Israel Shells U.N. Building in Gaza and Media Center -- Charged With Using White Phosphorus

I think this latest illegal disgusting and wholly disproportionate action by the Israelis has finally extinguished any sympathy I might have for their Zionist project in the Middle East.

Steve 41oo wrote:

I think this latest illegal disgusting and wholly disproportionate action by the Israelis has finally extinguished any sympathy I might have for their Zionist project in the Middle East.

"Illegal" and "disproportionate" are claims of a factual nature, and can be proved or not.


Can you show any law that says that what Israel did was illegal?

I don't think you can, since there is no such law, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.


Disproportionate would mean that the expected collateral damage from a given attack was excessive compared to the expected military gains from the attack. Can you show that this was the case in Israeli targeting calculations?

"Disgusting" is more the realm of opinion, but how exactly is it disgusting for Israel to defend themselves?

That is an inevitable consequence of the road going through Israeli territory.

Barak had such a mandate, at least until the Israeli people got sick of suicide bombing being the only result of the negotiations.

Yes, but you were referring to the terms that *Israel* was willing to offer. Israel is never going to offer that.

Israel's current positions offer a lot less than what they offered at Taba.

That is one consequence of unilateral separation. One side gets to decide what they will keep and what they will give up, and the other side doesn't get a say.

It is a rather definite fact that the Israeli offers were getting close and closer to what was acceptable to the Palestinians, and there is no basis for assuming this trend would not have continued had negotiations continued.

The maps I saw showed more and more territory being offered to the Palestinians as newer offers were made.

oralloy wrote:

The Taba offer would have given the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank (in one contiguous block), East Jerusalem as their capital, and it would have transferred some Israeli land to Gaza to compensate for what land they would have kept in the West Bank.

This is simply false. The offer was for an initial 73% of the West Bank with only an eventual 91%.

The Israeli's final offer was to annex an additional 10% of Palestinian land.

Here again is the Taba offer:

http://www.fmep.org/maps/redeployment-final-status-options/final-status-map-presented-by-israel-taba-mar-2001/final_status_map_taba.pdf

95% of the West Bank, in one contiguous block, with a land swap to compensate for the 5% Israel would have kept.

Robert Gentel wrote:

False. They offered "religious sovereignty" but not the legal definition of the term. They were offering custodianship but not the legal concept of sovereignty.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2000/12/23/MN14590.DTL

Robert Gentel wrote:

oralloy wrote:

And second, there are "no Palestinian religious sites" in Jerusalem. There are instead Jewish religious sites that Muslims illegally occupy.

Ok, name the law then.

Trespassing.

The Muslims are on a Jewish holy site and they have no business being there.

Why should Muslims be allowed to steal other people's holy sites?

It's their holiest site. It belongs to them.

Their control over West Jerusalem predates the 1967 war. How is that unrecognized?

Congress enacted legislation in 1995 calling for the United States to move its embassy to Jerusalem, but the president can postpone the move every six months due to national security interests. The waiver has been used every six months since the law was passed.

Israel captured East Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Day War and annexed it in a move not recognized internationally. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, while Israel considers the entire city as its capital.

There are no embassies in Jerusalem. El Salvador and Costa Rica were the last countries to transfer their embassies to Tel Aviv from Jerusalem, announcing their decisions in August.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/802711.html

Negotiations that make Israel give up the Temple Mount need to be undermined.

If my neighbor's kids were throwing stones at me like that, I'd open fire on them without a second's hesitation.

Kadima is planning for unilateral separation. That does not require negotiating any land swaps. They just plan to put up the wall and call it a border without asking anyone what they think of the new border.

Can you show any law that says that what Israel did was illegal?

I don't think you can, since there is no such law, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

oralloy wrote:

Can you show any law that says that what Israel did was illegal?

I don't think you can, since there is no such law, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Yes. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Geneva Convention forbid the use of incendiary devices against civilians or in civilian areas.

It has not been established (that I've seen) that Israel has used WP as anything other than a smoke device. If Israel is to be accused of using it as an incendiary, it would help if it were shown that they actually used it as an incendiary.

