I would hope that my government would use every single dirty trick in the book if my country came under an invading army waging genocide.

You CANNOT target medical vehicles under the Geneva conventions, it is a war crime.

Similar tactics were used by the British during WW2.

5 medics have now been killed in Gaza and HALF of the medics have been injured. It's a systematic genocide.

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.

This isn't "genocide", sorry. There is no deliberate program to make a specific civilian faction extinct. Medical vehicles are directly in the line of fire because their job demands it, so their casualty rates are much higher.

"Lets hear no whining when the IDF targets these vehicles."

As if you gave a shit you racist bastard.

You dehumanize the Palestinians at every turn.

You're not fooling anyone.

>> ^rougy:

You dehumanize the Palestinians at every turn.


Rougy, Palestinians dehumanize themselves by hiding in ambulances, sending children and retards to explode themselves against checkpoints, all the while painting their foes as "apes and pigs"

>> ^Irishman:
"I would hope that my government would use every single dirty trick in the book if my country came under an invading army waging genocide...."


And I would hope that my country, in the face of constant and indiscriminant rocket attacks, would use overwhelming force to crush the criminals responsible. If they chose to hide behind women and children, I would hope my government would not be swayed by such dirty tricks.

Genocide means to deliberately target a people for extinction. Israel has never done this. Hamas has such a statement in their charter. You cast your aspersions recklessly and with little precision.

I cannot believe that there is a human being alive on the planet who doesn't understand that this is genocide. Every human rights organisation on the planet has been calling for an end to Israeli genocide for the last ten years.

I want my upvote back, I didn't realise the level of actual racism from these people. I don't want to be associated with this thread or these posters.

removed

You're sort of contradicting yourself there.

If non-medics use medical vehicles for other purposes that medically related work, I would fire on them too. They are abusing the system that have been established, so those are the measures that should be taken.

It is as much a war crime to commandeer the medical vehicle in the first place.

>> ^Irishman:
I would hope that my government would use every single dirty trick in the book if my country came under an invading army waging genocide.
You CANNOT target medical vehicles under the Geneva conventions, it is a war crime.
Similar tactics were used by the British during WW2.
5 medics have now been killed in Gaza and HALF of the medics have been injured. It's a systematic genocide.

^Except it isn't a war crime.

Have there been removed some comments from this thread? Seems like rougy and Irishman are responding to non-existing posts?

I will try not to poke my fingers in this wasp-nest of a topic, tho.

Peace.

It's not a warcrime to destroy a medical vehicle if it's used to carry bombs, either, is it? [citation needed]

<sigh>

Guys, google "Geneva Convention Medical Transport" before you flame each other.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/365-570043?OpenDocument
"The military authorities must take the greatest care to ensure that the red cross sign is removed as soon as a vehicle is no longer employed as medical transport, and strict orders to this effect must be given to all ranks. It is essential that the serious abuses which occurred during the Second World War should not be repeated. (2)
For although there were very good reasons for introducing the principle of a distinctive emblem which could be removed, the risk of abuse has certainly been increased as a result. After the wounded have been taken to the rear under the protection of the red cross sign, there [p.282] will be a great temptation to load the empty vehicles returning to the front with war material. If the emblem then remains on the loaded vehicles, there is a grave breach of the Convention, even if the sign has simply been left on through negligence or because there has been no time to remove it. Such cases have occurred. Constant vigilance is therefore essential."

Does "grave breach of the (Geneva) Convention" mean war crime? I'm not a human rights lawyer, but I suspect the answer is "hell yeah"...

>> ^Irishman:
I would hope that my government would use every single dirty trick in the book if my country came under an invading army waging genocide.
You CANNOT target medical vehicles under the Geneva conventions, it is a war crime.
Similar tactics were used by the British during WW2.
5 medics have now been killed in Gaza and HALF of the medics have been injured. It's a systematic genocide.


So then I take it you don't condemn any of Israel's tactics in the war of '48? Don't have to answer right away, maybe your so far gone you even consider the Arab population to have been acting in self defense back then too.

I'm sorry, but it disgusts me to no end to see you condemning Israel for targeting medics and at the exact same time defending Hamas' use of ambulances as troop carriers. Your honestly going to look at a group of people firing rockets at civilians and then hiding in ambulances as a legitimate self defense?

Please tell me, if the IDF is trying to commit genocide against the Palestinians, why aren't they trying harder? They sure have handled their 'genocide' in a spectacularly inefficient manner compared to every other operation they normally execute. They are without doubt one of the best trained forces in the world, and yet if anything they seem to be trying to target only the militants. It almost would seem as if they were only interested in killing the militants and not civilians, shocking!

If you want a real genocide to criticize, try Pol Pot or the RGF(or their remnant in the Congo today), or even Saddam's campaign against the Kurds. All of them make even the worst of Israel's attacks on Palestinians(of which many deserve condemnation) look like a nice day at the park by comparison.

