Crash cource in mid-east history (a must read for some)

[Nashwan]

Which one? Are you gonna say that the 1967 war is an example of Israeli aggression

Israel attacked it's neighbours. Pretence of "pre-emptive strike" doesn't change that fact.

What do you think would happen if we gave a couple of nukes to Syria, Iraq, or why not to Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Acqusa to make things really interesting?

Syria would not use them. Iraq may, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa and Hamas probably would, depending on how many they had. I suspect they would threaten first, in order to try to achieve something.

Syria would not, because the Syrians have a lot to lose.

Iraq may, because Iraq is dominated by one man, Sadam. If Sadam feels he has nothing to lose, he would use them. He did not use chemical weapons during the Gulf war because he had something to lose.

The terrorist groups probably would because they have nothing to lose, and no way of suffering nuclear retaliation. They are already illegal organisations being hunted down.

The more support terrorist groups have, the more likely they are to aquire nuclear weapons. As experts predict it will become easier to aquire nuclear weapons as time goes on, sooner or later they will. Marginalise the terrorist groups and they are less likely to aquire such weapons, and be in less position to use them.

Exactly what kind of an apology are you looking for here? "I'm sorry that 73% of all Palestinians support suicide bombings?" Or "I'm sorry that I told you the truth about the palestinian terrorists"? What exactly do you find offensive in the post you quoted?

You accused me of siding with suicide bombers. With people who deliberately kill children. An apology for that insult will be followed by an apology from me.

I am of the opinion that in the Israel-Palestine conflict there is a good and a bad side. Maybe not black and white, but black enough and white enough. The Israelis are the good guys (in case you were wondering, you seem to have problems understanding that).

I have real issues with this coming from you.

You described the Israelis as good, the Palestinians as evil. In a thread on the Nazis, you said there was no black and white, just shades of grey.

The quotes you pulled from another thread were when I was debating with someone who was of the opinion that all Germans living in 1934-45 were nazis. So, the nazis would end up on the black side of the scale, the Israelis on the white side, I think you know where the Palestinian terrorists belong. We then take all Germans, Israelis and Palestinians and place them along the scale depending on their actions and their motivations.

The last quote from me was what I think about terrorists. And you are right, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. And the problem for the Palestinians is that 73% of all Palestinians support the terrorists and their actions. And anyone supporting a terrorist is just as bad as the terrorist himself. I think it was the US president who said that.

Again I have problems.

You don't just refer to terrorists in such terms, it is "It is not possible to make deals with the arabs, it is not possible to trust the arabs, you simply cannot."
The Nazis were supported by the vast majority of the German population. Yet there it is shades of grey.

On a thread about the Nazis you had this to say:

Germany was put into a state of economic chaos, with anarchy on the streets as a result of a strong communist para-military presence manifesting itself in these conditions of extreme social instability. Versailles is not just a piece of paper, it is a decades-long vendetta against the Germans displaying ignorance as to historical effects. The Germans were swept into WWI along with everyone else and were made the fall-guy afterwards. If you treat a nation in this manner, drag them through the dirt like this, you can expect a backlash down the road, and we certainly got it.

The phenomenon of an extreme right-wing nationalism arising in Germany after this, I would argue, was inevitable.

The Nazis were inevitable because of the way the Germans were treated.

By any objective measure, the Palestinians have suffered more at the hands of the Israelis than the Germans suffered from Versailles.

Another of your quotes

The security issues. It is not possible to make deals with the arabs, it is not possible to trust the arabs, you simply cannot. These people have their own agenda (no Israel in mid east), and they seem to use any method possible to advance their goals.

You believe German agression was the fault of the Versailles treaty, and presumably when Germany was liberated from it after the war, Germans became "good" again.

Yet you imply Arabs are simply bad, that their actions stem from this "evil" nature, and that changing their conditions for the better will not change them for the better.

And anyone supporting a terrorist is just as bad as the terrorist himself.

