placnx

On 12/2/2023 at 5:37 PM, Morch said:

 

The IDF did not plan to drop 'bunker busters' on any hospital. If that was the case the long standoff which allowed Hamas to clear off would not have happened. I'm aware you have issues with Israel, but try and keep things real, please. What 'international observers' would these be? Did the Hamas ever allow such to tour around? You want to deny the existence of tunnels, or any other thing Hamas does - go right ahead. You really don't have to make up excuses, you don't believe it, and that's it.

Where did I deny the existence of tunnels? However, disproportionate killing is undeniable. Instead of bunker busters, IDF should use their technology to enter the tunnels instead of destroying them. Maybe they can find traces of hostage presence in the process. Bunker busters might kill hostages instead of Hamas people.

As for whether they finish al-Shifa off with bombs remains to be seen. So far they are doing a good job of making hospitals unable to function.

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

I can back my reality up with a credible link, can you with yours?

If you had looked at the post above, this link was there: https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention

7 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Is that an actual thing or is it something that you made up 

Well, the settlers and Ben Gvir are working on it.

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I covered administrative detention as it is in reality, not your version. 

Your alternative reality?

On 12/2/2023 at 10:07 PM, placeholder said:

 

Well, my opinion is one that's shared by some very knowledgeable people. As they have pointed out, Biden has kind of backed himself into a corner with his over-the-top embrace of the Israeli response. After investing all this political capital in support of Israel, is it politically palatable for Biden to break with Netanyahu? 

White House pressed Israel during bombing pause to change its strategy

As fighting starts up again, it is unclear whether White House actions made a difference

Despite this notable change in message and tone, outside advisers and Middle East experts said it remains unclear whether Biden would be willing to distance himself or break with Israel if it does not heed the American exhortations and undertakes another broadly devastating aerial campaign.

“There’s a rhetorical change in how they’re talking about it, but it doesn’t seem substantive,” said Steven Cook, senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “If Israel pursues its military operations in a similar fashion, then you know the administration really hasn’t had an effect.”

https://archive.ph/FqD0S

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/02/white-house-pressed-israel-strategy-gaza/

 

As the article goes on to note, experts say they see no indication that Israel has changed its tactics in its prosecution of the war. An Israeli spokesperson quoted in the article says Israel sees no need to change its approach to the war. (Although, I suppose we would expect him to say that even if Israel had changed its tactics.)

 

The quoted comments of Bruce Riedel, a very savvy scholar of US policy in the Mideast, about the paralyzing predicament Biden finds himself in, are also telling.

 

As long as Biden doesn't explicitly draw a specific red line, why should Israel care what the rest of the world thinks? Essentially, as far as Israel's foreign concerns goes, it's down to a constituency of one person.

 

As for the Israeli government's domestic support, is there any politically influential concern among Jewish Israelis, who constitute roughly 80% of the population, about the fate of the Palestinian civilians in Gaza? Apart maybe from those voiced by a few leftists?  I think the order of the day for Jewish Israelis is vengeance and return of the hostages. Palestinian welfare doesn't figure in the political calculus.

 

 

Maybe Netanyahu is quite content to see Biden twist in the wind in the expectation that young US voters will abandon Biden in 2024 and Trump will win, so that the Greater Israel project can forge ahead full speed.

On 12/2/2023 at 5:53 PM, Bkk Brian said:

That's not quite how it is though. There are around 1,300 Palestinians held via administrative detention but only 23 of those are children/minors (19 or under). The current prisoner releases have been mainly children so its doubtful many of them would have been on that form of detention although many could well have been released having already been charged of offenses but not yet attended court. Of course then some had been convicted including for attempted murder. Most however were detained for offenses such as supporting terrorism, trespassing, belonging to an illegal organization, throwing incendiary devices and stones and carrying, possessing and manufacturing weapons, among others.

 

The ICC prosecutor Karim Khan visited Israel a couple of days ago actually, at the request of the families of those Israeli victims of the 7th Oct. After his visit to Israel he then travelled to the West Bank to meet senior Palestinian officials.

Didn't he also go to the Sinai side of the Rafah crossing?

I have covered administrative detention in a response to Morch above.

On 12/2/2023 at 5:49 PM, Morch said:

 

As far as I'm aware, administrative detentions do need to be approved by a judge (plus re-approved periodically), and there is a possibility to appeal to the Supreme Court. What you refer to, I  think, is the initial process and detention. IMO the issue is with the practice itself, rather than how it's implemented.

 

With regard to the ICC you can cite whatever you like - I don't see Putin avoiding international travel, or ICC squads trying to bring him to justice. As for you predictions - again, sounds like wishful thinking rather than something based on reality. The bit about the Palestinian State especially gives a distinct sense that you are not very informed on things Palestinian - but again, engage in wishful thinking.

