Jingthing Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 PA says it’ll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen Read more: PA says it'll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-says-itll-drop-war-crimes-suit-if-settlements-frozen/#ixzz3PAGsBBkz The official told The Times of Israel that land seizures in occupied territory constituted a clear violation of international law. Still, he noted that the appeal to the ICC would be withdrawn if Israel were to freeze settlement construction, and added that the Palestinian Authority had conveyed to Israel an official message to that effect, through Jordan and Egypt. So this was not about "justice" after all, but just another negotiation maneuver? Shocking. Do you think Israel will go for that kind of tactic? I don't know but I'm guessing not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 @Seastallion: The poster's question was bogus to begin with. There is no accepted way to measure acts of aggression. He was postulating something which does not, in fact, exists. Warfare, despite some people having romantic notions about it, is not fair. There is no inherent demand that warfare will be symmetrical. It can even be said that almost any instance of modern warfare hings on the attempt to make things asymmetrical. It seems like the argument made runs something like this - if Israel wished to complain about Hamas rockets, it should have let them hit its civilians, and then it would have a leg to stand on. I did not make up the rules - indiscriminate rocketing of civilians is a rather clear instance of committing a war crime, the number of casualties does not change the fact, even if it may change the gravity of the act. Any attempts to attach callousness to my post, without recognizing that having a large casualty list was by itself to do with the Hamas strategy is disingenuous. To return to the ICC topic, a court investigation, if any will be carried on, will only apply for specific and proven instances. The total casualty figures, the total number of rockets launched is not what this is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 PA says it’ll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen Read more: PA says it'll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-says-itll-drop-war-crimes-suit-if-settlements-frozen/#ixzz3PAGsBBkz The official told The Times of Israel that land seizures in occupied territory constituted a clear violation of international law. Still, he noted that the appeal to the ICC would be withdrawn if Israel were to freeze settlement construction, and added that the Palestinian Authority had conveyed to Israel an official message to that effect, through Jordan and Egypt. So this was not about "justice" after all, but just another negotiation maneuver? Shocking. Do you think Israel will go for that kind of tactic? I don't know but I'm guessing not. Do you think this will bring the ICC into disrepute! How can they avoid being puppets to the PA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 PA says it’ll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen Read more: PA says it'll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-says-itll-drop-war-crimes-suit-if-settlements-frozen/#ixzz3PAGsBBkz The official told The Times of Israel that land seizures in occupied territory constituted a clear violation of international law. Still, he noted that the appeal to the ICC would be withdrawn if Israel were to freeze settlement construction, and added that the Palestinian Authority had conveyed to Israel an official message to that effect, through Jordan and Egypt. So this was not about "justice" after all, but just another negotiation maneuver? Shocking. Ahhh! So you'd rather see justice. Good on you. But why is it shocking? What's shocking about going to court to try to get an oppressor to desist, whether by negotiation or force of law? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 PA says it’ll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen Read more: PA says it'll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-says-itll-drop-war-crimes-suit-if-settlements-frozen/#ixzz3PAGsBBkz The official told The Times of Israel that land seizures in occupied territory constituted a clear violation of international law. Still, he noted that the appeal to the ICC would be withdrawn if Israel were to freeze settlement construction, and added that the Palestinian Authority had conveyed to Israel an official message to that effect, through Jordan and Egypt. So this was not about "justice" after all, but just another negotiation maneuver? Shocking. Do you think Israel will go for that kind of tactic? I don't know but I'm guessing not. There is not telling if the report is correct, and that if it does, that it indeed reflects the PA position, or that this will be true a couple of week from now. That said, the current Israeli government will go for nothing of the sort. It can't. No with elections getting nearer and needing to round up right wing votes. In addition, openly accepting such a proposal is tantamount to accepting blame, so again, a no go. The only way this could be brokered would be by some backroom deal, whereby nothing is announced or, alternatively, that a facade of actions being taken independently. If this comes up after the Israeli elections, and a non-right wing government is in place, things in general could be somewhat different, but that amounts to a long list of ifs. