Israel and Palestine.

[N. Escalona]

"It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons."
It's a part of the Geneva conventions. You don't accept it as an authority on how to go about making war?

Nope. Plenty of good guidelines in there though.

I never said it was illegal to attack areas with civilians. I said it was wrong. There's legal things that are wrong, and illegal things that aren't.

While I agree there is a difference between legality and morality, are you really saying that it's never permissible to attack cities? That's no way to fight a war. What do you mean?

As for the UN warehouse thing, you can call it a mistake if you want to. They knew it was a UN building, and they knew there were refugees there. It wasn't likely that there would be any weapons there and a hunch just isn't gonna cut it. Simply put, there's no evidence there were weapons there, please forgive me if I don't take "we don't do white phosphorus" - IDF's word for it.

Put yourself in the place of an IDF commander. Why the hell would you want to shell a UN building full of refugees? Is there possibly a more moronic thing you could think of to do than that? If you believed there was an ammunition dump at a nearby building, on the other hand, better shell the crap out of it. Why are you so unwilling to believe that a mistake has been made?  And if the IDF doesn't use white phosphorus then the earlier discussion is moot.

[GSx_Major]

That's a good point, it's not an authority on how to go about making war. It's international law.

And as I said, it's permissable but wrong.

The reason I don't believe it was the mistake you seem to think is that they hit it, realized what they had done, and then hit it a couple more times.

The IDF has admitted to using it.

[Dascoo]

Lol @ international law.

[N. Escalona]

That's a good point, it's not an authority on how to go about making war. It's international law.

Are you being sarcastic? I'm not a citizen of the international community, and neither is my country, and neither is Israel. Besides that, I think the Geneva Convention findings should be deprecated and updated.

The reason I don't believe it was the mistake you seem to think is that they hit it, realized what they had done, and then hit it a couple more times.

Can you clarify the part in boldface? How do you know that the commanders realized what was going on and proceeded to attack the UN building full of civilians? And you did not address my concern about the sanity of anyone who would consciously order an attack on a UN building full of civilians.

[GSx_Major]

"[the UN compound] was struck about a half-dozen times over a roughly two-hour period [...] Throughout this time, UN officials were frantically contacting Israeli officials to urge an end to the firing on the UN compound."
If it was ten minutes, I could see how there wouldn't be enough time to get down to the level of the troops doing the shooting. In two hours, however... And who said anything about sanity?

About the geneva conventions - Israel has ratified them, and thus they have to play by the rules. Your opinion on it doesn't change the facts.

[ElephantHunter]

@N. Escalona: Whether you agree with certain parts of international law is irrelevant. Those laws were created by the United Nations for the protection of the less fortunate. They should be respected.

[N. Escalona]

It's pretty extreme to assert that the Israeli who ordered the attack on the building was insane. Whether or not that's the case, it doesn't mean Israel in general is carrying out this war in an immoral way, as long as they are investigating the mistake (which they are).

AFAICS, you're probably right w.r.t. the Geneva Conventions - they did ratify them.

[Slashnoob]

/serious discussion mode off.
yeah, i can't say you deserve any real debating efforts. i'm not feeling like we've even made through any progress and i don't want to stop debating this, so i'll just wait for an educated opinion so i can reply to it with some seriousness.

I never said it was illegal to attack areas with civilians. I said it was wrong. There's legal things that are wrong, and illegal things that aren't.

not sure if you're talking to me, but i never said anything about it being illegal. i was talking about morally right or wrong.

And instead of saying that I contradict myself and say stupid things, please point them out instead of whining.

let's see.. the most obvious part of it being the part when you want less palestinian deaths, but you support the fact that the IDF should just retaliate in a 'tooth for a tooth' way. i'm not even sure you believe your own words on this, but if you are then it isn't contradicting, it's downright idiocy.

By now I should know not to be subtle in a discussion with you

LOL

What I said there was basically that your misconception of my conception of reality is unfortunate. I haven't dragged you into anything, you fail to even get the basics of what I'm saying and get angry at things I haven't said.

my misconception of your conception? holy crap man - you said a rocket for every rocket approach for 8 years would result in much less civilian deaths, and you're telling me i'm getting upset for a misconseption that has never happened?

