Gilad Shalit: Israel and Palestinians welcome deal

[_dgn_]

Originally Posted by August

So you're claiming these children were deliberately targeted by Israeli forces? That they said "Oh there's some children, lets get 'em!"?

I ask because the Israelis can provide many examples of their civilians, including children being deliberately targeted and murdered by Palestinian terrorists.

Deliberately, I don't know. But UNO buildings are highly visible, with comprehensible and large flags (when one wants to see them).

And it's not the first time that UNO buildings are targets for IDF.

By exemple, in July 2006, an UNO observation post in South Lebanon, installed for a long time, largely visible, in a position known by the Israelian Army, was however bombed by Israelian Artillery: 4 UNO observers were killed.

Kofi Annan,Secretary-General of the UN, spoke about "a deliberated attack" ...

"Deliberated" , he said ?

[MH]

Here we go again....a french officer right?

The same post that allowed free terrorist activities on its territory?

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by _dgn_

Deliberately, I don't know. But UNO buildings are highly visible, with comprehensible and large flags (when one wants to see them).

And it's not the first time that UNO buildings are targets for IDF.

By exemple, in July 2006, an UNO observation post in South Lebanon, installed for a long time, largely visible, in a position known by the Israelian Army, was however bombed by Israelian Artillery: 4 UNO observers were killed.

Kofi Annan,Secretary-General of the UN, spoke about "a deliberated attack" ...

"Deliberated" , he said ?

I'm not one to smash any one side harder than the other but uhh,Israel has been a bad boy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...cerning_Israel

That list is kinda long, ya know. Sorta confirms the fine gentleman I quoted. Read through them...

The sons of Abraham have blood on their hands too, and not always in personal defense.

[August]

Originally Posted by _dgn_

By exemple, in July 2006, an UNO observation post in South Lebanon, installed for a long time, largely visible, in a position known by the Israelian Army, was however bombed by Israelian Artillery: 4 UNO observers were killed.

That is indeed a good example. Hezbollah deliberately used that UN position as a shield from which to launch their missiles and when Israel shot back it's vilified for it.

Do you think the UN should allow its installations to be used like that? Would the French Army allow it's installations to be used like that?

[Skybird]

The UN is no neutral player with its blue helmets in the region. Neither do they move seriously to interrupt smuggling of weapons like partially it is their mission (because doing so would make them a target for retaliation by superior firepower), nor do they especially care for communicating their observation reports of Israeli ground activities to their superior command posts in a way so that enemies of Israel cannot decypher the communication - they fetch it up, and then know what the Israelis are doing. The UN very often acts as an intelligence-gathering ally of the enemies of Israel, supporting them by effect, and when the effect is there, then the question of whether ir not it is intentional, is no longer important. I also recall that there were repeated complaints by the Israelis that the UN soldiers did not mind for Hezbollah fighter crawling opver their bunkers in order to gain immunity form that psoitonm while firing at the Israelis, since the Israelis were seriously expected by the UN to not shoot at that bunker since it were a UN post. If the UN were neutral,l it would have been their obligation to clear their facilities of Hezbollah fighters all by themselves.

In line with that is the behaviour of the maritime NATO units offshore the Lebanese coast which should disrupt and rpoevent arms smuggling via ships. They would call the Lebanese in case of a suspicion, who then woudl move in and search the boat/ship themselves. That Hezbollah is the supörior armed force in Lebanon and the Lebanese militias as well as the army are inferior to them, obviously does not cause anybody to scratch his head over this procedural pattern. The Lebanese offiocials would think twice and three times before they would accuse Hezbollah over wepaons being traded to them via shipping lines. Not that it mneans much, since most of ther arms reahcing Hezbollah are being moved in via Syria and on land anyway, but still - it illustrates the righteous schizophrenia of Western acting on these matters, in that region.

And btw: United Nations - that is a contradiction in itself.

[MH]

Israel is fascinating place for many.....somehow.
It should be thoroughly studied me thinks.

That is indeed a good example. Hezbollah deliberately used that UN position as a shield from which to launch their missiles and when Israel shot back it's vilified for it.

Yes they should be vilified for it, both the terrorists and the IDF were wrong, both need to be condemned, just as it needs to be condemned when the IDF use human shields or terrorists fire anyway.

Do you think the UN should allow its installations to be used like that? Would the French Army allow it's installations to be used like that?

Would the American Army allow it? You were a military man you should know what rules of engagement mean, you should know they are supposed to be followed.
If you want those UN posts to do more than observe and report than get the governments to change their mandate.
Unless you are willing to pressure your government into giving the UN troops more power then you cannot complain that they are not doing enough.
The mere fact that the UNTSO officers(like the 4 killed that day) are not even allowed to carry weapons shows how much governments hamstring the UN

Israel is fascinating place for many.....somehow.

Yes because the crap going on there for the past few decades has seriously impacted every western nation whereas some bunch of nuts fighting over the western sahara tends to have pretty much bugger all impact elsewhere.

If the UN were neutral,l it would have been their obligation to clear their facilities of Hezbollah fighters all by themselves.