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 @Seastallion: The poster's question was bogus to begin with. There is no accepted way to measure acts of aggression. He was postulating something which does not, in fact, exists. Warfare, despite some people having romantic notions about it, is not fair. There is no inherent demand that warfare will be symmetrical. It can even be said that almost any instance of modern warfare hings on the attempt to make things asymmetrical. It seems like the argument made runs something like this - if Israel wished to complain about Hamas rockets, it should have let them hit its civilians, and then it would have a leg to stand on. I did not make up the rules - indiscriminate rocketing of civilians is a rather clear instance of committing a war crime, the number of casualties does not change the fact, even if it may change the gravity of the act. Any attempts to attach callousness to my post, without recognizing that having a large casualty list was by itself to do with the Hamas strategy is disingenuous. To return to the ICC topic, a court investigation, if any will be carried on, will only apply for specific and proven instances. The total casualty figures, the total number of rockets launched is not what this is about. You're right about one thing; the gravity of it. It's a shame (literally) that the gravity of the horrendous casualty figures is so often brushed aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 PA says it’ll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen Read more: PA says it'll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-says-itll-drop-war-crimes-suit-if-settlements-frozen/#ixzz3PAGsBBkz The official told The Times of Israel that land seizures in occupied territory constituted a clear violation of international law. Still, he noted that the appeal to the ICC would be withdrawn if Israel were to freeze settlement construction, and added that the Palestinian Authority had conveyed to Israel an official message to that effect, through Jordan and Egypt. So this was not about "justice" after all, but just another negotiation maneuver? Shocking. Do you think Israel will go for that kind of tactic? I don't know but I'm guessing not. There is not telling if the report is correct, and that if it does, that it indeed reflects the PA position, or that this will be true a couple of week from now. That said, the current Israeli government will go for nothing of the sort. It can't. No with elections getting nearer and needing to round up right wing votes. In addition, openly accepting such a proposal is tantamount to accepting blame, so again, a no go. The only way this could be brokered would be by some backroom deal, whereby nothing is announced or, alternatively, that a facade of actions being taken independently. If this comes up after the Israeli elections, and a non-right wing government is in place, things in general could be somewhat different, but that amounts to a long list of ifs. "that a facade of actions being taken independently". On the basis that the recent moves by the PA don't actually progress a two state solution, the above is my view of his Abbas' actions. Maybe wishful thinking on my part but! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 PA says it’ll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen Read more: PA says it'll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-says-itll-drop-war-crimes-suit-if-settlements-frozen/#ixzz3PAGsBBkz The official told The Times of Israel that land seizures in occupied territory constituted a clear violation of international law. Still, he noted that the appeal to the ICC would be withdrawn if Israel were to freeze settlement construction, and added that the Palestinian Authority had conveyed to Israel an official message to that effect, through Jordan and Egypt. So this was not about "justice" after all, but just another negotiation maneuver? Shocking. Ahhh! So you'd rather see justice. Good on you. But why is it shocking? What's shocking about going to court to try to get an oppressor to desist, whether by negotiation or force of law? Many on this forum claimed that the Palestinian move was to do with seeking "justice". A lot of the Palestinian rhetoric attempted to make it about seeking "justice". There were a lot of resolute statements regarding this being non-negotiable, and that there will be no backing down etc. My own position was (and is) that it had less to do with seeking "justice" as such, and more to do with issues pertaining to the Palestinian domestic political scene. As far as being to do with Israel, the "justice" angle is more PR, than actual - this is defined by the ICC's mandate and the way it functions. The main Palestinian aim, on this front, was ever to apply pressure on Israel, with differing views as to how far they would go. Another thing to consider is that as with many things, easy to initiate a move, less so to control it. The ICC move by itself is not likely to make the Israeli government back down or alter its policy. An ICC decision on opening an investigation, concluding an investigation and making a clear ruling is not an immediate threat if history is anything to go by (as detailed in the OP). The notion of it making Israel "desist" is not very realistic. The "shocking" bit was made tongue in cheek. