04-05-2004 23:25									#121
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking There is a thing called property rights that Americans seem to be fond of. I am not an American, nor a lawyer. But it seems to me that you can defend your property with deadly force if you believe a trespasser has malicious intentions:

The settlements were all placed on State land, not on private property. The argument is over sovereignty, not property ownership.

In any case, assuming it was trespass on private property. The trespass would involve the original seizure of land and construction, not habitation. If someone takes my land, builds houses on it, and then rents out the houses, am I entitled to shoot the tenants? Not under US law, I dont think.

	04-05-2004 23:42									#122
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Palestinians are animals. Why should we treat animals like humans? I'd like to see Israel drop a big napalm into one of those "chanting Israel's death" demonstration.

same can be said for you, jackass.

anyway, i'm in agreement with Spiffor. Take that as you wish.

	04-05-2004 23:47									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Nothing in this states that it was wrong or aggression to occupy Iraq. It relates only to the implementation of IV Geneva AFTER the war, and to the maintenance of local laws and local officials and judges

Sort of makes it difficult to change regime, no? That is like saying: "X is not a crime, even though I know doing X will mean Y which is a crime"

quote: Do YOU GePap, think the CPA should NOT support the writing of a transitiaional administrative law, prior to the formal end of occupation??? That IIUC, is the key legal change made by the CPA - nothing else violates IV Gneva that I know of. To hand over sovereignty on the basis of the previous constitution, without a transitional law, would be a disaster for the Iraqi people and I think this is recognized by all concerned. Including the UNSC, the principle states that opposed the coalition actions, etc. It would be a disaster that would be difficult to recover from.

Yes, so in this case an interpretation based solely on the very word of the law, as you apply to Israel and the settlements, is highly injurious. So you don;t make it. Why then do you demand a word by word interpretation of it then when it comes to the Occupied territories?

quote: the Geneva Conventions make NO reference to the circumstances under which the occupation took place - they apply to the most just of wars - which is why, BTW, Israeli justification of the 1967 war are NOT considered ipso facto arguments against applying the Convention to the West Bank/Gaza?

So you continue the line of demanding a word by word interpretation on some topics, not the others though.. as for Israel justification for the 1967 war, that justification does NOT call for taking territory. If the war was simply self defense, then you guys beat the Arab armnies. The imminent threat was gone. Keeping those lands did nothing to mitigate that threat. It was political agreements that did so.

quote: I think you misread the intent of the author - he is NOT arguing for the application of the Convention to Iraq - he is arguing that the non-huminatarian clauses of the Convention have seldom IF EVER been applied by ANYONE anywhere EVEN WHERE THERE IS A FORMER sovereign- and from that is arguing AGAINST their application to the West Bank/Gaza.

Yes, that is what he says-and he says the case in Iraq should the problem with the law, which is it gives too much weight to the previous soverign and its right, vs, the rights of the inhabitants. Which is the reaosning YOU give for why the settlements are not illegal.

quote: 1. The non humanitarian provisions are to be applied ONLY in favor of a former sovereign, but even then NOT when it will lead to disaster for the occupied people. This does NOT imply that they SHOULD be applied when there is NO former soveriegn, simply because it is held that they MIGHT benefit the occupied people. In any case I cant see that the establishment of settlements on empty land, settlements that can be given up, is as harmful to the Pal people as the turnover of sovereignty without a transitional law would be to the Iraqi people ( I freely acknowledge that actions such as building walls and highways on land that require the demolition of houses or farms are a HUMANITARIAN problem in a way that establishment of settlements on vacant land is not - I do NOT defend EVERY Israeli action in the territories, and I DO see that the establishment of LEGAL settlements may have led to the ILLEGAL actions of demolition, etc - I dont like the existence of MOST of the settlements, in case you havent gathered that, and I was deeply disappointed in the result of Sundays referendum)

I would argue, as the author of that article, that the overreliance on there being a previous sovereign is inconsistent with the humanitarian goals of the convention, becuase in fact, what you are saying is that it is up to the aquiascence of a regime to implement the convention, any part of it, as long as they invalidate the previous soverign-in essence making the convention useless. The fact he lays out that no one has ever really followe it is only the most important prime evidence of this.

	04-05-2004 23:49									#124
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

LotM, you are very knowlegeable, but many others do not know the population statistics, which I think are very relevant. Azazel makes a clear distinction between Gaza and WB, and with good reason. There are close to 200,000 Jews living in settlements in the West Bank, most of which are modern suburbs where housing is cheap and a short commute to work in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. There are another 175,000 or so in West Jerusalem. And nearly 2,000,000 Palestinians.

