It's May 16, 2024, 09:55:31 AM
No I don't subscribe to this notion, but I can understand how a Palestinian person whose family was shelled to bits by the IDF could.
Quote from: YGZ on July 10, 2006, 08:15:15 AM No I don't subscribe to this notion, but I can understand how a Palestinian person whose family was shelled to bits by the IDF could. Of course, just like you can understand an Israeli whose daughter was killed by a Kassam missile launched by Hamas activists, just like you can understand the Israeli whose son was blown up to bits, by a Palestinian terrorist bomber, while going by public transportation. It's expected of people who are overflooded with such emotions to loose the ability to think rationally. The debate is about those people around the world who haven't been touched personally by such events that, nevertheless, neglect logic and haste to generalize and stereotype people according to proportionately uncommon actions. Belonging to a nation does not entail sharing a single set of views and traits, despite what Hitler may have claimed. PS: Belonging to an army does not entail being fond of every single order received.
Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on July 10, 2006, 08:57:41 AMQuote from: YGZ on July 10, 2006, 08:15:15 AM No I don't subscribe to this notion, but I can understand how a Palestinian person whose family was shelled to bits by the IDF could. Of course, just like you can understand an Israeli whose daughter was killed by a Kassam missile launched by Hamas activists, just like you can understand the Israeli whose son was blown up to bits, by a Palestinian terrorist bomber, while going by public transportation. It's expected of people who are overflooded with such emotions to loose the ability to think rationally. The debate is about those people around the world who haven't been touched personally by such events that, nevertheless, neglect logic and haste to generalize and stereotype people according to proportionately uncommon actions. Belonging to a nation does not entail sharing a single set of views and traits, despite what Hitler may have claimed. PS: Belonging to an army does not entail being fond of every single order received.Exactly.
, I don't see why an army should be held as a collective representation of a nation or race.
Question is whether you view the terms "cause of death" and "responsibility for death" as perpetual equivalents?I agree that in a single legal system, under a single convention, resulting in a single sovereign assigned to maintain the safety of his subordinates (BTW this is the only political environment in which TRUE law can exist), both concepts should be, and are, equivalent. However, when we are debating about clashes of two, or more, sovereign entities, these concepts deviate from each other in meaning.In a war, what responsibility does one side hold toward the casualties of another?- None, the legal responsibility is laid upon the sovereign to which the casualty pertains.That is because the fundamental reason for the existence of a sovereign is his capacity to provide the safety and protection of his subordinates- by failing to do so he undermines the convention with his subordinates, hence the reason for his political power and existence. There are no actual legal obligations between two sides at war- that's what war means by definition. Law exists only as part of a convention. War means absence of convention between the sides. Hence, "cause of death" and "responsibility for death" mean different things when we're not discussing a situation within the boundaries of a single set of laws under a single sovereign. War means absence of convention between the sides, war means absence of agreement between the sides. Absence of agreement between the sides means absence of unitary law applicable to both sides, hence the absence of legal responsibility between the sides.P.S This is why the concept of International Law is hollow of meaning, because this is the only law originating in a non-existent sovereign. A law does not exist without a sovereign. A sovereign is a product of convention as much as a convention is a product of a sovereign (Chicken and egg type of thing especially in democracies). An International Law can not exist without an international sovereign. That is unless you truly believe we're living in a global state or that the UN is a substantial international sovereign.
therefore, things like occupied land, human rights violation, torture etc become the fault of palestinians