In a war, people fight for alot of reasons. Some out of ideology, some out of love or hate, but most people fight simply because they have to. When your country is at war, for whatever reason, you will find yourself fighting in that war, regardless of what you think is right or wrong.

To say that Germany in 1933-45 was "Nazi Germany" and to imply that all Germans fought either because they were nazis, or to preserve nazism is not only both stupid and wrong. It is also insulting to all those men who fought and died -because their country was at war.

Aggressive war is “bad” yeah, so is state sponsored racism. HOWEVER the difference between wars of aggression, racism, and the holocaust are so enormous it feels wrong to talk about them in the same sentence. So yeah, I am saying that nazism didnt show its true face until 1941

On these threads you excuse those who supported the Nazis before 1941, because they didn't know that Hitler planned to murder millions of Jews. You admit they knew the Nazis disliked the Jews, and wanted to deport them all. You don't mention Kristalnacht, but presumably accept that Nazi supporters then weren't adverse to killing a few hundred Jews to get them to leave.

All this is explained away as reaction to Versailles, and doesn't make Nazi supporters in 1941 "bad".

Palestinian terrorists are not worse than Nazis in 1941.

At worst, they talk of deporting the Jews, at best, destroying Israel and living in harmony with the Jews. They too are ready to kill a few hundred Jews to get them to leave.

According to your definition, the Palestinians are, at worst, engaged in a war of aggression, or racism, but not the Holocaust.

Yet you define the Palestinians as worse than the Germans.

The Palestinians have more cause for their actions than the Germans did, and their actions are less extreme than the Germans. How then do you classify them as worse than the Germans?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan
It matters very much what the LoN said.
[SNIP preamble again]
There followed 20+ articles, all stipulating what could and could not be done by the mandated power, articles such as

Article 5
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

Britain administered the mandated territory, within rules laid out by the LoN. Britain did not own the territory, and was answerable to the LoN for it's actions in carrying out the Mandate.

Sovereign powers are not answerable to anyone for their actions, by defenition.

Britain was not the sovereign power in Palestine, it was the administrator.

Britain recognized the ultimate authority of the LoN in the mandated territory.

Will you please give this line of arguing up? Please? It is obvious that you dont really know what you are talking about. When I post something regarding some aspect of international law, you dash off on the internet and dig up quotes from various treaties or protocols. Realize your own limitations. This is what I work with every day. I know these things.

If you look again at what I wrote, you will note the sentence: These things do not matter, what does matter is who is the de facto owner over the territory. And that was Britain.

Notice how I'm talking about de facto ownership here, not de jure? (de facto= the way things are, de jure= according to the law). I leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.

Now, you can sit here all day and try to conjure up various reasons as to why Britain was not the owner of Palestine, or not the sovereign power but the administrator or whatever. IT DOES NOT MATTER. What DOES MATTER is the fact that the area was under British control, and Britain was the owner (from a LEGAL point of view, and no one really cares about your philosophical approach to the issue).

Then you have abandoned the position Britain ceded the territory to Israel?

If that is the case, the ownership or not of the territory by Britain becomes irrelevant.

Will you please give this line of arguing up? Please? It is obvious that you dont really know what you are talking about. Realize your own limitations.

You cannot abandon something that you don't have.

Governments in exile have been recognized widely in the past.Nazi Germany held control over most of Europe, but was not recognized by many countries as the sovereign power, owner, whatever.

Nobody, not even the Germans, recognized Holland, Belgium, Norway etc as parts of Germany, or assumed they were no longer states. Some recognized the puppet governments, some recognized the governments in exile.

Control does not imply ownership, ownership does not imply control.

Will you please give this line of arguing up? Please? It is obvious that you dont really know what you are talking about. Realize your own limitations.

The requirement of effective control over territory is not always strictly applied; for example a state does not cease to exist when it is temporarily deprived of an effective government. Even when all of its territory is occupied by the enemy in wartime, the state continues to exist, provided that its allies continue the struggle against the enemy.