Gaza is another story. There are 1,300,000 Palestinians. There are 5,000 Jewish "Settlers". Every last one is a radical. There is no non-political reason for a Jew to settle there.

Just a little background for those who may not know the difference.

	05-05-2004 00:01									#125
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Sort of makes it difficult to change regime, no? That is like saying: "X is not a crime, even though I know doing X will mean Y which is a crime" quote: Do YOU GePap, think the CPA should NOT support the writing of a transitiaional administrative law, prior to the formal end of occupation??? That IIUC, is the key legal change made by the CPA - nothing else violates IV Gneva that I know of. To hand over sovereignty on the basis of the previous constitution, without a transitional law, would be a disaster for the Iraqi people and I think this is recognized by all concerned. Including the UNSC, the principle states that opposed the coalition actions, etc. It would be a disaster that would be difficult to recover from. Yes, so in this case an interpretation based solely on the very word of the law, as you apply to Israel and the settlements, is highly injurious. So you don;t make it. Why then do you demand a word by word interpretation of it then when it comes to the Occupied territories? quote: the Geneva Conventions make NO reference to the circumstances under which the occupation took place - they apply to the most just of wars - which is why, BTW, Israeli justification of the 1967 war are NOT considered ipso facto arguments against applying the Convention to the West Bank/Gaza? So you continue the line of demanding a word by word interpretation on some topics, not the others though.. as for Israel justification for the 1967 war, that justification does NOT call for taking territory. If the war was simply self defense, then you guys beat the Arab armnies. The imminent threat was gone. Keeping those lands did nothing to mitigate that threat. It was political agreements that did so. quote: I think you misread the intent of the author - he is NOT arguing for the application of the Convention to Iraq - he is arguing that the non-huminatarian clauses of the Convention have seldom IF EVER been applied by ANYONE anywhere EVEN WHERE THERE IS A FORMER sovereign- and from that is arguing AGAINST their application to the West Bank/Gaza. Yes, that is what he says-and he says the case in Iraq should the problem with the law, which is it gives too much weight to the previous soverign and its right, vs, the rights of the inhabitants. Which is the reaosning YOU give for why the settlements are not illegal. I would argue, as the author of that article, that the overreliance on there being a previous sovereign is inconsistent with the humanitarian goals of the convention, becuase in fact, what you are saying is that it is up to the aquiascence of a regime to implement the convention, any part of it, as long as they invalidate the previous soverign-in essence making the convention useless. The fact he lays out that no one has ever really followe it is only the most important prime evidence of this.

GC IV either applies or it doesnt. If it DOESNT, than we can argue utility, and humanitarian considerations, etc. But we cant argue the Convention. If we DO say it applies, then we have to apply it as written.

	05-05-2004 00:02									#126
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking LotM, you are very knowlegeable, but many others do not know the population statistics, which I think are very relevant. Azazel makes a clear distinction between Gaza and WB, and with good reason. There are close to 200,000 Jews living in settlements in the West Bank, most of which are modern suburbs where housing is cheap and a short commute to work in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. There are another 175,000 or so in West Jerusalem. And nearly 2,000,000 Palestinians. Gaza is another story. There are 1,300,000 Palestinians. There are 5,000 Jewish "Settlers". Every last one is a radical. There is no non-political reason for a Jew to settle there. Just a little background for those who may not know the difference.

So its legal to shoot radicals?

	05-05-2004 00:08									#127
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The point I was trying to make is that these are not peace-loving people who simply couldn't find affordable accomodation somewhere else.

These are militants. Every family owns a fully automatic assault rifle. They are not innocent bystanders. They know and intend their presence to be an unapologetic provocation to the Palestinians.

Really, when you think about it, they are not so unlike suicide bombers.

*awaits flames*

	05-05-2004 00:20									#128
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor However, I can feel no sympathy for the adult settlers. They have chosen to live a life that is more difficult in all regards for the sake of nationalism. They have dropped their old life to come live in harsh conditions because they believe in Eretz Israel. I actually consider adult settlers (not born in the settlement) to be valid targets, even more than soldiers, because they chose to come to the war zone and to wage the war.

Yup, they were asking for it. Just like that woman who got raped because she was walking around in that bad neighborhood with the short skirt

	05-05-2004 00:22									#129
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: GC IV either applies or it doesnt. If it DOESNT, than we can argue utility, and humanitarian considerations, etc. But we cant argue the Convention. If we DO say it applies, then we have to apply it as written.