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.

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.


Finally something I think we can both agree on, at least mostly. I'd say that would be a good first step, but you simply can't limit the Israel-Palestine conflict to just those two nations, I think that overly simplistic to the point of being false.

Let's be honest about the conflict. Even if Hezbollah, Hamas and all the palestinian people united to make a well co-ordinated surprise assault on Israel, the IDF would have it stomped out entirely within the week. The fighting between Israel and Palestinian militants is a real security threat to both, but I think it is only a small part of a bigger picture. It's like looking at the Korean or Vietnam wars without talking about the tensions between the US and USSR.

The real tension around Israel then is in fact between them and Syria and Iran. Syria and Iran together pose a vastly more credible threat to Israel. Both Syria and Iran fund Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies to strike at Israel without mounting direct military action. Hamas and Hezbollah then become sacrificial lambs/martyrs to Syrian and Iranian goals. Dying as underdogs to make Israel play the role of the bad guy. Israel for it's part plays right into it, as their foreign policy can accept collateral civilian casualites more readily than it can weakness. It's all a big mess like most conflicts in the world, but simply saying that Israel should be condemned and Hamas forgiven is throwing wood on the fire.


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.


Well let's talk about Hamas' charter then. Ismail Haniyeh's offer for a truce may not have been taken seriously because his foregin minister(and a Hamas co-founder) stated the following after their election "dreams of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it...I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (including Israel). This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land". Surely Hamas own charter and statements by other co-founders like Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi(who also denies the holocaust) stating their goal is "to remove Israel from the map" make negotiations with them difficult to neigh on impossible.

I know you strongly disagree, but I am willing to understand Israeli relutance to trust a truce with an organization with that kind of leadership. A truce that is openly discussed as acceptable only because 'a phased liberation of all historic Palestine may be necessary' just doesn't strike me as in Israels best interests.

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.

>> ^mharvey42:
Rougy, Palestinians dehumanize themselves by hiding in ambulances, sending children and retards to explode themselves against checkpoints, all the while painting their foes as "apes and pigs"


What I see is people loading an injured man into an ambulance and then getting into it and the vehicle is retreating from the front line.

I just don't see the problem here, was the ambulance NOT going to the rear? Is the problem that they had weapons on them? Do you think this ambulence drove these men to fight somewhere? I don't see the problem if they were transporting the injured man.

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.

Wath this and see why the Palestinians resist

why dose it matter what something is in law who cares what you call it genoside ,killing ,murder all are just words to describe people losing life through the acts of other people.

who cares if its legal ore not as an example its legal for me to join army and kill asama bin ladan that however dosent some how make it right ore good to deprive sumone of life,

in anny case there are manny ocasoins where lore is unethical due to it having to be a burcatical system so it can often be a pore benchmark for ethics.

in this scanaroi both sides have eliments of blame there are allso alot of people who are inosent and are bing afected by this war when realy thay dont deserv it.

my stand piont at the moment however is that israil are in the most comfortable/safer positoin with more resources mony and global political backing so it should be israil making more of an effort to acomidate hamass and the palastinean people. rather than dispropotoinalty bombing the crap out of evrything.

its like how after sept 11th if usa had evaluated its foghen policy and maby apreached things diplmaticly thay would have had alot of sympthay evan from more extreem people than usual which would have given them more leverage that thay would nto have normaly had, usa could have esealy contributaed to world peace but instead thay bombed the shit out of people pushing ther selfish global agenda.

Free Palestine. End the illegal occupation. Stop the oppression.

>> ^Irishman:
Free Palestine. End the illegal occupation. Stop the oppression.


If only it could be that simple.

How is ending the occupation defined?
-Removal of all troops?
-Lifting aerial and naval blockades?
-Granting right of return?
-The elimination of the Israeli state and restoration of historic Palestine?
Hamas founders and charter define it is all the above by the way.

What borders define Palestine?
-1946?
-1948?
-1967?
-1973?
-Current Day?

Finally, in the -ahem- unlikely -ahem- event that rocket and suicide attacks on Israel(if it is still allowed to exist) continue for years afterwards, what is Israel expected to do?

>> ^Irishman:
Free Palestine. End the illegal occupation. Stop the oppression.


This trite sloganeering illustrates the flaccidity of Pro-Palestinian Western activists.

If you try and engage them in dialog that won't fit on a sign or tee shirt, they fall back to a last resort of branding one a "Racist" who supports "Genocide" and "Occupation".

These slurs ring as hollow as the 7.62 rounds that glance off the armor of the IDF tanks.

I'm not commenting on the conflict as a whole, mind you, but on this one particular video. ...