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 @Seastallion: The poster's question was bogus to begin with. There is no accepted way to measure acts of aggression. He was postulating something which does not, in fact, exists. Warfare, despite some people having romantic notions about it, is not fair. There is no inherent demand that warfare will be symmetrical. It can even be said that almost any instance of modern warfare hings on the attempt to make things asymmetrical. It seems like the argument made runs something like this - if Israel wished to complain about Hamas rockets, it should have let them hit its civilians, and then it would have a leg to stand on. I did not make up the rules - indiscriminate rocketing of civilians is a rather clear instance of committing a war crime, the number of casualties does not change the fact, even if it may change the gravity of the act. Any attempts to attach callousness to my post, without recognizing that having a large casualty list was by itself to do with the Hamas strategy is disingenuous. To return to the ICC topic, a court investigation, if any will be carried on, will only apply for specific and proven instances. The total casualty figures, the total number of rockets launched is not what this is about. You're right about one thing; the gravity of it. It's a shame (literally) that the gravity of the horrendous casualty figures is so often brushed aside. It is not brushed aside, except in your repeated attempts to claim it is. Saying that the counting total casualty figures, or comparison of total casualty figures is not exactly the way things are conducted as far as the ICC goes is not discounting it, but just the way things are. Posters often waive "international law" when it suits them, and as far as I am aware, there is no casualty figures meter applied to such proceedings. On the other hand, it is a shame (literally as well) that some refuse to acknowledge any responsibility by Hamas for the very same casualties (to be clear, the Palestinian ones), but rather use it as a one sided propaganda tool. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Many on this forum claimed that the Palestinian move was to do with seeking "justice". A lot of the Palestinian rhetoric attempted to make it about seeking "justice". The truth is none on any internet forum has any idea of Palestine or Israel motives. Justice can be defined in many ways/sectors. If this case/offer turned out to be true....Why would it not be justice served? Since the illegal settlements are at the heart of the problem. But then again there is probably no point in offering it nor discussing it As Israel will never agree to stopping the land grabs. The ever expanding Israel needs ever more land for its imported citizens... Of which the US pays to help import??? ( termed Refugee resettlement) 1.6 billion given for just this task since 1973....15 million given in 2014 alone. Why US is responsible for this is beyond many including myself. kay sera sera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Many on this forum claimed that the Palestinian move was to do with seeking "justice". A lot of the Palestinian rhetoric attempted to make it about seeking "justice". The truth is none on any internet forum has any idea of Palestine or Israel motives. Justice can be defined in many ways/sectors. If this case/offer turned out to be true....Why would it not be justice served? Since the illegal settlements are at the heart of the problem. But then again there is probably no point in offering it nor discussing it As Israel will never agree to stopping the land grabs. The ever expanding Israel needs ever more land for its imported citizens... Of which the US pays to help import??? ( termed Refugee resettlement) 1.6 billion given for just this task since 1973....15 million given in 2014 alone. Why US is responsible for this is beyond many including myself. kay sera sera Well, one doesn't always know who's behind the nickname and the screen (Google "Benghazi" and "Eve Online" for an example). Some posters may be more familiar with things than others. The ICC mandate will not be applicable to Israel's illegal settlement issue. The ICC itself said it will not arbitrate between the sides or relate to conflict in its entirety. Realistically, the Palestinians could raise recent events relating to the Gaza fighting, and, if certain legal interpretations are correct, even this may have been procedurally botched (not an expert, and there are various takes on this). So if the ICC finds grounds to accept a Palestinian case, and if the investigation ends in a positive (from a Palestinian point of view) ruling, it may serve justice for some Palestinians, while the rest would have to accept symbolic justice as a substitute. This may seem like a triviality, but following Palestinian media, the impression given to the public by some commentators could be somewhat different (as in each and every little injustice could be sued and accounted for). All this, without getting into the real practicalities of successfully enforcing any such ruling. Now back to the OP, and to the parts dealing with convictions and time frames. Not that justice isn't on the list, but its not a real priority as far as this move goes. The main drive was domestic politics and the political survival of Abbas and the Fatah, the secondary, getting one over Israel and possibly securing some concessions due to the diplomatic pressure exerted. Justice, in as much as not being used as a political tool, comes down the list. There were different instances in which the USA funded settlement and re-settlement of Israelis. As far as I am aware, this was not meant as funding for illegal settlements, but was related to incoming immigration waves from the former Soviet Union and to arrangements following the Camp David peace agreement with Egypt. Israeli governments (especially the likes of the current one) being what they are, I would not vouch that no funds were used for purposes against the USA policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 PA says it’ll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen Read more: PA says it'll drop war