How to defeat Obama

[Jorge]

From Aliyah's #157:
Come on, Jorge!!!! I thought you were above quoting that piece of garbage to make your case.

For anyone who is not familiar with Zeev Sternhell, that bastard called for the Palestinians to concentrate their armed struggle over the "green line" (i.e. against "settlers"). In other words, he directly called for the Palis to use violence against Jews living over the "green line", including my family and I.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but you get NO brownie points from me for quoting that @#$%&&*!!!!

Aliyah: I don't come to this Forum in order to collect brownie points. Quite the opposite, I understand that my views or opinions are very different from th0se prevalent in this Forum.

I understand as well that Prof. Sternhell might not count many fans here, but he happens to be a widely respected academic that as you know was awarded recently the Israel Prize for his outstanding contributions to the field of political sciences.

I'd say that calling him a bastard is a bit strong but I suppose you are within the freedom of opinion clauses in our unwritten constitution. I'd gather you won't go as far as justifying the attempt to blow him (and his family) up, carried out by a criminal that came from the ranks of the settlers?

To substance: if you'd take the trouble to read carefully Prof. Sternhell's profuse writings (not what other people said he wrote)you'd realize that he's far from being a man advocating indiscriminate killing, least of all of Israelis within or outside the occupied territories.

[Jorge]

...and my apologies for not answering for now the latest Posts kindly addressed to me. I'll be absorbed in the pleasant carnivorous rituals of celebration of our Independence Day.

[Reffo]

What came first? The Chicken or the egg? That's the question that the misguided career peace-nicks, who put their heads in the sand, like Zeev Sternhell seem to steadfastly ignore.

They go on and on and on ... about the settlements. But are they right? Are the settlements the reason why there is no peace? Of course not! They ignore the fact that:

• Prior to 1967 there were no settlements and the Arabs still waged war against Israel
• Immediately after 1967 there were still no settlements and the Arab response to Israel's overtures were the three NO's of Khartum: No negotiations, no recognition, no peace and they promised that "what was taken by the sword would be taken back by the sword"
• After Oslo, Israel progressively handed control of the land over to the Palestinian Arabs and what was the Pal Arab response? An escalation of attacks against Israeli civilians, random stabbings and bombings ...
• And what happened in 2005, after Israel unilaterally dismantled the Gaza settlements? The rocket attacks against the civilians of Southern Israel escalated.

And what about the lie by omission that the Zeev Sternhells of this world perpetuate? They either forget to mention the peace offers made by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, just in this decade (of course Israel offered peace way before that too) or they dismiss those peace offers and the fact that the Palestinian Arabs steadfastly continue to ignore the peace offers. And what would happen if they would accept those offers? ANSWER: The problem of the settlements would disappear .... and indeed, that's why the Palestinian Arabs refused those peace deals. Because they don't want the war to end and therefore they need the S-E-T-T-L-E-M-E-N-T-S as an excuse, to justify their ongoing war against Israel.

So, what came first? Arab hatred of what they call "The Zionist" entity (Israel) came first and it continues to this day. The S-E-T-T-L-E-M-E-N-T-S are just their ongoing excuse to wage their war of annihilation against the Jewish state ... What the Zeev Sternhells won't tell anyone that if the Palestinian Arabs would NOT have the S-E-T-T-L-E-M-E-N-T-S as an excuse, they would still continue to wage their war of annihilation against Israel ...

[Aliyah1995]

From Aliyah's #157:
Come on, Jorge!!!! I thought you were above quoting that piece of garbage to make your case.

For anyone who is not familiar with Zeev Sternhell, that bastard called for the Palestinians to concentrate their armed struggle over the "green line" (i.e. against "settlers"). In other words, he directly called for the Palis to use violence against Jews living over the "green line", including my family and I.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but you get NO brownie points from me for quoting that @#$%&&*!!!!