Control is not ownership.

Name the countries that recognize the West Bank as part of Israel.

Here's a few that do not:
The US
The UK
The UN (not a country)
The EU (not a country)
Russia
Israel.

Not even Israel claims the West Bank as part of Israel, legally.

Will you please give this line of arguing up? Please? It is obvious that you dont really know what you are talking about. Realize your own limitations.

Name the countries that recognize the West bank as under Israeli control, and under de facto ownership.

Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan. It annexed the Golan, and parts of Jerusalem, into Israeli territory. It has never claimed the West Bank or Gaza as Israeli territory, and neither they, nor the Golan, are recognized as Israeli territory by other countries.

From the US state department web site:
As a result of the 1967 War, Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories.

Irrelevant.

The West Bank and Gaza are not recognized as internal territory of Israel. They are reffered to as occupied territory, even by Israel.

Irrelevant. It still is not an international conflict.

Israel has not claimed the west Bank or Gaza.

The ICRC regarded the fourth Geneva convention as applying to the West Bank and Gaza. It believes all those areas not under Palestinian local administration do fall under the terms of the convention. As an opinion, forgive me for trusting the ICRC's legal opinion over yours.

Oh, you can trust whoever you want, I still dont think you should trust the internet as a source for complicated legal issues though. You know, I was wrong regarding the Geneva convention (they do not cover occupation at all), I really should have looked it up before posting.

Riddle me this:  

What exactly is "the fourth Geneva convention"?

There are five conventions and protocols related to Geneva, they are (in chronological order):
Amelioration of the condition of the wounded on the field of battle
-from 1864
Geneva protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating gas, and for bacteriological methods of warfare
-from 1928
Convention between the United States of America and other powers, relating to prisoners of war
-from 1929
Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
-from 1949
Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons and their destruction
-from 1975

Of these five, two have more than 49 articles.

From the 1929 convention:
Art 49
No prisoner of war may be deprived of his rank by the detaining Power.
Prisoners given disciplinary punishment may not be deprived of the prerogatives attached to their rank. In particular, officers and persons of equivalent status who suffer punishment involving deprivation of liberty shall not be placed in. the same quarters as noncommissioned officers or privates being punished.

From the 1949 convention:
The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war who are physically fit, taking into account their age, sex, rank and physical aptitude, and with a view particularly to maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health.
Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war shall only be required to do supervisory work. Those not so required may ask for other suitable work which shall, so far as possible, be found for them.
If officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, it shall be found for them, so far as possible, but they may in no circumstances be compelled to work.

Where is your famous article 49:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." ?

DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET.

Jordan did claim ownership of the West Bank. Few countries recognized it, and Jordan has since withdrawn the claim.

Israel does not claim ownership of the West Bank, refering to the area as "disputed territory".

Your first claim was that Jordan didn't own the territory, because it was taken in war, but Israel does own the territory, because it was taken in war.

If you are now saying Jordan did own it, then the status of the territory can not have been "abandoned" when Israel captured it. The status of the territory is simply part of Jordan occupied by Israel. Please make up your mind, was the West Bank owned by Jordan or not. You are saying yes and no in different parts of your answer.

Read what I wrote one more time.

"When Britain abandoned the territory, the territory became terra nullius. Jordan moved in on the west bank and occupied it. At this moment in time, Jordan owns the west bank. After another war, Israel occupies the west bank. In the peace settlement between Israel and Jordan, Jordan abandons the west bank. Suddenly Israel owns the west bank. Please read through this explanation a couple of times until you understand it."

Israel does not apply Israeli national law in the territories. Israeli national law is applied to Israeli citizens in the territories, but Israeli military law is applied to non-citizens in the territories, ie 90% of the population.

Irrelevant.

[streakeagle]

Argue all you want over ideaology...

