Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote:
Article 21
Convoys of vehicles or hospital trains on land or specially provided vessels on sea, conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected in the same manner as the hospitals provided for in Article 18

And yes, that applies to ambulances with terrorists inside.

Would you please explain how does the phrase "conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases" apply to a vehicle with a militant inside?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It's nothing like deporting undocumented workers. I think you're only seeing what you want to see. Eviction in battle for East Jerusalem, Israel levels Palestinian homes, Settlers evict woman from disputed east Jerusalem home, U.S. condemns eviction of Arab families from East Jerusalem, ...

So several arab families built houses in east Jerusalem. Some people claimed they built them illegally. After several battles in court, some of these claims were upheld, and others were dismissed. In the cases where the claims were upheld, the residents were evicted. How is that different from deporting undocumented workers?

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote:
Article 21
Convoys of vehicles or hospital trains on land or specially provided vessels on sea, conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected in the same manner as the hospitals provided for in Article 18

And yes, that applies to ambulances with terrorists inside.

Would you please explain how does the phrase "conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases" apply to a vehicle with a militant inside?

If an ambulance is carrying a wounded terrorist, should it be targeted?
If terrorists hijack an ambulance, brings a wounded comrade, and orders the medics to the nearest "terrorist hospital", should it be targeted?
If terrorists use an ambulance to carry wounded comrades to and from their base (for obviously medical treatment) or a hospital, should it be targeted?
If a medic sympathizes with the terrorists and agrees to transports them to and from a hospital (or any place where the wounded are treated), should it be targeted?

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote:
Article 21
Convoys of vehicles or hospital trains on land or specially provided vessels on sea, conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected in the same manner as the hospitals provided for in Article 18

And yes, that applies to ambulances with terrorists inside.

Would you please explain how does the phrase "conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases" apply to a vehicle with a militant inside?

If an ambulance is carrying a wounded terrorist, should it be targeted?
If terrorists hijack an ambulance, brings a wounded comrade, and orders the medics to the nearest "terrorist hospital", should it be targeted?
If terrorists use an ambulance to carry wounded comrades to and from their base (for obviously medical treatment) or a hospital, should it be targeted?
If a medic sympathizes with the terrorists and agrees to transports them to and from a hospital (or any place where the wounded are treated), should it be targeted?

Whether they should or not depends on the combat situation and whether targeting would help accomplish some goals. I personally think yes to all four questions, but that may vary depending on the situation.

I'm still not sure, however, how that article 21 above applies to any of the cases you listed. The article talks about vehicles that carry four categories of people:
* wounded civilians
* sick civilians
* the infirm
* maternity cases.
I don't see how terrorists (wounded or otherwise) fall into any of these four categories.

Just to prevent pointless back-and-forth, I'll just remind people that the fourth Geneva convention (which both phresnel and LessBread quoted) talks about civilians at the time of war and so none of its articles will apply to terrorists in whatever circumstances.

As for wounded terrorists specifically, here's an article that covers that:

Quote:
Article 1. Ambulances and military hospitals shall be recognized as neutral, and as such, protected and respected by the belligerents as long as they accommodate wounded and sick.
Neutrality shall end if the said ambulances or hospitals should be held by a military force.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That link doesn't support your claim that they hold their soldiers accountable when they do something bad. It supports the opposite claim. That link provides examples of Israeli soldiers doing bad things.

It says that these bad things are being investigated. So it does support my claim that they hold the soldiers accountable.

Investigation is only part of holding soldiers accountable and could just as easily be used to whitewash their crimes.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
He should have been indicted for assault with a deadly weapon.

A rubber bullet is not a deadly weapon.

Yes it is, especially when used at close range on a handcuffed prisoner. Less lethal is not the same thing as non lethal. Rubber-coated steel bullets - "rubber bullets" The Regulations emphasize that "The means for dispersing the riot may cause bodily injury and in certain circumstances also death." ... According to these rules, the minimum range for firing "rubber" bullets is forty meters, and use is limited to specially trained personnel.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I think the IDF shot them to send a message to other peace activists not to get involved with Palestinians.

I don't think so, mainly because american/british peace activists are not particularly threatening to IDF. Basically, about 30-50% of israelis themselves are peace activists. So if they were to start shooting peace activists on purpose, they'd have a lot of shooting to do at home before starting shooting foreigners.

30-50%? That's a joke. The IDF shot those people to send a message.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
At any rate, the question is why haven't the soldiers who pulled the trigger in these cases been brought to trial?

I assume it's because they think pulling the trigger was either justified or a justifiable mistake.

