^ ^ Ignorance defined..

You don't respond to anyone, just keep throwing out shifting arguments.. Ok, if INTERNATIONAL LAW is obviously the most important consideration, then it doesn't really matter about Hamas following it, because Israel is in violation of many International Lawa.

Are we to count the violations and weigh them against each other.

Which is worse, bombing schools and infrastructures, killing women and children... Or not wearing a uniform and hiding among civilians?

How can you say it is guerilla fighters fault when a school is bombed in the middle of the day, full of children? What if a Hamas dude ran into an Israeli school? What if an Iraqi terrorist ran into a US school and started shooting? (At the police, or even rockets)

Not apt enough, because clearly these children knew about this tactic and were in on it?? Ok, what about Waco or similar circumstance? Why not drop a bomb on them? (Ok, well technically we did but it was tear gas and flash bangs that set the place on fire...)

I think if anyone wants peace in that region it has to be the Israelis.

And AFAIK, Americans fight using military uniforms and without shielding themselves behind children and women.

To be protected by international law regarding rules of combat, soldiers must wear identifiable uniforms. If you're dressed like a civilian and hide among civilians you waive your "rights". Hamas knowingly and intentionally endangers the civilian population.

That being said, it's absolutely terrible that non-combatants are being killed, but the blame falls on Hamas fighters for using such low-handed tactics.

Apologies in advance for the disection.

"Ok, then Palestinian militants aren't anti-semitic, they just want to get rid of the political and military entity of Israel."
This is an irrelevant analogy. You can be anti-semitic just by your words or thoughts. However, you cannot be genocidal or engage in ethnic cleansing without doing something physical. One is an emotion or opinion, and the other is an action. My comment was about ACCURACY of these terms, not about a JUDGEMENT regarding them.

"And the problem isn't really Israel taking out Hamas fighters or leaders, it's the hundreds of civilians and children being bombed and bulldozed in their houses and schools."
I totally agree with this. I inferred as much in my post.

"occupying illegal lands"
Honestly, so much of the recent mutual behaviour between the two factions is illegal by international law, I'm not sure that "legality" means anything to the situation any more. If this is going to ever be fixed, historical prosecutory claims have to be dumped out the window.

"Imagine if you were in control of a million people's lives who are walled in by your tanks and F-16 and war ships and they have no clean water and little electricity and food. Certainly it's not like your are trying to kill them all by blocking all aid and food and water..."
I agree with this point. Israel has been blocking aid and this is deplorable. If it were to go on for a few weeks, I'd agree that it's passive genocide, but I'm not sure that's the case yet. Anyone know if supplies were successfully delivered to Gaza in the recent short ceasefires?

"...and then dropping bombs on the refugee shelters"
I haven't seen this anywhere in the media, admittedly not that I've looked too hard. Can someone please point out where this has been occurring?

Part 2 of the interview describes the current state of affairs:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Israel-and-international-law

Part 2 of the interview deals with the current state of affairs:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Israel-and-international-law

As I mentioned in the previous thread, violations of international law and human rights require recognition, but also important are the myriad ways in which life is systematically degraded for the people in Gaza:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Slavoj-i-ek-Israel-s-Missteps-with-Palestine

Part 2 brings us up to speed with the current state of affairs:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Israel-and-international-law

Violations of international law and human rights must be recognized, but also of importance are the myriad ways in which life is systematically degraded for the people in Gaza:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Slavoj-i-ek-Israel-s-Missteps-with-Palestine

Hezbollah, Hamas and all the Palestinian people have no interest in attacking Israel, that is complete nonsense.

It's not nonense, it's the truth. The Palestinian people as a majority I believe have no interest in attacking Israel. Nasrallah, the Secretary-Gneral of Hezbollah has been quoted in the Washington Post stating that "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel" and "I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel.'". That should be enough in and of itself, but Hezbollah also considers the Iranian Ayatollah it's highest authority(though they have been more independent of late), and I shouldn't have to point out the position of Iran's fanatical religious leaders. As for Hamas, I quoted several of their founders and you even admitted that their charter holds a call for Israel's destruction as central. There can be no doubt Hamas wants to attack Israel. The only thing holding Hamas and Hezbollah back is similar to what has kept the peace between Syria/Iran and Israel, the fact that Israel would win any such conflict.


Syria and Iran have watched Israel's serial human rights abuses for decades


But they have been openly and actively attacking Israel even longer, your view really doesn't explain that does it?



If you understand how the political process of a truce and a peace settlement works in reality under international law, you will begin to understand that it means the cessation of violence and the beginning of sorting out opposing political aspirations on both sides.


Yes, and you may remember how Hamas sorted out opposing political aspirations previously. Giving them more time to kill off moderates and opposition doesn't seem to be in anyone's best interests.


It was a bigger leap of faith (by a factor of hundreds) for Hamas to offer this truce to Israel than it would have been for Israel to honour it under international law.


And here I thought it was the under dog that had the most to gain from a ceasefire.

Hezbollah, Hamas and all the Palestinian people have no interest in attacking Israel, that is complete nonsense. The Israeli people know this, so do their press and their newspapers and their journalists and their blogs and websites.

Syria and Iran have watched Israel's serial human rights abuses for decades and are fully aware that Israel is a nuclear power (illegally and in breach of the non-proliferation treaty).

I can assure you categorically that Ismail Haniyeh's offer of a truce was taken very seriously, it was a huge breakthrough at the time.

It's being ignore was interpreted by many at the time (and some still today) that the peace process was not genuine and was in fact only a cover for US and Israel join operations for control of the region.

If you understand how the political process of a truce and a peace settlement works in reality under international law, you will begin to understand that it means the cessation of violence and the beginning of sorting out opposing political aspirations on both sides.

