Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Fox News analyst compares Israelis to Nazis
virtuoso:
Look, I have already said that I condemn the targeting of civilians but these are terror tactics being used by Israel also. Kidnappings indiscriminate bombings, admitted indiscriminate bombings, destruction of basic vital infirastructure, you can not say I am brainwashed when I recognise the terror of missiles. However you can't talk about the terror of missiles which you say yourself you have experienced (which by the way I am sorry you have had to) without then recognising just how many missiles and shells are flattening out Lebanon right now.
I TO DA GEEZY:
There is no doubt shells hit Lebanon just like there is no doubt missiles hit north-Israel. There is not doubt shells hit Gaza just like there is not doubt missiles hit Shderot. We all know things are fucked up. You also probably know, Hezbollah would like Israel to be removed from the world's map just like Hamas would like Israel to be removed from the world's map. You understand Israel will not aid these groups in their cause. Im not even talking about history (Land disputes), or about the Hamas Charter (Which by the way doesn't even stand for a Palestinian State). I want you to understand Israel is not going to help these people destroy it, and more importantly harm its citizens. Israel, no matter how immoral you reckon it to be, has never encouraged the death of its own citizens (lol...we dont even have a death penalty). In fact, Israel is known to react harshly to death and assaults on its citizenry (I think you'd agree to this assessment). Now I would like you to ask yourself whether this important notion, life preservation of the citizenry, could be attributed to either Hamas or Hezbollah? I understand innocent people are dieing on both sides. It's dreadful, today a 15 year old died and god knowes how many people in Lebanon. But I assure you MORE people will die on their side, this is something you know. Question is why then, knowingly their government allowes Hezbollah to provoke such reactions from Israel?
virtuoso:
This goes back further than that, most recently Israels refusal to recognise the democratically elected government, despite what you think of them withholding aid was totally immoral and this once again lit the anger inside of palestinians and gives these groups you talk about a reason a provocation. It's not Israels right to self defence which I am calling into question its their savage response that I am. When Israel is talking about prolonging the indiscriminate bombing and shelling of Lebanon indefinitely. We both know that things are not as black and white as the media would have you believe like I said your a smart person, you know as well I do that Israel has always rejected a deal when it comes to Hamas disarming. What makes this situation worse of course, is that if Israel does not pull back from the brink does not stop violating international law then the situation will get much much worse.
We should all be calling for peace, none of us should be shrugging our shoulders the ramifications like I said are just unimaginable. I don't want to see anymore lebanese die or be maimed any less or anymore than I want to see jewish people/christian people die.
I TO DA GEEZY:
I know of millions of dollars that have been transferred to the Palestinian Authority shortly after the begining of Olmert's cadence. That is even though Kassams were being launched at the time into Israeli territory. As far as indiscriminate bombings go, I can tell you Israel's bombings are more discriminate than the Kassam rocket launches and Hezbollah's Katiushas altogether. Problem is, Israeli bombings in Lebanon hit weaponry amassments to prevent Hezbollah from using them, a thing which causes the power of explosion to increase.
As far as International Law goes it's largely a question of interpretation. Once I have been presented with a report of Israel's, so called, violations of Intenrational Law- close to a hundred I think, maybe even more, while the Palestinian Authority DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ONE. I have dealt with the subject of International Law before when I was asked whether Israel could be held as legally responsible:
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.
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.
P.S
Me personally, Im all for peace, Im for one global democratical state man. I believe nationality by definition is harmful. But the status quo is a world with borders and states. A world in which the state is there to protect ME from anarchy.
virtuoso:
Problem is your doing it again your saying that international law becomes obsolete when two nations are at war and yet even if such a notion was true you say the reason it becomes null and void is because in this case Israel is defending its people. That statement does not hold up when you look at the complete annhilation of Lebanon, who is that protecting? lets put aside the niceties of international law for a moment and reflect on the actions themselves they are morally abhorrent you know yourself that what Israel is doing is morally abhorrent but instead people like you who support israel in other words jews and non jews alike make yourselves look very extreme by instead choosing not to comment on the actions. There is nothing selective about the targeting of an entire country and they arent accidentally incinerating convoys that is just cold blooded murder.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version