Apparently the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem does not agree with you: https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention

A two-state solution for now is the only way to stop this cycle of violence. Maybe in the future, Israel will deal with the apartheid within its borders. Then a one-state solution would be feasible if people wanted that. I believe that Putin did not go to South Africa and sent Lavrov instead.

On 12/3/2023 at 10:01 AM, Morch said:

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

When people mention 'colonial' that's often a way of saying 'the West'. Far as I recall, China and Russia are on the UNSC as well, and doubt they're into relinquishing their status as well.

 

I'm not sure what you consider 'proven'. Were things better, globally when there were no UN, UNSC, and permanent members' veto right? I'm not so sure about that, maybe you can demonstrate it. Same goes for abolishing these - how would things work? How would this effect global relations? Wars around the globe? Chances for WWIII? You do not offer any answers. Not even a hit at what would resemble a 'better way'.

Somewhere back in this topic I suggested a veto override mechanism.

UN Charter followed the WW I outmoded concept of victors dictating to the world, so the "powers" were the countries given veto power in the SC. Two of these were European colonial powers at the time - Britain and France, while the US was supposedly advocating abolition of colonies. In spite of its veto power, USSR was not able to block the UN authorized defense of South Korea, while China a/k/a Taiwan was irrelevant back then. Nowadays China & Russia seem to have imperial ambitions.

1 hour ago, ezzra said:

The general Palestinian population support Hamas owing to several reasons: if they say something against Hamas, they and their family will be shot no questions asked, the Palestinian see Hamas and their ilk as heroes and martyrs for the cause and their only way and salvation to eliminate the Jews and Israel and thus to go live in the so called imaginary land of 'Palestine' ( from the river to the sea)

but t that they will have to kill every Jew and Israeli and THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN...

This sounds really paranoid. Are getting worried that the two-state solution might actually happen?

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The OP here should have been labeled in the forum for what it is... an OPINION piece instead of a NEWS report. And one authored by a professor affiliated with the libertarian Cato Institute.

 

"Jordan Cohen is a policy analyst in Defense and Foreign Policy at the Cato Institute"

 

"Cato advocates for a limited governmental role in domestic and foreign affairs..."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

 

It seems odd that Cato Institute would favor another war, but supporters of the Israeli government's agenda on Iran want to get into any organization where they can have a platform to influence opinion of various elites.

On 12/3/2023 at 11:09 AM, Morch said:

 

Again, the only people insisting on using the Zionist moniker the way you do are leaders and official spokesmen of Hamas, other Palestinian terrorist organizations, Iran, Iran-backed-militias, and North Korea. You can try to spin it whichever way you like. The IDF is not a 'militant' group, but an army. Practically no one references it as you insist to do.

 

 

The IDF includes settler militants. That may explain why we can see settlers committing murder why IDF soldiers look on.

On 12/3/2023 at 10:32 AM, Morch said:

 

No, I couldn't - because unlike you I wouldn't exclusively refer to Israelis as 'Zionists'. That's something often seen from official representatives of Hamas, Iran, Iran-backed-militias, and North Korea. The underlying sentiment is objection to Israel's existence, and making a silly show of ignoring reality. It's a lame hater thing.

 

Also, next time that you whine about being labeled a Hamas supporter, Hamas apologist and so on - refer to your post and my reply.

First of all, are the Arab Israelis also Zionists? Maybe you will claim that the Druze are Zionists??? It's not fair to accuse all Israelis for this mass murder. There are a few Israelis who still believe in peace and justice for the Palestinians. The criminals like Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich are certainly Zionists. Zionism went criminal as far back as the 1930s.

30 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What are you on about with the 10 Commandments? How does this even relate?

 

Allow me to doubt your geo-political predictions, and refuse to treat them as a sure thing the way you do.

 

You seem to have very little of substance to add to the discussion.

10 Commandments: I find it ironic that the whole settler enterprise is spearheaded by "religious" Jews, who commit murder, etc, with government-issued weapons. Long before this, a settler murdered Rabin. Supposedly blessed by a rabbi?

So as to Arafat's religiosity, that is not the point on which to judge the question of his concern for the Muslim community's interest in Jerusalem. Muslims are more or less religious, but they all have a high concern about Jerusalem IMO. 

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Can't watch news for you. There were clips of the tunnels under the al-Shifa hospital, there were testimonies of foreign doctors and staff who worked there, and Hamas men spoke of it. Your choice to deny it.

Let's wait to pass judgement until there can be international observers who can look freely, not on an IDF guided tour. That would mean that IDF should hold off on dropping bunker busters on al-Shifa. 

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Is amending the charter not subject to being vetoed as well...?