Fact is in the real world, might makes right and Israel has demonstrated repeatedly that it can defeat the combined might of all its enemies. Ever hear of the phrase "winner gets the spoils"? If the US wasn't so concerned about Arab oil production and pricing, we wouldn't even be having this discussion since the US would otherwise be backing Israel 100% no matter what it did.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan

Read Ossie's post. Read the quote I gave you from Kennedy.

I could understand your position if you did not use similar phrases yourself. I could understand your position if you shut up when it was pointed out you used similar phrases yourself.

Continuing to suggest someone seek psychiatric help for using similar phrases to ones you use yourself is obviously not hypocrisy, but something else entirely.

I say that a country or a nation is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.

I don't think a 9 year old without a gun is a threat to an armed soldier in any way.

How about 100 9 year-olds in the company of another 1 000 Palestinians of various ages, all armed with rocks.

Stone throwing by children is a crime. It is not a threat to life.

Shooting criminals in the act, if they do not present a danger, is an act of extra-judicial execution.

The role of law enforcement, in which Israeli soldiers are operating, is to prevent crimes, not punish them.

Any parent must let a 9 year old child out, or else keep them under permament curfew.

I suspect you know about as much about Israeli law as you do international law. Let me just point out that the situations we are talking about here takes place under the jurisdiction of the Israeli law. I suggest we then leave it to the Israeli judicial system to sort out who is in violation of what law.

And a parent that cannot prevent his 9 yr old kid from going out in the streets to throw rocks at armed soldiers should not be a parent at all.

Yes. I would say leaving a booby trap bomb in a refugee camp, which then explodes killing five children, is an act of criminal negligence.

So now I'm confused. Are you talking about the Palestinians who littered Jenin with booby traps now?

Israel attacked it's neighbours. Pretence of "pre-emptive strike" doesn't change that fact.

No, but it does a world of difference when it comes to who is right and who is wrong.

The more support terrorist groups have, the more likely they are to aquire nuclear weapons. As experts predict it will become easier to aquire nuclear weapons as time goes on, sooner or later they will. Marginalise the terrorist groups and they are less likely to aquire such weapons, and be in less position to use them.

Or remove all the terrorist organisations from the face of the planet by shooting all their members, problem solved.

You accused me of siding with suicide bombers. With people who deliberately kill children. An apology for that insult will be followed by an apology from me.

But you DO side with suicide bombers, with people who deliberately kill children, see that is what the Palestinians do. If you see that as an insult, perhaps you should reconsider your position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

As for me, I have never tried to justify the Nazi reprisal massacres in France. So when you wrote that, it was a lie. Apparently you cannot find any quote from me where I have said such a thing, and instead of apologizing, you try to shift focus to something completely different.

I wrote:
I am of the opinion that in the Israel-Palestine conflict there is a good and a bad side. Maybe not black and white, but black enough and white enough. The Israelis are the good guys (in case you were wondering, you seem to have problems understanding that).

You replied:
I have real issues with this coming from you.

You described the Israelis as good, the Palestinians as evil. In a thread on the Nazis, you said there was no black and white, just shades of grey.

Yes.

I wrote:
The quotes you pulled from another thread were when I was debating with someone who was of the opinion that all Germans living in 1934-45 were nazis. So, the nazis would end up on the black side of the scale, the Israelis on the white side, I think you know where the Palestinian terrorists belong. We then take all Germans, Israelis and Palestinians and place them along the scale depending on their actions and their motivations.

The last quote from me was what I think about terrorists. And you are right, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. And the problem for the Palestinians is that 73% of all Palestinians support the terrorists and their actions. And anyone supporting a terrorist is just as bad as the terrorist himself. I think it was the US president who said that.

You replied:
Again I have problems.

You don't just refer to terrorists in such terms, it is "It is not possible to make deals with the arabs, it is not possible to trust the arabs, you simply cannot."
The Nazis were supported by the vast majority of the German population. Yet there it is shades of grey.