And the result of a "tooth for a tooth" approach would be nowhere near as many dead palestinians (one percent as many for the last month). Actual teeth, that is.

sure, i'm not going to bother explaining this again. you could still try and explain how and why exactly will random rocket fire into gaza for 8 years will not cause more deaths than this campaign, like i did on how it would. note that i don't expect anything much anyway.
you're saying it would be one percent as many for the last month.. and that is somewhere near 12-14 casualties for eight years.
12-14 people will die in your opinion if israel will launch an MLRS for every qassam, and you think i'm the one with a twisted look of reality? go on and try to throw the excuse of me not understanding you again.
just for alittle help, those are the figures of how many rockets hit israel only in 2008:
MORTARS/ROCKETS
jan: 136/241
feb: 228/257
mar: 103/196
apr: 373/145
may: 206/149
june(1-18): 153/84
(lolceasefire)
june(18-30): 5/3
jul: 4/8
aug: 8/3
sept: 1/3
oct: 1/1
nov: 125/68
dec: 361/241

i figure these figurues would be even higher assuming lsrael launched a rocket for every rocket untill now. just explain how it would mean less deaths for anyone, i'm not even interested in hearing your opinion on how it would even contribute to diplomatic efforts.

Also LOL at somebody sourcing fox news. hahahahahahahahaha

take the time to read why exactly did i choose to bring a link of a FOX interview, and i never said i'm sourcing it for news.

[GSx_Major]

It is actually not wrong by Israel to hit that spot, I say again that there is a Geneva ammendmant that specificaly says the usage of civilians by a militant force does not render an area immune. Geneve convention disagrees with you and your logic.

not sure if you're talking to me, but i never said anything about it being illegal. i was talking about morally right or wrong.

Really?

the most obvious part of it being the part when you want less palestinian deaths, but you support the fact that the IDF should just retaliate in a 'tooth for a tooth' way.

I'll simplify then... There are less Israeli deaths than palestinian. As I said the first time, a literal interpretation would be disastrous.

you said a rocket for every rocket approach for 8 years would result in much less civilian deaths

No, I didn't say anything about the last 8 years. You can scroll up and read it again. And you're still avoiding the point, which was proportionate force.

As for the statistics, not news. And good job by Israel breaking the ceasefire, clearly Hamas wasn't doing their part.

It's pretty extreme to assert that the Israeli who ordered the attack on the building was insane.

You're the one who brought it up. I wouldn't call it insanity.

[LtKillroy]

Whether or not it is good or right is not what I am concerned with. But I have to respect Israel's decision to place winning the war over the effect it has on their other foreign relations. Too often governments are so concerned about civilian targets and hitting other non-military targets (as they should be, but to a degree) they end up getting bogged down in a war that lasts longer and ends up killing more anyway. So I have to respect Israel for trying to win, whether or not it was legal or "just" or even a good idea in the long run.

[Slashnoob]

Really?

yeah, i was quoting the Geneva ammendmant in order to provide a moral judging. it may come as a surprise, but as long as it comes to UN resolutions or Geneva ammendmant, i consider them useless and illegitimate as law enforcing even when that are at pro-israeli stands.
i'll admit that i wasn't very clear on that one though.

No, I didn't say anything about the last 8 years. You can scroll up and read it again. And you're still avoiding the point, which was proportionate force.

I was speaking about proportionate response. I was speaking about whether it would be considered okay if from the get-go, the first rocket that landed on israeli soil (2001). anyway, if you still mean that it would've been better if it took that approach only in this recent conflict, you'd be wrong again. simple tank shells that hit houses have managed to cause lots of havoc.. MLRS are atleast 10 times more harmful. i don't know the exact number of rockets and shells that were launched by hamas in the latest conflict, it's something around 360~. 360 MLRS rockets, which are by the way alot more powerful than even the Grad missiles the hamas has, multiplied by the escelation factor - means lots more dead palestinians. choosing not to believe this is just being dumb.

As for the statistics, not news. And good job by Israel breaking the ceasefire, clearly Hamas wasn't doing their part.

i don't get this part.. what does that suppose to mean?

[N. Escalona]

Some of us in here need to calm down, this is a civil discussion.
Also:

i consider tham useless and illegitimate as law enforcing even when that are at pro-israeli stands.

What do you consider illegitimate about them?

[Slashnoob]

ew what a shameful typo by me q:

the thing that helps me consider UN or any other organisation that's supposed to monitor global conflicts and be as unbiased as possible, as illegitimate, is the simple fact that i think they are biased to no end.
i more or less stopped following the UN's decisions and resolutions ever since it condemned Israel for bombing Saddam's nuclear reactors in operation Opera.

when a peace keeping organisation chooses to condemn a country for attacking a nuclear reactor that was more than obviously going to be used to manufacture nuclear weapons, it loses credibility in my eyes. it simply relied on the fact that it wasn't a politically correct attack, since the reactor wasn't finished. yeah, the main point was not letting it become operational.

i know that ignoring the UN may sound undiplomatic as hell, but hey - lucky i'm no politician or diplomat.