Absolutely. So it's not something that can happen when major issues such as Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine are in flux.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Of course someone needs to appeal, courts do not initiate legal proceedings. I think that's standard. In the case of the reporter, I think that there are, in fact, some standing appeals etc. vs. the IDF and the Israeli government. Haven't followed that for some time now, so not 100% sure where it stands. The other thing to remember with regard to current events is that the Israeli Supreme court is currently under 'attack' from Netanyahu loyalists and coalition partners - so there's a domestic political angle to this now as well.

 

As far as I'm aware there cannot be legal action taken on past deeds, as you mentioned. Further, I think this even applies to the date a country joins up, so not all of history of wrong can be brought before the court - other than ongoing issues (for example, the occupation itself could, but say unlawful killing of Palestinian prior to the PA signing up, would not). With regard to Putin - other than a declarative value what effect did this have? It all comes down to whether countries (especially powerful ones) cooperate and accept the court's authority.

 

Let me point out something mentioned on previous topics: The issues between Israel and the Palestinians will not be decided by the ICC, or by any other legal proceedings. This misguided notion often manifests itself in these 'discussions' when posters (aligned with either side) come up with some 'a-ha!' legal (or a moral/ideological/whatever) argument supposedly making their point. In reality, sides tend to disregard this, the relevant regional and international players tend to ignore this and pretty much everything goes on and on, back and forth. Things will be sorted either by extreme violence (an option which actually seems less likely than times past), or by an unhappy agreement. This 'magic solution' thinking - that if the right argument is found and proven correct, or that if one side just does this thing or the other - that ain't going nowhere.

In these administrative detentions by the IDF, there is no proceeding with an accusation and presentation of evidence, so there's no avenue for appeal. It's of course regarded as illegal under international law, but Israel acts with impunity.

As for ICC, I cited the Putin case to show that what you said is incorrect. As regards Israel in the occupied territories, it's permission is not required for its bad actors, including Netanyahu, to be indicted by the ICC. The cases against Israel will move forward when international opprobrium reaches a point where the ICC prosecutor risks becoming an anathema to the UN system.  Action by the ICC would add to the momentum for a just peace, where the sovereignty of a Palestinian state would remove the root factors which led to the birth of Hamas and the continuing relevance of its ideology (whether or not Hamas continues to exist as a formal entity). 

6 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

How many of those were terrorists?

No terrorists in (bomb)sight.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Both sides had issues with respective views, and that's how these things go. No surprises. I don't think that there was much goodwill on either side (and the same holds today) of the negotiating table. It was more a mixture of political necessities, mixed with convictions that an arrangement ought to be reached, but hamstrung by mutual distrust, disgust and domestic political pressures.

 

Arafat was taking care to present himself as representing Muslim interests. Not actually very devout or invested in religion, as far as I'm aware. The same goes on today, with this angle mostly being played for political gains.

These leaders on both sides from 1947 on bear ultimate responsibility for acts committed in total violation of the 10 Commandments.

In the end, the only peace possible will be one imposed by the international community after the US ends up isolated from not only the Global South, but most of the G7 nations. The last holdout there will probably be the UK, which bears historical responsibility for the current mess.

6 hours ago, H1w4yR1da said:

There's no carpet bombing. The hospital was hit by a rocket from Islamic Jihad. A proven fact. Hamas uses hospitals as military bases. A proven fact. As I said, your posts stink of support for Hamas.

Still waiting for real evidence that Hamas was using hospitals for military bases. 

On 11/30/2023 at 7:04 PM, Morch said:

 

You cherry pick from an article which contains a counter explanation just bellow as to why these bombs were used.

This was not 'debunked' now, nor on the previous topic.

This ain't carpet bombing, and this wasn't claimed even n the quote you cherry picked.

I looked at the link, and don't see any countering, unless you mean a denial by Jonathan Conricus, blaming the victims pap.

The link in question: https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-using-big-bombs-weighing-1-000-to-2-000-pounds-gaza-report-2023-11?r=US&IR=T

On 11/30/2023 at 2:49 PM, Morch said:

 

You're roundabout description of the Israeli proposal at the time is inaccurate. The issue was not so much with the offer on hand being a 'Swiss cheese' thing, but rather the West Bank area to be retained by the Palestinians being effectively split into 2-3 'cantons' (with territorial congruity within each such land parcel) - this was one major point of contention, the other being the haggling over exact scale of territorial land swaps. Under the Israeli offer (at the time) many Israeli settlements (especially the smaller one spread about the West Bank) would have been dismantled. Arafat's rejection was, I think, more to do with his personal inability to let go of the 'struggle', opposition within the Palestinian side, and perceived lack of support for the offer on the Israeli side.

 

One thing to take away from this is that the rejection did nothing to improve the situation of the Palestinians. In effect, it made things worse.