Were the nazis supported by the vast majority of the German population? Have I said that?

I wrote:
Germany was put into a state of economic chaos, with anarchy on the streets as a result of a strong communist para-military presence manifesting itself in these conditions of extreme social instability. Versailles is not just a piece of paper, it is a decades-long vendetta against the Germans displaying ignorance as to historical effects. The Germans were swept into WWI along with everyone else and were made the fall-guy afterwards. If you treat a nation in this manner, drag them through the dirt like this, you can expect a backlash down the road, and we certainly got it.

The phenomenon of an extreme right-wing nationalism arising in Germany after this, I would argue, was inevitable.

You replied:
The Nazis were inevitable because of the way the Germans were treated.

By any objective measure, the Palestinians have suffered more at the hands of the Israelis than the Germans suffered from Versailles.

I did not say it was inevitable. As for the Palestinian suffering at Israeli hands, I'm not so sure I agree with your analysis.

I wrote:
The security issues. It is not possible to make deals with the arabs, it is not possible to trust the arabs, you simply cannot. These people have their own agenda (no Israel in mid east), and they seem to use any method possible to advance their goals.

You replied:
You believe German agression was the fault of the Versailles treaty, and presumably when Germany was liberated from it after the war, Germans became "good" again.

Yet you imply Arabs are simply bad, that their actions stem from this "evil" nature, and that changing their conditions for the better will not change them for the better.

Your interpretations of my "implications" are intriguing. Wrong, mostly, but intriguing nevertheless.

I wrote:
And anyone supporting a terrorist is just as bad as the terrorist himself.
In a war, people fight for alot of reasons. Some out of ideology, some out of love or hate, but most people fight simply because they have to. When your country is at war, for whatever reason, you will find yourself fighting in that war, regardless of what you think is right or wrong.

To say that Germany in 1933-45 was "Nazi Germany" and to imply that all Germans fought either because they were nazis, or to preserve nazism is not only both stupid and wrong. It is also insulting to all those men who fought and died -because their country was at war.
Aggressive war is “bad” yeah, so is state sponsored racism. HOWEVER the difference between wars of aggression, racism, and the holocaust are so enormous it feels wrong to talk about them in the same sentence. So yeah, I am saying that nazism didnt show its true face until 1941

You reply:
On these threads you excuse those who supported the Nazis before 1941, because they didn't know that Hitler planned to murder millions of Jews. You admit they knew the Nazis disliked the Jews, and wanted to deport them all. You don't mention Kristalnacht, but presumably accept that Nazi supporters then weren't adverse to killing a few hundred Jews to get them to leave.

All this is explained away as reaction to Versailles, and doesn't make Nazi supporters in 1941 "bad".

Palestinian terrorists are not worse than Nazis in 1941.

At worst, they talk of deporting the Jews, at best, destroying Israel and living in harmony with the Jews. They too are ready to kill a few hundred Jews to get them to leave.

According to your definition, the Palestinians are, at worst, engaged in a war of aggression, or racism, but not the Holocaust.

Yet you define the Palestinians as worse than the Germans.

The Palestinians have more cause for their actions than the Germans did, and their actions are less extreme than the Germans. How then do you classify them as worse than the Germans?

Again, you seem to draw conclusions from my posts that are not backed up by what I have written. Then, based on your own faulty conclusions, you proceed to criticize your own version of what I have never said. You then ask questions around your own faulty conclusions "How then do you classify the Palestinians as worse than the Germans" is an example of such a question.

The situation is absurd. Either ask me questions based on what I have said, or start your own thread where you can make up more stuff to criticize about me.

[Nashwan]

This is what I work with every day. I know these things.

Really? I thought you claimed to be a minor judge in Sweden, not an expert on international law.

If you look again at what I wrote, you will note the sentence: These things do not matter, what does matter is who is the de facto owner over the territory. And that was Britain.