The Israelis claimed Hezballah were in the vicinity of the facility not in it(which is better than a later incident where they shelled somewhere because terrorists had been seen there several weeks ago), those officers with the UN were under one set of rules and were un armed, if it was a different set of troops with a different UN body they would be under a different mandate and could under certain circumstances shoot people.
If you want to blame anyone blame the countries on the security council and blame Israel and Lebanon as it is all of them that made the agreements and set up the terms and conditions.

I also recall that there were repeated complaints by the Israelis...

It is always important to follow up on complaints you recall being made as they often turn out to be bollox. Read any of the mandated six monthly reports of all the incidents and all the complaints along the line and see how many complaints from both sides get dropped as soon as the checking of facts begins.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Penguin

It's a victory for the truth, as the world can see what Hamas is: a bunch of criminals who do not recognize any rules of international law, but demand it for themselves.

How so? You can make a case when they are using civilian shields, but kidnapping an Israeli solider? Where's the breach?

[MH]

oy vey

Ignorance is winning.

Its not even about taking sides its simply ignorance.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

So enlighten me.

So enlighten me.

For a simple example in this case...
They didn't comply with the rules set down for holding a prisoner, repeated requests from the Red Cross were simply denied.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by _dgn_

Who don' t recognize any rules of international law :

- with sea piracy (attack of the Gaza Aid convoy : 24 volunteers killed by the Isrealian forces) ?
- with air piracy (violation of the Jordanian and Saudi airspaces, followed by an air strike of the Osirak reactor in Iraq : a French man was killed by the Isrealian planes) ?
- with land piracy (bombing of an UNO school in Jabaliya camp : 42 people killed by the Israelian artillerists) ?

Each point is a long discussion by itself, so I make it short:

sea piracy:
The attack on the Love boat was self-defense of a sovereign state protecting its borders and citizens. But check out the long discussion at this forum we had last year regarding this topic; very long but definitely worth reading, a civilized discussion.

air piracy:
If the informations are all true, it was necessary to stop the nuclear program - but this is my personal view.
Osirak was condemmed by the UN security council, like any resolution by them unilateral: with the vote of the USA - so much for people who claim that the US is always on Israels side.
But let's stay at the Iraq: what about the missile attacks on Israel during the second Golf War? Is this no air piracy?

land piracy:

If you take history in account, the percentage of civilians among war deaths have always been rising, alone in the last 100 years.
It's unconventional warfare in a densely populated urban environment.
The IDF does a good effort to protect civilians, one of the best efforts of any army in the world. It is also in their very own interest: we don't have 1939 anymore, information about real and fake atrocities travel around the world within seconds. Take morality aside, the IDF can't allow themselves to commit massacres, because of the public opinion.
And the Palestinians are excellent in manipulating the public opinion:
Did you ever notice that no Palestinians die by "friendly fire", and anybody is a civilian: "Oh, look, he wears regular clothes, must be a civilian!" even if he had an AK in his hands before.

Originally Posted by _dgn_

About "terrorist bastards" killed by the glorious IDF in this school, please see below the 3 young ones:

Who were really the bastards in this case ?

Any dead child is one too much. But a picture says nothing, I'm afraid. Who killed them, where were they killed, etc, etc. We can make a picture pissing contest, where I can post dead Israeli children, dismembered by Palestinian bombs - bombs with the intention to harm as many civilians as possible. However this doesn't make any sense in a discussion.
The bastards are the ones who don't care for the lives of children, neither jewish nor muslim, who sacrifice their own children for their plans. It's not the fault of a child to be born in Gaza, but it's the fault of fighters who hide behind civilians to bring their lives in danger.
So the bastard card is on Hamas.

Originally Posted by _dgn_

I was Officer in the French Army : for me, it's impossible to belong to 2 different fatherlands and to defend both. Only one flag or loyalty : on this point, the French law is clear. And Shalit is out the law.

If Shalit was born and raised in Israel and if he want to defend this (or his) country, he his really patriotic. But why becoming French citizen (with particular rights, but also with particular obligations) ? I have a good friend, born in Washington (when his father was in duty in the French Embassy). So he had the 2 nationalities, French and US. But when he was 18, it had to CHOOSE between both. Regular !

Your US example is the point: The USA has a different citizenship rights (Jus Soli). Broadly speaking you become a citizen when you are born on US soil. You become French citizen when your parents are French (Jus Sanguinis).
Israeli citizenship is a little more complicated, but we just put it simple and say he was born on Israeli soil and became a Israeli citizen by that. So Shalid became an Israeli because he was born there, and a French because his parents come from there.

So to which country should he be more loyal?
In my eyes you should be more loyal to the country where you live than to the country where your parents come from - this is what imo most people expect here in Europe and we would have less problems with immigrants if this would be the case.

The big BUT: Shalid lives in a state where nobody can say how bad the situation for Israel will be in 10 or 20 years. This would be the reason, why many Israelis who have a second passport decide to keep it - a reassurance to have the possibility to flee out of a war zone, history gives the Jews the right to worry about this.

