yeh because f16s "smart" bombs are pin point accurate to within.... what? 200yards?. But anyway it makes israeli actions even worse because you know it WASNT a mistake hitting those buildings full of people they AIMED for them. Because if they kill them all today, there will be no problem tomorrow. I suppose its Israels "final solution"?
Deaths in Gaza - Use of Israeli Force
- Thread starter Doran
- Start date
yeh because f16s "smart" bombs are pin point accurate to within.... what? 200yards?. But anyway it makes israeli actions even worse because you know it WASNT a mistake hitting those buildings full of people they AIMED for them. Because if they kill them all today, there will be no problem tomorrow. I suppose its Israels "final solution"?
It's not all about aliens and conspiracies, perhaps try reading the breaking news section.
Lol at above top secret link
It's the content of the post that's relevant.
Last edited:
ahhh abovetopsecret the biggest collection of crazies outside of Broadmoor.
...but ruined by using that link to back yourself up.
Ok then, imagine that I copied it without posting any source (stole it).
Now post a proper argument.
emm no that's not what i was asking. I was asking why they don;t use automated counter battery fire. ((basically a system of radars + mobile motors/mrls) that detects the rocket launches and immediately fires at the launch site.
If you want to know why (it;'s not be cause they use f16's, they don't use them either), the reason they don't is because while yes they would kill the hamas firing the rockets but they would also kill hundreds of civilians the hamas hide behind when they fire their rockets.
And this is far safer than using planes, as the enemy can;t fire at the artillery/mrls like they can a plane.
Also you can't really carpet bomb from a fighter bomber.
If the Israelis wanted to carpet bomb or similar a bunch of their mrl's could flatten a garzan city in a matter of minutes..
they don;t carpet bomb. if they did you'd know about it as the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands.
Israel even have strategic bombers?
As I said ATS has a breaking news section with (believe it or not) breaking news discussion, as well as politics etc.
Believe it or not some people find overclocking wierd also but people probably don't judge us based on our posting here.
nope thankfully.
So just ignoring the rest then?
You are clueless.
For a start you have no idea what carpet bombing is. Secondly if the Israeli's wanted to just kill indiscriminately then they would just use artillary or MLRS barrages rather than expensive guided munitions. God help Palestine if Israel ever decided to say "stuff international opinion totally, lets just wipe them out".
And then you have lovely Hamas refusing to allow injured palestinians to cross the border into Egypt so they can improve the death toll.
I'm just amazed Mdv2 made a post without using his favourite term "Zionist Propaganda Bunny".
Around a meter, depending on the weapon. Others within a few cm's or so.
Hamas should probably have kept within the terms of the truce.
For what its worth for all the "evil Israelis carpet bombing poor innocent Palentinians" i rather wish they would just get on with doing just that, just so we all know what the difference is.
Some people probably should also read why the Palestinians were deported from Jordan, which helps to explain why so few of their Arab brothers are falling over themselves to help them these days.
Some people probably should also read why the Palestinians were deported from Jordan, which helps to explain why so few of their Arab brothers are falling over themselves to help them these days.
I still can't get over people using the fact that because palestines weapons are innacurate it is somehow more justified because it would be a 'mistake'
What unbelievable stupidity we have on these forums.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 16 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 1,124
Hamas dont hide with the civilians, Hamas are the civilians.
go and listen to the recording that has been disseminated amongst the Palestinian territories by Isreal advsing that anyone who works for Hamas is a legit target, now then, forget your mainstream brainwashing and realise that Hamas are the controlling government, democratically elected, and realise that not everyone who is in Hamas wields a weapon. a lot of legislators and peaceful citizens trying to do right by Palestine are being targeted, illegally.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 16 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 1,124
i think you wil find, technically it didnt, and i think you need to do some research into the legalities of Isreals OWN declaration of independence, my guess is you got ^^ that from Wiki, which is never really that accurate.. im sure you should know that by now. Here, ill point you in the right direction of the legal issues surrounding Isreals so called 'sovreignty'
Israel's claims to Palestine in general, and to the city of Jerusalem in particular, found their first legal support in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Declaration came in the form of a monumental letter from British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour to Baron Rothschild. It had been since referred to as one of the seminal documents leading to the establishment of the State of Israel. The Declaration had been characterized as having significant legal bearing upon its claims to the country.
We have to bear in mind the following facts:
1. The Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917, when Turkey, not Britain, ruled Palestine. Britain thus had no legal authority to make such a promise.
2. At no time did the British possess any right of sovereignty over Palestine. The terms of the Mandate, according to the ICJ, did not include any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty.
