people Israel targeted in Gaza, were innocent civilians.

(COMMENT)

All IDF targets were to either deny ground to the hostile force, disrupt hostile operations, delay hostile movement, suppress hostile fire, neutralize hostile activity, destroy hostile forces, or influence hostile activity.

Under the law of armed conflict, the principle of proportionality (Rule 14) requires that the anticipated loss of civilian life and damage to civilian property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. IDF Commanders have the responsibility to attempt to minimize collateral damage to the greatest extent practicable (mitigation of collateral damage). "Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts." (Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.) The HAMAS Government cannot initiate a conflict and launch attacks from civilian inhabited areas, without taking the precaution of evacuating the civilians first, and then later claim excessive force was used in the face of collateral damage and casualties [using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations is prohibited].

If 75% of the of the casualties in Gaza, were innocent civilians, it would have been on the basis that HAMAS purposely weaponized the area and intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives by the IDF.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Your source: Hamas. No cred at all, and yet those like you hang on to every word of Hamas as if it is enlightened truth. Why is that when you KNOW Hamas are murdering terrorists!!\

Do you know all these strawman arguments make you look like a dope?

My source was UNRWA.

Re the ICC decision.

"The Prosecutor's decision marks the first time a State referral by an ICC States Party has ever been rejected by ... Prosecutor without even initiating an investigation," said lawyers Rodney Dixon and Geoffrey Nice in a statement.

Global court says will not investigate Israeli raid on Turkish flotilla Reuters

If you meant the ICJ ruling on the security fence....non-binding opinion. It was dismissed as biased. Wonder of wonders!!!!

Greg

It wasn't dismissed! They ruled on it and found it illegal.

In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self‑defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law.

 

[Billo_Really]

So, let me get this straight...

It is your contention that Israel intentionally targeted all (or a large percentage of) the civilians that it hit?

Absolutely.

 

[Billo_Really]

Billo_Really, et al,

There were no "innocent civilians" targeted by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) during any of the Gaza Strip Operations.

If one looks at the central attitude to "should Israel exist" and the historic answers to that then one gets the idea about historic bias. Not ONE Islamic country voted for Israel in 1947/48. Why? Because they didn't want them to have their homeland back. That is why ANY set of data will be skewed IF a large number of islamic countries are included in the data set.

Those who claim as has been claimed here that Israel is a Pariah state then for them a reality check is in order. Israel targets terrorists and murderers. Hamas aims at any Jew, Israeli Arab or visitor they can get. Hamas apologists are just as guilty of the killing as Hamas themselves.

Greg

75% of the people Israel targeted in Gaza, were innocent civilians.

(COMMENT)

All IDF targets were to either deny ground to the hostile force, disrupt hostile operations, delay hostile movement, suppress hostile fire, neutralize hostile activity, destroy hostile forces, or influence hostile activity.

Under the law of armed conflict, the principle of proportionality (Rule 14) requires that the anticipated loss of civilian life and damage to civilian property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. IDF Commanders have the responsibility to attempt to minimize collateral damage to the greatest extent practicable (mitigation of collateral damage). "Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts." (Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.) The HAMAS Government cannot initiate a conflict and launch attacks from civilian inhabited areas, without taking the precaution of evacuating the civilians first, and then later claim excessive force was used in the face of collateral damage and casualties [using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations is prohibited].

If 75% of the of the casualties in Gaza, were innocent civilians, it would have been on the basis that HAMAS purposely weaponized the area and intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives by the IDF.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm sorry, when you drop 2000 pound bombs that wipe out entire neighborhoods, you are targeting civilians.

 

[Kondor3]

So, let me get this straight...

It is your contention that Israel intentionally targeted all (or a large percentage of) the civilians that it hit?

Absolutely.

Do you distinguish between civilian casualties resulting from proximity to a legitimate military target, versus casualties resulting from targeting of civilians as malice aforethought?

 

[Beelzebub]

So, let me get this straight...

It is your contention that Israel intentionally targeted all (or a large percentage of) the civilians that it hit?

Absolutely.

Do you distinguish between civilian casualties resulting from proximity to a legitimate military target, versus casualties resulting from targeting of civilians as malice aforethought?

Which of those is watching kids playing football on the beach, then shelling them, then chasing the survivors with more H.E. shells?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

This is a question that has yet to be litigated.

Billo_Really, et al,

I think you might be mistaken. I believe you are talking about the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as opposed to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICJ responded to five (5) key questions. None of which address the Legal Status of the Occupation.

¾ “D. By thirteen votes to two,
All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall​

​

In this case, I was referring to the settlements themselves, which are illegal. They are the "illegal situation" the ICJ was referring to above. Furthermore, it is against the 4th Geneva Convention, to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

So the legality of the settlements, is not a debatable issue.

(COMMENT)

The Geneva Convention may --- or may NOT --- be applicable, since the Settlements are an outcome of a totally separate Israel-Palestinian set of agreements (Oslo Accords).

There may be a separate grievance concerning Jerusalem.

It is stipulated that about 10% of the Security Wall had encroached across the demarcation line; which is the portion of the Wall that might be "illegal." And that is the portion in which the ICJ questions recognition. The other 90%, built inside Israel, is absolutely legal (excluding the question of Jerusalem, claimed as the capitol by both).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

So, let me get this straight...

It is your contention that Israel intentionally targeted all (or a large percentage of) the civilians that it hit?

Absolutely.

