Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
What other parts?
Consider this:
Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer, who has filed a formal demand for an official investigation, said that of some 120 criminal investigations brought against security force members since the beginning of the intifada, there had only been one conviction – against the Arab-Israeli soldier who shot British peace activist Tom Hurndall dead in Gaza.
Fighting for life: American peace activist shot by Israelis
120 investigations in nine years and only one conviction. That's not accountability, that's a white wash.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
Yes it is. Rubber bullets aren't non-lethal, they're less-lethal. They can kill. That's why regulations on placed on their use. Nevertheless, The permission to fire potentially lethal rubber-coated steel bullets at Palestinians to disperse "violent riots" or demonstrations has led to the deaths of dozens of Palestinians. (from the B'Tselem link). If rubber bullets aren't deadly weapons, then how is it that they've killed dozens? I hate to fry your brain over this but scissors, rope and other potentially lethal household items are considered deadly weapons when used as weapons - at least that's the case here in California: California’s Penal Code section 245(a)(1) defines "deadly weapon" as an object, instrument, or weapon that is capable of producing and likely to produce death or great bodily injury.5 Hands and feet are not considered "deadly weapons", as the definition is limited to objects that are not part of one’s body.6 What is a Deadly Weapon?
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
I think you're deluded. The last Israeli election put the hard right into power. Let's look at the results of the latest elections in Israel: Israeli legislative election, 2009. Labor lost 6 seats. Meretz lost two. Likud gained 15. Yisrael Beiteinu gained 4. 30-50% of Israelis are not peace-activists. That's a joke.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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?
I've been supporting it with links that you're ignoring. It's self-evident. The message is this. A U.S. or U.K. passport won't protect you from being shot by the IDF if you engage in non-violent protests with Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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?
To repeat myself: In the case of Tristan Anderson Israel excused his maiming by claiming he was engaged in an "act of war". That's a clear admission that Israel is at war with civilians.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
No it wasn't. And even if shots were fired from inside it, white phosphorus is only ok to use as a smoke screen, not as a munition against combatants.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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?
A war zone is a zone where war is waged. What happened in Gaza wasn't a war. It was a massacre, a free fire zone with civilian targets.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
No, I'm saying that based on the comments you've made.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: Original post by LessBread
She was there
Doesn't make everything she says true.
It gives her more credibility on the subject than you.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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?
The Daily Show is a parody of cable news. I didn't follow your youtube links. They might have been fabricated, more likely they show other events.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
Sorry, but you're wrong. A bank that holds militant's money remains a civilian object. Put a hold on their accounts, don't bomb them. The presence of combatants is not enough to strip a building of it's civilian status.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
That's not evidence.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
Wikipedia describes Hadash as a communist party. That is has Arab members doesn't make it an Arab party, anymore than having a Druze member makes Kadima a Druze party. Were the banned parties allowed to place candidates on the ballot? If not, then they didn't participate in the elections.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: Original post by LessBread
Which non-Arab parties were banned?
The one which was most well-known was called Kach.
Kach was banned in 1988 for incitement to racism. It dissolved in 1994.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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?
You don't know.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
You said it, but you didn't support your claim with accounts that these "green card" marriages were even a problem. From the Amnesty link: Thousands of Palestinians seeking family reunification prior to the passing of this law were rejected on unspecified "security" grounds in circumstances where the failure to provide detailed reasons for each rejection made it impossible for those rejected to mount an effective legal challenge to the decision.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: Original post by LessBread
This law is about discrimination and ethnic cleansing.
Can you support this claim with anything?
I've been supporting my claims all along.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
And even though they've lived there their entire lives, like their parents before them, they don't count because they can be written off as foreigners. That's legal chicanery.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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.
You're defending the proposed Israeli law by pointing to a French Fascist. You haven't pointed to specific proposals he has made. And there's nothing in that bio related to legislative proposals he's made. There's plenty about the controversial statements he's made, including several statements minimizing the Holocaust for which he was convicted and fined.
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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?
There was nothing in the stories I linked to about combatants in the medical unit and you haven't provided accounts claiming otherwise. The time limit follows a warning that medical units will be attacked when used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. Ferrying wounded civilians doesn't constitute a harmful act. Article 17 was violated. From the Guardian article I linked to earlier: "the parties to the conflict shall endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas, of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, and for the passage of ministers of all religions, medical personnel and medical equipment on their way to such areas" Under attack: how medics died trying to help Gaza's casualties
Quote: Original post by Gil GrissomQuote: 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?
50 years? I think not.
Regarding Sharansky, none of the articles you linked to used the phrase "Russian-Israeli". They all note that Sharansky came from Russia, but they don't refer to him using the hyphenation. Also, only one of those sites is Israeli. That's Haaretz. Binternet is a UK web host. The Forward is American. The other is wikipedia.
The same goes for Ethopians, Moroccans, Yemenites. No hyphenation. Only Palestinians are referred to as hyphenated Israelis, Arab-Israelis.