3. The promise was made without the consent of or even the consultation with the indigenous population.
A promise made by a third party to another third party about the property of yet another third party is no more than a unilateral political declaration. However, the provisions of the Declaration were incorporated in the text of the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine entrusted to Britain in 1922. Regardless of the its initial illegality, the Declaration obtained multilateral assent and became binding as international law. Additional authority was obtained when the US adhered to the Mandate in 1924. The sanction of international recognition was henceforth given.
On November 29, 1947, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), known as the Palestine Partition Plan, emphasized that "The States [Arab and Israeli] shall be bound by all international agreements and conventions, both general and particular, to which Palestine has become party."
When in May 1948 Israel declared its statehood, there has been no record whatsoever of any protest of the States parties to the Mandate or others against the Israeli reliance upon the Balfour Declaration as legal basis for its territorial claims. This failure of the States to protest gave legal authority to the Declaration. It is thereby established as international law through the recognized customary lawmaking process of the implicit agreement of States expressed by toleration, acquiescence and silence.
It is true then that the Balfour Declaration acquired legal authority, but to ensure this legal authority, the Declaration must be interpreted consistently with the basic limitations of the international law rules. Accordingly, unless the parties to the conflict recognize the preeminence of the two safeguard clauses on the favor clause, and interpret them in the context of the Mandate system as a "sacred trust of civilization" to the mandated people, the Declaration would have no legal meaning or authority. Definitely, therefore, the continuing legal validity of the Declaration is a very limited and conditional grant to the Israeli claims.
II) The Palestine Partition Plan: GA Resolution 181(II):
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted with the full authority of thirty three votes in favor to thirteen against and ten abstentions GA Resolution 181(II), known also as the Palestine Partition Plan. The Plan proposed the following:
1. the establishment of two States, an Arab State and a Jewish State;
2. minority protection guarantees;
3. provisions for individual emigration and citizenship;
4. internationalization of Jerusalem under a "Special Regime";
5. supranational integration through the "Economic union of Palestine".
The entire Plan was to be placed under international supervision, and the SC would retain jurisdiction over all attempts to "alter the Plan by force".
GA Resolution 181(II) was denounced as illegal on the ground that:
1. It was anti Charter and immoral;
2. The UN did not have any authority over Palestine. It only had super visionary power.
Nonetheless, and despite the fact that according to international legal doctrine the UN had gone ultra vires, the combination of different circumstances and later developments gave the Resolution legal authority:
1. the Resolution was adopted by the two thirds vote required for important questions;
2. all subsequent resolutions concerning the Palestinians right to self determination, to return, and others were consistent with the basic provisions of the Resolution;
3. all subsequent resolutions were consistent with the continued existence of the State of Israel as one of the two States proposed in the Plan, provided that Israel complies with the obligations and restrictions which are conjoined with the authorization to establish a State; and finally,
4. both Arabs and Israelis accepted when they signed the Lausanne Protocol on May 12, 1949 as the basis for a territorial settlement.
5. the validity of the Resolution is not dependent upon its subsequent effectuation.
Therefore, we are led to conclude that the Palestine Partition Plan continues to provide legal authority, combined however with restrictions upon that authority, for each of two states in Palestine.
The Resolution was not implemented, and the partition of Palestine came as a result of the 1948 war between the Arabs and the Jews. The city of Jerusalem was divided too. The Jordanians controlled the eastern part and the Israelis the western part. Soon after, the Israeli leaders declared the establishment of the Israeli State. In their declaration of independence, they relied upon GA Resolution 181(II), as well as their historical connection to Palestine, as the legal basis of their statehood.
III) "Void of Sovereignty" Claim:
In the absence of an official title, Israeli scholars formulated a different argument, the "Void of Sovereignty" claim, to demonstrate that their control over West Jerusalem is legal. According to this claim, Jerusalem, as well as the whole Palestine, was, in legal terms, a terra nullius, open to occupation.
This "Void of Sovereignty" claim is rejected on the ground that no such void or suspension existed, because during the Mandate period, the community of citizens of Palestine held sovereignty subject to Great Britain's administration. Palestinians carried Palestine citizenship and were represented by a UN's recognized organization (Arab Higher Committee). In fact, under the British Administration, Palestinian legislative, executive, and judicial bodies existed. This Palestinian entity, that had the indicia of a national State, enjoyed the right to sovereignty by virtue of its inalienable right to self determination.
How would Jerusalem, then, which is the heart of this entity, be considered as a terra nullius (the property of no one)!