Do you distinguish between civilian casualties resulting from proximity to a legitimate military target, versus casualties resulting from targeting of civilians as malice aforethought?

Which of those is watching kids playing football on the beach, then shelling them, then chasing the survivors with more H.E. shells?

1. the IDF folk have said that they were operating under the impression that they were targeting Hamas operatives, did they not?

2. of the 2000 Gazan fatalities, you reference four of them.

What is that? ( 4 / 2000 = .002, or .02% ? ).

You hold up one suspect incident representing .02% (two-tenths of one percent) of overall fatalities as representative of the whole?

Pardon me for labeling that as unconvincing in-the-main and statistically insignificant, even if they WERE intentionally targeted as child-civilians.

Which is by no means certain at this point, yes?

 

[Billo_Really]

The Geneva Convention may --- or may NOT --- be applicable, since the Settlements are an outcome of a totally separate Israel-Palestinian set of agreements (Oslo Accords).

There may be a separate grievance concerning Jerusalem.

It is stipulated that about 10% of the Security Wall had encroached across the demarcation line; which is the portion of the Wall that might be "illegal." And that is the portion in which the ICJ questions recognition. The other 90%, built inside Israel, is absolutely legal (excluding the question of Jerusalem, claimed as the capitol by both).

Most Respectfully,
R

Ever since Israel was found in breach of the Oslo Accords, they are basically null and void.

 

[Beelzebub]

So, let me get this straight...

It is your contention that Israel intentionally targeted all (or a large percentage of) the civilians that it hit?

Absolutely.

Do you distinguish between civilian casualties resulting from proximity to a legitimate military target, versus casualties resulting from targeting of civilians as malice aforethought?

Which of those is watching kids playing football on the beach, then shelling them, then chasing the survivors with more H.E. shells?

1. the IDF folk have said that they were operating under the impression that they were targeting Hamas operatives, did they not?

2. of the 2000 Gazan fatalities, you reference four of them.

What is that? ( 4 / 2000 = .002, or .02% ? ).

You hold up one suspect incident representing .02% (two-tenths of one percent) of overall fatalities as representative of the whole?

Pardon me for labeling that as unconvincing in-the-main and statistically insignificant, even if they WERE intentionally targeted as child-civilians.

Which is by no means certain at this point, yes?

Idiot. That is only the most blatant documented example of IDF murderous targeting. And even then you try to deny it. We know what you are up to. Lie all you like, but the world knows.

 

[toastman]

So, let me get this straight...

It is your contention that Israel intentionally targeted all (or a large percentage of) the civilians that it hit?

Absolutely.

Do you distinguish between civilian casualties resulting from proximity to a legitimate military target, versus casualties resulting from targeting of civilians as malice aforethought?

Which of those is watching kids playing football on the beach, then shelling them, then chasing the survivors with more H.E. shells?

1. the IDF folk have said that they were operating under the impression that they were targeting Hamas operatives, did they not?

2. of the 2000 Gazan fatalities, you reference four of them.

What is that? ( 4 / 2000 = .002, or .02% ? ).

You hold up one suspect incident representing .02% (two-tenths of one percent) of overall fatalities as representative of the whole?

Pardon me for labeling that as unconvincing in-the-main and statistically insignificant, even if they WERE intentionally targeted as child-civilians.

Which is by no means certain at this point, yes?

Idiot. That is only the most blatant documented example of IDF murderous targeting. And even then you try to deny it. We know what you are up to. Lie all you like, but the world knows.

I don't see any examples of murderous targeting of civilians. Care to provide them ?

 

[Kondor3]

So, let me get this straight...

It is your contention that Israel intentionally targeted all (or a large percentage of) the civilians that it hit?

Absolutely.

Do you distinguish between civilian casualties resulting from proximity to a legitimate military target, versus casualties resulting from targeting of civilians as malice aforethought?

Which of those is watching kids playing football on the beach, then shelling them, then chasing the survivors with more H.E. shells?

1. the IDF folk have said that they were operating under the impression that they were targeting Hamas operatives, did they not?

2. of the 2000 Gazan fatalities, you reference four of them.

What is that? ( 4 / 2000 = .002, or .02% ? ).

You hold up one suspect incident representing .02% (two-tenths of one percent) of overall fatalities as representative of the whole?

Pardon me for labeling that as unconvincing in-the-main and statistically insignificant, even if they WERE intentionally targeted as child-civilians.

Which is by no means certain at this point, yes?

Idiot...

Idiot?

Phukk you, Muslim ass-kisser. I would not have denigrated you in such a manner, but, given that you fired the first shot, have at it, pissant.

I think you just don't like the idea that I nailed your ass for trying to pass off an incident involving two-tenths-of-one-percent of all fatalities as representative of the whole.

Tough shit.

Deal with it.

...That is only the most blatant documented example of IDF murderous targeting. And even then you try to deny it. We know what you are up to. Lie all you like, but the world knows.

We know no such thing.

We know that four Palestinian kids were killed on a beach by elements of the Israeli AIr Force and/or Navy, from a distance, during the opening days of Gaza War II.

We have no idea at this juncture whether the Israelis knew they were targeting kids.

There is no "lie" at work here.

Merely a call to pause and not to jump to conclusions.

As well as calling bullshit on your amateurish attempt to portray an incident involving two tenths of one percent of all casualties as representative of the whole.

Fail.

Epic Fail.

Enjoy.

Better luck next time.

Punk.