Recent Isareli military action in Gaza

[Humodour]

Actually, Israel considers it favourably, as does the Palestinian president (responsible for the relative peace in the West Bank), while Hamas rejects it.

 

But Hamas doesn't really get a say in the matter unless they want to start killing predominantly Muslim peacekeepers - which would be a really bad idea, since the world would come crashing down on them like a bag of bricks.

 

It's absolutely short-sighted of you to assume Palestinians will always back Hamas, Volourn, as an epic failure by Hamas in this war is more than enough to switch popular support to the Palestinian Authority and lead to the same situation of calm you see in the West Bank (I bet you thought fighting would continue forever there as well, no doubt).

[Meshugger]

I'm banking on this Egyptian-French plan to send in a Turkish peacekeeping force to subdue Hamas and thus force an Israeli ceasefire.

 

I am not counting on it, but it sure would be fun. Turkish military personnel tend to more than just frown over missiles being shot over the border. The Kurds can function as first eye-witnesses on that part.

[Walsingham]

Keep in mind that proportional representtaion means that Israeli governments will always be beholden to fringe nutcase parties. So there's little hope of any solid progress at their end either, even with a moderate Palestinian authority.

[Humodour]

Well the funny thing is that Arabs make up like 20% of the Knesset (Israeli government) but just cast a vote of no confidence in every decision.

 

Even though 20% is a massive amount and certainly enough to influence decisions, force compromises, and actually represent their constituents.

 

BTW, that's an pretty silly blanket statement about proportional representation, Wals.

[Gorgon]

One man or woman one vote. Anything other than proportional representation means one man 1.3 votes in one area, and one man 0.82 votes in another.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Unbreaking News: Swede-sponsored clinic destroyed by Israel http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=3561&a=872516

 

As with the ambulance, no one was in the building when it was destroyed so I couldnt find any english articles about this. The clinic was a maternity thing that was being rebuilt into an ER. The israelis did warn people in the area to evacuate before they destroyed it so no one was hurt in the incident.

 

There was no mention of hamas anywhere, so Im wondering what reason Israel could have had to destroy it? Just a strategic move to deny hamas a place to hide in, or some crazy plan to encourage palestinians to emmigrate by systematicly destroying the infrastructure in gaza?

 

 

 

Aside from Kaftan's account in his post, who seems to like to goof around, is there real evidence that the Israelis hit a Norweigan ambulance? I mean, it would have to be part of a humanitarian aid package, and I'm assuming that the ambulance was manned by Norweigan volunteers. Otherwise, I'm sure that it would not have been particularly newsworthy. If it did happen, then I'm interested in the particulars. If it did not, then the joke is a little flat (sorry Kaftan). Not because of any partisan pro-Israeli/Palestinian reason, but it just doesn't make sense. Although it is kind of goofy in the same sense as the "chics of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict" thing.

 

 

It was in the Swede news, but I did find an english link here http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/21467/26/ I suspect it didnt make news because no one was the vehicle at the time it was destroyed,

[Humodour]

Just a strategic move to deny hamas a place to hide in, or some crazy plan to encourage palestinians to emmigrate by systematicly destroying the infrastructure in gaza?

 

Wouldn't work very well. I'm pretty sure that the Arab League passed a resolution disallowing Palestinians citizenship in Arab states, precisely so they'd continue harassing Israel instead.

[Walsingham]

Well the funny thing is that Arabs make up like 20% of the Knesset (Israeli government) but just cast a vote of no confidence in every decision.

 

Even though 20% is a massive amount and certainly enough to influence decisions, force compromises, and actually represent their constituents.

 

BTW, that's an pretty silly blanket statement about proportional representation, Wals.

 

 

I don't think it's silly at all (surprise surprise ), precisely because I'm talking principles not instances. If you have proportional rep then inevitably the vast majority of people vote moderate. However, there are always going to be two main moderate parties, each tends to get about half of the large majority, at about 40 percent. The remaining votes get given to greens, communists, bat-huggers etc. Because parliamentary democracy requires a majority in government to function, the large moderate parties HAVE to surrender portions of policy to the fringe parties to build that majority. This more or less functions when nothing much has to get done. But whenever anything contentious arises such majorities go wibbly.

 

This is important, because, as I say, peace is going to take some very robust and determined work by an Israeli government, and I can't see proportional rep providing a govt that can weather such action.

 

BTW, I'm well aware that you shifty Scandinavians probably have proportional rep, but you're weird.