>> ^joedirt:
>> ^mharvey42:
Rougy, Palestinians dehumanize themselves by hiding in ambulances, sending children and retards to explode themselves against checkpoints, all the while painting their foes as "apes and pigs"

What I see is people loading an injured man into an ambulance and then getting into it and the vehicle is retreating from the front line.
I just don't see the problem here, was the ambulance NOT going to the rear? Is the problem that they had weapons on them? Do you think this ambulence drove these men to fight somewhere? I don't see the problem if they were transporting the injured man.


Gotta drop the guns if you want a ride in an ambulance, if you want to follow the Geneva Convention.

Gorilla Warfare, terrorism is just another name for it.


Do you want to know what I think of this conflict? See this image.

http://yagizyilmaz.deviantart.com/art/Confusing-108509741

It's like trying to explain particle physics to a dead octopus.

F.U. mharvey

Its disgusting to watch pigs like you wallowing in the blood of innocent people, braying at the sky and clawing the floorboards hoping for more and more dead kids.

Talking about this fucking van breaking geneva conventions? Oh no, a hangnail on a bloody corpse.

When you have kalishnikovs and homemade rockets vs. tanks and f-16's .. you tend to retire the rulebook.

>> ^ElJardinero:
When you have kalishnikovs and homemade rockets vs. tanks and f-16's .. you tend to retire the rulebook.


Retire the rulebook, eh? Like strapping explosives onto your children and blowing them up?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Hamas-TV-2-yr-old-boy-groomed-for-Shahada-Suicide-Bomber

Sorry some rules are meant to be universally kept.

Finally a use for the "ignore" feature. Wow, even QM or Billo hadn't got me so far...

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Irishman:
Free Palestine. End the illegal occupation. Stop the oppression.

If only it could be that simple.
How is ending the occupation defined?
-Removal of all troops?
-Lifting aerial and naval blockades?
-Granting right of return?
-The elimination of the Israeli state and restoration of historic Palestine?
Hamas founders and charter define it is all the above by the way.
What borders define Palestine?
-1946?
-1948?
-1967?
-1973?
-Current Day?
Finally, in the -ahem- unlikely -ahem- event that rocket and suicide attacks on Israel(if it is still allowed to exist) continue for years afterwards, what is Israel expected to do?


Well, it's an ugly, ugly mess down there. It was a mistake to create Israel in the first place, because there was no historic basis for it. It was just done. And the borders have even fluctuated pretty wildly, as you already indicated.

There are no easy solutions.

One solution is for the involved parties to duke it out, so to speak, at the cost of many innocent lives.
Another is for the rest of the world to take a side and either force an agreement (and risk another uprising) or wipe out one side (which is virtually impossible, and also genocide).

There are no laws for the world, so we have no real jurisdiction to arbitrate their conflict, so natural conclusion is to isolate the countries from the rest of the world and let them have their fight, and to the victor goes the spoils. This is of course tremendously unfair, because we've already helped one side pretty damn much, and it's also very inhumane because many, many lives are wasted.

As I said, there are no easy solutions. Can you think of reasonable solutions?

(I hesitate to add this, but at the heart of this conflict is once again the elephant in the room - religion. If people were reasonable, this would not be nearly as bad as it is.)

It was a mistake to create Israel in the first place, because there was no historic basis for it.

I'm not an expert in history, but I think you should reconsider using this argument. Arguing this particular point is nearly entirely futile because there's always further back in history to examine, and there's no way to verify proper ownership of the land. How far back should we look? The 1940's? Or around 70 CE? Or around 607 BCE? Further back? Do we believe the stories in the bible? Which bible do we believe? What about history before the bible? Are these even the same people any more?

(I hesitate to add this, but at the heart of this conflict is once again the elephant in the room - religion. If people were reasonable, this would not be nearly as bad as it is.)

This particular argument deserves NO hesitation. I think you're absolutely correct on this point, and I wish more people would consider it.

By the way, my reasonable solution to the problem is to have everyone STOP KILLING EACH OTHER. Killing people isn't doing a damn bit of good, and if everyone stopped then no one would be killed anymore. But that's like telling everyone in a traffic jam to just accelerate all at the same time at the same rate. Ain't gonna happen.

Once people have stopped killing each other, though, then discussions can start happening for real. Forget everything that happened in the past because there's no hope in sorting it out. Start over. If it takes a thousand years to come to an agreement, at least it would be a thousand years without people dieing pointlessly. Everyone could put their efforts into living better lives instead of killing each other, and by the time a thousand years rolls around people will be living so well they'll have totally forgotten all this bullshit going on right now. There won't be as much distinction between Palestinians and Israelis by that time, either... interracial breeding and genetics will take care of that over time.

The other option is to attempt to totally wipe out every single person on earth who disagrees with you. Best of luck.

>> ^conan:
Finally a use for the "ignore" feature. Wow, even QM or Billo hadn't got me so far...


Agreed. Who would have thought someone so retarded even I have to ignore them.

er... who are you ignoring?

I really wish I had the ability to downvote comments. Calling someone else a poopyhead doesn't help you make your argument.