The Israel Defense Forces is investigating whether a reserve paratroops brigade made improper use of phosphorus shells during the fighting in Gaza.

The brigade fired about 20 such shells in a built-up area of northern Gaza.

Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army's view, in compliance with international law.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057361.html

According to senior army officers, the IDF used two phosphorus-based weapons in Gaza. One, the sources said, actually contains almost no phosphorus. These are simple smoke bombs - 155mm artillery shells - with a trace of phosphorus to ignite them.

Alkalai's probe is thus focusing on the second type: phosphorus shells, either 81mm or 120mm, that are fired from mortar guns. About 200 such shells were fired during the recent fighting, and of these, according to the probe's initial findings, almost 180 were fired at orchards in which gunmen and rocket-launching crews were taking cover.

But most importantly, that convention does not apply to Israel in any way, since they are not a party to it.

Which part of which Geneva Convention do you think covers incendiary weapons use?

oralloy wrote:

That is an inevitable consequence of the road going through Israeli territory.

True, but you also neglect that it's also the inevitable consequence of Israel appropriating the territory for themselves.

It wasn't their territory in the partition plan.



They've systematically settled Palestinian land and settlers often do so very strategically, denying Palestinians access to roadways, water and the like.

That the land is not contiguous is largely a function of a conscious effort on the part of Israeli extremists to make it so.

oralloy wrote:

Yes, but you were referring to the terms that *Israel* was willing to offer. Israel is never going to offer that.

Israel, under Sharon, did express the need to offer more. What "painful concessions" do you think he was talking about? The ones they already offered? No, he called for more settlement evacuation and though the negotiations never got into specifics there were many indications that Israel has come further along in acceptance of a two-state solution with 1967 borders.

That he was building the barrier roughly along the green line is a very real indication of willingness to make the green line the "facts on the ground", literally.

oralloy wrote:

Israel's current positions offer a lot less than what they offered at Taba.

Israel has no current offer on the table except that Palestinians should manage to quell their extremists while they put an economic blockade on them that, in the words of Ehud Olmert's adviser Dov Weissglass, is "an appointment with a dietician." "The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die," he claims.

So yes, their current position is not as attractive an offer as Sharon seemed ready for, they systematically destroy the civil institutions of the authority they require to demonstrate control over extremists and prevent them from receiving the resources to rebuild.

But there is near-universal (with the sole exception of Israel) consensus on the basis for a two-state solution and it's a more generous offer than was submitted in Camp David.

Essentially, it's very simple. 100% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (at 1967 borders) is to be the Palestinians state. A fair, and equitable, 1-for-1 swap should be made where that is not viable. At camp David Israel's initial offer was for about 74% of this territory in a manner that would have officialized some of the Israeli expantion into the Palestinian territory.

For Palestinians to accept this offer would be for them to begin to sanction the encroachment on their territory by Israel themselves.

It was as unreasonable a proposition to Palestinians as "right of return" is to Israelis.

oralloy wrote:

That is one consequence of unilateral separation. One side gets to decide what they will keep and what they will give up, and the other side doesn't get a say.

That's one consequence, I would say the attacks are another.

Unilateral separation was a good first step, but continuing to try to marginalize Palestinian extremists through collective punishment is also part of that strategy so far.

And it's unreasonable to disconsider the blockade.

Legally, such a blockade is an act of war. I understand it, but it can't be ignored in the big picture. Israel disengaged in that it took boots off the ground and put the strip under siege from without.

This is hardly a resolution of the problem, or even a real disengagement. If I were putting you and your family on a "diet" though seige I imagine you would object as well, and I imagine you would do so violently.

If Israel aims to secure their own security, as opposed to more land, they should take steps toward resolving the conflict. As long as they have their neighbors under siege they will be at war with them.

In this conflict, people often neglect to realize that cross-border settling, and economic blockades are an act of war. Just as it's unreasonable to expect Israel to accept attacks on their civilians it's unreasonable to expect any people to react to these acts of war without war.

If anyone tried to blockade the United States, or systematically settle our borders we'd be at war with them in a heartbeat.