In 1949, Israel moved the Knesset, the Supreme Court, and its ministries to West Jerusalem. On January 23, 1950, the Israeli government proclaimed Jerusalem as the political capital of the State of Israel.
The international community, including the US, refused to recognize the Israeli measures and maintained their embassies in Tel Aviv.
In 1967 war broke out between Arabs and Israelis. As a result of the war, Israel occupied the West Bank, including Jerusalem.
IV) Israeli Claims to East Jerusalem:
East Jerusalem constitutes a more complicated issue. They have to prove that their occupation was lawful under international law, and they have to prove that they could go on interminably with this occupation.
a. The "Self Defense" Claim:
The first claim was that the Israeli occupation was the result of "self defense" measures permitted under article 51 of the UN Charter. The Israeli claim is built on the assumption that there was an imminent threat of "armed attack" from the part of Egypt. Therefore, it acted in defensive conquest. As for occupying East Jerusalem, Israel assert that Jordan struck first.
Regardless of the uncertainty of these allegations that had not been proven or accepted a lawful war in origin could not go on being lawful to whatever lengths it might be pursued. Assumingly the "self defense" claim is right [although it is debated]; the conclusion that title to territory may be obtained by "defensive conquest" is a defective conclusion. According to article 2(4) of the Charter, a State exercising national defense may go beyond its national boundaries to repel an attack, but it may not go beyond its territories to acquire territories. Such legal conclusions are repugnant to the principle of "imminent threat and proportionality." Being a territory taken during hostilities, East Jerusalem, as well as the whole West Bank, according to international law criteria, is under belligerent occupation.
b. The "Missing Reversioner" Theory:
Another path was followed to cover the gap in the "defensive conquest" claim. Professor Yehuda Blum contended that Jordan was not a legitimate sovereign in Palestine. Since there was no ousted legitimate sovereign "a missing reversioner" to whom the territory would revert, and given that Israel has a relatively stronger title to the territories, therefore, Israel could make possession of Judea and Samaria. According to this line of thinking, the legal standing of Israel in the Occupied Territories is that of a state which is lawfully in control of territory in respect of which no other states can show better title.
The "Missing Reversioner" theory is built on the following assumptions that:
1. Israel acted in self defense;
2. Jordan was not a legal sovereign;
3. belligerent occupation yields sovereignty; and
4. the Palestinian people have no right to self determination.
All of these assumptions were refuted under international law. Another time, Israel was not able to legally justify its presence in East Jerusalem.
c. Jerusalem was "Open to Occupation":
Another assumption asserted that Israel acquired sovereignty because Jerusalem was open to occupation. This assumption is built on the fact that according to GA Resolution 181(II), sovereignty over Jerusalem did not vest in neither Israelis nor Palestinians, but in the UN When the UN relinquished its intent to internationalize Jerusalem, it relinquished its sovereignty over the City which became open to occupation. This title became available to either Israelis or Arabs through the legitimate means. This is another defective argument, and for multiple reasons, that will not stand in law. The essential point is the fact that ignores the existence of a people and their recognized right to self determination.
These arguments and many others have been advanced to justify the Israeli presence in the Occupied Territories, but so far as its presence in East Jerusalem is concerned, Israel has failed to gain any recognition whatsoever to territorial sovereignty neither from the international community as a whole, nor from any single state. In all their claims, they overlooked or ignored a crucial point: the Palestinian people have an inherent and internationally recognized right to self determination.
Although Israel's claims to sovereignty over East Jerusalem have been legally challenged and condemned, Israel purported to apply its domestic law to East Jerusalem and its environs declaring that the "complete and unified" Jerusalem is the "eternal capital" of Israel.
V) The "Judaization" of Jerusalem in the Aftermath of the 1967 War and the International Community:
As a result of the 1967 war, Israel occupied the West Bank including East Jerusalem. Promptly after, on June 18, 1967, Israel brought East Jerusalem under direct Israeli law by acts that amount to annexation (de facto annexation). Following the enactment of these laws, the GA adopted Resolution 2253(ESV) declaring the invalidity of this enactment. After several months of passionate on-stage debate, the SC unanimously adopted (by fifteen votes) its famous Resolution 242 (1967).
In addition to the famous principle of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by war", and despite its ambiguous verbiage, the operative paragraphs of the Resolution provided for:
1. the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" and,
2. the "Termination of all claims of states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty and territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area." SC Resolution 242 (1967) did not mention Jerusalem separately.
Jerusalem was treated as an integral part of the Occupied Territories.