 

As for your 'diffuse' assertion, I think more like wishful thinking on your part - even if there was a possibility for such a workable two-state solution acceptable to both sides, and not sabotaged by their respective extremists.

I just remember "Swiss cheese" from leaks at the time (2000). There were three cantons proposed, not including East Jerusalem. See sections 'Territorial contiguity' and 'East Jerusalem' in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit The proposal on the table wasn't acceptable to the Palestinians, so then the White House put forth the Clinton Parameters to bridge the gaps. Israel issued 20 pages of reservations. Idem: 'Aftermath'

Arafat was feeling responsible not only to his own people, but to all Muslims, so the Jerusalem provisions were crucial in the failure of Camp David. IMO. 

On 12/1/2023 at 2:11 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

They can keep the security ( non security ) council if they want, but the veto should go. At least if should require a majority vote to quash a resolution. Allowing one country to do so is an abomination IMO.

At least there should be the possibility of overriding a veto, or limiting the ability to veto when the country wanting to veto is tne cause of the resolution. I wonder whether any historian has made a thorough study of the twists and turns in the drafting of the UN Charter.

On 11/30/2023 at 3:08 PM, Morch said:

 

The military law system is subordinate to the the Supreme Court as well. So long as Palestinians have a path to appeal military law verdicts, there's not likely to be much actual international action taken, other than criticism.

 

You deciding the outcome of a case (by labeling it 'murder') is on par with much of what you post - a confusion between what you think and what is. As for jurisdiction - even if the ICC declares so, it's meaningless if it cannot be acted upon. Considering the ICC cannot do so without Israel's consent, not sure where you're going with this argument.

Maybe it takes someone to appeal a judgement for the Israeli Supreme Court to act. The military invetigating itself does not lead to a verdict in the case of military bad actors. Concerning the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh, there is abundant evidence for it, i.e. prima facie. It's a prime example of IDF impunity.

Now you divert to captive Palestinians. Those under administrative detention, now 1300 people, can be held up to 20 years without knowing why the are held, with no means of challenging their detention in court. So no way to appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court.

As for your claim about ICC, it has indicted Vladimir Putin. It did not need Russia's permission to do so. The occupied territories are covered by the Rome Statute since 1 January 2015. I don't know whether prior war crimes, etc, could be prosecuted, but many activities are ongoing, so acts previous to 2015, such as the settlements, would nonetheless be covered IMO.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/icc-has-jurisdiction-over-palestinian-territories/2135545

The US in particular has been very active in attempting to undermine the ICC regarding Israel: https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-international-criminal-courts-failure-to-hold-israel-accountable/

20 hours ago, Morch said:

 

So long as the Israeli Supreme Court is in place, and in it's current stature, not much chance of that. The requirement is that the country will have an independent legal system able to address issues - not that issues will be addressed to the satisfaction of those suing. What you imagine a matter of time seems to be a very long term prospect (if, indeed, the Netanyahu coalition government manages to pass the judicial 'overhaul' - which seems less likely now).

Maybe the problem is that military law inherited from the British applies to Palestinians in the West Bank, so when war crimes happen, the military investigates itself with predictable outcome, even when there is video evidence. The murder of Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American journalist, has been referred to the ICC, which has jurisdiction in the West Bank (and Gaza).

20 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Are you his spokesperson? I don't envy you.

 

And on your are again tossing about nonsense:

 

Indiscriminate bombing? If that was so there would be far more casualties, way more destruction. Note that the casualty figures (controlled by Hamas) are more or less on par with citations of the number of bombs and munitions dropped on the Gaza Strip. That would make a rather odd ratio if one tried to claim 'indiscriminate'. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

As for 'no advanced warning' - wrong again. Civilians were given warning to evacuate weeks ago, and enough time to do so. You may not like it, but it's there.

 

The number of child casualties is provided by the Ministry of Health in Gaza, which is controlled by the Hamas. Trusting these figures is a matter of choice. Notice how most serious media venues keep repeating the source comment? Yeah...that. You could also ask why Hamas chose to attack Israel knowing full well the consequences, why no warning was given to the populace, why no shelter provided, and why Hamas called on the population to stay put and face Israel's attack. You do not seem to care much about all this.

You should know that "advanced warning" is the IAF practice of sending/dropping a small munition on a building to tell people to get out before the big one that levels the building.

In previous wars on Gaza, the figures issued by the Gaza Health Ministry correlated with what was determined afterwards by UN et al. The lists of dead persons have names and other identity info, so not just a body count. The actual death toll may not be known for some time since people are buried under the rubble of pancaked buildings.

The Palestinians were facing a quandary with the Abraham Accords, of which one objective was to circumvent them in negotiations regarding their fate. The attack on the kibbutzes was the fateful result.