Now I understand Israel's motivations for doing so, but my point is that you can't consider this a full disengagement as long as they are actively committing acts of war against the Palestinians.

oralloy wrote:

It is a rather definite fact that the Israeli offers were getting close and closer to what was acceptable to the Palestinians, and there is no basis for assuming this trend would not have continued had negotiations continued.

Yes, there is. Israel flat out stated that they would not accept "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation" and in effect were saying that the green line was simply not on the table at the time, because they were insisting on Palestinian crack down on their extremists first.

The Palestinian Authority had absolutely no chance of being able to crack down on the extremists without any political captital in return. And asking them to agree to 74% of the land that the whole world says is their (including a couple of UN resolutions) represented a loss of political capital.

With Hamas already rejecting the negotiations the PA has no chance of subduing all extremists without being able to come to the Palestinian street with something to show for their negotiations.

What Israel offered was that they'd get the chance to lose additional land from the green line basis of negotiations. This is hardly an attractive offer.

Israel was telling Arafat to demilitarize and crack down on Hamas, while they reserved the right to keep attacking Palestinians, assasinating them and operating militarily in their territory.

This is in addition to controlling their airspace and sea access.

To portray this as a reasonable offer is really a stretch, it was only different from the status quo in that they'd officially have less land to negotiate for and would get to call themselves a state (without any of the benefits of sovereignty).

It was an offer that borders on disingenuous. You get 74% of your house back and get to call it your house, but I get to come in and kill who I want, and you can't have any weapons of self defense but you are still responsible for keeping your really pissed off lunatic son under control or we'll keep attacking.

That just wasn't reasonable oralloy.

oralloy wrote:

The maps I saw showed more and more territory being offered to the Palestinians as newer offers were made.

If I start a negotiation with you for your house back, and go from offering you 70% of it back to 74% it's still not a reasonable basis for discussion.

Furthermore, you favorite parts of your house (East Jerusalem issues) would not be on the table.

oralloy wrote:

Here again is the Taba offer:

http://www.fmep.org/maps/redeployment-final-status-options/final-status-map-presented-by-israel-taba-mar-2001/final_status_map_taba.pdf

95% of the West Bank, in one contiguous block, with a land swap to compensate for the 5% Israel would have kept.

Only after years, and Palestinians were expected to be able to stop attacks on Israel. This offer was not what they'd initially receive.

oralloy wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:

False. They offered "religious sovereignty" but not the legal definition of the term. They were offering custodianship but not the legal concept of sovereignty.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2000/12/23/MN14590.DTL

This occurred well after Arafat walked out on Camp David negotiations at a point when any negotiations were a long shot, and after the Palestinian street had already exploded.

I was speaking of the Israeli offer at Camp David where they were only offering "religious sovereignty".

The attacks were just not in response to this offer, like you've characterized.

oralloy wrote:

Why should Muslims be allowed to steal other people's holy sites?

It's a bit disingenuous not to recognize that the holy sites are often holy for both peoples,

Reasonable people are willing to give land for peace, and unreasonable expansionists have long stood in the way of this process. You apparently seem to fall in this category of caring more about Israel's territorial growth than the safety of its citizens.

oralloy wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

I think this latest illegal disgusting and wholly disproportionate action by the Israelis has finally extinguished any sympathy I might have for their Zionist project in the Middle East.

"Illegal" and "disproportionate" are claims of a factual nature, and can be proved or not.


Can you show any law that says that what Israel did was illegal?

I don't think you can, since there is no such law, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.


Disproportionate would mean that the expected collateral damage from a given attack was excessive compared to the expected military gains from the attack. Can you show that this was the case in Israeli targeting calculations?

"Disgusting" is more the realm of opinion, but how exactly is it disgusting for Israel to defend themselves?

What are the military gains from destroying villages and killing women and children? Are they quantifiable, or did someone just decide that would be a good idea at some point?

Cycloptichorn

oralloy wrote:

It has not been established (that I've seen) that Israel has used WP as anything other than a smoke device. If Israel is to be accused of using it as an incendiary, it would help if it were shown that they actually used it as an incendiary.

