NationStates

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:That caused little or no reported damage, and three casualties, and many weapons were intercepted.

There used to be a concept called "take the win".

I personally wouldn't want to live next to civilizations that conduct constant border raids.

Hence why no one wants you Brits or Americans in their backyards.

Ors Might wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I expanded in an edit.

Did they randomly attack their neighbours? No? Well, then it's a different discussion isn't it. The way to get Israel to obey the law is to stop attacking them. The best proposal we've seen from anti-Israel types is that we should simply ignore their neighbors constantly breaking the law, or let them outright destroy Israel.

Is it your position that Israel has done nothing to provoke their neighbors, to escalate conflicts, or to engage in indefensible actions, such as callous disregard for loss of civilian life?

Such as?

SusScorfa wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I expanded in an edit.

Did they randomly attack their neighbours? No? Well, then it's a different discussion isn't it. The way to get Israel to obey the law is to stop attacking them. The best proposal we've seen from anti-Israel types is that we should simply ignore their neighbors constantly breaking the law, or let them outright destroy Israel.



Nope. Got an argument as to why its wrong?

The illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967.

Occupied as a result of an unprovoked war on Israel, and which constitute disputed territory which diplomatic efforts to resolve have been constantly rejected by the Palestinians.

Kaumudeen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I personally wouldn't want to live next to civilizations that conduct constant border raids.

Hence why no one wants you Brits or Americans in their backyards.

We don't do border raids. We invade and occupy countries and remove their governments. You know, something practical rather than gratuitous.

Kaumudeen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I personally wouldn't want to live next to civilizations that conduct constant border raids.

Hence why no one wants you Brits or Americans in their backyards.

Hey! In America we only raid our immediate neighbors on Thursdays!

Ors Might wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yeah, there's no way they can be allowed to get away with killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

What would the world come to if something like that happened?

One shudders to imagine the state the world would descend to if Iran were permitted to conduct such rampant slaughter with impunity.

Mistersap and Krajola wrote:

El Lazaro wrote:I just read that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has murdered like fifteen thousand children. Not that any of his supporters care because the kids were Arabs, but still.

So you support terrorist organizations? You support 9/11?

He supports Anakin Skywalker for sure.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Is it your position that Israel has done nothing to provoke their neighbors, to escalate conflicts, or to engage in indefensible actions, such as callous disregard for loss of civilian life?

Such as?

SusScorfa wrote:
The illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967.

Occupied as a result of an unprovoked war on Israel, and which constitute disputed territory which diplomatic efforts to resolve have been constantly rejected by the Palestinians.

I'm sure you can read the thread, Ostro. You've proven yourself literate in the past.

All iterations of the thread covering this topic have listed in great, horrid detail the occasions on which Israel has killed civilians, often disgustingly disproportionate to any military objective they may have had.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Kaumudeen wrote:
Hence why no one wants you Brits or Americans in their backyards.

We don't do border raids.

Tell that to the Irish, or in the case of the US, Mexico and Cuba.

Ors Might wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Such as?



Occupied as a result of an unprovoked war on Israel, and which constitute disputed territory which diplomatic efforts to resolve have been constantly rejected by the Palestinians.

I'm sure you can read the thread, Ostro. You've proven yourself literate in the past.

All iterations of the thread covering this topic have listed in great, horrid detail the occasions on which Israel has killed civilians, often disgustingly disproportionate to any military objective they may have had.

War does tend to kill civilians yes. Which ones did Israel start?

Ostroeuropa wrote:
War does tend to kill civilians yes. Which ones did Israel start?

Occupying the land is the aggression. Israel has provoked its neighbours for 75 years.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Ors Might wrote:I'm sure you can read the thread, Ostro. You've proven yourself literate in the past.

All iterations of the thread covering this topic have listed in great, horrid detail the occasions on which Israel has killed civilians, often disgustingly disproportionate to any military objective they may have had.

War does tend to kill civilians yes. Which ones did Israel start?

You know full well that war crimes can be conducted even during arguably justifiable conflicts.

Spirit of Hope wrote:Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that you denied that US law was being violated. Which it very much is when the US sends weapons to units credibly accused of violating human rights. Israel already receives deference not extended to any other nation in the Leahy process, but even when the committee there agrees that units are violating human rights the US still continues to send them weapons and training.

The articles that were shared previously expressed the sentiment popular among elements within the State Department and the far-left within the Democratic Party that any export of weapons to Israel would necessarily violate US law. I do not agree with that perspective. Beyond that, someone has to make the determination that particular units have violated US law as well. That responsibility tends to be vested in the President and the State Department at this point who keep determining, dubiously, that very minor repercussions and reprimands for violating US policy are suitable efforts to bring units into compliance. I disagree - depending on particular details.

Kaumudeen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
War does tend to kill civilians yes. Which ones did Israel start?

Occupying the land is the aggression.

So to be clear, it is your position that the Arabs can start a genocidal war, lose that war, refuse to negotiate for peace and refuse to recognize Israel, but by virtue of Israel not surrendering the land back, Israel is the aggressor.

Is that the case?

I wonder why Israel hasn't "Started a war" with Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_o ... (1967-1982)

It's a mystery.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

SusScorfa wrote:
The illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967.

Occupied as a result of an unprovoked war on Israel, and which constitute disputed territory which diplomatic efforts to resolve have been constantly rejected by the Palestinians.

And? You made a whole point of talking about law and international order and how that gave Israel a mandate to civilize the savages. Besides, Israel was the attacker in 67.

Ostroeuropa wrote:
So to be clear, it is your position that the Arabs can start a genocidal war, lose that war, refuse to negotiate for peace and refuse to recognize Israel, but by virtue of Israel not surrendering the land back, Israel is the aggressor.

