corrupt US government blocks UN from having an independent investigation into 61 murdered palestines

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: corrupt US government blocks UN from having an independent investigation into 61 murdered palestines
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can hardly believe you asked this...

BLUF: There is no avenue approved by the Arab Palestinians for Peace. Not because they are no alternatives; but, because the Arab Palestinian rules them out.

[
That is all in response to Israel's illegal, violent, aggression against the Palestinians.

Are the Palestinians only allowed to sit on their hands?

(COMMENT)

When I read this, three thoughts (and associated questions) immediately came to mind; the imagery was vivid (like a bolt of lightning):

• In Posting #467, there are five areas taken either from the Fourth Geneva Convention or from the one of the conventions in which the international community has elaborated 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts (as the UN is fond of saying, "in all its forms"). Are you suggesting that the Arab Palestinian should be allowed to engage in any (or all) of the prohibited criminal categories?

• Your question leads me to believe that the Arab Palestinians would prefer to continue the path and follow of violence (armed struggle being "the only way to liberate Palestine").

• When The 1967 Khartoum Resolutions ("no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations") were announced, the Arab League pretty much ruled out the practices outlined in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​

There is no real advocate for peace, mutual recognition or good faith negotiations on the Arab Palestinian.

"Jihad and the Armed Resistance
is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine,
and the restoration of all the rights,
together with, of course,
all forms of political and diplomatic struggle
including in the media, public and legal [spheres];
with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle."
→ Khaled Meshal (2012)
​

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the Palestinian's responses are to prevent or reverse Israeli terrorist and illegal acts against them.

Who are the illegal terrorists here?

All of the Palestinian's responses are to prevent or reverse Israeli terrorist and illegal acts against them.

How would Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians accomplish either goal?

 

[Shusha]

You left out the most important part.

The most important part being that the mere presence of Jews is "aggression" and therefore legal and moral cause to kill them?

 

[member]

RE: corrupt US government blocks UN from having an independent investigation into 61 murdered palestines
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can hardly believe you asked this...

BLUF: There is no avenue approved by the Arab Palestinians for Peace. Not because they are no alternatives; but, because the Arab Palestinian rules them out.

[
That is all in response to Israel's illegal, violent, aggression against the Palestinians.

Are the Palestinians only allowed to sit on their hands?

(COMMENT)

When I read this, three thoughts (and associated questions) immediately came to mind; the imagery was vivid (like a bolt of lightning):

• In Posting #467, there are five areas taken either from the Fourth Geneva Convention or from the one of the conventions in which the international community has elaborated 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts (as the UN is fond of saying, "in all its forms"). Are you suggesting that the Arab Palestinian should be allowed to engage in any (or all) of the prohibited criminal categories?

• Your question leads me to believe that the Arab Palestinians would prefer to continue the path and follow of violence (armed struggle being "the only way to liberate Palestine").

• When The 1967 Khartoum Resolutions ("no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations") were announced, the Arab League pretty much ruled out the practices outlined in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​

There is no real advocate for peace, mutual recognition or good faith negotiations on the Arab Palestinian.

"Jihad and the Armed Resistance
is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine,
and the restoration of all the rights,
together with, of course,
all forms of political and diplomatic struggle
including in the media, public and legal [spheres];
with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle."
→ Khaled Meshal (2012)
​

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the Palestinian's responses are to prevent or reverse Israeli terrorist and illegal acts against them.

Who are the illegal terrorists here?

Who are the illegal terrorists here (as opposed to legal islamic terrorists)?

You can easily find them. They are the ones heeding the call to gee-had by bearded loons who represent your "religion". You can find them attempting to breach the Israeli border. They're flying kites with swastikas.

"...They're flying kites with swastikas."




...they and (he ) don't care.......

wonder if all those kites say "made in china?" where did they get all those kites comes from?



is there a sweat-shop kite factory at the camp or an under-ground one ?



they seem to have artistic skills - drawing or sewing symbols onto kites....or...did they get a delivery of them from amazon.....?