Again, you seem incapable of understnding there is a difference between control, possesion and ownership.

Name the countries that recognize the West bank as under Israeli control, and under de facto ownership

Plenty recognize Israeli control, all recognize it as a temporary measure. None recognize Israeli ownership, not even Israel.

It really is amazing how all these countries, including Israel, have got the law wrong, and only Hortlund has got it right.

What exactly is "the fourth Geneva convention"?

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVART?OpenView

Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
-from 1949

The "Fourth Geneva Convention" refers to the fourth protocol of the 1949 convention

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
 
 Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
 
 Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
 
 Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
 
You have taken article 49 from the third protocol, refered to as the third Geneva convention

Article 49 from the fourth protocol (usually refered to as the fourth convention)

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

The great international law expert, who's never heard of the Fourth Geneva convention. Forgive me if I think your ignorance in this area signifies ignorance in other areas as well.

Do a search on "Fourth Geneva Convention", and you will find all sorts of people quoting it, such as the US state department, the official Isreli government website, the UN, the ICRC.

So now I'm confused. Are you talking about the Palestinians who littered Jenin with booby traps now?

No, I'm talking about the IDF booby-trap left in the Khan Younis refugee camp in November 2001 that killed 5 children. The one the IDF "investigated", called "an error of judgement" and took no action against anyone for.

Or remove all the terrorist organisations from the face of the planet by shooting all their members, problem solved.

They will of course helpfully carry signs saying "I am a terrorist" to make the job easier. No one will get annoyed at their friends and relatives getting shot, and no one else will join the terrorist groups.

But you DO side with suicide bombers, with people who deliberately kill children, see that is what the Palestinians do. If you see that as an insult, perhaps you should reconsider your position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Where have I said I side with suicide bombers, or even with individual Palestinians?

I cannot side with the Palestinians, because  a country or a nation or a group is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.

So, tell me where I have said I side with suicide bombers, and I will tell you where you have said you side with th Nazis.

Were the nazis supported by the vast majority of the German population? Have I said that?

Yes.

Support for Hitler was massive back in 38-40. But you have to realize and understand that the true horrors of nazism hadnt shown its face yet..
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46307&highlight=1941

I did not say it was inevitable.

The phenomenon of an extreme right-wing nationalism arising in Germany after this, I would argue, was inevitable
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46469&highlight=inevitable (about 2/3 of the way down)

Again, you seem to draw conclusions from my posts that are not backed up by what I have written. Then, based on your own faulty conclusions, you proceed to criticize your own version of what I have never said. You then ask questions around your own faulty conclusions "How then do you classify the Palestinians as worse than the Germans" is an example of such a question.

No, Hortlund, until I challenged you on it, you called the Israelis good, the Palestinians evil, but responded about the Nazis that there is no black and white.

You say the Palestinians are evil because they support terrorists, but the Germans were not evil even though "Support for Hitler was massive back in 38-40." ie, even after Mein Kampf, even after Kristl Nacht, even after the confiscation of all Jewish property, even after the Jews had been stripped of citizenship, even after concentration camps had publicly been set up. The only thing missing at this point was the Holocaust.

So what YOU are saying, is that the Germans were not evil to support the Nazis, because they had not yet begun genocide, but the Palestinians are evil to support the terrorists, who haven't carried out genocide either.

[Nashwan]

And a parent that cannot prevent his 9 yr old kid from going out in the streets to throw rocks at armed soldiers should not be a parent at all.

It's not just stone throwing.

Palestinian children are routinely killed when doing nothing at all wrong:

Colonel Dan Hafetz held an investigation Monday into the incident, in which a Palestinian woman and her two children, aged three and four, were killed. It very quickly became clear that the initial version of events issued by the IDF was erroneous, and that the tank had not come under attack.

The investigation revealed that the explosion heard by the members of the crew was caused by a malfunction in the tank's track. The noise made by this created an explosive effect, which led to one of the soldiers sustaining moderate injuries.