It was a bigger leap of faith (by a factor of hundreds) for Hamas to offer this truce to Israel than it would have been for Israel to honour it under international law.

It is not our business as westerners to judge the political aspirations of another country, but it IS our business and our duty to step in when human rights abuses are being committed, and this is what is not happening.

Yes, it is a spectacularly inefficient genocide, it is known as "slow motion genocide" and it is the same thing that happened in Darfur. It has been going on for decades. I first heard it described as this 8 or 9 years ago.

In 1998 an expert in international law called Francis Boyle told the Palestinian president to start legal proceedings against Israel in the international courts and in the Hague for breaching the Genocide Convention.

Israel has breached almost all of the 150 odd articles of the Geneva Rights Convention and committed crimes against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter - all confirmed and on record at the UN.

So if we're going to take Hamas to task on their ambulances then let's go, and unless we want to be branded as hypocrites then we'll want the Israeli government in the Hague and behind bars for their decades of war crimes against the Palestinian people as well.

And if we want to talk about Hamas' charter which calls for the destruction of Israel, then let's talk about it:

In 2006 Ismail Haniyeh became Hamas prime minister. He offered the Bush administration a truce in return for an end to the illegal Israeli occupation. He was completely ignored.

The last truce that was brokered by Egypt was broken by Israel - they sent in the IDF and wiped out 6 Hamas members. Both sides called for peace even after this, but the IDF continued hostilities.


I cannot in good conscience condemn Hamas for using medical vehicles for troops because I know too much about the sickening war crimes that have been committed by Israel against them for decades.

Under international law the Palestinian people have a claim of right to defend their land (and it is *their* land) from hostile invasion using any means at their disposal.

Do these Scamnesty folks expect people to feel sorry for the scum at Gitmo and elsewhere? These poor, poor fellows who take up arms against the West and act like savages, homicide-bombing and cutting off heads...are we to feel sorry they're now getting 3 squares a day?

Torture? At the end of a waterboarding session, the "victim" is still alive, isn't he? Unlike Daniel Pearl.

Whenever caught these brave jihadists suddenly want the civilized protection of international law, which when running loose they sought to destroy? Achmed, please.


If you don't know Carter's legacy, google around. His neverending spineless brown-nosing of soviet dictators emboldened that evil empire, which then invaded no less than seven countries. So go ahead, weigh the 'rights' of jihadists against innocents in those countries the commies invaded. I'd like to see the Amnesty candle-lighters do a vigil for the 100 million+ murdered worldwide by communists.

It's not torture than can never be justified but the failed presidency of James Carter. And half the country just proved how much they don't know by electing more of the same fail.

>> ^MINK:
you're not all wrong there, qm. also don't forget ron paul is against "net neutrality" regulation, but the same people upvoting his videos also upvote "SAVE THE INTERNET!!!!" crap too. it's called kneejerking. or circlejerking.
but QM, your attitude to the principles of international law and sovereignty is also unacceptable, your assessment of the dangers of Iraq taking over the world in 45 minutes was wildly inaccurate, the amount of money spent on the war is completely unjustifiable, the corruption involved outweighs any good intentions on the part of the protagonists, and it is laughable that you would criticise a libertarian for "not leading enough" lolololol. just lololol. kthxbye.


Ron paul is against net neutrality regulation. Another word for net neutrality regulation is the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine requires that holders of broadcast licenses present controversial issues of public importance and do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. Key word: REQUIRES
Ron Paul, it would seem, is overwhelmingly consistent in his views on minimal government regulation.
Excellent use of quotations to skew the true meaning.

I know that this comment is old, but i have something to say.
Ron paul is against net neutrality regulation. Another word for net neutrality regulation is the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine requires that holders of broadcast licenses present controversial issues of public importance and do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. Key word: REQUIRES
Ron Paul, it would seem, is overwhelmingly consistent in his views on minimal government regulation.
Excellent use of quotations to skew the true meaning.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're not all wrong there, qm. also don't forget ron paul is against "net neutrality" regulation, but the same people upvoting his videos also upvote "SAVE THE INTERNET!!!!" crap too. it's called kneejerking. or circlejerking.

but QM, your attitude to the principles of international law and sovereignty is also unacceptable, your assessment of the dangers of Iraq taking over the world in 45 minutes was wildly inaccurate, the amount of money spent on the war is completely unjustifiable, the corruption involved outweighs any good intentions on the part of the protagonists, and it is laughable that you would criticise a libertarian for "not leading enough" lolololol. just lololol. kthxbye.

"and apparently NOW operating with little regard to international boundaries"

OH MY!! As if the United States hasn't been doing this for the past 60 years. When's the last time you heard of U.S. forces operating with high regard for international boundaries (or laws for that matter)? The U.S. military has a long and storied history of operating within foreign nations when it suited its "interests" and ignoring international law. This is not some new policy as media reporters would have you believe. It happens time and time again and never are we provided with the context of the last 100 times the U.S. did it.

Farhad, I am aware that weaponry is a big market, but you're deflecting my original point that the Chinese are overly opportunistic.

Please refresh my memory when the Egyptians, Saudis or Israelis were last under an international arms embargo because of genocide? Don't stray even further by bringing up the Gaza strip... although I'm sure that was your intention.

China has flaunted international law by procuring weapons complicit in genocide and is currently planning to take over much of West Africa. And all this with utmost impunity. That was my original argument.

As for the question of genetic differences between races, I'm certain your blinders are on full throttle. However please looks into these: GNB3825T, IVS3-48c or even HMBS mutations. As we decode our biological structure, "one-world" myths will no longer hold water, especially when drugs are increasingly being created for specific genotypes... I don't think you can refute that.

I can comprehend and even sympathize with your optimism, Farhad, but sometimes it's best to stick to what your eyes can see rather that what you'd like to see.