 

[Humanity]

Your claim that Israel is murdering innocent civilians is patently false

How many more links would like me to post that proves you a liar?

Palestinian journalist killed in Israel-Gaza protests

You blind defense of Israel is that of a sick mind!

Again with the logical fallacies and the personal attacks. Clearly you are demonstrating an inability to address the actual content of my posts, so you resort to inaccurate language, appealing to emotion and false accusations of both my claims and my person.

The argument that "Israel is murdering innocent civilians" remains false, regardless of how many logical fallacies you use. My defense of Israel is not the least bit blind, but a reasoned, well-researched response to international law and facts on the ground. So let's go over what I actually have said:

1. Israel is defending a belligerent attack on her border. (Completely legal).
2. Israel has used a combination of non-lethal riot control methods and lethal force to do so. (Completely legal).
3. Israel has killed combatants. This accounts for ~85% of those killed. (Absolutely, without doubt legal).
4. Israel has killed a small number of non-combatant civilians who have failed to comply with instruction and thus fall under suspicion of activities harmful to the security of Israel. (Legal.)
5. Israel has killed non-combatant civilians due to misfire, ricochet, error, or similar circumstances due to their proximity to combatants and those posing a threat to Israel's security. (Legal for Israel -- illegal for Gaza).
6. Israel's actions are proportionate to the security threat posed. (Legal).

Yesterday, you attempted to claim that Israel is in breach of the Geneva Conventions. Rocco and I demonstrated, using documentary evidence from the actual Conventions, that your claim has no basis and that indeed, as outlined above, Israel's actions are well within the parameters of the Conventions and international law governing conflict.

Today, you have no response to our discussion of objective law as it pertains to Israel or as it pertains to the government of Gaza -- which is demonstrably in breach of said law -- and resort to your typical arguments based on emotive language, false accusations of murder and personal attacks. Thus, it is patently clear that you are the one arguing from a position of "blindess". A blind demonization of Israel.

Shusha, thats a lovely load of text to deflect from the very simple fact you have been caught out on a lie.

Try and stick to the one thing at a time!

You, know, the one where you have been proven a liar!

You have proven nothing except that your entire 'debate' against Israel is based on emotional arguments having no objective reality in law. Which is simply a demonization of Israel and Israel supporters.

I provided the applicable law to support my case.

Sadly, you are way off the mark Shusha!

I am not 'emotionally' involved, I make no "emotional arguments" I prefer to leave that particular specialty to Team Israel.

The sheer 'emotional arrogance' of Team Israel in believing that Israel is above everyone and everything is one of those historical traits that has built such a dislike of Jews and a dislike of Israel.

The sooner that Team Israel steps down from its high horse are stops defending the indefensible the sooner progress can be made.

 

[Shusha]

The sooner that Team Israel steps down from its high horse are stops defending the indefensible the sooner progress can be made.

Defend the indefensible?!

Do you want to know what is indefensible? This is indefensible: .

Do you want to know what is indefensible? This is indefensible:

What else? Your teammate P F Tinmore who insists it is permissible to kill immigrants and their descendants because they are not protected persons under the law -- well, you know, as long as they are Jews.



The LAW is perfectly defensible. Current international law concerning civilians and protected persons holds the standard that States are permitted to use force, including lethal force, to protect their citizens and defend their sovereign territory. The presence of civilians does not limit the use of such force, including lethal force, nor does presence of civilians render combatants or military objectives immune to force, including force which is lethal. Further, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of civilians rests with ALL Parties to the conflict and rests especially with those who, due to their proximity and leadership (aka government), can direct the civilian population to safe areas and away from military objectives. THAT is the current legal standard and therefore the ONLY standard you can hold Israel to.