That claim would be more credible if they didn't think that about every trigger pull... In the case of James Miller Israel paid off his family to avoid setting a legal precedent (Israel to compensate family of British filmmaker killed by IDF). In the case of Tristan Anderson Israel excused his maiming by claiming he was engaged in an "act of war" (Oakland man to sue for injury in Israel protest). That's a clear admission that Israel is at war with civilians.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Yes, it was used on civilians.

No, it was used on military target. It just happened that these were near civilian population.

The UN school in Beit Lahiya was not a military target. Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza The weapon is legal if used as a smokescreen in battle but it is banned from deployment in civilian areas. Pictures of the attack show Palestinian medics fleeing as blobs of burning phosphorus rain down on the compound. Face it, in your view, every Palestinian is a military target.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And no it wasn't a war zone.

Would you mind sharing your definition of a war zone, then?

It was a free fire zone with civilian targets.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Amira Hass called it a live fire training exercise.

Sure, you can call it whatever you like. It doesn't make it true.

She was there, you weren't.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The topic was the criminal use of white phosphorus on civilians, not who used human shields (which in Gaza turned out to be the IDF -- read the Goldstone report, listen to the interviews with the soldiers). You're attempting to change the subject.

I'm not attempting to change the subject, I'm just casually remarking that an article that shows gross incompetence on one subject can hardly be regarded as a credible source of information on a closely related subject.

Looked to me like you were trying to change the subject. Instead of addressing the use of white phosphorus as described in those links, you brought up the use of human shields. HRW has more credibility on the subject than the IDF which has a clear conflict of interest. UN accuses troops of using boy, 11, as human shield An 11-year-old boy was used as a human shield by Israeli troops during their 22-day offensive in Gaza – including when they came under fire – according to a report by UN human rights experts published yesterday.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And by the way, youtube isn't exactly a credible source of information.

Depends on what it's showing. If it shows video footage, then it's as credible as any other medium showing video footage.

Really? Are you that gullible? Do you think the Daily Show is a real news show too?

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Oh yes it is.
Yes, a bank is a civilian target, even when it harbors militant money.

Would you be able to support these claims with a suitable quote from international law?

A bank is civilian infrastructure. I've already linked to the Fourth Geneva Convention. From Protocol 1: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Are Russian immigrants to Israel called Russian-Israelis?

Of course.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Is Avigdor Lieberman frequently referred to as a Russian-Israeli?

He specifically isn't, I think because he lived in Israel for so long that nobody remembers it. But Nathan Sharanski and his colleagues from his party were indeed called that.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
No, such hyphenation is only applied to Palestinian-Israelis.

Not true. It is applied to immigrants from Soviet Union, Morocco, Ethiopia, Yemen, and a lot of other ethnicities.

Can you point to examples from the English language Israeli press? I found no reference to Nathan Sharanski as a Russian-Israeli. And the stories about Ethiopian Israelis were all about how they are discriminated against even though they're Jewish.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Remember, you're claiming that Arab-Israelis aren't discriminated against.

I'm claiming that arabs are not discriminated against by the israeli government. As for individual people, of course, there is some discrimination in Israel (against arabs, as well as russians, moroccans, ethiopians, etc.), as, of course, everywhere else in the world.

Where is the evidence to support your claim?

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Are you trying to say that two wrongs make a right?

I'm trying to say that the situation is Israel (no legalized discrimination and some civilian discrimination) is not unique in any way.

I didn't say it was unique but non-uniqueness is not an excuse.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

Despite what the title may suggest, it doesn't mean that ALL arab parties were banned in Israel. On the contrary, there were and still are several parties that cater specifically to the arab sector, as well as several arab politicians in other (not specifically arab) parties. The article actually refers to banning two specific parties from elections. This, of course, happens all the time, as there is some set of rules which a political party must conform to to be admitted to elections. And, of course, these two arab parties were not the only parties that were banned.

Which Arab parties were not banned? Which non-Arab parties were banned? And how was it that a far right party was put in charge of polls in Arab cities? (Elections Committee rejects bid to ban far-rightist from Arab city poll). Looks like an effort to establish Jim Crow.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Israel/Occupied Territories: High Court decision institutionalizes racial discrimination

I think it refers to a phenomenon where certain arab citizens would marry a palestinian woman, bring her to Israel, then divorce within a year or so and repeat the process, sometimes several times. After trying to prevent this by other means, they eventually gave up and did this. So yes, formally, there is some kind of discrimination here, but this is not just to oppress the people, but it was done for a specific reason. Also, if you do insist on formalities, this cannot be called "racial discrimination" since, of course, not only arab citizens, but all other citizens as well cannot bring in spouses from palestine into israel.