There are rarely ever two choices, and cetrainly not here.

We can argue that the values the Convention tries to set out, in terms of defending people in time of war and making sure individual under a military occupation have rights. I would argue that that we need to modify it to remove this overreliance on there being a previous soverign, and I would say that states should comply with all the provision of it unless those provisions create significant humanitarian dangers-even iof those rules would prohibit them from carrying out policies they whish to carry out on the occupied populations.

BUt if one claism the humanitarian parts of the convention apply, then you better have a damned good reaosn to say why the other parts don't, and saying : cause we want to create facts on the gorund to influence possible future negotiations is NOT a very good one at all.

	05-05-2004 00:26									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Felch quote: War is inhumane. When you wage a war, when you enter a war zone, when you bring your children to a war zone, you should not expect any humanity. Congratulations, you have been baited into giving a damning quote that I will throw in your face next time you criticize an American or Israeli attack that kills civilians. Expecially children. Thank you for your cooperation.

I agree. I have some new sig material :vomit:

	05-05-2004 00:31									#131
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: GC IV either applies or it doesnt. If it DOESNT, than we can argue utility, and humanitarian considerations, etc. But we cant argue the Convention. If we DO say it applies, then we have to apply it as written. There are rarely ever two choices, and cetrainly not here. We can argue that the values the Convention tries to set out, in terms of defending people in time of war and making sure individual under a military occupation have rights. I would argue that that we need to modify it to remove this overreliance on there being a previous soverign, and I would say that states should comply with all the provision of it unless those provisions create significant humanitarian dangers-even iof those rules would prohibit them from carrying out policies they whish to carry out on the occupied populations. LOTM - yeah, you want to rewrite international law so it supports your position. I sympathize entirely. I myself dont think the Treaty of Westphalia should apply to totalitarian regimes. I think ive got as good a shot of seeing my change implemented as you do. BUt if one claism the humanitarian parts of the convention apply, then you better have a damned good reaosn to say why the other parts don't, and saying : cause we want to create facts on the gorund to influence possible future negotiations is NOT a very good one at all.

The reason is that the humanitarian parts are there to protect civilians, not sovereigns.

	05-05-2004 00:34									#132
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Gaza is another story. There are 1,300,000 Palestinians. There are 5,000 Jewish "Settlers". Every last one is a radical. There is no non-political reason for a Jew to settle there. Just a little background for those who may not know the difference.

Not completely correct.

If you look at the Gaza strip map, you'd see the settlements on the edges. Those aren't settlements by the religious jews. The dugit/ Elei sinai block, for example, is some fishermen just chilling there, it's very pastoral there.

	05-05-2004 00:36									#133
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: The reason is that the humanitarian parts are there to protect civilians, not sovereigns.

This goes back to your point: Does the Convention apply or not? Both Israel and the Coalition in Iraq use the same arguement that it is not one or the other, since they recognize the validity of at least part of it in their situations.

The issue then is which parts should NOT apply and when. I would say that unless you can prove that carrying out one provision will cause problems for the local population, then ignore it. Otherwise it should be followed. The part about settling your own people in occupied land is most certantly one of those provisions that should be made derigeaur (sp?)

	05-05-2004 00:39									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: Gaza is another story. There are 1,300,000 Palestinians. There are 5,000 Jewish "Settlers". Every last one is a radical. There is no non-political reason for a Jew to settle there. Just a little background for those who may not know the difference. Not completely correct. If you look at the Gaza strip map, you'd see the settlements on the edges. Those aren't settlements by the religious jews. The dugit/ Elei sinai block, for example, is some fishermen just chilling there, it's very pastoral there.

Well, first it's 7500 settlers.

as for the map:

	05-05-2004 00:42									#135
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: The reason is that the humanitarian parts are there to protect civilians, not sovereigns. This goes back to your point: Does the Convention apply or not? Both Israel and the Coalition in Iraq use the same arguement that it is not one or the other, since they recognize the validity of at least part of it in their situations.

Im not sure EITHER the coalition or Israel say they are LEGALLY bound to follow the other conventions. But its good policy to apply them. Kinda like at Gitmo - the administration says that those imprisoned there are non lawful combatants, ergo Geneva does NOT appy. Doesnt mean we're gonna use electric shock, or execute them. We could write up our own equivalent to Geneva I suppose, as the Coalition could in Iraq, and Israel could in the territories. But what would be the point, when theres already an international consensus on how to treat civilians?