crimes suit if settlements frozen | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-says-itll-drop-war-crimes-suit-if-settlements-frozen/#ixzz3PAGsBBkz The official told The Times of Israel that land seizures in occupied territory constituted a clear violation of international law. Still, he noted that the appeal to the ICC would be withdrawn if Israel were to freeze settlement construction, and added that the Palestinian Authority had conveyed to Israel an official message to that effect, through Jordan and Egypt. So this was not about "justice" after all, but just another negotiation maneuver? Shocking. Ahhh! So you'd rather see justice. Good on you. But why is it shocking? What's shocking about going to court to try to get an oppressor to desist, whether by negotiation or force of law? Many on this forum claimed that the Palestinian move was to do with seeking "justice". A lot of the Palestinian rhetoric attempted to make it about seeking "justice". There were a lot of resolute statements regarding this being non-negotiable, and that there will be no backing down etc. My own position was (and is) that it had less to do with seeking "justice" as such, and more to do with issues pertaining to the Palestinian domestic political scene. As far as being to do with Israel, the "justice" angle is more PR, than actual - this is defined by the ICC's mandate and the way it functions. The main Palestinian aim, on this front, was ever to apply pressure on Israel, with differing views as to how far they would go. Another thing to consider is that as with many things, easy to initiate a move, less so to control it. The ICC move by itself is not likely to make the Israeli government back down or alter its policy. An ICC decision on opening an investigation, concluding an investigation and making a clear ruling is not an immediate threat if history is anything to go by (as detailed in the OP). The notion of it making Israel "desist" is not very realistic. The "shocking" bit was made tongue in cheek. Sorry, I didn't get the tongue in cheek bit...but do now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 @Seastallion: The poster's question was bogus to begin with. There is no accepted way to measure acts of aggression. He was postulating something which does not, in fact, exists. Warfare, despite some people having romantic notions about it, is not fair. There is no inherent demand that warfare will be symmetrical. It can even be said that almost any instance of modern warfare hings on the attempt to make things asymmetrical. It seems like the argument made runs something like this - if Israel wished to complain about Hamas rockets, it should have let them hit its civilians, and then it would have a leg to stand on. I did not make up the rules - indiscriminate rocketing of civilians is a rather clear instance of committing a war crime, the number of casualties does not change the fact, even if it may change the gravity of the act. Any attempts to attach callousness to my post, without recognizing that having a large casualty list was by itself to do with the Hamas strategy is disingenuous. To return to the ICC topic, a court investigation, if any will be carried on, will only apply for specific and proven instances. The total casualty figures, the total number of rockets launched is not what this is about. You're right about one thing; the gravity of it. It's a shame (literally) that the gravity of the horrendous casualty figures is so often brushed aside. It is not brushed aside, except in your repeated attempts to claim it is. Saying that the counting total casualty figures, or comparison of total casualty figures is not exactly the way things are conducted as far as the ICC goes is not discounting it, but just the way things are. Posters often waive "international law" when it suits them, and as far as I am aware, there is no casualty figures meter applied to such proceedings. On the other hand, it is a shame (literally as well) that some refuse to acknowledge any responsibility by Hamas for the very same casualties (to be clear, the Palestinian ones), but rather use it as a one sided propaganda tool. "It's the thought (of the rockets) that counts" is most definitely brushing aside that 2000 died in response to a large number of rockets that never harmed a soul. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 @Seastallion: The poster's question was bogus to begin with. There is no accepted way to measure acts of aggression. He was postulating something which does not, in fact, exists. Warfare, despite some people having romantic notions about it, is not fair. There is no inherent demand that warfare will be symmetrical. It can even be said that almost any instance of modern warfare hings on the attempt to make things asymmetrical. It seems like the argument made runs something like this - if Israel wished to complain about Hamas rockets, it should have let them hit its civilians, and then it would have a leg to stand on. I did not make up the rules - indiscriminate rocketing of civilians is a rather clear instance of committing a war crime, the number of casualties does not change the fact, even if it may change the gravity of the act. Any attempts to attach callousness to my post, without recognizing that having a large casualty list was by itself to do with the Hamas strategy is disingenuous. To return to the ICC topic, a court investigation, if any will be carried on, will only apply for specific and proven instances. The total casualty figures, the total number of rockets launched is not what this is about. You're right about one thing; the gravity of it. It's a shame (literally) that the