Isreal has declared open war with Lebanon :D

[ssternlight]

Quote from gkishot:

The Palestinian people have elected government and in civilised world that's a government's responsibility to garantee the safe life & living of common people. They should think about feeding the people first instead engaging in those cross-border provocations against the neighboring state. The responsibility is totally on the shoulders of Palestinians governing bodies.

Yes.

I agree with this. As I said in one of my other posts, I think the problem is how do you move a quasi feudal setup to a capitalist/democratic society. When Hamas came into power they basically just traded one feudal lord for another...

I don't really know the details on this one. You'd think that the Israeli's would have been able to deal with this issue when they administered the territories. Obviously, that's not the situation now for whatever reasons...

 

[cognitis]

Lebanon is a sovereign state with elected president and parliament. Lebanon didn't commit and didn't threaten to commit any act of war. As a peaceful sovereign state, international law demands all other states to honor Lebanon's peaceful existence.

Israel is a soveriegn state with elected parliament. Israel allows only Jews citizenship, thus establishing "Jew" as a preferred person. Israel has invaded Lebanon, shelled residential areas, blockaded ports: all clear acts of war.

Israel claims that Lebanon harbors "terrorists"; this claim is not a fact and is Israel's only justification for committing acts of war. To illustrate the difference between a claim and a fact: if Mexico were to declare war against US and then send soldiers to invade, that the invasion would be an act of war is a fact; on the other hand, should Mexican smuggling-ring members cross the border without Mexico's knowledge or sanction, some right-wing neocon nut job's calling "cross border" an "invasion" or calling "smugglers being Mexican" "tacit sanction by Mexican government" would not by any sane human's reasoning be a fact.

Why then do Jews attack Lebanon?

Israel claims that kidnapping IDF soldiers--regardless of rank--is an act of war. Setting aside the fact that no state sanctioned the recent kidnapping and, also, setting aside the fact that international law nowhere defines soldeir kidnapping as an act of war; Israel doesn't make war on every group that kidnaps soldiers. To illustrate: when an IDF soldier go AWOL in US, does Israel claim kidnap and declare war on US? When a soldier goes AWOL in Israel, does ISR attack the soldier's kibbutz? Israel clearly makes policy dependent not just on an act's nature.

To those of you who still don't get it: in the 70's Italian Red Brigade members kidnapped Getty's son and demanded ransom. Unlike in recent events, there is no doubt at all that Getty's son had been kidnapped, a fact made even more clear when the members mailed Getty his son's severed ear. Using Israel's reasoning, the US had both a right and an obligation in defending a US citizen to invade, occupy, shell, Italy, and kill Italians; no sane human would agree with this conclusion.

Given the above facts, definitions, and proofs, why then does Israel attack Lebanon?

The only significant difference between Lebanon and US or Italy or Israel itself is this: majority population of Lebanon is Muslim. Israel only grants citizenship to Jews which fact makes Israel a racist country like South Africa where Boers granted fewer rights to blacks. Israel's Lebanon invasion, thus, has nothing to with a kidnapped soldier but everything to do with racist killing and racist hate--in other words, genocide.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ssternlight:

Capabilities show you what a proportional response should look like.
You have a very narrow and convenient concept of proportionality, it only applies to israel's advantages. Again based on your logic it simply makes no sense for israel to improve their military because they will be "disproportionately" strong. I suppose they should only do it when arab countries are as strong as israel and are capable to wipe israel off the map. Too bad it will be too late for Israel.

If you want a true proportional response all other aspects not just 'capabilities' should be on the table. The objectives should be proportional, the cruelty should be proportional, the disregard for innocent human life should be proportional. Heck even the size of the population should be taken into account - there are 5 mln israelis and 300 mln arabs so any mathematician will confirm that killing 60 innocent arabs for each innocent israeli citizen is absolutely proportional.


Next, I think your view of the Hamas elections is too black and white. Much of what drove Fatah out of power was the level of corruption and their inability to make progress in improving the lives of the Palestinians.
Oh please. With democracy comes responsibility, no party in the world is perfect, when people go to the polls they make tough choices and compromises, Palestinians made theirs and their are fully responsible for their decisions.

If you want to drive the militia's into the sea I'm all for it. But not at the expense of eliminating millions of people to get the few.
This is not Israel's job to drive palestinian/Lebenese militia into the sea. This is the job of those supposedly innocent millions of people to get rid of a few bad apples. And if they are not doing it, not even trying, if they are cheering them on, if they are naming streets and corners after them - then they suffer and pay the price.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So we should presume both sides innocent, that is your position?