That you haven't seen it appears to be willful.

I've posted an article where the Israeli military announced an investigation into a case where they admit it might not have been legal.

In fact, in the very post you are responding to I linked to it again. Here it is again in case you missed it:

Quote:

The Israel Defense Forces is investigating whether a reserve paratroops brigade made improper use of phosphorus shells during the fighting in Gaza.

The brigade fired about 20 such shells in a built-up area of northern Gaza.

Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army's view, in compliance with international law.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057361.html

Here's a picture of the incident:



And in the same article, there is even a count of how many of the non-smoke screen devices were used:

Quote:

According to senior army officers, the IDF used two phosphorus-based weapons in Gaza. One, the sources said, actually contains almost no phosphorus. These are simple smoke bombs - 155mm artillery shells - with a trace of phosphorus to ignite them.

Alkalai's probe is thus focusing on the second type: phosphorus shells, either 81mm or 120mm, that are fired from mortar guns. About 200 such shells were fired during the recent fighting, and of these, according to the probe's initial findings, almost 180 were fired at orchards in which gunmen and rocket-launching crews were taking cover.

The 180 shells in orchards would seem to be in accordance with International law. However the use of the white phosphorus on the UN compounds is something they seem close to admitting was an illegal mistake.

Amnesty International has said they encountered “indisputable evidence of widespread use of white phosphorus in densely populated residential areas in Gaza City and in the north.” In a statement, it said its investigators “saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still-burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli Army.” Read this NY Times article for multiple such claims:

Outcry Erupts Over Reports That Israel Used Phosphorus Arms on Gazans - Jan 21, 09

And hell, you can even watch a video of what really does appear to be incendiary use in Gaza right on YouTube:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVY4NUKowzg[/youtube]

With the limited access journalists have had, there is a wealth of evidence of WP use as an incendiary weapon in Gaza, if you haven't seen it you just aren't paying very much attention.

oralloy wrote:

But most importantly, that convention does not apply to Israel in any way, since they are not a party to it.

This is just not true oralloy. They ratified it on 03/22/95

oralloy wrote:

Which part of which Geneva Convention do you think covers incendiary weapons use?

My understanding is that it doesn't address it specifically, but instead generally prohibits the targeting of civilians, and that the incendiary weapons clause in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons sought to reaffirm this more general clause from the Geneva Conventions and delcare the use of incendiary weapons in civilian areas to be a violation of the more general protections for civilians in warfare.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515

Also a function of them not accepting the Taba offer -- which would have made it contiguous.

Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak clarified this evening that the ideas which were brought up in the course of the recent negotiations conducted with the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, including those raised at the Camp David Summit and by President Clinton towards the end of his term in office, are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/2/Barak%20to%20Bush-%20Sharon%20is%20not%20bound%20by%20negotiating

The map sequence is also misleading in that it implies a continuing erosion of Palestinian land. There should be a slide after 1967 that shows it all white. The slide for 2000 represents land that Israel gave back to the Palestinians.

Sharon didn't mean "offer more than Taba". He was thinking it would be painful for Israel to offer less than what Barak offered at Taba.

The Taba offer was even closer to the Green Line.

Well, their position may not be an offer per se, but they are very likely to declare the wall as their border -- and annex more land than they would have annexed had the Taba offer been taken up.

Sharon was also planning to just unilaterally make the wall Israel's new border, without actually extending an offer to the Palestinians.

But only slightly more generous than Taba.

The Taba offer was a lot different from that.

There is no collective punishment being imposed on the Palestinians. They just like to make bogus war crimes claims.

The reason for the blockade is to prevent more rockets from being smuggled in to fire at Israeli civilians. If there were no rockets, there would be no blockade.

The Taba offer was pretty close to the Green Line.

It also wasn't what was offered at Taba.

Yes, but Taba was 95%, in a contiguous block, with other land to compensate for the other 5% (although admittedly not a 1-to-1 swap).

Given the direction of negotiations, it is not unreasonable to presume that a 1-to-1 swap might have been achieved had negotiations continued.