	05-05-2004 00:46									#136
	Remove this text

GePap,

That map is a huge threadkill when your fighting a bad connection.

	05-05-2004 00:55									#137
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking The point I was trying to make is that these are not peace-loving people who simply couldn't find affordable accomodation somewhere else. These are militants. Every family owns a fully automatic assault rifle. LOTM - as does every Iraqi family. They live in a dangerous place. They are not innocent bystanders. They know and intend their presence to be an unapologetic provocation to the Palestinians. LOTM - whats inoccent? Lord merciless wants to kill every Palestinian who cheers for acts of terror. I hold that deliberately killing Palestinians for no other reasons than that they cheer for terrorist acts would be an outrage, whether they are engaging in "provocation" or not. The same holds true for settlers. Really, when you think about it, they are not so unlike suicide bombers. LOTM - if like Baruch Goldstein (I spit on his grave) they murder innocents than that is so. If not, not. *awaits flames*

	05-05-2004 01:07									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

nice aerial/ sat pic. I recognize some locations.

	05-05-2004 01:22									#139
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark quote: The point I was trying to make is that these are not peace-loving people who simply couldn't find affordable accomodation somewhere else. These are militants. Every family owns a fully automatic assault rifle. LOTM - as does every Iraqi family. They live in a dangerous place.

Yes, and most Americans consider all those Iraqi families to be combatants, at least once they're dead.

Difference - the Jewish Settlers CHOSE to live there.

quote: quote: They are not innocent bystanders. They know and intend their presence to be an unapologetic provocation to the Palestinians. LOTM - whats inoccent? Lord merciless wants to kill every Palestinian who cheers for acts of terror. I hold that deliberately killing Palestinians for no other reasons than that they cheer for terrorist acts would be an outrage, whether they are engaging in "provocation" or not. The same holds true for settlers.

Someone made the point that settlers are peace-loving
people minding their own business, and should have the right to safety and freedom...

I think that point is false. That is all.

quote: quote: Really, when you think about it, they are not so unlike suicide bombers. LOTM - if like Baruch Goldstein (I spit on his grave) they murder innocents than that is so. If not, not.

They indoctrinate their children with prejudice, apartheid, and race prejudice. They entrench a cycle of violence, that they KNOW will result in the death of innocents. They intentionally put their children in harms way for political or religious reasons. They are willing to die for their causes.

Yes, there are differences. The suicide bomber is far more direct. They are also far more without alternatives....

	05-05-2004 01:23									#140
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Gepap - my source was the CIA world factbook, says about 5,000. Of course 7,500 really doesn't change the math much when compared to 1.3 million Palestinians...

	05-05-2004 01:26									#141
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: They indoctrinate their children with prejudice, apartheid, and race prejudice. They entrench a cycle of violence, that they KNOW will result in the death of innocents. They intentionally put their children in harms way for political or religious reasons. They are willing to die for their causes.

That's a lot of bull. Most palestinians would be far better off immigrating, yet they insist on staying in the dangers of the west bank, and gaza, and also teach their children hatred and violence............ CACHING, THEY'RE LEGITIMATE WARTIME TARGETS! I'll just pick up the phone for the IDF artillery, so they'll raze the west bank cities, and the Gaza strip.

	05-05-2004 01:27									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich I agree. I have some new sig material :vomit:

Well, I manage to have you drop the insanely long sig

And sorry if I don't provide you a nice and cuddly description of war. Sorry if I extend the usual "what were these civilians doing in the war zone? Why didn't they flee?" comment to the Israeli context, instead of keeping it to the usual Iraqi / Palestinian context where it is so widely used.

If you are looking for a relieving description of war, where you expect to read how humane it is, you better not look at any of my posts on the topic. War. is. ugly.

	05-05-2004 01:28									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe GePap, That map is a huge threadkill when your fighting a bad connection.

Sorry, but that is by far the best map there is, and that is the size of the pic...

Actually, I used that map for my University thesis.

	05-05-2004 01:30									#144
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking Yes, and most Americans consider all those Iraqi families to be combatants, at least once they're dead. LOTM - False. Difference - the Jewish Settlers CHOSE to live there. Someone made the point that settlers are peace-loving people minding their own business, and should have the right to safety and freedom... I think that point is false. That is all. LOTM - and i think its irrelevant They indoctrinate their children with prejudice, apartheid, and race prejudice. They entrench a cycle of violence, that they KNOW will result in the death of innocents. LOTM - the same could be said for probably about 30% of the pal population. I dont think that justifies murdering them. They intentionally put their children in harms way for political or religious reasons. LOTM - you could say that about someone who moved from the US to Tel Aviv

	05-05-2004 01:31									#145
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Your Uni thesis was about the ME? how didn't I know about that?!