Now, wishing to change the LAW is also perfectly defensible. If you believe the law is inadequate, neglectful, or inhumane it is perfectly acceptable to demand a change to that law. If you want to change the law to state that the presence of civilians renders a military objective or combatants immune to attack -- you can certainly make your argument. But you can't hold Israel to a standard of law which does not yet exist.

You seem to want to make changes to the law to increase protection of civilians. Its a noble goal and not one I would argue against, in principle. The question, though, is HOW would you do this? Both how would you frame the language of such a law and how would you put it to practical effect? Be specific. Don't give me a lazy answer like, "Stop killing people". The law and its practical application need to address how to respond to people, groups or governments who pose a threat to the safety of your citizens and to the integrity of your sovereignty.

I'll start you off with a couple of suggestions: Economic sanctions? Blockades? Defensive weaponry? Walls? Removing civilians from areas of military activity? Riot control measures? Drones? Targeted attacks? Arrest and detention? Intelligence-gathering? Snipers? Skunk water? Dropping of leaflets and social media coverage?


If you can't approach this in a logical, objective way which applies to every State, then you most certainly ARE acting on and arguing from emotion. And your emotions are heavily biased against the Jewish people.

 

[Humanity]

The sooner that Team Israel steps down from its high horse are stops defending the indefensible the sooner progress can be made.

Defend the indefensible?!

Do you want to know what is indefensible? This is indefensible: .

Do you want to know what is indefensible? This is indefensible: View attachment 199277

What else? Your teammate P F Tinmore who insists it is permissible to kill immigrants and their descendants because they are not protected persons under the law -- well, you know, as long as they are Jews.



The LAW is perfectly defensible. Current international law concerning civilians and protected persons holds the standard that States are permitted to use force, including lethal force, to protect their citizens and defend their sovereign territory. The presence of civilians does not limit the use of such force, including lethal force, nor does presence of civilians render combatants or military objectives immune to force, including force which is lethal. Further, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of civilians rests with ALL Parties to the conflict and rests especially with those who, due to their proximity and leadership (aka government), can direct the civilian population to safe areas and away from military objectives. THAT is the current legal standard and therefore the ONLY standard you can hold Israel to.

Now, wishing to change the LAW is also perfectly defensible. If you believe the law is inadequate, neglectful, or inhumane it is perfectly acceptable to demand a change to that law. If you want to change the law to state that the presence of civilians renders a military objective or combatants immune to attack -- you can certainly make your argument. But you can't hold Israel to a standard of law which does not yet exist.

You seem to want to make changes to the law to increase protection of civilians. Its a noble goal and not one I would argue against, in principle. The question, though, is HOW would you do this? Both how would you frame the language of such a law and how would you put it to practical effect? Be specific. Don't give me a lazy answer like, "Stop killing people". The law and its practical application need to address how to respond to people, groups or governments who pose a threat to the safety of your citizens and to the integrity of your sovereignty.

I'll start you off with a couple of suggestions: Economic sanctions? Blockades? Defensive weaponry? Walls? Removing civilians from areas of military activity? Riot control measures? Drones? Targeted attacks? Arrest and detention? Intelligence-gathering? Snipers? Skunk water? Dropping of leaflets and social media coverage?


If you can't approach this in a logical, objective way which applies to every State, then you most certainly ARE acting on and arguing from emotion. And your emotions are heavily biased against the Jewish people.

This is simple deflection!

"I am not going to deal with what you are saying, I am just going to deflect with other shit"...

Yep, classic zionut tactic...

Whatever else you wrote, sorry, didn't get past the deflections!

C- must try harder

 

[Shusha]

This is simple deflection!

Its not deflection. I've been asking you since the first moment that you joined this thread to discuss the responsibility of the government of Gaza with respect to the conflict, and specifically concerning the protection of civilians. The conflict does not happen in a vacuum with only Israel and empty space.

You have ignored me at every turn. Just like you ignored the rest of my post. I can only conclude that you have no reasonable response which won't reveal your emotional biases.