In accordance with the regulations in force while operating inside the West Bank, immediately after coming under what they saw as an attack, the soldiers opened fire toward "suspicious areas." The policy is aimed at preventing terrorists from detonating further devices and, according to an IDF spokesman Monday, the policy had proved effective many times in the past.

Soldiers involved in the incident testified they had spotted suspicious characters in a nearby cornfield, despite having only a partial view of the area. Nonetheless, they opened fire with machine guns and light weapons, killing the woman and her two children. The soldiers said they believed the figures were terrorists leaving the scene.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=160678&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

They can be really vicious, these three year-olds.

[Hortlund]

A tragic accident.

But do you really think the soldiers would have opened fire if they knew that the only persons in that field were an innocent mother and her two children?

Of cource not.

And this is actually something that puts the finger exactly on the difference between the IDF and the terrorists. Sometimes the IDF is responsible for innocents being killed. But there is a difference, because the terrorists deliberately try to kill women and children. They specifically target them.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Really? I thought you claimed to be a minor judge in Sweden, not an expert on international law.

So do you think judges in Sweden handle the law every day?
Have I ever claimed to be an expert in international law? But I suppose that compared to you I should be considered an expert, everything is relative you know.

ANYWAY, what I was referring to is the fact that I do work with the law every day, and I have pulled my sorry bellybutton through lawschool (5 yrs), I should have picked up something …right?. Now, I'm not sure here, but I suspect that you dont work with the law every day, and I'd be thoroughly surprised if you would claim to have gone through lawschool.

Again, you seem incapable of understnding there is a difference between control, possesion and ownership.

Plenty recognize Israeli control, all recognize it as a temporary measure. None recognize Israeli ownership, not even Israel.

It really is amazing how all these countries, including Israel, have got the law wrong, and only Hortlund has got it right.

This part of the discussion is closed from my point of view. I have explained in detail exactly what the legal aspects of the conflict are. They are not open for debate, they just are. A funny aspect of the law is that it doesnt matter one bit what you think/hope/wish. Either you are too stupid to read and comprehend what I have written, OR you dont want to understand because it doesnt fit your agenda. Either way, continued discussion in this area is as pointless as banging ones head against a brick wall.

The "Fourth Geneva Convention" refers to the fourth protocol of the 1949 convention

The perhaps that is what you should have called it in the first place?

The great international law expert, who's never heard of the Fourth Geneva convention. Forgive me if I think your ignorance in this area signifies ignorance in other areas as well.

I thought we agreed that it was the fourth protocol to the 1949 Geneva convention, and that there is no "fourth Geneva convention"? To you that might not make a difference, but it does to me. If you are gonna quote something, quote it correct.

No, I'm talking about the IDF booby-trap left in the Khan Younis refugee camp in November 2001 that killed 5 children. The one the IDF "investigated", called "an error of judgement" and took no action against anyone for.

See what I wrote in an earlier post regarding letting Israeli law decide over matters under Israeli jurisdiction.

I wrote:
But you DO side with suicide bombers, with people who deliberately kill children, see that is what the Palestinians do. If you see that as an insult, perhaps you should reconsider your position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

You replied:

Where have I said I side with suicide bombers, or even with individual Palestinians?
[…]
So, tell me where I have said I side with suicide bombers, and I will tell you where you have said you side with th Nazis.

Well, just about every one of your posts in this thread shows you siding with the suicide bombers.

Support for Hitler was massive back in 38-40. But you have to realize and understand that the true horrors of nazism hadnt shown its face yet..

Apparently I did.  So whats your point?

I wrote:
I did not say it was inevitable.

You replied:
The phenomenon of an extreme right-wing nationalism arising in Germany after this, I would argue, was inevitable

Yes, so did I say it in the passage you were quoting at the time?