The focus of attention shifted now from the General Assembly to the Security Council. All the consequent SC resolutions will stress the same aforementioned principles. Along with GA Resolution 181(II), SC Resolution 242 (1967) became the basis and the framework of any possible solution.
However, Israel never accepted to comply with the UN resolutions. On the contrary, it continued its policies aiming at the "Judaization" of the City. In May 1980, a bill declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel was introduced to the Knesset (Basic Law Bill). By this unilateral declaration, Israel reinforced the de facto process of altering the status and character of Jerusalem. The S.C. responded by passing Resolution 476 (1980), by a vote of 14 to 0. The US abstained.
The S.C. warned Israel not to take measures that would effect the status of Jerusalem, and reaffirmed that these "legislative and administrative measures and actions have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
Despite the international condemnation, the Israeli government ratified and enacted the mentioned bill on July 30, 1980. This action promoted the passage of S.C. Resolution 478 (1980) on August 20 of the same year.
This Resolution passed by a vote of 14 to 0. Again US abstained. The S.C. took punitive measures against Israel and considered its actions as null and void. Paragraph 5 called upon all members not to recognize the Israeli measure. Furthermore, it called for the withdrawal of all diplomatic missions located in Jerusalem. This resolution was based on the conviction that the so-called "Basic Law" constituted a proscribed attempt to alter the status and character of Jerusalem.
The GA too reacted by passing GA Resolution 35/169E. Only Israel voted against it. Again on December 10, 1981, the GA adopted Resolution 36/120E. It stated that the GA "Determines once again that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the Occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and in particular, the so-called "basic law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith."
One of the latest resolutions, just to mention an example, was the one that followed the Israeli Inter ministerial Committee's decision for Jerusalem to start the first phase of work on the Hill of AbuGhneim (Har Homah). This GA Resolution declared illegal and invalids all the Israeli actions. The Resolution requested also "internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure the freedom of religion and conscience of its inhabitants, as well as permanent free and unhindered access to the Holy Places by faithful of all religions and nationalities."
Numerous United Nations GA and S.C. resolutions were passed. Nevertheless, Israel continued its practices. The cardinal principles of the UN resolutions on Jerusalem are:
1. the principle of "nationalities" and self determination for the two peoples of Palestine;
2. the principle of "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by means of war;"
3. the principle that all Israeli legislative and administrative measures constitute a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, in general, and international law, in particular, and thus are null and void; and
4. the demand that Israel must rescind all measures already taken and desist forthwith from taking any further measures.
Last edited:
If you are going to cut and paste huge swathes of information it is usually good practice to quote a source. Secondly, none of the above actually matters as we have to deal with the situation as is rather than what would be in an ideal world.
International law only exists in so far as it can be enforced. Without US backing it isn't going to be enforced. Like it or not the US sees Israel as an important ally in a strategically important area. So Israel as is will exist as long as the US is the primary world power.
So the palestinians can either deal with that, or contintue with their claims over all of Israel. Fatah seem to have come to their senses recently and decided (like Egypt before them) to try and get on with living. Hamas on the other hand would rather see people die to prove a point than to try and make a viable state.
It's all a load of ****.
A few rockets go into israeli territory, the rockets are pretty poorly made and from the lack of headlines such as "hamas rocket kills xx israelies" it looks like the deaths and damage they cause are minimal..
As usual israel over reacts, bombing houses full of ordinary people killing hundreds.
America doesnt utter a word due to the amount of rich jews in america, plus that infamous lobby group..
Now in revenge the palestinians will probably detonate a suicide bomber in an israeli city somewhere, then watch the yanks issue statements out of all there orifices. Watch the propaganda machine roll to the tune of "lets crush these terrorists", all whilst the true victims are ignored and downtrodden.
Someone once said "tell a lie 1000 times and people will believe its the truth"
The jews think they can get away with everything, time and time again history has shown this to be untrue.
A few rockets go into israeli territory, the rockets are pretty poorly made and from the lack of headlines such as "hamas rocket kills xx israelies" it looks like the deaths and damage they cause are minimal..
As usual israel over reacts, bombing houses full of ordinary people killing hundreds.
America doesnt utter a word due to the amount of rich jews in america, plus that infamous lobby group..
Now in revenge the palestinians will probably detonate a suicide bomber in an israeli city somewhere, then watch the yanks issue statements out of all there orifices. Watch the propaganda machine roll to the tune of "lets crush these terrorists", all whilst the true victims are ignored and downtrodden.
Someone once said "tell a lie 1000 times and people will believe its the truth"
The jews think they can get away with everything, time and time again history has shown this to be untrue.