Actually, Israel went so far as to offer up their own holy sites in East Jerusalem.

What makes you think that Taba would only offer the land after years?

I've never heard any such claim about the Taba offer.

So? The Taba offer occurred after Camp David too.

That is not a reason to accuse Israel of not having offered it.

Why aren't you speaking of the offer Israel made at Taba?

I haven't characterized the attacks as a response to any offer, but a response to the negotiations as a whole.

When a religion deliberately steals another religion's holy site (especially for the purpose of showing their superiority over the other religion), they have no right to claim it as a holy site of their own.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Reasonable people are willing to give land for peace, and unreasonable expansionists have long stood in the way of this process. You apparently seem to fall in this category of caring more about Israel's territorial growth than the safety of its citizens.

Maybe when it comes to the territory of the Temple Mount.

Mostly though I am arguing against unfair allegations regarding what Israel offered before.

Quote:

That you haven't seen it appears to be willful.

I haven't seen that any incendiary effects appear to be willful.

Robert Gentel wrote:

I've posted an article where the Israeli military announced an investigation into a case where they admit it might not have been legal.

The word "might" is significant.

If the shells hit the UN compound by mistake, it would not be an illegal act, but just one of the many accidents that happen in the fog of war.

I'm not disputing that it was used widely. I'm disputing that it was used illegally (and questioning whether it was used for any reason other than smoke).

I see no evidence of incendiary use there.

Maybe it is the distance of the camera, but I didn't see as much smoke from that as I would have expected from white phosphorus. Was probably the distance though.

I'm paying attention. I'm just not seeing the evidence that the intent was necessarily incendiary.

I'm not ruling out the notion that they used it, legally, as an incendiary. But I haven't seen anything convincing yet.

Well, only untrue in that I used the wrong word and referred to the wrong thing. I should have said that that "protocol" does not apply to Israel in any way.

In addition to joining the convention, states also have to ratify an individual protocol of the convention before that particular protocol applies to them.

Israel is not on the list of countries that have joined that particular protocol:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=515&ps=P

The prohibition against targeting civilians is more the province of the Hague Conventions.

The 1977 Geneva Conventions covered the ground that the Hague Conventions covered in addition to the usual Geneva Conventions topics. But neither the US nor Israel are a party to the 1977 Geneva Conventions.

(3) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

That is not so much an outright ban as it is a requirement of extra measures to prevent collateral damage.

It may well be that, IF that protocol applied, and IF Israel used the weapons as incendiaries, they would have violated the provisions. But it isn't exactly an outright prohibition of use in a civilian area.

Steve 41oo wrote:

They only care about one thing, and that's Eretz Israel. That aim is incompatible with a viable Palestinian state. So they do anything in furtherance of that goal.

Was Israel's attempt to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state an attempt to avoid the creation of a Palestinian state?

Was Israel's attempt to pull out of Palestinian areas unilaterally an attempt to avoid the creation of a Palestinian state?

Steve 41oo wrote:

I think this latest illegal disgusting and wholly disproportionate action by the Israelis has finally extinguished any sympathy I might have for their Zionist project in the Middle East.

Can you show any law that says that what Israel did was illegal?

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, warring parties are obliged to do everything possible to search for, collect and evacuate the wounded and sick without delay...The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuated the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable.

oralloy wrote:

Also a function of them not accepting the Taba offer -- which would have made it contiguous.

The Taba offer was from a lame duck administration and the negotiations were over in days because of the upcoming election that Sharon won, and because Sharon intended to stop the negotiation process, and he made clear the offer was no longer available when he took office:

Quote:

Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak clarified this evening that the ideas which were brought up in the course of the recent negotiations conducted with the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, including those raised at the Camp David Summit and by President Clinton towards the end of his term in office, are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/2/Barak%20to%20Bush-%20Sharon%20is%20not%20bound%20by%20negotiating

oralloy wrote:

The map sequence is also misleading in that it implies a continuing erosion of Palestinian land. There should be a slide after 1967 that shows it all white. The slide for 2000 represents land that Israel gave back to the Palestinians.