 

[Shusha]

And as for deflection in general, go ahead. Ask me a question. I won't shy away from answering. I won't ignore you. I will address it honestly. I'd appreciate the same from you.

 

[USAF 2023]

This is simple deflection!

Its not deflection. I've been asking you since the first moment that you joined this thread to discuss the responsibility of the government of Gaza with respect to the conflict, and specifically concerning the protection of civilians. The conflict does not happen in a vacuum with only Israel and empty space.

You have ignored me at every turn. Just like you ignored the rest of my post. I can only conclude that you have no reasonable response which won't reveal your emotional biases.

You brought up valid facts that can’t be disputed so he prefers to ignore them. Consider the source. It bothers him that Israel exists

 

[Shusha]

You brought up valid facts that can’t be disputed so he prefers to ignore them. Consider the source. It bothers him that Israel exists

Yeah, I know. I just find it particularly unnerving that people like him portray themselves as being objective and unbiased and believe equally in the rights of both peoples, when they are just the vanilla brand of anti-Israel (anti-Jewish).

And its frustrating to be on a debate board with people who are so stuck on the "Israel is bad, its all Israel's fault, only Israel is responsible for fixing it, Arab Palestinians can do no wrong" train that they are unable to see the landscape they are driving through, let alone articulate their own arguments. That is what frustrates me. That they can't articulate beyond one-liners and slogans and ignoring my posts.

And I get that he sees me in somewhat the same way -- that I am so stuck on the "Israel can do no wrong" that I refuse to see the other side. Which, btw, I don't thing is true -- I see plenty of places where Israel does wrong but I never get to argue any of those points because we can't get there from here.

Let's say we actually wanted to discuss Israel's actions in Gaza over the past couple months. And we wanted to discuss whether or not it was within the limits of current international law and standards. We'd have to look at those standards and then compare those standards to Israel's orders and actions. Its the only reasonable way to approach the problem.

But we can't get there from a place of "Israel murders innocent civilians in a peaceful protest". Why? Because framing the problem in that way assumes Israel's guilt from the outset and mischaracterizes the conflict and the participants at the border. So before we can get to discussing the problem, I have to address the assumption of guilt and the mischaracterization. That assumption of guilt and mischaracterization of Arab Palestinians is the core of the anti-Israel (anti-Jewish) emotional argument.

That is why no one hears me argue the places where Israel was wrong. (For example, the very journalist Humanity brought up in one of his posts).

And frankly, this is exactly the same problem that Israel and TI has with the UN. The UN doesn't begin from a place of law and international standards -- they begin with the assumption of guilt on Israel's part and that Israel's actions can be judged and determined without context.

 

[admonit]

You brought up valid facts that can’t be disputed so he prefers to ignore them. Consider the source. It bothers him that Israel exists

Yeah, I know. I just find it particularly unnerving that people like him portray themselves as being objective and unbiased and believe equally in the rights of both peoples, when they are just the vanilla brand of anti-Israel (anti-Jewish).

And its frustrating to be on a debate board with people who are so stuck on the "Israel is bad, its all Israel's fault, only Israel is responsible for fixing it, Arab Palestinians can do no wrong" train that they are unable to see the landscape they are driving through, let alone articulate their own arguments. That is what frustrates me. That they can't articulate beyond one-liners and slogans and ignoring my posts.

And I get that he sees me in somewhat the same way -- that I am so stuck on the "Israel can do no wrong" that I refuse to see the other side. Which, btw, I don't thing is true -- I see plenty of places where Israel does wrong but I never get to argue any of those points because we can't get there from here.

Let's say we actually wanted to discuss Israel's actions in Gaza over the past couple months. And we wanted to discuss whether or not it was within the limits of current international law and standards. We'd have to look at those standards and then compare those standards to Israel's orders and actions. Its the only reasonable way to approach the problem.

