Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[thesyntaxera]

using an embargo to intimidate a civilian population into making a political change is indeed a form of terrorism.

if you do not like a political choice made by a civilian population, you can choose not to trade with them. but you have no right to prevent other countries from trading with them.

Exactly.

 

[quixotecoyote]

""No protected person(individual palestinians) may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties(Giant Walls) and likewise all measures of intimidation(Helicopter raids on humanitarian vessels) or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited(6 day war). Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited."

No. Building walls is not what is meant by punishment. Nor is interdiction of vessels in violation of blockades.

Using your definition would make any hostile act where civilians suffer into a war crime.

Heck, I'm curious, do you agree that compulsory insurance in the USA is collective punishment?

http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1440

After all:

""No protected person(individual Americans) may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties(Giant Fines) and likewise all measures of intimidation(Arrests for nonpayment) or of terrorism are prohibited. [/quote]


Or would you like to return to reality, where:

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. so this entire thread has only taught me two things
1) Most people who bash Israel don't have a sense of proportion.
2) you mean both Isreal and Hamas aren't acting rationally? SHOCKER! I WOULD HAVE NEVER GUESSED THAT!

 

[bit_pattern]

"intimidatory measures to terrorize the population"

Like terrosing a civilian population into voting for someone different?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Against the innocent Palestinians? Most definitely.That's like me locking you in a room and starving you, withholding water and toilet facilities just to get you to agree with me.

I'm curious why it matters whether the Palestinians are innocent or guilty. The issue to me is whether one nation can blockade another when that other is trying to destroy it. It doesn't scale down to an individual level, so I dismiss your false analogy to locking you in a box, athough I do note it's funny how you've abbreviated "agree not to kill me" to "agree with me."

Whether the Palestians who voted the genocidal terrorists into power count as "innocent" or not is an interesting sideline discussed in my earlier posts.

 

[bit_pattern]

.. so this entire thread has only taught me two things
1) Most people who bash Israel don't have a sense of proportion.

Where's the proportion in illegally boarding a peaceful vessel in international waters and murdering ten civilians?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Sorry, not playing that game.

 

[thesyntaxera]

No. Building walls is not what is meant by punishment.

And yet that is the result.

Nor is interdiction of vessels in violation of blockades.

And yet that is the result.

Using your definition would make any hostile act where civilians suffer into a war crime.

Ah to be a humanist.

Heck, I'm curious, do you agree that compulsory insurance in the USA is collective punishment?

Nope, common sense. Just like car insurance is common sense.

"No protected person(individual Americans) may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties(Giant Fines) and likewise all measures of intimidation(Arrests for nonpayment) or of terrorism are prohibited.

Wow. You just equated mandatory healthcare with the murder of a dozen or more people, and the virtual isolation and economic deprivation of a whole nation of people. Pat yourself on the back.

Or would you like to return to reality, where:

Oh, you mean what I am talking about?

 

[lionking]

I'm curious why it matters whether the Palestinians are innocent or guilty. The issue to me is whether one nation can blockade another when that other is trying to destroy it.

Precisely. That's the way the world has always worked. A nation with a government dedicated to destroying another nation will suffer the consequences.

 

[thesyntaxera]

**

 

[bit_pattern]

Precisely. That's the way the world has always worked. A nation with a government dedicated to destroying another nation will suffer the consequences.

I like the way you completely ignore where I demonstrate that Hamas has for years stated its willingness to recognise Israel and continue repeating the same misconception. That takes a special kind commitment.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Let me clarify:

Where's the proportion in illegally boarding a peaceful vessel in international waters and murdering ten civilians?

Anything highlighted I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Precisely. That's the way the world has always worked. A nation with a government dedicated to destroying another nation will suffer the consequences.

I'm curious why it matters whether the Palestinians are innocent or guilty. The issue to me is whether one nation can blockade another when that other is trying to destroy it.

If ALL of the Palestinians wanted to destroy Israel maybe you would have a point.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I like the way you completely ignore where I demonstrate that Hamas has for years stated its willingness to recognise Israel and continue repeating the same misconception. That takes a special kind commitment.

Except they're also asking impossible demands. There is no way Israel will give up /any/ of Jerusalem and everyone knows it.

 

[quixotecoyote]

If ALL of the Palestinians wanted to destroy Israel maybe you would have a point.

The idea that ALL the citizens of a beligerent nation must support the war effort before the target can respond is absurd.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Except they're also asking impossible demands. There is no way Israel will give up /any/ of Jerusalem and everyone knows it.

Why didn't Israel simply maintain the pre-1967 borders, and avoid all this drama?

 

[bit_pattern]

Let me clarify:


Anything highlighted I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying.

Can you point out the relevant maritime laws that allow vessels flying under national flags to be boarded by force in international waters?

 

[lionking]

I like the way you completely ignore where I demonstrate that Hamas has for years stated its willingness to recognise Israel and continue repeating the same misconception. That takes a special kind commitment.

There are other threads dedicated to this fiction. I suggest you check them out.

 

[thesyntaxera]

The idea that ALL the citizens of a beligerent nation must support the war effort before the target can respond is absurd.

The idea that one nations government can persecute another nations civillian population because their governments disagree is absurd.

 

[Skeptic]

One of the top reasons offered for Israel moving out from Gaza is that then, it will have the moral high ground, and the world will understand if it takes reasonable measures -- such as a naval blockade to stop arms smuggling -- against a terrorist government who had sworn to destroy and genocide it. Well, so much for that theory. Need I add that just this theory was paraded, in this very forum, by the very people who now condemn Israel for... imposing the naval blockade?

Israel should have learned long ago that "If you only will do this, I will love you" is always a lie. The same applies to a Palestinian state, by the way: in exactly the same way the very people who claimed they will support Israel once it regains the moral high ground by withdrawal from Gaza took about two weeks to start siding with its enemies once again, if Israel does what they say and regains the moral high ground by withdrawing from the territories it will take them even less time to support the new Palestinian state in enforcing the next stage of the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction.

No doubt the first thing a Palestinian state would do is arranged similar flotillas in favor of the "right of return" -- to finish Israel's destruction demographically, once they have their internationally-recognized terrorist base Palestinian state. And, no doubt, the same folks now urging Israel so strongly to withdraw, so that then it will be loved by them, will side with the Palestinians, calling the flotilla a "Palestinians rights peaceful protest" or whatever.

This, mind you, is NOT the case with EVERY supporter of a Palestinian state. I certainly am sympathetic with those who want a peaceful Palestinian state. The problem is not the desire of such a state, but in not realizing it's -- currently -- impossible (just think how long it will take Hamas to take over that state -- two weeks?).

But, be that as it may, such people typically show concern for Israel's security and try to see what can be done to ensure it, or in improving ties between regular Israelies and Palestinians, and so on. They have a goal which, while I think is currently unrealistic, is in itself admirable. They do not threaten Israel with the loss of their love lest it does exactly what they want right now without any concern to its safety. They do not dismiss all Israeli concerns as "propaganda" while swallowing Hamas' propaganda whole. They do not randomly and constantly criticize Israel for whatever-the-heck they feel like this week.

I am speaking here specifically of those who rant and rave about Israel using the Palestinian case as an excuse, who demand that Israel more or less unconditionally accept all Arab demands. For those folks, if the excuse of "the occupation" is taken away, as it was in Gaza, they just find another one -- the blockade, or the right of return, or whatever, since the real reason they rant and rave is that Israel exists at all. Their real goal is not peace, but the elimination of the Jewish state.