If you've been following along with history it's not misleading.

oralloy wrote:

Sharon didn't mean "offer more than Taba". He was thinking it would be painful for Israel to offer less than what Barak offered at Taba.

Taba was an offer with no mandate, it was a pointless PR excercise.

And Sharon never got the chance to negotiate these specific details in earnest, so we'll never know what he would have offered and can only speculate. I speculate differently than you do.

oralloy wrote:

The Taba offer was even closer to the Green Line.

But the Taba offer had no authority. Negotiations had to stop because an incoming administration had no intention of honoring the offer.

oralloy wrote:

Well, their position may not be an offer per se, but they are very likely to declare the wall as their border -- and annex more land than they would have annexed had the Taba offer been taken up.

Had the Taba offer been taken up, it would not have had time to be ratified before Sharon was elected and rescinded it. It was an offer from a lame duck with no mandate.

oralloy wrote:

When a religion deliberately steals another religion's holy site (especially for the purpose of showing their superiority over the other religion), they have no right to claim it as a holy site of their own.

Regardless of your opinion on what constitutes valid holiness, it isn't a legal basis for territory ownership, nor is it a legitimate moral one.

oralloy wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:

That you haven't seen it appears to be willful.

I haven't seen that any incendiary effects appear to be willful.

You are playing with my words, I said that it seems willful that you haven't seen it.

oralloy wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:

I've posted an article where the Israeli military announced an investigation into a case where they admit it might not have been legal.

The word "might" is significant.

Yeah, when multiple witnesses from Palestinians claim it, and when international observers claim it and even Israel is investigating it and defending the other uses while admitting this "might" have been improper, I think that it is a pretty significant admission.

Given that I've seen very solid evidence, at least to my satisfaction, I am inclined to believe the multiply-sourced reports.

oralloy wrote:

If the shells hit the UN compound by mistake, it would not be an illegal act, but just one of the many accidents that happen in the fog of war.

I don't think it hit by accident in the sense that the UN compound was not their target, but I do think they will characterize this as a lapse in the chain of command faulting the "reservists".

oralloy wrote:

I'm not disputing that it was used widely. I'm disputing that it was used illegally (and questioning whether it was used for any reason other than smoke).

But they've all but admitted that it was used for reasons other than smoke, and using it for reasons other than smoke isn't illegal except in a setting where this can reasonably be expected to harm civilians.

They've said they used two types of shells, one that's primarily a smoke screen and another that is an artillery shell. The use in orchards is consistent with the tactical objectives of an incendiary weapon, burning them out of cover instead of providing obfuscation.

I don't know why you'd reflexively doubt what they seem so ready to admit,

oralloy wrote:

I'm paying attention. I'm just not seeing the evidence that the intent was necessarily incendiary.

I'm not ruling out the notion that they used it, legally, as an incendiary. But I haven't seen anything convincing yet.

Not even when they said they fired 200 of the incendiary shells?

I just want you to know I wasn't trying to play gotcha with you for using "Convention" instead of "Protocol".

In any case, as I've explained I think that use of this incendiary device in proximity to civilians violates more general clauses of protection of civilians that they are a party to.

Quote:

The prohibition against targeting civilians is more the province of the Hague Conventions.

The 1977 Geneva Conventions covered the ground that the Hague Conventions covered in addition to the usual Geneva Conventions topics. But neither the US nor Israel are a party to the 1977 Geneva Conventions.

I am speaking of the Geneva conventions of 1949. Israel signed off on this clause that Israel ratified in 1951:

Quote:

(3) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

See: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/35D52356F487FC85C1256402003F9563?OpenDocument

oralloy wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

They only care about one thing, and that's Eretz Israel. That aim is incompatible with a viable Palestinian state. So they do anything in furtherance of that goal.

Was Israel's attempt to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state an attempt to avoid the creation of a Palestinian state?

Was Israel's attempt to pull out of Palestinian areas unilaterally an attempt to avoid the creation of a Palestinian state?

You are very naive. I said the Zionist-colonialist project, which calls itself Israel, is incompatible with a viable Palestinian state.

The Israelis never negotiated in good faith,