gravity of the horrendous casualty figures is so often brushed aside. It is not brushed aside, except in your repeated attempts to claim it is. Saying that the counting total casualty figures, or comparison of total casualty figures is not exactly the way things are conducted as far as the ICC goes is not discounting it, but just the way things are. Posters often waive "international law" when it suits them, and as far as I am aware, there is no casualty figures meter applied to such proceedings. On the other hand, it is a shame (literally as well) that some refuse to acknowledge any responsibility by Hamas for the very same casualties (to be clear, the Palestinian ones), but rather use it as a one sided propaganda tool. "It's the thought (of the rockets) that counts" is most definitely brushing aside that 2000 died in response to a large number of rockets that never harmed a soul. Well, that's your own interpretation. Repeating it out of context (which was thoroughly explained) is a choice. Accusation of brushing things aside, while refusing to address Hamas responsibility (by no means absolute) for the casualties is an interesting position. The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. That is correct Hamas rockets have killed Israeli's In just over 10 years 28 Israelis have been killed by Hamas fired rockets From June 28th 2004 till June 15th 2014 I do not know if any have been killed since 6/15/2014 till now though Edited January 18, 2015 by mania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. That is correct Hamas rockets have killed Israeli's In just over 10 years 28 Israelis have been killed by Hamas fired rockets From June 28th 2004 till June 15th 2014 I do not know if any have been killed since 6/15/2014 till now though Getting trendy to partially quote my posts out of context in this topic, it seems. You did note the irony of making the claim that not a soul was harmed on the Israeli side, while bemoaning brushing aside of the Palestinian casualties, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) <insert original snipped part> Well, that's your own interpretation. Repeating it out of context (which was thoroughly explained) is a choice. Accusation of brushing things aside, while refusing to address Hamas responsibility (by no means absolute) for the casualties is an interesting position. <end of snipped part> The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. That is correct Hamas rockets have killed Israeli's In just over 10 years 28 Israelis have been killed by Hamas fired rockets From June 28th 2004 till June 15th 2014 I do not know if any have been killed since 6/15/2014 till now though Getting trendy to partially quote my posts out of context in this topic, it seems. You did note the irony of making the claim that not a soul was harmed on the Israeli side, while bemoaning brushing aside of the Palestinian casualties, right? I think it is pretty standard to quote the part I am replying to Yes I got the irony & the intent by Seastallion which is why I posted the kills claimed.... If it makes you feel better here is the rest of your post inserted above...not that it has any bearing Edited January 18, 2015 by mania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
car720 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 He who's without sin... let him cast the first stone... nuff said.... The trouble with these old cliques is that they always have a counter measure... e.g. "He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The claim that rockets never harmed a soul is incorrect. That is correct Hamas rockets have killed Israeli's Palestinian terrorists have shot thousands of rockets into Israel, killing Israeli civilians, including children, and wounding others, as well as causing damage to infrastructure. Hamas fire them indiscriminately and intend to kill Israeli citizens. The attacks have killed 50 people and injured more than 1900 people, but their main consequence is the creation of widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life among the Israeli citizenry. No country on earth would put up with this and most would strike back a lot harder than Israel has. l . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joepublic Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Israel is running scared, because it knows it has a huge catalog of clear cut war crimes, that, if examined in an impartial court, would make anyone with an ounce of humanity and compassion, break down in tears. The signs of panic are evident in the incredulous threats they are making and the actions they are carrying out. If they have nothing to hide, and believe in their case, let the court decide. Among these threats are withholding Palestinian tax funds because they dared to go to the ICC, and pressuring Germany, Australia and Canada to withdraw funding from the ICC. One has to ask, what are they afraid of and how are they allowed to get away with these threats against the International Community - and it is the answer to that question that explains how they have been getting away with it for decades. Regardless of what happens here, the planet is now beginning to wake up to not only what the Zionists have been doing to the Palestinians, but the depth and reach of their influence and power, and the more the Zionist Apologists speak, the more unsustainable their propaganda is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) After what happened in France a short time ago, the world is getting fed up with radical Islam, including the likes of Hamas. The tide is turning all right, against Islamic terrorists. Several polls show that more than 70% of the French think Islam is incompatible with democracy and Western civilization. Those polls predate the attacks. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5120/jihad-in-france Edited January 19, 2015 by Ulysses G. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 That is correct Hamas rockets have killed Israeli'sIn just over 10 years 28 Israelis have been killed by Hamas fired rockets From June 28th 2004 till June 15th 2014 I do not know if any have been killed since 6/15/2014 till now though Getting trendy to partially quote my posts out of context in this topic, it seems. You did note the irony of making the claim that not a soul was harmed on the Israeli side, while bemoaning brushing aside of the Palestinian casualties, right? I think it is pretty standard to quote the part I am replying to Yes I got the irony & the intent by Seastallion which is why I posted the kills claimed.... If it makes you feel better here is the rest of your post inserted above...not that it has any bearing Guess someone needs a clearer idea of what context means, so here is the message I was replying to: "It's the thought (of the rockets) that counts" is most definitely brushing aside that 2000 died in response to a large number of rockets that never harmed a soul. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/792588-war-crimes-court-opens-probe-into-palestinian-territories/?p=8954304 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Guess someone needs a clearer idea of what context means, so here is the message I was replying to: "It's the thought (of the rockets) that counts" is most definitely brushing aside that 2000 died in response to a large number of rockets that never harmed a soul. 555 like a dog with a chew toy...But ok lets stay with your good cop deal a minute & respond to Seastallion properly ( which you clipped his name out of his post..trendy?) Ok so SeaStallion is saying 2000 dead Palestinians in this recent retaliation by Israel.... He is also saying...afaik... the large number of rockets that preceded/prompted Israels response killed no Israeli's You are contesting that?? not sure... so tell us... How many did this round of rockets kill before Israel retaliated & killed 2000? We already know how many died due to rockets in the past 10 years as that is what I posted. (28 Israeli's killed from June 2004 till June 2014) You want to chew it or correct its "exact" context so tell us.............how many in this recent round did the rockets kill? inquiring minds want to know Edited January 19, 2015 by mania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Israel is running scared, because it knows it has a huge catalog of clear cut war crimes, that, if examined in an impartial court, would make anyone with an ounce of humanity and compassion, break down in tears. The signs of panic are evident in the incredulous threats they are making and the actions they are carrying out. If they have nothing to hide, and believe in their case, let the court decide. Among these threats are withholding Palestinian tax funds because they dared to go to the ICC, and pressuring Germany, Australia and Canada to withdraw funding from the ICC. One has to ask, what are they afraid of and how are they allowed to get away with these threats against the International Community - and it is the answer to that question that explains how they have been getting away with it for decades. Regardless of what happens here, the planet is now beginning to wake up to not only what the Zionists have been doing to the Palestinians, but the depth and reach of their influence and power, and the more the Zionist Apologists speak, the more unsustainable their propaganda is. Fantasies about the ICC's mandate and probable scope of investigation (if this will materialize) are quite out there. The ICC deals with specific instances, and within a defined time frame. There are several basic consideration which determine if an investigation will be initiated, and as applied to the OP, not trivial that cases will be taken up. Claims that the ICC is impartial are not necessarily accepted by all sides, repeating it as fact will not change this. The UN and its bodies are not above partisan politics, power plays and and bias. Why would a country submit to a review by a body which it does not consider impartial and fair? Israel did not threat to withhold Palestinian tax revenues, it did. The OP does not mention anything regarding pressure applied to Germany, Australia and Canada. The World, overall, is more occupied right now with other matters. For once, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict receives its proper place on world news, which is not in the forefront. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Guess someone needs a clearer idea of what context means, so here is the message I was replying to: "It's the thought (of the rockets) that counts" is most definitely brushing aside that 2000 died in response to a large number of rockets that never harmed a soul. 555 like a dog with a chew toy...But ok lets stay with your good cop deal a minute & respond to Seastallion properly ( which you clipped his name out of his post..trendy?) Ok so SeaStallion is saying 2000 dead Palestinians in this recent retaliation by Israel.... He is also saying...afaik... the large number of rockets that preceded/prompted Israels response killed no Israeli's You are contesting that?? not sure... so tell us... How many did this round of rockets kill before Israel retaliated & killed 2000? We already know how many died due to rockets in the past 10 years as that is what I posted. (28 Israeli's killed from June 2004 till June 