Aliyah: I don't come to this Forum in order to collect brownie points. Quite the opposite, I understand that my views or opinions are very different from th0se prevalent in this Forum.

I understand as well that Prof. Sternhell might not count many fans here, but he happens to be a widely respected academic that as you know was awarded recently the Israel Prize for his outstanding contributions to the field of political sciences.

I'd say that calling him a bastard is a bit strong but I suppose you are within the freedom of opinion clauses in our unwritten constitution. I'd gather you won't go as far as justifying the attempt to blow him (and his family) up, carried out by a criminal that came from the ranks of the settlers?

To substance: if you'd take the trouble to read carefully Prof. Sternhell's profuse writings (not what other people said he wrote)you'd realize that he's far from being a man advocating indiscriminate killing, least of all of Israelis within or outside the occupied territories.

What I meant by "brownie points" is not that I would want to take you out for ice cream, but that I would actually come any closer to taking you POV seriously.

Anyhoo, Sternell is a widely respected academic by who? You don't think the Israeli prizes (especially in political sciences) are somewhat rigged?

I have read some of Sternhell's writings (Ha'aretz is graced with his writings, surprise surprise) and he has said a lot of things, including about the Palestinians concentrating their armed struggle over the "green line".

To answer your ?, no I do not condone the attempt to blow him and/or his family up. Now, if he was to be struck by lightning, I wouldn't exactly be weeping in sorrow either, though.

[Jorge]

From Aliyah's Post #161:

You can't be serious Surely you know the key difference between Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. and us is that the former PURPOSELY and WILLFULLY place their citizens (specifically women and children) on the front line in harm's way. We, on the other hand, shelter our citizens as much as possible, which is why bomb shelters are a requirement in our buildings. Also, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. train their kids from an early age to by "martrys" and send their kids to the frontlines to fight (which is against International Law's of combat), while we do everything we can to shelter our kids and only draft them into the IDF at age 18 and only send our soldiers to fight when necessary for defending our country, not to be "martyrs".

If you and your fellow leftists (or whatever else you want to go by) cannot see this basic difference, then woe unto us if we are so confused by moral relativity that we can't even see why justice is on our side when fighting terrorists who have no regard for life.

Re., your "whatever else you want to go by": I'd rather "go by" as a pragmatist (as opposed to the people you represent which I have called idealists ). However, this classification I have proposed doesn't seem to catch on and, if you'd rather call me a leftist (a term too ambiguous for my taste) I don't mind.

I don't think we disagree about the need to fight "terrorists who have no regard for life". In my view this is justified and I'd go as far to justify even ruthless methods against them like, for instance, "targeted assassinations". I don't think that we disagree either in condemning the use of women and children as human shields by putting them "on the front line in harm's way".

Considering the above your dramatic "woe unto us" if we are so confused by moral relativity is rather unjustified.

I assume that what prompted your indignation was my earlier paragraph:
Assume that Hezbollah, while hypothetically aiming rockets at the Kyriah ( the site of our Strategic Command) blows up the Azrieli Towers and surrounding buildings killing hundreds of civilians. I don't see "the world" being complacent about such an event and declaring that it is our fault for placing the Ministry of Defense in the middle of a residential area.

The point being that, in such event, it would be preposterous of Hezbollah to justify the civilian casualties by saying that the fault is ours for placing the offices of our Strategic Command in the middle of the most populated sector of Tel Aviv. As preposterous by the way as our claiming (when bombing close to a quarter of Beirut) that the blame fell on Hezbollah for putting their Strategic Command in the middle of a residential area. I wouldn't say that 'moral relativity' is involved here; both cases should be considered under the label "using disproportionate force" or, even better, "disregard for civilian casualties".

It is this disregard for inflicting civilian casualties which is a key characteristic of the tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas. Unfortunately, our military actions in the last incursions in Lebanon and in the GS resulted in a much too high toll among the populations of those areas which reveals also a certain disregard for inflicting civilian casualties.