I think you're making excuses. The solution to "green card" marriages is not to eliminate marriage to foreigners. This law is about discrimination and ethnic cleansing. Moreover, statements by Israeli officials and legislators who support the new law indicate that it is primarily motivated by demographic, rather than security, considerations - that is, a determination to reduce the percentage of Israeli Arabs among the country's population.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Most Arabs can't buy most homes in West Jerusalem

I suggest you actually read articles before posting. The article in question discusses how non-israeli-citizen arabs cannot buy homes in west Jerusalem (or anywhere in Israel, for that matter). It says nothing about israeli citizen of any ethnicity being unable to buy land.

It's about preventing Palestinians in East Jerusalem from moving to West Jerusalem.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The proposal indicates that discrimination is rising. I'm not aware of similar laws proposed in other supposed democracies. Are you? It seems that you are, so how about sharing what you know with us?

Well, here's one.

That's not a proposal, that's a bio of a leading French Fascist. Are you sure you want to point to a French Fascist to defend Israeli policy?

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom
Would you please explain how does the phrase "conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases" apply to a vehicle with a militant inside?

Consult Article 13 of the Protocol 1 to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom
So several arab families built houses in east Jerusalem. Some people claimed they built them illegally. After several battles in court, some of these claims were upheld, and others were dismissed. In the cases where the claims were upheld, the residents were evicted. How is that different from deporting undocumented workers?

They evicted people from houses they had lived in for 50 years. That's not deporting undocumented workers, that's ethnic cleansing. 'You don't have a house any more' Jeff Halper, an anthropologist and director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, said the combined effect of settlement growth and house demolitions in East Jerusalem was to extend Israel's "matrix of control" and to fragment the Palestinian population in the city. Israel: Stop East Jerusalem Home Demolitions East Jerusalem includes more than 70 square kilometers of the West Bank that Israel annexed to its territory in 1967, and remains occupied territory under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 regarding occupied territories prohibits the occupying power from destroying private property unless such destruction is "rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Investigation is only part of holding soldiers accountable

Sure. Other articles (including those you linked) talked about other parts of holding soldiers accountable.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Yes it is, especially when used at close range on a handcuffed prisoner. Less lethal is not the same thing as non lethal.

No it's not. A "deadly weapon" is something whose primary function is to cause death. It's not any object which can be used to kill someone -- by that token, scissors, rope, and most other household items would be deadly weapons too. So, since the primary function of rubber bullets is not to kill people, it is not a deadly weapon.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
30-50%? That's a joke.

Just look at the results of the latest elections and at the frequency of pro-peace demonstrations.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The IDF shot those people to send a message.

Can you support this claim with anything else other than repeating it over and over?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That's a clear admission that Israel is at war with civilians.

How is settling out of court an admission of guilt?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The UN school in Beit Lahiya was not a military target.

Oh yes it was. Shots were fired from inside it. In fact, I think one of the videos I linked above showed that very school, but if not, it's easy to find these videos online.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It was a free fire zone with civilian targets.

That wasn't the question. My question was, how do you define a war zone?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Face it, in your view, every Palestinian is a military target.

I think you are stereotyping based on the fact that I didn't immediately agree that Israel oppresses palestinians.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
She was there

Doesn't make everything she says true.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Really? Are you that gullible? Do you think the Daily Show is a real news show too?

I don't know what the daily show is. Do you think that some of the videos I linked on youtube were fabricated? What makes you think they were?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
A bank is civilian infrastructure. I've already linked to the Fourth Geneva Convention. From Protocol 1: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

If a bank is used to hold militants' money, it is no longer a civilian object. If any building (including a bank building) is used to harbor combatants, it is no longer a civilian object.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Where is the evidence to support your claim?

The evidence is that you (or anyone) weren't able to point to any official law which discriminates against arab israeli citizens.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Which Arab parties were not banned?

The one called "Hadash". Plus, various other parties had arab members. The kadima party has a druze arab member of parliament. The labor party traditionally had several too, although it looks like this time they didn't get enough votes to pass.

Not to mention, of course, that eventually both parties that supposedly were banned, did participate in the elections.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Which non-Arab parties were banned?

The one which was most well-known was called Kach.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And how was it that a far right party was put in charge of polls in Arab cities?

I guess because there is no law against that?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I think you're making excuses. The solution to "green card" marriages is not to eliminate marriage to foreigners.