Is that the case?

The Arabs were retaking what was theirs after British government scum handed it to Israel. Why doesn't your country give up a piece of its land for Israel? Maybe you can give them Wales:)

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Kaumudeen wrote:
Occupying the land is the aggression.

So to be clear, it is your position that the Arabs can start a genocidal war, lose that war, refuse to negotiate for peace and refuse to recognize Israel, but by virtue of Israel not surrendering the land back, Israel is the aggressor.

Is that the case?

I wonder why Israel hasn't "Started a war" with Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_o ... (1967-1982)

It's a mystery.

this isnt really related to israel, but unless my brain isnt functioning, your signature doesnt really make sense along the lines of the trolley problem.

Senkaku wrote:Aren’t they famously Hamas? Thank god our brave boys and girls in the IDF blew their office to smithereens back in March, I can’t believe you’d let yourself be associated with that viper’s nest of Arab nationalists!

The PCRF, much like PHRI, has a good reputation for emphasizing humanitarian and medical interests over nationalist interests.

Speaking of attacking humanitarian groups, Hamas recently murdered a humanitarian worker in what militants claimed was a case of mistaken identity and what other Palestinians have alleged was basically a mugging gone awry.

SusScorfa wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:



Occupied as a result of an unprovoked war on Israel, and which constitute disputed territory which diplomatic efforts to resolve have been constantly rejected by the Palestinians.

And? You made a whole point of talking about law and international order and how that gave Israel a mandate to civilize the savages. Besides, Israel was the attacker in 67.

Nope. Because freedom of the seas was violated by Egypt, an act of war, as the inciting incident.

Kaumudeen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
So to be clear, it is your position that the Arabs can start a genocidal war, lose that war, refuse to negotiate for peace and refuse to recognize Israel, but by virtue of Israel not surrendering the land back, Israel is the aggressor.

Is that the case?

The Arabs were retaking what was theirs after British scum handed it to Israel. Why doesn't your country give up a piece of its land for Israel? Maybe you can give them Wales:)

The British didn't hand it to Israel. The United Nations did. I'll also point out this revanchist take just means we may as well hand the whole region over to the Greeks. And it's good you're just copping to the idea that Israel even existing is an act of aggression in your mind.

El Lazaro wrote:If the Israeli government refuses to divert funding from killing civilians to protect its own, then it is fully responsible for the consequences of that decision.

The munitions that sustain the Iron Dome are manufactured in the US. A blanket ban on military exports would make purchasing munitions designed to safeguard civilians illegal under US law. So we would basically be supporting civilian casualties against an allied state with the intention of compelling them to negotiate a less favorable ceasefire.

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:The only difference is that only one side is currently avoiding consequences for their actions. Hamas is, I believe I have already pointed out, currently under blockade.

Hamas is under blockade because Egypt and Israel placed it under blockade. Not because the international community did anything.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

SusScorfa wrote:
And? You made a whole point of talking about law and international order and how that gave Israel a mandate to civilize the savages. Besides, Israel was the attacker in 67.

Nope. Because freedom of the seas was violated by Egypt, an act of war, as the inciting incident.

Okay, lets not get bogged down on that. The occupation is still illegal. This apparently gives a mandate for everyone else in the region to civilize Israel as per your own logic.

Ostroeuropa wrote:The British didn't hand it to Israel. The United Nations did. I'll also point out this revanchist take just means we may as well hand the whole region over to the Greeks.

Balfour declaration (signed by a brit) basically guaranteed that Palestine would essentially be handed over to European Jews. Not to mention that the great powers did not consult with the local Arab population on the proposal.

SusScorfa wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Nope. Because freedom of the seas was violated by Egypt, an act of war, as the inciting incident.

Okay, lets not get bogged down on that. The occupation is still illegal. This apparently gives a mandate for everyone else in the region to civilize Israel as per your own logic.

Occupying the land of a nation that has invaded you until they negotiate a peace isn't illegal.

Fahran wrote:

El Lazaro wrote:If the Israeli government refuses to divert funding from killing civilians to protect its own, then it is fully responsible for the consequences of that decision.

The munitions that sustain the Iron Dome are manufactured in the US. A blanket ban on military exports would make purchasing munitions designed to safeguard civilians illegal under US law. So we would basically be supporting civilian casualties against an allied state with the intention of compelling them to negotiate a less favorable ceasefire.

An ally that drags the US into wars of aggression and spies on the US and sells its military secrets? Any sane American president would cut them loose.

Fahran wrote:

El Lazaro wrote:If the Israeli government refuses to divert funding from killing civilians to protect its own, then it is fully responsible for the consequences of that decision.

The munitions that sustain the Iron Dome are manufactured in the US. A blanket ban on military exports would make purchasing munitions designed to safeguard civilians illegal under US law. So we would basically be supporting civilian casualties against an allied state with the intention of compelling them to negotiate a less favorable ceasefire.

While there may indeed be other, potentially more effective methods than a blanket military export ban, we're already supporting civilian casualties. At worst, we'd only be as morally bankrupt as we already are.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

SusScorfa wrote:
Okay, lets not get bogged down on that. The occupation is still illegal. This apparently gives a mandate for everyone else in the region to civilize Israel as per your own logic.

Occupying the land of a nation that has invaded you until they negotiate a peace isn't illegal.

Are war crimes legal?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

SusScorfa wrote:
Okay, lets not get bogged down on that. The occupation is still illegal. This apparently gives a mandate for everyone else in the region to civilize Israel as per your own logic.

Occupying the land of a nation that has invaded you until they negotiate a peace isn't illegal.

The courts seems to disagree with you.