Study: Israel did not violate war laws

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: RichardE
If the world was trying to bring a peaceful resolution they would not be selling arms to both sides.

Arms makers are selling the arms, since US Veto power blocks the world's efforts which would otherwise block that flow of arms by enforcing sanctions and embargoes on the region.

Originally posted by: RichardE
There is a difference between bias and lack of empathy.

lack of empathy is a part of bias, regardless of what sematnic arguments you dance through to seperate them.

So because they are not forced too they sell arms? So the world has to be "forced" to want peace? Your argument is weak. My argument represents examples, the world as a whole from democratic, to authoritarian to communist, to theocracies sells arms to Israel and to Palestine. It goes beyond ideologies, religion and personal values, no one truly cares.


Lack of empathy after analyzing a situation is not a sigh of biasness, it is the result of objectively looking at a situation and coming to a conclusion about it.

The people of Palestine suffer great human suffering due to there condition. The elected government of Palestine attacks Israel with rockets. The people do not necessarily agree with the actions of the government and can be considered innocents. The government of Hamas says it is defending itself against Israel aggression.

Israel is being attacked by Palestine rockets. The people being attacked are innocent, as are the people suffering in Palestine. Some people in Israel do not agree with the actions of the government. Israel says it is defending itself against Hamas aggression.

That is the basis of this conflict, yes we can go into past history detail and go all the way back to when the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians if we want, but it is redundant. Looking at the details on the surface though, we have two civilian populations who are innocent who are suffering, one more so than the other (Palestinians suffer more than the Jews) two populations that are split between support for the government or support for peace. Two government that state they are acting in self defense.

Due to the disproportionate suffering of the Palestinian people, with the disproportionate ability of Israel to inflict more suffering, many people might take a Palestinian view of this and decide the war causes too much suffering to the Palestinian people to be worth the return.

I though disregard any suffering suffered by the people on either side (lack of empathy) and instead see the conflict as a state using indiscriminate killing of civilians (launching rockets) to a state using focused attacks (Israel attacking Hamas even during a cease fire). Due to this, morally, I would support Israel due to its actions of attempting to bring security to itself when focusing its targeting on Hamas compared to Hamas bringing security to itself when targeting civilians.

Lack of empathy is not bias, using empathy can induce biasness though.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RichardE
So because they are not forced too they sell arms? So the world has to be "forced" to want peace? Your argument is weak. My argument represents examples, the world as a whole from democratic, to authoritarian to communist, to theocracies sells arms to Israel and to Palestine. It goes beyond ideologies, religion and personal values, no one truly cares.

Again, your are focusing on the arms dealers and their lobbies, rather than the opinion of the vast majority of the world as it is constantly reaffirmed in the real world examples of UN general assembly resolutions dating back decades:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/vGARes

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: RichardE
So because they are not forced too they sell arms? So the world has to be "forced" to want peace? Your argument is weak. My argument represents examples, the world as a whole from democratic, to authoritarian to communist, to theocracies sells arms to Israel and to Palestine. It goes beyond ideologies, religion and personal values, no one truly cares.

Again, your are focusing on the arms dealers and their lobbies, rather than the opinion of the vast majority of the world as it is constantly reaffirmed in the real world examples of UN general assembly resolutions dating back decades:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/vGARes

The UN generally assembly does not speak for the governments themselves necessarily. The UN is a diplomatic tool, not a real world tool. Russia can say that what Israel is doing wrong at the UN, yet still support its actions with boats of guns that will be used in future conflicts.

Again, your argument is weak to state that the US somehow morally keeps people from taking action against Israel. Countries do not need UN approval to impose sanctions if they wanted to send a message.

 

[kylebisme]

Such sanctions aren't going to do any good as long as the world's only superpower insists on backing one side.

And how do you figure that the government appointed representatives at the UN do not represent the governments of the nations they are appointed to represent?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Such sanctions aren't going to do any good as long as the world's only superpower insists on backing one side.

And how do you figure that the government appointed representatives at the UN do not represent the governments of the nations they are appointed to represent?

Why do countries need the United States support to send a message that they do not agree with Israel?

Very simple, government appointed representatives to the UN server in the same capacity as press secretaries. They are there to toe whatever party line the government publicly wants the world to see. So if say Turkeys representative (hypothetical) received order to publicly vote with a resolution that went against Israel, so the people of Turkey who might be pro- Arab agree with it, and would be appreciative of the government, he will do that, even as Turkey is selling weapons to Israel who will use them against Palestinians. In this case the representative of Turkey at the UN is nothing but a PN manager who does not truly represent the countries stance which is indifference towards the conflict.

Another case study example.