But we can't get there from a place of "Israel murders innocent civilians in a peaceful protest". Why? Because framing the problem in that way assumes Israel's guilt from the outset and mischaracterizes the conflict and the participants at the border. So before we can get to discussing the problem, I have to address the assumption of guilt and the mischaracterization. That assumption of guilt and mischaracterization of Arab Palestinians is the core of the anti-Israel (anti-Jewish) emotional argument.

That is why no one hears me argue the places where Israel was wrong. (For example, the very journalist Humanity brought up in one of his posts).

And frankly, this is exactly the same problem that Israel and TI has with the UN. The UN doesn't begin from a place of law and international standards -- they begin with the assumption of guilt on Israel's part and that Israel's actions can be judged and determined without context.

Your expectation of any honest debates with these people is very naive. Actually all of them are:
- either immoral
- or stupid
- or ignorant
- or any combination of above.

 

[USAF 2023]

You brought up valid facts that can’t be disputed so he prefers to ignore them. Consider the source. It bothers him that Israel exists

Yeah, I know. I just find it particularly unnerving that people like him portray themselves as being objective and unbiased and believe equally in the rights of both peoples, when they are just the vanilla brand of anti-Israel (anti-Jewish).

And its frustrating to be on a debate board with people who are so stuck on the "Israel is bad, its all Israel's fault, only Israel is responsible for fixing it, Arab Palestinians can do no wrong" train that they are unable to see the landscape they are driving through, let alone articulate their own arguments. That is what frustrates me. That they can't articulate beyond one-liners and slogans and ignoring my posts.

And I get that he sees me in somewhat the same way -- that I am so stuck on the "Israel can do no wrong" that I refuse to see the other side. Which, btw, I don't thing is true -- I see plenty of places where Israel does wrong but I never get to argue any of those points because we can't get there from here.

Let's say we actually wanted to discuss Israel's actions in Gaza over the past couple months. And we wanted to discuss whether or not it was within the limits of current international law and standards. We'd have to look at those standards and then compare those standards to Israel's orders and actions. Its the only reasonable way to approach the problem.

But we can't get there from a place of "Israel murders innocent civilians in a peaceful protest". Why? Because framing the problem in that way assumes Israel's guilt from the outset and mischaracterizes the conflict and the participants at the border. So before we can get to discussing the problem, I have to address the assumption of guilt and the mischaracterization. That assumption of guilt and mischaracterization of Arab Palestinians is the core of the anti-Israel (anti-Jewish) emotional argument.

That is why no one hears me argue the places where Israel was wrong. (For example, the very journalist Humanity brought up in one of his posts).

And frankly, this is exactly the same problem that Israel and TI has with the UN. The UN doesn't begin from a place of law and international standards -- they begin with the assumption of guilt on Israel's part and that Israel's actions can be judged and determined without context.

Your expectation of any honest debates with these people is very naive. Actually all of them are:
- either immoral
- or stupid
- or ignorant
- or any combination of above.

I’m agreeing with you. That was my point

 

[P F Tinmore]

the presence of civilians renders a military objective or combatants immune to attack

Israel destroyed 18,000 civilian homes under the guise that they were military objectives. Yet they only killed a few hundred militants. You probably did not notice that those numbers do not add up.

 

[USAF 2023]

You brought up valid facts that can’t be disputed so he prefers to ignore them. Consider the source. It bothers him that Israel exists

Yeah, I know. I just find it particularly unnerving that people like him portray themselves as being objective and unbiased and believe equally in the rights of both peoples, when they are just the vanilla brand of anti-Israel (anti-Jewish).

And its frustrating to be on a debate board with people who are so stuck on the "Israel is bad, its all Israel's fault, only Israel is responsible for fixing it, Arab Palestinians can do no wrong" train that they are unable to see the landscape they are driving through, let alone articulate their own arguments. That is what frustrates me. That they can't articulate beyond one-liners and slogans and ignoring my posts.

And I get that he sees me in somewhat the same way -- that I am so stuck on the "Israel can do no wrong" that I refuse to see the other side. Which, btw, I don't thing is true -- I see plenty of places where Israel does wrong but I never get to argue any of those points because we can't get there from here.