Ardent supporters of those ruthless actions maintain that that was the best way to ensure swift and conclusive results. I assume that that they are convinced of that (even if in practice we didn't get any positive results) but don't go around afterwards moaning about why "the world" is so unjust in criticizing us for the high toll we exacted.

[NewsGuy]

It is this disregard for inflicting civilian casualties which is a key characteristic of the tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas. Unfortunately, our military actions in the last incursions in Lebanon and in the GS resulted in a much too high toll among the populations of those areas which reveals also a certain disregard for inflicting civilian casualties.

Ardent supporters of those ruthless actions maintain that that was the best way to ensure swift and conclusive results. I assume that that they are convinced of that (even if in practice we didn't get any positive results) but don't go around afterwards moaning about why "the world" is so unjust in criticizing us for the high toll we exacted.

Not at all. The civilian death toll among the Arabs was caused by Hezbullah firing Scud missiles from apartment buildings and Hamas operating bomb factories in civilian apartment complexes.

The criticism of Israeli actions really comes from the very same Leftists who never uttered a peep while Hamas fired more than 5,000 rockets deliberately into Israeli homes and kindergartens. In fact, the Leftists cheered and marched in support of sending more supplies to Hamas. Yet, when Israel finally fought back to protect the lives of its citizens, those Leftists have the nerve to criticize Israel for destroying Hamas bomb factories or shooting back at terrorists firing anti-tank missiles from hospitals, mosques, and apartment buildings.

Let's face it, Jorge, after Israel tore the fabric of its own society and ethnically cleaned all Jews out of Gaza to hand it to Hamas, and Hamas then used those very same formerly Jewish towns to fire missiles into Israeli schools and homes, how can Leftists still complain about anything? Haven't we learned anything after all the sacrifices Israel made for peace and what it got in return?

[Reffo]

assume that what prompted your indignation was my earlier paragraph:
Assume that Hezbollah, while hypothetically aiming rockets at the Kyriah ( the site of our Strategic Command) blows up the Azrieli Towers and surrounding buildings killing hundreds of civilians. I don't see "the world" being complacent about such an event and declaring that it is our fault for placing the Ministry of Defense in the middle of a residential area

I don't know about Aliyah but it DOES prompt MY indignation ...

According to international law, if the Kyriah is a legitimate military target and if it would be placed in the midst of civilian population then any harm caused to civilians would be the responsibility of Israel. Are you saying that is the case, Jorge? And even if you do .... are you saying that's what happened in the last war with Hezbollah? And that's the only reason Israeli civilians were murdered by Hezbollah rockets?

PS
You may also ask yourself, Jorge, whether it is possible to target ANYTHING with Katyusha rockets or whether these rockets, which were/are used by Hezbollah are ideal terrorist weapons designed for random killings ....

[Aliyah1995]

Jorge-

I assume that what prompted your indignation was my earlier paragraph:
Assume that Hezbollah, while hypothetically aiming rockets at the Kyriah ( the site of our Strategic Command) blows up the Azrieli Towers and surrounding buildings killing hundreds of civilians. I don't see "the world" being complacent about such an event and declaring that it is our fault for placing the Ministry of Defense in the middle of a residential area.

The point being that, in such event, it would be preposterous of Hezbollah to justify the civilian casualties by saying that the fault is ours for placing the offices of our Strategic Command in the middle of the most populated sector of Tel Aviv. As preposterous by the way as our claiming (when bombing close to a quarter of Beirut) that the blame fell on Hezbollah for putting their Strategic Command in the middle of a residential area. I wouldn't say that 'moral relativity' is involved here; both cases should be considered under the label "using disproportionate force" or, even better, "disregard for civilian casualties".

It is this disregard for inflicting civilian casualties which is a key characteristic of the tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas. Unfortunately, our military actions in the last incursions in Lebanon and in the GS resulted in a much too high toll among the populations of those areas which reveals also a certain disregard for inflicting civilian casualties.