You said a court must determine who's guilty. I did not say that, I don't believe in international laws and international courts but if you think the issue should be resolved in courts then the concept of the presumption of innocence certainly applies.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

No, of course you don't believe in international law or courts.

Those who self justify and rationalize violence never do...

Quote from dddooo:

You said a court must determine who's guilty. I did not say that, I don't believe in international laws and international courts but if you think the issue should be resolved in courts then the concept of the presumption of innocence certainly applies.

 

[gkishot]

In this case here are another racist states for you: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan, China, North Korea, Vietnam etc.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from cognitis:

Israel only grants citizenship to Jews

Bullshit, everyone can become an israeli citizen through a proper legal/naturalization procedure, it's not any more or less complicated than becoming a citizen of the USA, France, Japan or any other democratic country.

 

[ssternlight]

Quote from dddooo:

Capabilities show you what a proportional response should look like.
You have a very narrow and convenient concept of proportionality, it only applies to israel's advantages. Again based on your logic it simply makes no sense for israel to improve their military because they will be "disproportionately" strong. I suppose they should only do it when arab countries are as strong as israel and are capable to wipe israel off the map. Too bad it will be too late for Israel.

If you want a true proportional response all other aspects not just 'capabilities' should be on the table. The objectives should be proportional, the cruelty should be proportional, the disregard for innocent human life should be proportional. Heck even the size of the population should be taken into account - there are 5 mln israelis and 300 mln arabs so any mathematician will confirm that killing 60 innocent arabs for each innocent israeli citizen is absolutely proportional.


Next, I think your view of the Hamas elections is too black and white. Much of what drove Fatah out of power was the level of corruption and their inability to make progress in improving the lives of the Palestinians.
Oh please. With democracy comes responsibility, no party in the world is perfect, when people go to the polls they make tough choices and compromises, Palestinians made theirs and their are fully responsible for their decisions.

If you want to drive the militia's into the sea I'm all for it. But not at the expense of eliminating millions of people to get the few.
This is not Israel's job to drive palestinian/Lebenese militia into the sea. This is the job of those supposedly innocent millions of people to get rid of a few bad apples. And if they are not doing it, not even trying, if they are cheering them on, if they are naming streets and corners after them - then they suffer and pay the price.

Your argument to which I was responding was as follows:

If someone wanted to drive you into the sea and instead you got the upper hand and drove your enemy into the sea - would that response be proportional enough for your taste?

What I suggested was that the Palestinians don't have that capability -- i.e. they are being rhetorical -- and that what you were proposing as a solution to the current crisis was draconian to say the least. Now with respect to proportionality, all I was suggesting was a tit for tat approach. Nowhere did I suggest that Israel define it's capabilities by that of its enemies.

So, I'm happy to discuss the issue with you but please don't distort my arguments. As to the rest of your arguments regarding proportional cruelty etc.. they're not really relevant to the current situation are they -- the rest of the arab world isn't attacking Israel, etc...

With respect to the choice of government argument, I can only refer you back to what I said regarding militia's and feudalism. I'll also add by way of example, that I didn't support the Iraq war then, don't now, and didn't vote for the current administration but have to suck it up like everyone else. Does that make me responsible for the government's actions? Should I be attempting to overthrow the government because I don't support it's policies? That would seem to be the logical conclusion of your argument.

Your last point is similar to the second one. You seem to feel that the general populace is somehow able to rise up and overthrow the guys with the guns. Unless you have the support of the army -- or they at least stand aside -- it isn't going to work. Now this is a bit simplistic as there are a lot more dynamics going on there -- some of which I feel you correctly identify. But the gist of it is correct.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

No, of course you don't believe in international law or courts.

No of course I don't believe in fiction or phantom that only exists in someone's imagination and not in real life.

Real laws are based on precedents, cases, trials, appeals, amendments improving the law and taking new circumstances into account. Real laws are actually based on dozens or hundreds of years, thousands or millions of trials, precedents, cases and amendments.

The law represented by a piece of paper signed by a bunch of UN bureaucrats 40 years ago and never tested in courts is not worth the paper it's written on.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The expected and predictable response from those who don't want to answer to the reason of anyone else....

Quote from dddooo:

No of course I don't believe in fiction or phantom that only exists in someone's imagination and not in real life.

Real laws are based on precedents, cases, trials, appeals, amendments improving the law and taking new circumstances into account. Real laws are actually based on dozens or hundreds of years, thousands or millions of trials, precedents, cases and amendments.

The law represented by a piece of paper signed by a bunch of UN bureaucrats 40 years ago and never tested in courts is not worth the paper it's written on.