No, Hortlund, until I challenged you on it, you called the Israelis good, the Palestinians evil, but responded about the Nazis that there is no black and white.

You say the Palestinians are evil because they support terrorists, but the Germans were not evil even though "Support for Hitler was massive back in 38-40." ie, even after Mein Kampf, even after Kristl Nacht, even after the confiscation of all Jewish property, even after the Jews had been stripped of citizenship, even after concentration camps had publicly been set up. The only thing missing at this point was the Holocaust.

So what YOU are saying, is that the Germans were not evil to support the Nazis, because they had not yet begun genocide, but the Palestinians are evil to support the terrorists, who haven't carried out genocide either.

Again, no, I have never said that at all. Again, you are drawing your own conclusions from what I have said. I say those conclusions are wrong, you seem to think otherwise. Fine, believe what you want. I will not argue with you over something I know, and you think. It is pointless.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Hortlund
A tragic accident.

But do you really think the soldiers would have opened fire if they knew that the only persons in that field were an innocent mother and her two children?

Of cource not.

And this is actually something that puts the finger exactly on the difference between the IDF and the terrorists. Sometimes the IDF is responsible for innocents being killed. But there is a difference, because the terrorists deliberately try to kill women and children. They specifically target them.

I second this.

The Israelis can and will be held responsible for "war crimes" in the end, will the Pals? Don't think so ...

[Nashwan]

I thought we agreed that it was the fourth protocol to the 1949 Geneva convention, and that there is no "fourth Geneva convention"? To you that might not make a difference, but it does to me. If you are gonna quote something, quote it correct.

It is called the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Some of the people who call it that:
The UN
The ICRC
The Israeli Government
The US state Department
The British Government.

Do I need to go on?

Well, just about every one of your posts in this thread shows you siding with the suicide bombers.

I am presenting some facts of history you left out. I am presenting details of Israeli abuses. I have not expressed any support for suicide bombers.

I'm still waiting for the apology.

Yes, so did I say it in the passage you were quoting at the time?

Yes

I'll let anyone else who reads this fr draw their own conclusions from your positions on Palestinians and Nazis, and your quotes on both.

[Ossie]

I have explained in detail exactly what the legal aspects of the conflict are. They are not open for debate, they just are. A funny aspect of the law is that it doesnt matter one bit what you think/hope/wish.

A law must be interpreted. Interpretation is an opinionated action, and is therefore open to debate. Hence one of the fundamental duties of the judiciary (at least in the U.S.): to interpret the laws set forth by the legislature.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Ossie


A law must be interpreted. Interpretation is an opinionated action, and is therefore open to debate. Hence one of the fundamental duties of the judiciary (at least in the U.S.): to interpret the laws set forth by the legislature.

Well, do you agree that certain aspects of the law requires more interpretation that others? For example, the question "what is reasonable doubt" is more open to debate than the question "what is drunk driving"

And that some aspects of the law does not really require any  interpretation at all, for example if you live and work in Sweden, you must pay taxes.  

The stuff I posted about de facto ownership and abandonment etc are of the latter kind. They just are.

[Ossie]

Well, do you agree that certain aspects of the law requires more interpretation that others? For example, the question "what is reasonable doubt" is more open to debate than the question "what is drunk driving"

And that some aspects of the law does not really require any interpretation at all, for example if you live and work in Sweden, you must pay taxes.

The stuff I posted about de facto ownership and abandonment etc are of the latter kind. They just are.

I do agree that there is a limit to the magnitude of interpretation (hence the need for a judge:) ). However, I would be hesitant to be of mind that anything "just is". As simple as a law may seem to appear on paper, you have variables on either side relating to that which is unforseen (hence the need for lawyers:) ).

It has so far been an interesting debate between yourself and Nashwan (although imo it would be a much better read without some of the personal jabs). Sure as hell beats CNN

[Hortlund]

PUNT for Nashwan.

You might want to read my first two posts again...