	05-05-2004 01:32									#146
	Got spare money?

I see the discussion on if it is OK or not to kill a pregnant woman and her children continues unabated.

	05-05-2004 01:37									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Well, I manage to have you drop the insanely long sig And sorry if I don't provide you a nice and cuddly description of war. Sorry if I extend the usual "what were these civilians doing in the war zone? Why didn't they flee?" comment to the Israeli context, instead of keeping it to the usual Iraqi / Palestinian context where it is so widely used. LOTM - i dont think anyone (sane)has said that justifies deliberate murder of Pals or Iraqis. If a Pal had fired at Israeli troops and a settler was killed as collateral damage you might have a parallelism. Thats not what happened here. If you are looking for a relieving description of war, where you expect to read how humane it is, you better not look at any of my posts on the topic. War. is. ugly.

War is hell - William Tecumseh Sherman. Of course HE was only trying justify burning homes, not killing civilians, and he was actually moderate toward the South once the war was over. War is hell, but there are lesser and greater hells. The Red Cross, IIUC, appeals to "the honor of the warrior" in attempts to get third world armies to learn to not kill and rape civilians, to treat prisoners properly, to not recruit child soldiers etc. Thats what the Geneva Conventions are about Spiff - they accept that war happens, and try to limit some of its horror.

	05-05-2004 01:38									#148
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I see the discussion on if it is OK or not to kill a pregnant woman and her children continues unabated.

Sigh. Ain't life beautiful, DD?

	05-05-2004 02:00									#149
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark War is hell - William Tecumseh Sherman. Of course HE was only trying justify burning homes, not killing civilians, and he was actually moderate toward the South once the war was over. War is hell, but there are lesser and greater hells. The Red Cross, IIUC, appeals to "the honor of the warrior" in attempts to get third world armies to learn to not kill and rape civilians, to treat prisoners properly, to not recruit child soldiers etc. Thats what the Geneva Conventions are about Spiff - they accept that war happens, and try to limit some of its horror.

First, LOTM, thanks for your patience. I can expect my point to upset you very strongly (more than many Apolytonites), yet you're the one who is willing to discuss, and to actually share your point of view

Second, I agree with the fact the hells of war should be limited. Unfortunately, I haven't seen many encouragin things, even since WW2. The war in Vietnam killed millions of civilians. The war in Chechnya completely leveled Groznyi, and I suppose many other cities as well. The war in Korea killed millions (admittedly, many of them were fighters), and pretty much every war so far has been outrageously nasty.

Even in Iraq, where the American efforts of treating the population well to win its heart are to be greeted as good news, torture has been found, indiscriminate violence in war zones has been found, etc. And this is probably the most "humane" war ever waged so far, since the hearts of the Iraqi people are the ultimate military objective!

I wish these people don't get killed. I wish these barbarous acts stop. I can hope for better methods of killing (i.e rockets instead of pump rifles, automatic rifles instead of lynching), but I don't see how the logic of death is any different with the new methods. The soldier that has been killed, whether by a rocket or a dull knife, will continue to leave mourning parents, and maybe mourning orphans. The children who lose their parents, their friends or their homes in an attack will suffer just the same whether the attack has been done by a nice smart bomb, by a bulldozer, or by ye olde TNT.

I would have prefered these Palestinians to scare the hell out of these settlers so that they go back in Israel without muttering. I would have even prefered these Palestinians to capture these people and treat them humanely in some compound. Of course I'd have preferd that over the murder of a pregnant mother and all her children. And obviously, I would have prefered that nothing happens at all instead of this murder (well, maybe not the "scare" part, because I really think these people are the worst thorn to peace on the Israeli side, and their abandoning their homes is absolutely needed if we want to create the conditions for a successful peace).

Maybe that's because I'm a maximalist. But I think war shouldn't happen unless absolutely warranted, because war is the time where every human may turn back into a beast. I don't want to see the day where war will be deemed a palatable political tool, at least in the perspective of the one on the good side of the gun.

	05-05-2004 02:02									#150
	Put an end to popups!

Of course war is palatable - unless you want to stand by while even MORE die.

Were you against Kosovo, Spiffor? Or Gulf I?