The France rep is often seen pushing for peace, or more rights for Palestinians, or voting for Israel sanctions, actions which will please some aspects of the French populace (the lower class Muslims) and will be a cause of indifference to the rest of the majority of people who don't care either way. Even with this, the "official country line" at the UN, France to this day is active in Israel nuclear research and reactors, as well as sells weapons and bombs to Israel.

The UN is for the most part especially when it comes to the middle east nothing more than a platform for politicians to grandstand how they are for the little people to there constituents with no real fear because the US is the de facto protector of Israel. France can afford to vote against Israel, because it knows it will never be in fear of real sanctions coming against Israel because of the US veto. Same with Russia, and China, and Japan, all countries that sell arms to Israel.

 

[kylebisme]

Of course that is how the few of you who are biased towards continuing Israel's conquest of Palestine choose to see the UN, but that isn't how those rest of us who want to bring a peaceful resolution to this conflict do.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Of course that is how the few of you who are biased towards continuing Israel's conquest of Palestine choose to see the UN, but that isn't how those rest of us who want to bring a peaceful resolution to this conflict do.

Well, if you chose to ignore the hypocritical actions oft he United Nations, than you only indulge in willful ignorance which is of course your prerogative. Putting your faith in an entity that does nothing more than showboat for peace though will never result in peace.

As it stands, French made bombs fell on Palestinians, even as France publicly asked for peace. That is the UN.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Well, if you chose to ignore the hypocritical actions oft he United Nations, than you only indulge in willful ignorance which is of course your prerogative.

Rather, I know the actions of the bomb makers are not that of the UN.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Putting your faith in an entity that does nothing more than showboat for peace though will never result in peace.

Again, it is the US veto power which blocks the UN efforts for peace which keeps Israel in an ongoing state of conflict.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: RichardE
Well, if you chose to ignore the hypocritical actions oft he United Nations, than you only indulge in willful ignorance which is of course your prerogative.

Rather, I know the actions of the bomb makers are not that of the UN.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Putting your faith in an entity that does nothing more than showboat for peace though will never result in peace.

Again, it is the US veto power which blocks the UN efforts for peace which keeps Israel in an ongoing state of conflict.

All the US wants is that Arab states recognize Israels right to exist...period. When that happens, peace may move forward. That also means Arab states take active action to shut down terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbellah.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: RichardE
Well, if you chose to ignore the hypocritical actions oft he United Nations, than you only indulge in willful ignorance which is of course your prerogative.

Rather, I know the actions of the bomb makers are not that of the UN.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Putting your faith in an entity that does nothing more than showboat for peace though will never result in peace.

Again, it is the US veto power which blocks the UN efforts for peace which keeps Israel in an ongoing state of conflict.

Well, you can't have it both ways Snowman. You can't say the state reps represent the Governments yet say they do not represent the governments when it comes to arms sale. Sorry to say but the world is not as black and white as you make it seem. Who is detached from reality now?

If your entire idea of peace was through the UN I think you should do more research on what the UN actually does (and what it does not to (Rwanda)) besides reading a bunch of "summary of statements" from them.


The countries can rely on the UN veto to keep there factories going which produce the weapons which are used int he conflict in the middle east. To vote for sanctions against Israel (if there was a chance of them actually happening) would hurt there own industries.

Let me ask you, do you think shithole African country is going to want to order guns from Russia after seeing them in use in Israel?

Think maybe Italy might consider buying french body armor after seeing the low causalities that Israel took? You look at the world too simply. Peace would be as simple as stopping arm sales, but how many people would be out of work in there respective countries if arm sales stopped?

The UN will bring peace :laugh: They messed up Rwanda so badly, they can't take any action in Darfur, they are useless against Chinese human rights, they fail to settle disputes between Russia and Europe, they have no control over Chechnya and Russia, they have failed to settle disputes with India/Pakistani, they have failed to get Pakistani to control it's own border, they failed to stop the Ethiopian war, they failed to properly negotiated the Soviet Union/US Conflicts, they fail to stop Iran militarization, they fail to stop Saudi Arabia from human right violations, they fail to get North Korea to feed its citizens, they failed to resolve the North/South Korean conflicts. They failed to stop the Congo war, Failed in the Srebrenica genocide, Failed to feed people starving in Somalia. They have a charter that actively pursues Disarmament, yet there countries on the security counsel sell the most arms.

The UN is going to solve the middle east problem? :laugh: There are millions upon millions of people on this planet suffering worse than the Palestinians and Jews, and they can't help them, hell they sell them weapons, and you think they are going to solve the problem? :laugh:

 

[kylebisme]

I think you don't want to solve this conflict, regardless of how much blood is spilled on both sides, which is made obvious by the shit eating grins you keep throwing out in your arguments.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I think you don't want to solve this conflict, regardless of how much blood is spilled on both sides, which is made obvious by the shit eating grins you keep throwing out in your arguments.

