War

[RWStanding]

War
With Gaza in the news, the question of what international law says and how it is interpreted is paramount. Regarding military action by Israel, which is said to have a right to defend itself as it appears to be doing. But this tends to confuse two sorts of military action. As with this country in the Battle of Britain, we were defending ourselves. And then, after Normandy in particular, we were attacking Germany. In terms of Responsibility, the state had a responsibility to defend its citizens. When in attack we had a responsibility to to the German citizenry. How well we dealt with it is a lasting question – the UK being at the limits of its military choice. For Israel today, we can say it has a responsibility to defend its people, within its borders. But when it attacked Gaza it then had a responsibility to its population. But the countries that supported Israel also had a responsibility, and may at least have told Israel not to attack Gaza, with the international community taking action with a settlement in mind mayhap a two state solution. Gaza and the West Bank having the choice of settlement or invasion with international rule for a long period.

[Impenitent]

don't attack nations that can decimate you

and don't bitch about it when they return the favor 500 fold

-Imp

[Advocate]

An occupying force cannot claim the right of self defense bc they are the aggressor, not the defenders. Hamas has every right to exist. Israel has given up its.

[Gary Childress]

An occupying force cannot claim the right of self defense bc they are the aggressor, not the defenders. Hamas has every right to exist. Israel has given up its.

I can't agree that Israel has given up its right to exist.

[Dubious]

don't attack nations that can decimate you

and don't bitch about it when they return the favor 500 fold

-Imp

As so much in history, unfortunate but true.

[Age]

An occupying force cannot claim the right of self defense bc they are the aggressor, not the defenders. Hamas has every right to exist. Israel has given up its.

I can't agree that Israel has given up its right to exist.

I think what was meant was that "israel" has given up its, delusional belief, that they are just 'defending' "themselves", when it has been them who has been "the aggressor" here all along.

Whereas, "hamas" came to exist because of "israel's aggression", and that someone has to protect the lives of the children and citizens of "gaza".

The children and citizens of "Israel" also have a right to exist, in peace and harmony, which they never have to give this right up, either. But, "the aggressors" living within "israelie's border", and everywhere else on the planet, do not have a legitamate right to be "aggressors".

So, "the aggressors" in "Israel" 'have given up their, delusional beliefs, that they are 'right' to do what can never ever be 'justified' here.

As soon as one becomes "the aggressor" then they have given up their right to exist, as an "aggressor".

But no one ever gives up their right 'to exist', ever.

[Iwannaplato]

don't attack nations that can decimate you

and don't bitch about it when they return the favor 500 fold

-Imp

Yes, that's history. Immaculately separate nations, historyless, with no contact and effects and near random decisions to attack.
And of course we accept such behavior in everyday life.
You get unpleasant behavior returned 500 fold, don't 'bitch' about it.
He pushed you in the supermarket line, beat up him, his wife and his neighbor's kids and any cousins you can find.

Let alone with identity assumptions in 'you' above.

Let alone the assumptions about the role of third parties being conflated with say Hamas.

[Impenitent]

don't attack nations that can decimate you

and don't bitch about it when they return the favor 500 fold

-Imp

Yes, that's history. Immaculately separate nations, historyless, with no contact and effects and near random decisions to attack.
And of course we accept such behavior in everyday life.
You get unpleasant behavior returned 500 fold, don't 'bitch' about it.
He pushed you in the supermarket line, beat up him, his wife and his neighbor's kids and any cousins you can find.

Let alone with identity assumptions in 'you' above.

Let alone the assumptions about the role of third parties being conflated with say Hamas.

road rage never happens either

-Imp

[Walker]

Where is the Outcry!

Egypt ... Tear Down That Border Wall!

Follow the Policy of the USA.
Amnisty Now!

Borders do not need walls, either.

[Walker]

The Logical Path
The least worse way to proceed.

- Israel sweeps the population south, into Egypt.
- Egypt detains the population until Israel scours Gaza of Hamas.
- Israel screens the population while they’re in Egypt. Those who pass inspection can return if they like. However, since from the cradle Gazians are taught to hate Jews, some manditory re-education would likely be in order.
- Can any of this happen? Why or why not?

[Advocate]

[quote="Gary Childress" post_id=695854 time=1707827630 user_id=6477]
[quote=Advocate post_id=693044 time=1706395061 user_id=15238]
An occupying force cannot claim the right of self defense bc they are the aggressor, not the defenders. Hamas has every right to exist. Israel has given up its.
[/quote]

I can't agree that Israel has given up its right to exist.
[/quote]

The Jewish people don't have a right to a homeland either. Political states are never based on legitimate criteria.

[Impenitent]

Canada is going to allow thousands of "refugees" from Gaza to "migrate" there

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tr ... %20members.

lets watch Trump kick Canada out of NATO

-Imp

[Walker]

The actions are additional evidence that socialist-totalitarianism could be a genetic trait.

[Gary Childress]

An occupying force cannot claim the right of self defense bc they are the aggressor, not the defenders. Hamas has every right to exist. Israel has given up its.

I can't agree that Israel has given up its right to exist.

The Jewish people don't have a right to a homeland either. Political states are never based on legitimate criteria.

The same can be said of Muslims, Christians, and most other peoples and belief systems. Some political states are probably less worthy of being universalized than others. I'm not sure how to sort that out in a way that won't yield undesirable results. If Israel needs to come down, I don't think conversely leaving the Islamic states intact is a desirable state of affairs.

[Gary Childress]

Where is the Outcry!

Egypt ... Tear Down That Border Wall!

Follow the Policy of the USA.
Amnisty Now!

Borders do not need walls, either.

I think the "outcry" is that few of us want to live in Egypt. I don't think I would want to live in a country like Egypt. Should we emulate Egypt and build a wall to keep everyone else out? As long as most new arrivals are willing to abide by the laws of the US, then I would think they are fine. And I would think most people who come to the US from the Southern border are probably adapting reasonably well to our society and ways (adapting about as well as can be realistically expected). There are certainly some who are misbehaving, but it's not everyone. And if someone is illegally crossing the border in desperation to avoid horrible conditions back home, then I don't think that is as "criminal" as coming here specifically for more nefarious reasons. It seems to me that where we need to improve is in directing more resources into the vetting process, and hiring more Americans to do the job of sorting through the influx to ensure that the people we allow in are coming here for tolerable reasons.