Ardent supporters of those ruthless actions maintain that that was the best way to ensure swift and conclusive results. I assume that that they are convinced of that (even if in practice we didn't get any positive results) but don't go around afterwards moaning about why "the world" is so unjust in criticizing us for the high toll we exacted.

Even my 7 year old daughter understands the difference. The last time I checked I don't recall any missles being fired from the Kirya into Lebanon, Gaza, Jordan, or Syria. However, how many missles were fired from Lebanon (before the 2nd Lebanon War) or from Gaza (in the nine years preceding Cast Lead) before Israel even responded?

Next question?

[wat0n]

Jorge-



Even my 7 year old daughter understands the difference. The last time I checked I don't recall any missles being fired from the Kirya into Lebanon, Gaza, Jordan, or Syria. However, how many missles were fired from Lebanon (before the 2nd Lebanon War) or from Gaza (in the nine years preceding Cast Lead) before Israel even responded?

Next question?

I think his point is that there were no rockets launched from Beirut.

[dayag]

I think his point is that there were no rockets launched from Beirut.

But there were rockets launched from Lebanon and Hezbullah did have infastructure in Beirut.

[wat0n]

But there were rockets launched from Lebanon and Hezbullah did have infastructure in Beirut.

Indeed, but his point still holds.

Now, I don't really agree with Jorge. I think that wiping out the HQ/Central Command/MoD of the enemy would yield obvious military gains, for any army. So yes it makes sense to bomb them even if these are in civilian areas.

And as far as proportionality is concerned, according to international law an attack involving civilian victims is proportional if the direct military gains from such attacks outweigh the civilian harm/loss of life because of it. I wonder what criteria do they use for judging wether an attack is proportional or not? Because if we use this criteria to judge the hypothetical bombing of an enemy's HQ the military gains are, well, huge. In fact that may end the war...

PS: But then we have to wonder, would nuking the enemy's HQ be proportional? What's the practical criteria to judge wether the direct military gains from an attack outweigh civilian losses? This is why I think international war rules need to be changed IMHO.

[dayag]

Indeed, but his point still holds.

Now, I don't really agree with Jorge. I think that wiping out the HQ/Central Command/MoD of the enemy would yield obvious military gains, for any army. So yes it makes sense to bomb them even if these are in civilian areas.

And as far as proportionality is concerned, according to international law an attack involving civilian victims is proportional if the direct military gains from such attacks outweigh the civilian harm/loss of life because of it. I wonder what criteria do they use for judging wether an attack is proportional or not? Because if we use this criteria to judge the hypothetical bombing of an enemy's HQ the military gains are, well, huge. In fact that may end the war...

PS: But then we have to wonder, would nuking the enemy's HQ be proportional? What's the practical criteria to judge wether the direct military gains from an attack outweigh civilian losses? This is why I think international war rules need to be changed IMHO.

Can anyone cite where this idea of "proportionality" is found in International Law? What treaty is that based on? Thanks.

[wat0n]

Article 51(5) of the Geneva Convention of 1977:

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e0052b079

Interestingly, the nuke situation I said would be banned under (a) I guess. But I still think the law is ambiguous regarding real life situations. I don't know what precedents has the ICC set up with its rulings regarding this topic, though.

[dayag]

Article 51(5) of the Geneva Convention of 1977:

Source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e0052b079

Interestingly, the nuke situation I said would be banned under (a) I guess. But I still think the law is ambiguous regarding real life situations. I don't know what precedents has the ICC set up with its rulings regarding this topic, though.

Thanks, Waton.

I think some people use the idea of "proportionality" in a different sense, i.e. that any military response should be proportionate to the casus belli to which you are responding.

[bararallu]

I think the minute some group calls for and attempt genocide, they should not be surprised if they themselves disappear en mass from the planet. I'd like to evoke the natural right of reciprocity with extreme prejudice.