So what is the solution? As I said, they tried several alternatives that didn't work.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
This law is about discrimination and ethnic cleansing.

Can you support this claim with anything?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It's about preventing Palestinians in East Jerusalem from moving to West Jerusalem.

It's about preventing foreigners from moving into the country. Including, yes, palestinians from east Jerusalem, more specifically, those who are not israeli citizens.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That's not a proposal, that's a bio

Sure, but it lists all kinds of proposals this guy made.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Are you sure you want to point to a French Fascist to defend Israeli policy?

The purpose of my pointing to it is not to defend anything. You just asked about which other democratic countries made similar proposals, and I replied with this.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Consult Article 13 of the Protocol 1 to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Quote:
Art 13. Discontinuance of protection of civilian medical units

1. The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

2. The following shall not be considered as acts harmful to the enemy:

(a) that the personnel of the unit are equipped with light individual weapons for their own defence or for that of the wounded and sick in their charge;
(b) that the unit is guarded by a picket or by sentries or by an escort;
(c) that small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick, and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the units;
(d) that members of the armed forces or other combatants are in the unit for medical reasons.

So, 2a,b,c are not relevant. 2d is not relevant because other combatants were in the unit clearly not for medical reasons. (1) states that a time limit should be set when appropriate, which, of course, it is not in a real-time combat situation. So which part of this article was violated, then?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
They evicted people from houses they had lived in for 50 years.

Again, how is that different from deporting illegal immigrants, some of who have lived in California for many years too?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Can you point to examples from the English language Israeli press? I found no reference to Nathan Sharanski as a Russian-Israeli.

Quote:

But the results were not the same for everyone: The second experiment included more members of "marginal groups" in Israeli society, and they appeared to regard the anthem more negatively than mainstream Israelis. This experiment included Russian immigrants and ultra-Orthodox.

(This one is obviously not about Sharanski.)

Quote:

We have chosen to profile Anatoly Sharansky, the Israeli minister for social and diaspora affairs and leader of Yisra'el Ba'aliyah, the Russian immigrants' party in Israel

Quote:

In Israel, Sharansky founded a party for Russian immigrants that, after losing most of its seats in the last election, was absorbed into the Likud Party

Quote:

It was formed to represent the interests of Russian immigrants by former refusenik Natan Sharansky.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And the stories about Ethiopian Israelis were all about how they are discriminated against even though they're Jewish.

So, regardless of what the articles were about, you did find evidence that they are called that. So I don't have to do it. Here are a few more for other ethnicities:

Quote:

Moroccans in Israel Between Two Cultures

Quote:

For example, at the end of Pesach, Moroccan Jews have a feast called Maimuna

Quote:

Yemenite Jews are integrated into Israeli society and participate in all the institutions of the state. Although there have been Yemenite political parties contesting national elections, these have usually not fared very well.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Consult Article 13 of the Protocol 1 to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Quote:
Art 13. Discontinuance of protection of civilian medical units

1. The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

2. The following shall not be considered as acts harmful to the enemy:

(a) that the personnel of the unit are equipped with light individual weapons for their own defence or for that of the wounded and sick in their charge;
(b) that the unit is guarded by a picket or by sentries or by an escort;
(c) that small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick, and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the units;
(d) that members of the armed forces or other combatants are in the unit for medical reasons.

So, 2a,b,c are not relevant. 2d is not relevant because other combatants were in the unit clearly not for medical reasons. (1) states that a time limit should be set when appropriate, which, of course, it is not in a real-time combat situation. So which part of this article was violated, then?

I'm confused by how you just dismissed everything so quickly.

• a) applies because terrorists have light individual weapons that are used for defense of themselves and their wounded.
  
• terrorists who are armed and accompanying an ambulance with a wounded comrade or comrades make b) applicable.
  
• if the terrorists haven't made it back to their base, then c) applies.
  
• if there are wounded terrorists in an ambulance and their comrades are there to calm him, apply pressure to wound, make sure the comrade gets there safely, or trying to get hold of someone who can perform medical treatment then d) applies as well.

So why aren't 2a-2c not relevant? Is it because it makes it easier to dismiss 2d?

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes

• a) applies because terrorists have light individual weapons that are used for defense of themselves and their wounded.

:D I'm not sure whether you are serious or trolling.

Even if you do manage to classify machine guns as "light individual weapons", how do you manage to confuse terrorists with ambulance personnel? See, ambulance personnel is the people who help the wounded. Like, you know, take them to the hospital and stuff. Terrorists are the people who kill other people using machine guns and rocket launchers. Care to explain again how (a) applies?