[GSx_Major]

I was speaking about proportionate response. I was speaking about whether it would be considered okay if from the get-go, the first rocket that landed on israeli soil (2001).

you said a rocket for every rocket approach for 8 years would result in much less civilian deaths

Yeah, you said it and I didn't. Then you claimed I said it.

choosing not to believe this is just being dumb.

Of course I don't believe it. Especially since it's not what I said.

i don't get this part.. what does that suppose to mean?

That last time, Hamas tried diplomacy and Israel didn't.

the thing that helps me consider UN or any other organisation that's supposed to monitor global conflicts and be as unbiased as possible, as illegitimate, is the simple fact that i think they are biased to no end.

Says Mr. Objective.

As for operation Opera, nothing at the time suggested it was right to take it out, hence the response from the UN...

[N. Escalona]

Okay, important clarification, I looked this up, and the quotation about incendiary weapons is not part of the Geneva Conventions, but rather part of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which was an annexe to the Geneva Conventions come up more than 3 decades later. The quotation is part of Protocol III of the said Convention, and Israel never ratified Protocol III*. The whole white-phosphorus-prohibited thing doesn't apply as far as international law is concerned.

@Slashnoob: Sure, but that's the UN. What about formal treaties than have been signed by states, such as the Geneva Conventions?

*Source: http://www.unog.ch/__80256ee600585943.nsf/(httpPages)/3ce7cfc0aa4a7548c12571c00039cb0c?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1#_Section1

[Slashnoob]

Of course I don't believe it. Especially since it's not what I said.

Your choice.

That last time, Hamas tried diplomacy and Israel didn't.

Diplomacy while launching Qassams is maybe acceptable by your standards. Fortunately for me, it is not, around here. Hopefully Israel is going to elect a right-wing government that will retaliate even harder everytime Hamas launches a rocket, then tries diplomacy the next day. Speaking of diplomacy, 15 rockets have landed inside Israel today, and still no Israeli reaction.

Says Mr. Objective.

Ooooh, I'm offended.


N. Escalona:

@Slashnoob: Sure, but that's the UN. What about formal treaties than have been signed by states, such as the Geneva Conventions?

True, I shouldn't have anything against Geneva conventions or the people behind them in general, I just find them irrelevant since they are not being well followed in any kind of conflict nowdays anyway, and now only by Israel or terror groups.

[GSx_Major]

Okay, important clarification, I looked this up, and the quotation about incendiary weapons is not part of the Geneva Conventions, but rather part of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which was an annexe to the Geneva Conventions come up more than 3 decades later. The quotation is part of Protocol III of the said Convention, and Israel never ratified Protocol III*. The whole white-phosphorus-prohibited thing doesn't apply as far as international law is concerned.

Interesting, I wasn't aware that Israel hadn't ratified it. You might wanna read up a bit more on the geneva conventions, though. It's a shame there are loopholes in the CWC as well, though... It burns in the wrong way to be banned.

Speaking of diplomacy, 15 rockets have landed inside Israel today, and still no Israeli reaction.

The increase in rockets is a response from Hamas after Israel broke the ceasefire and attacked... And the IDF really did a good job on stopping the attacks, if they're back to the level they were before the ceasefire.

Of course I don't believe it. Especially since it's not what I said.

Your choice.

I said responded in kind, you said respond with stronger weapons.

[Slashnoob]

No other armed force in the world could've bring Hamas' rocket industry down completley in such a short time. The result would be much different if IDF would've entered stage 3 of the operation, although it was called off due to the current Israeli government being center-left wing, global pressure, and the upcoming elections. The next government is probably going to be right-wing, and another operation will probably take place in about a year if not less. If an operation in Gaza under a right-wing government will take place, it's going to be a whole different ball game after it's done.

The ones to break the cease-fire after the IDF fully retreaded from Gaza some weeks ago were Hamas. The first breaking of the cease-fire happened when Hamas hit an IDF jeep by using an IED or some other mine, and the retaliation afterwards was an IAF helicopter intercepting the person responsible for that mine by shooting a missile at it's motorbike when he was running away. Afterwards the IDF kept it's quiet.
The second violation of the cease-fire was throughout the recent weekend when more than 20 rockets and shells have been launched at Israel. In response, IAF has attacked some tunnels and a Hamas HQ of some sort (no further details about that yet) a few hours ago.

[GSx_Major]

So, the supposed reason for the attack wasn't possible?

The ones to break the cease-fire after the IDF fully retreaded from Gaza

The current ceasefire was broken before the Israeli retreat, when IDF soldiers shot a palestinian civilian walking on his own land.