Let's say we actually wanted to discuss Israel's actions in Gaza over the past couple months. And we wanted to discuss whether or not it was within the limits of current international law and standards. We'd have to look at those standards and then compare those standards to Israel's orders and actions. Its the only reasonable way to approach the problem.

But we can't get there from a place of "Israel murders innocent civilians in a peaceful protest". Why? Because framing the problem in that way assumes Israel's guilt from the outset and mischaracterizes the conflict and the participants at the border. So before we can get to discussing the problem, I have to address the assumption of guilt and the mischaracterization. That assumption of guilt and mischaracterization of Arab Palestinians is the core of the anti-Israel (anti-Jewish) emotional argument.

That is why no one hears me argue the places where Israel was wrong. (For example, the very journalist Humanity brought up in one of his posts).

And frankly, this is exactly the same problem that Israel and TI has with the UN. The UN doesn't begin from a place of law and international standards -- they begin with the assumption of guilt on Israel's part and that Israel's actions can be judged and determined without context.

I understand what you mean but on the other hand you are wasting your time. It’s the same mentality that insists that Egypt did not block the Straits and that the U.N. didn’t leave.
Prior to 1967 they were denied access to their Holy Sites. When asked why Israel would agree to this there is no response. Just take pleasure in the fact that E. Jerusalem will never fall into the hands of those Palestinian Savages and Israel will not give up any more territory

 

[Slyhunter]

the presence of civilians renders a military objective or combatants immune to attack

Israel destroyed 18,000 civilian homes under the guise that they were military objectives. Yet they only killed a few hundred militants. You probably did not notice that those numbers do not add up.

I'm tired of this Bulldoze the whole place already. I don't care.

 

[Shusha]

You brought up valid facts that can’t be disputed so he prefers to ignore them. Consider the source. It bothers him that Israel exists

Yeah, I know. I just find it particularly unnerving that people like him portray themselves as being objective and unbiased and believe equally in the rights of both peoples, when they are just the vanilla brand of anti-Israel (anti-Jewish).

And its frustrating to be on a debate board with people who are so stuck on the "Israel is bad, its all Israel's fault, only Israel is responsible for fixing it, Arab Palestinians can do no wrong" train that they are unable to see the landscape they are driving through, let alone articulate their own arguments. That is what frustrates me. That they can't articulate beyond one-liners and slogans and ignoring my posts.

And I get that he sees me in somewhat the same way -- that I am so stuck on the "Israel can do no wrong" that I refuse to see the other side. Which, btw, I don't thing is true -- I see plenty of places where Israel does wrong but I never get to argue any of those points because we can't get there from here.

Let's say we actually wanted to discuss Israel's actions in Gaza over the past couple months. And we wanted to discuss whether or not it was within the limits of current international law and standards. We'd have to look at those standards and then compare those standards to Israel's orders and actions. Its the only reasonable way to approach the problem.

But we can't get there from a place of "Israel murders innocent civilians in a peaceful protest". Why? Because framing the problem in that way assumes Israel's guilt from the outset and mischaracterizes the conflict and the participants at the border. So before we can get to discussing the problem, I have to address the assumption of guilt and the mischaracterization. That assumption of guilt and mischaracterization of Arab Palestinians is the core of the anti-Israel (anti-Jewish) emotional argument.

That is why no one hears me argue the places where Israel was wrong. (For example, the very journalist Humanity brought up in one of his posts).

And frankly, this is exactly the same problem that Israel and TI has with the UN. The UN doesn't begin from a place of law and international standards -- they begin with the assumption of guilt on Israel's part and that Israel's actions can be judged and determined without context.

Your expectation of any honest debates with these people is very naive. Actually all of them are:
- either immoral
- or stupid
- or ignorant
- or any combination of above.

I know. Yet I continue to live in hope.