I would love to solve the conflict, I'm just not sure how. Don't you get it Snowman? No one is. Most people don't even care enough to try to solve it. We are all just along for the ride. You and I? We are the exception to the rule even though we come at this from completely different perspectives. We are the exceptions because we actually truly think about this conflict, we might come to different conclusions, but the fact we put any real thought into this makes us unique from most people who pay the issue lip service.

 

[kylebisme]

if you were paying more than just lip service to resolving this conflict, you would have though though what I said above instead of blowing it of with absolutist misrepresentations and condescension.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
if you were paying more than just lip service to resolving this conflict, you would have though though what I said above instead of blowing it of with absolutist misrepresentations and condescension.

In regards to the UN? In the same way you blew off the information I provided you on the background of the member states? Pursuing peace through the UN will not solve anything, resolutions from the security council will not solve anything even if the US allowed them to pass. The entire idea of the UN is a facade, it served its purpose preventing WW3, it is useless for the resolving of minor conflicts due to the fact that one or more of the security council members will have a stake in the proceedings. (Russia and Georgia, China and Darfur, United States and Israel, England and the US and Iraq, France and Algeria, France and Africa). The US is not unique in its use of the veto to block resolutions against Israel, what is odd is the number of resolutions that come against Israel for a conflict that is far less costly that other current issues in the world the UN could also be concentrating on. The Middle East makes good TV, and is the last place for "glory" to be the one who brought "peace" to the middle east.

So no, I didn't disregard your comments, I just realize that your reasoning are faulty.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RichardE
In regards to the UN? In the same way you blew off the information I provided you on the background of the member states?

I addressed those arguments, but you just ignored that to repeat yourself instead.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: RichardE
In regards to the UN? In the same way you blew off the information I provided you on the background of the member states?

I addressed those arguments, but you just ignored that to repeat yourself instead.

I address the US veto power as irelevant when you failed to answer why it would matter. I question whether you have actually thought out the process the UN would take to secure peace in the middle east or if you use the UN as a blind faith, something that you are sure would work if only given the change.

I fail to see how any UN security resolution would work unless you are willing to invade both Israel and Gaza to implement them. Both sides have a reputation for ignoring them. I think it would be wonderful if after sitting by idly as millions have been killed on its watch the UN managed to do something productive, but I don't see possibly how. It is not enough to say that if the US allowed blanket anti-Israel sanctions through, even the ones that do not acknowledge both sides of this war, how it would be productive towards anything. If you look specifically at the resolutions the US has veto's most of them do nothing but attack Israel verbally and ask for a dismantling of the settlements, without addressing the after effects of the dismantle. They do not address any of the security issues, nor any of the concerns of Israel, which is the chief reason why the US blocks them.

You look at this issue too superficially. Now how you show you have some substance to your thoughts, why or what would enable the UN to actually solve this.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Arms makers are selling the arms, since US Veto power blocks the world's efforts which would otherwise block that flow of arms by enforcing sanctions and embargoes on the region.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Arms makers are selling the arms, since US Veto power blocks the world's efforts which would otherwise block that flow of arms by enforcing sanctions and embargoes on the region.

Oh, that. I addressed that already stating if the world truly wanted to stop Israel and Palestine they would act on there own accord. The war is too profitable for there industries. You ignored this analysis.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Such sanctions aren't going to do any good as long as the world's only superpower insists on backing one side.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Such sanctions aren't going to do any good as long as the world's only superpower insists on backing one side.

I already answered this

You having problems with reading comprehension tonight?

Will you address your own fallacies regarding the UN yet? Or does that subject require too much self reflection.

 

[kylebisme]

I was hoping you might put some though into what I said this time, but apparently that is too much to ask.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I was hoping you might put some though into what I said this time, but apparently that is too much to ask.

About as much to ask for you to ever answer a question that required some substance. :laugh:

 

[kylebisme]

Why don't you put some thought into how few actually benefit from continuing Israel's conquest over Palestine compared to the rest of the world which doesn't?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Why don't you put some thought into how few actually benefit from continuing Israel's conquest over Palestine compared to the rest of the world which doesn't?

I have, ane have explained my asnwers in long typed paragraphs. We are all still waiting for you to back up any of your beliefs with anything more than

"wah wah wah conquest"

"wah wah wah UN will fix it all"

"wah wah wah conquest"

Repeat

You have yet to explain how the UN will fix it, or what Israel should do after the dismantling of the settlements, or what both sides should do to fix the issues that would happen after the dismantling, in other words, you haven't actually thought about this issue but took a talking point and kept parroting it over and over. I've explained every rational behind my beliefs, whether you agree with them or not, they were explained. You have to explain anything at all showing nothing more than a superficial understand of this issue you probably absorbed from Wikipedia.

 

[kylebisme]

So, unless I completely explain everything in full detail, you are going to mock what I do say and badger me for what I don't? I have no interest in that.