Like I said before, we have basically the same citizenship laws in Germany like France - you have to decide when you become an adult. But in reality many people here still have 2 passports. Yes, it can bring people in loyalty conflicts - a recent example would be the war in the Balkan, where a high numbers of immigrants from Yugoslavia took part.

A side question: As a former French Army guy: how do you regard the Légion Étrangère? In my eyes they are a good example that loyalty to a country does not necessary mean only a passport.

Originally Posted by _dgn_

About patriotism, it's a devotion to his country, with always a contribution to the general interest. When Sarkozy forgets his statute of President (guarantor of the Constitution and of the Law) and his statute of Chief of the French Armies for profit of particular interest, helping somebody out of the law, but belonging to his community, there is no more patriotism concerning Sarkozy. I naturally think French patriotism.

But Sarkozy was playing his role when being active about Stéphane Taponier or Hervé Ghesquière, French journalists belonging to the Public TV and kidnapped by Taliban.

Of course was Sarkozy playing his role as the big rescuer, where probably others in the background worked much more to get those 2 journalists free. My point is that France looks for other citizens who are captured abroad. And you can't make a distinction there, between first- and second-class citizenship there when you try to look out for your citizens. So a French with 1 passport should get the same amount of effort to get him out of the hands from kidnappers like a guy with 2 passports.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

How so? You can make a case when they are using civilian shields, but kidnapping an Israeli solider? Where's the breach?

Should I start with international laws of warfare, under which Shalid's POW rights were violated? If Hamas doesn't regard his POW status, they are just a bunch of criminals, because this is as what kidnappers are regarded, worldwide.
Or should I point out which basic universal human rights of the people under Hamas' rule gets violated every day? The rights of the very same Palestinian people that you claim to support.

[Skybird]

On the Gaza raid I again ppoint out that Israel had a legal obligation by international law to not allow running the blockde. It is undisputed and recognioed even by the UN that the sea blockade is legal. International law now rules that the side declaring a naval blockade in accordance with international law must make sure that not a single exception is allowed, not a single shoip is allowed to pass thorugh. Else - ther whole legality of the blockade would immediately be cancelled and the blockade by international law would be declared as void. To stop the convoxc before it even enbtered the bloackde zone, also is perfectly legal by international law.

The commandos boarding that Turkish provocateur also acted in self defence while their very lives were threatened by an armed mob attacking them.

There have been so many incidents of Hamas or Hezbollah arranging scnes for pohotopgraphers to manipulate global sentiments, that I do not count them anymore. Also mind you that both set up their militzary ifrastrucxture inentionally within civilian infrastrucxture with the intention to maximise civilian losses in case Israel fires at these ammo dumps in school basements and commando post in Kindergartens and sniper strongholds on hosptial roofs. Hamas and Hezollah not only accept to have theior own people killed - they even arrange the killing of civilians, push up the numbers, and have been shown to actively hide within civilian groups to gain either immunity when firing, or to score in the propaganda war when Israel fires at them and kills the target along with a civilians. Also, during the Lebanon war it became known that by weapon's force they hindered villagers to leave villages, but to stay inside of them when an Israeli air attack was about to be conducted on the village in question, they hoped to create civilian casualties that way that they could sell as evidence for Israeli war crimes to the media.

The one sides provokes civilian deaths on its own side, it hides behind civilians and fires from hiding behind a civilian'S body. The other side aims and fires at fighters, warns of attacks early, so that civilians could leave the house in time (anbd the target as well, btw), and while aiming at military targets cannot avoid collateral damages. The first get called "freedom fighters" while in fact they terrorise their own population and hoipe they get killed so that they can make new pictures. The second gets called "war criminals". How absurd!

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Seriously, Israel showed that they care for the life of a single member of their armed forces. Don't the US Marines follow the same code of honor, to leave no one behind?

Which is why the very first line of my very first post in this thread reads thusly:

There's no way Israel thinks they've won anything other than the release of their soldier.

Getting the soldier back is a victory in itself. The deal required to get him back, is a loss by any other measure.

It is undisputed and recognioed even by the UN that the sea blockade is legal.

No it isn't, it is recognised and undisputed that a sea blockade is legal, the problem comes as this particular sea blockade is combined with a land blockade.
A sea blockade on the materials which it legally bans is recognised and undisputed, a sea blockade being applied on the materials which the land blockade illegally bans is a whole different can of worms.
Legalities always come down to the actual details but some people get no further than "the Israeli naval blockade on arms is legal" and say "look look" but havn't looked and will not look.

The other side aims and fires at fighters, warns of attacks early, so that civilians could leave the house in time (anbd the target as well, btw), and while aiming at military targets cannot avoid collateral damages.

What utter bollox
Once again another prime example of "its only them".

The second gets called "war criminals". How absurd!

Detatched from reality much?
But hold on isn't this the person who moaned about American "war crimes" and somehow also says there can be no war crimes as its silly to have little laws stating what you can and cannot do in war and full on barbarism is what should be practiced