 

[Shusha]

the presence of civilians renders a military objective or combatants immune to attack

Israel destroyed 18,000 civilian homes under the guise that they were military objectives. Yet they only killed a few hundred militants. You probably did not notice that those numbers do not add up.

You haven't stated what event you are referring to, eliminating the context. I'm going to respond assuming you mean Operation Protective Edge, if that's incorrect, please clarify.

Your error is in misunderstanding the legal standard of proportionality . The legal standard is not measured in number of homes destroyed or number of combatants killed or any other simple tit-for-tat silliness. The legal standard is: the minimum necessary military action to achieve the military objective.

What is the military objective for Israel with respect to Gaza?

 

[USAF 2023]

You brought up valid facts that can’t be disputed so he prefers to ignore them. Consider the source. It bothers him that Israel exists

Yeah, I know. I just find it particularly unnerving that people like him portray themselves as being objective and unbiased and believe equally in the rights of both peoples, when they are just the vanilla brand of anti-Israel (anti-Jewish).

And its frustrating to be on a debate board with people who are so stuck on the "Israel is bad, its all Israel's fault, only Israel is responsible for fixing it, Arab Palestinians can do no wrong" train that they are unable to see the landscape they are driving through, let alone articulate their own arguments. That is what frustrates me. That they can't articulate beyond one-liners and slogans and ignoring my posts.

And I get that he sees me in somewhat the same way -- that I am so stuck on the "Israel can do no wrong" that I refuse to see the other side. Which, btw, I don't thing is true -- I see plenty of places where Israel does wrong but I never get to argue any of those points because we can't get there from here.

Let's say we actually wanted to discuss Israel's actions in Gaza over the past couple months. And we wanted to discuss whether or not it was within the limits of current international law and standards. We'd have to look at those standards and then compare those standards to Israel's orders and actions. Its the only reasonable way to approach the problem.

But we can't get there from a place of "Israel murders innocent civilians in a peaceful protest". Why? Because framing the problem in that way assumes Israel's guilt from the outset and mischaracterizes the conflict and the participants at the border. So before we can get to discussing the problem, I have to address the assumption of guilt and the mischaracterization. That assumption of guilt and mischaracterization of Arab Palestinians is the core of the anti-Israel (anti-Jewish) emotional argument.

That is why no one hears me argue the places where Israel was wrong. (For example, the very journalist Humanity brought up in one of his posts).

And frankly, this is exactly the same problem that Israel and TI has with the UN. The UN doesn't begin from a place of law and international standards -- they begin with the assumption of guilt on Israel's part and that Israel's actions can be judged and determined without context.

Your expectation of any honest debates with these people is very naive. Actually all of them are:
- either immoral
- or stupid
- or ignorant
- or any combination of above.

I know. Yet I continue to live in hope.

Don’t It’s a waste of your time and breath

 

[P F Tinmore]

the presence of civilians renders a military objective or combatants immune to attack

Israel destroyed 18,000 civilian homes under the guise that they were military objectives. Yet they only killed a few hundred militants. You probably did not notice that those numbers do not add up.

You haven't stated what event you are referring to, eliminating the context. I'm going to respond assuming you mean Operation Protective Edge, if that's incorrect, please clarify.

Your error is in misunderstanding the legal standard of proportionality . The legal standard is not measured in number of homes destroyed or number of combatants killed or any other simple tit-for-tat silliness. The legal standard is: the minimum necessary military action to achieve the military objective.

What is the military objective for Israel with respect to Gaza?

Good question. Bombing civilian homes and killing civilians without the presence of militants looks like targeting civilians.

 

[Shusha]

Good question. Bombing civilian homes and killing civilians without the presence of militants looks like targeting civilians.

Lol. Love how you say it is a good question and then entirely ignore it. You are doing EXACTLY what I complained about -- which is attacking the problem from an assumption of wrong-doing and evil from Israel rather than from a place of standards of law.

Go back to the good question. What is the military goal for Israel with respect to Gaza?