2014) You want to chew it or correct its "exact" context so tell us.............how many in this recent round did the rockets kill? inquiring minds want to know If you feel being rude helps your argument, have fun. From someone harping on exactly the same issues incessantly, even in the fact of facts, this is unimpressive. I did not clip Seastallion's name from the post (it is linked below), blame my multi-quoting skills and the quote limitation on the forum. And of course, you missed the point (deliberately?) - Seastallion went on about supposed "brushing aside" of Palestinian deaths, while at the same time claiming that rockets did not "harm a soul" on the other side. Pretty ironic for someone assuming a humanistic and higher moral ground approach. This is the context I was referring to, As I did not contest the casualty figures, I have no idea what it is you imagine that I contest. What I did point out, was that Hamas shares the responsibility for Palestinian civilian casualties - this by not taking any means to protect civilian whatsoever (while doing a good job of digging its own people underground), dissuading civilians from evacuating, encouraging civilians to face attacks, and on a more strategic level - choosing to engage in a conflict which was sure to result in many civilian casualties, and not for the first time. Not exactly the actions of a benevolent ruler who cares first and foremost for the safety of its people. Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) If you feel being rude helps your argument, have fun. From someone harping on exactly the same issues incessantly, even in the fact of facts, this is unimpressive. I did not clip Seastallion's name from the post (it is linked below), blame my multi-quoting skills and the quote limitation on the forum. And of course, you missed the point (deliberately?) - Seastallion went on about supposed "brushing aside" of Palestinian deaths, while at the same time claiming that rockets did not "harm a soul" on the other side. Pretty ironic for someone assuming a humanistic and higher moral ground approach. This is the context I was referring to, As I did not contest the casualty figures, I have no idea what it is you imagine that I contest. What I did point out, was that Hamas shares the responsibility for Palestinian civilian casualties - this by not taking any means to protect civilian whatsoever (while doing a good job of digging its own people underground), dissuading civilians from evacuating, encouraging civilians to face attacks, and on a more strategic level - choosing to engage in a conflict which was sure to result in many civilian casualties, and not for the first time. Not exactly the actions of a benevolent ruler who cares first and foremost for the safety of its people. Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants. Oh come now........your rudeness sweetened by the good cop persona you like to play is not hidden from anyone so please dont.......even play that role When you want to you put your little snipes in for many such as myself,Seastallion, Dexterm,joepublic,7x7 etc. etc. etc You just try & dress them in a smile...Yet the intent is clear...rudeness As is this merry go round you now ride defining context....Posts are for all to read & define None need your definition be the sole definition It is clear to me what Seastallion was saying & as if you did not know here it is anyway... The force of retaliation is off the charts disproportionately...If you claim to not know that or not realize that is what Seastallion is saying....well you may be the only one in the world But of course that is not the case is it? Yes of course Hamas shares responsibility none have ever claimed otherwise. Yet many can also see a futile acting out in frustration of decades of being encamped like prisoners while watching their homes dozed & lands stolen. It cannot be any more blatant that what it is & has been FOR DECADES This is 2015.........NO COUNTRY...other than this untouchable karma riddled mess would attempt such a feat ...yet Israel does as the world shakes its head. You may carry on with your JDL good cop routine & try to act like there is a difference & you are not rude/quipy when it suits your need but please don't think all are blind. Lastly....you said..."Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants." Classic !!!! But I thought we save that for the JDL bad cops to claim?? As it is so blatantly trying to side step the sheer number ....2000 DEAD...... in ONE Attack...........ONE ATTACK What was the rocket toll/Dead Israeli's for 10 years? Oh yeah 28 dead Carry on Morch Edited January 19, 2015 by mania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 If you feel being rude helps your argument, have fun. From someone harping on exactly the same issues incessantly, even in the fact of facts, this is unimpressive. Being rude is about all he has. You have these boys beat cold when it comes to knowledge of the issues and historical facts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 If you feel being rude helps your argument, have fun. From someone harping on exactly the same issues incessantly, even in the fact of facts, this is unimpressive. I did not clip Seastallion's name from the post (it is linked below), blame my multi-quoting skills and the quote limitation on the forum. And of course, you missed the point (deliberately?) - Seastallion went on about supposed "brushing aside" of Palestinian deaths, while at the same time claiming that rockets did not "harm a soul" on the other side. Pretty ironic for someone assuming a humanistic and higher moral ground approach. This is the context I was referring to, As I did not contest the casualty figures, I have no idea what it is you imagine that I contest. What I did point out, was that Hamas shares the responsibility for Palestinian civilian casualties - this by not taking any means to protect civilian whatsoever (while doing a good job of digging its own people underground), dissuading civilians from evacuating, encouraging civilians to face attacks, and on a more strategic level - choosing to engage in a conflict which was sure to result in many civilian casualties, and not for the first time. Not exactly the actions of a benevolent ruler who cares first and foremost for the safety of its people. Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants. Oh come now........your rudeness sweetened by the good cop persona you like to play is not hidden from anyone so please dont.......even play that role When you want to you put your little snipes in for many such as myself,Seastallion, Dexterm,joepublic,7x7 etc. etc. etc You just try & dress them in a smile...Yet the intent is clear...rudeness As is this merry go round you now ride defining context....Posts are for all to read & define None need your definition be the sole definition It is clear to me what Seastallion was saying & as if you did not know here it is anyway... The force of retaliation is off the charts disproportionately...If you claim to not know that or not realize that is what Seastallion is saying....well you may be the only one in the world But of course that is not the case is it? Yes of course Hamas shares responsibility none have ever claimed otherwise. Yet many can also see a futile acting out in frustration of decades of being encamped like prisoners while watching their homes dozed & lands stolen. It cannot be any more blatant that what it is & has been FOR DECADES This is 2015.........NO COUNTRY...other than this untouchable karma riddled mess would attempt such a feat ...yet Israel does as the world shakes its head. You may carry on with your JDL good cop routine & try to act like there is a difference & you are not rude/quipy when it suits your need but please don't think all are blind. Lastly....you said..."Additionally, it bears to keep in mind that the 2000 casualty figure lumps together civilians and militants." Classic !!!! But I thought we save that for the JDL bad cops to claim?? As it is so blatantly trying to side step the sheer number ....2000 DEAD...... in ONE Attack...........ONE ATTACK What was the rocket toll/Dead Israeli's for 10 years? Oh yeah 28 dead Carry on Morch Snipes, yes. Sarcasm, surely. Outright rudeness? Very rarely. No idea what was meant by the "good cop persona" remark, can't wait for my next description, surely to follow. Ah, noticed I'm a minted member of your "JDL" creation, lovely. So basically it seems that anyone expressing opinions contrary to yours is to be auto-tagged, way to go. Posts are for all to read and reply, taking posts out of the context in which they were meant could be taken as evidence of weak position and a flowed argument. Attaching imagined meaning to posts and expecting the poster to address it is disingenuous. I have never claimed that the Israeli response was proportional, yet you keep harping on it as if I did. What I did say (even on this topic) is that most instances of modern warfare are not proportional (or symmetrical). Another issue which was brought up by me more than once was to question what would constitute a proportional military response by Israel. Never got any clear replies on that. Glad to hear an acknowledgement of Hamas's responsibility, that "non have ever claimed otherwise" is over-doing it a bit, with regards to TVF, present participants included. There is, in fact, hardly any mention of this in most posts discussing the issue, that is not met with shouts of indignation, denial and whatnot. A futile acting out brought about by frustration? The Hamas was rather adept at protecting its own in advance, was ruthless in not affording the same protection for civilians. More like carefully planed and cynic use of civilian population. "Decades of bring encamped like prisoners"? Hamas in the Gaza Strip? Again, them slight exaggerations. How is pointing out that the 2000 casualties figures include Hamas militants side stepping anything? I recognize the tragedy of the civilian deaths. while not wallowing in sorrow over the death of militants. Glossing it over through lumping them together is plainly cynical. Saying they were all killed in one attack is, of course, untrue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Permit me to ask a question of anybody that might wish to answer. What do you think should happen if a militant branch of the Mexican government in Juarez, Mexico, began firing some 2,000 rockets into the city of El Paso, Texas? Should the authorities of the city of El Paso, the state of Texas and the US government respond and what should that response be? Your comments are solicited. Edited to change "Drug cartels" to "a militant branch of the Mexican government". Edited January 19, 2015 by chuckd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Permit me to ask a question of anybody that might wish to answer. What do you think should happen if the drug cartels in Juarez, Mexico, began firing some 2,000 rockets into the city of El Paso, Texas? Should the authorities of the city of El Paso, the state of Texas and the US government respond and what should that response be? Your comments are solicited. A better analogy would be if it was the Mexican government doing that with orders from Mexico City. Hamas IS the government of Gaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now