[Volourn]

"Actually, Israel considers it favourably"

 

Must explain why they rejected it along with Hamas and continued their attacks in Gaza. *shrug*

 

 

"It's absolutely short-sighted of you to assume Palestinians will always back Hamas,"

 

Except, I never claimed they would. I stated that as long as Hamas is in power, true peace simply wouldn't occur due to Hamas' stated goal of destroying Isreal.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Volourn

[Aristes]

Now, Kaftan, that DID make me laugh. thanks. lol

 

Did you find anything, in either Norwegian or English that describes WHY the Israelis would target an empty ambulence? I guess it's a rocket attack and, depending on the targetting, I guess it might not have been on purpose. I especially like the fact that it was parked outside of the Norwegian civilian's home. Nuts!

[Walsingham]

Nuts things happen in war.

[Volourn]

Hamas, PROTECTER OF PALESTINIANS: http://forums.opendemocracy.net/node/47269

[Wrath of Dagon]

It says it was a supply truck, not an ambulance. You can't assume everything that's hit is hit intentionally, or that all witnesses are truthful. There're thousands of shells flying around in Gaza, some will go off course, some are targeted by mistake. "Fog of War" means something.

[Humodour]

I don't think it's silly at all (surprise surprise ), precisely because I'm talking principles not instances. If you have proportional rep then inevitably the vast majority of people vote moderate. However, there are always going to be two main moderate parties, each tends to get about half of the large majority, at about 40 percent. The remaining votes get given to greens, communists, bat-huggers etc.

 

And you'd rather silence the people you disagree with?

 

Because parliamentary democracy requires a majority in government to function, the large moderate parties HAVE to surrender portions of policy to the fringe parties to build that majority. This more or less functions when nothing much has to get done. But whenever anything contentious arises such majorities go wibbly.

 

Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just your gut feeling? Maybe your system in Britain is weird, but you only need a 50% majority to pass law here, which means nothing goes wibbly unless both the Opposition party and third parties are opposed to some plan, in which case it probably damn-well shouldn't pass!

 

This is important, because, as I say, peace is going to take some very robust and determined work by an Israeli government, and I can't see proportional rep providing a govt that can weather such action.

 

Rubbish. If Israel didn't have proportional representation, the only groups that would become more powerful are the extremely hawkish ultra-right-wing parties. How does that lead to peace?

 

BTW, I'm well aware that you shifty Scandinavians probably have proportional rep, but you're weird.

 

I'm Australian. We use proportional representation in the house of review (the senate).

[Calax]

I don't think it's silly at all (surprise surprise ), precisely because I'm talking principles not instances. If you have proportional rep then inevitably the vast majority of people vote moderate. However, there are always going to be two main moderate parties, each tends to get about half of the large majority, at about 40 percent. The remaining votes get given to greens, communists, bat-huggers etc.

 

And you'd rather silence the people you disagree with?

 

Because parliamentary democracy requires a majority in government to function, the large moderate parties HAVE to surrender portions of policy to the fringe parties to build that majority. This more or less functions when nothing much has to get done. But whenever anything contentious arises such majorities go wibbly.

 

Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just your gut feeling? Maybe your system in Britain is weird, but you only need a 50% majority to pass law here, which means nothing goes wibbly unless both the Opposition party and third parties are opposed to some plan, in which case it probably damn-well shouldn't pass!

In america its a little bit of both. you only need 50% to pass a law, however if you face opposition from the head of state and thus have a veto on your law, you need a 2/3ds majority to force the law through. at least at the national level.

This is important, because, as I say, peace is going to take some very robust and determined work by an Israeli government, and I can't see proportional rep providing a govt that can weather such action.

 

Rubbish. If Israel didn't have proportional representation, the only groups that would become more powerful are the extremely hawkish ultra-right-wing parties. How does that lead to peace?

I'm assuming that proportional Represnetation means that if theres 40% Jewish and 60% Islamic, then the seats on the council or congress or parliament will fall that way. Now looking at some census data from years ago the Jewish population is above the Islamic population by 2 to 1. How reliable those figures are I'm unsure because they come from the census which I don't believe accounts for illegals or non citizens. I would expect that the real figures for the islamic populations are MUCH higher.

[Humodour]

In america its a little bit of both. you only need 50% to pass a law, however if you face opposition from the head of state and thus have a veto on your law, you need a 2/3ds majority to force the law through. at least at the national level.

 

Yeah but America's system is completely unproportional. There's not even preferential voting, so parties with only like 30% to 40% of supports can gain power (look at the Minnesota Senate race: 15% of the voters didn't get their voters counted - wasted votes - because they voted Barkley). Similar situation in Canada, where currently the government in power was only voted for by 40% of Canadians (the rest voting for centrist parties).

 

America's Senate also requires a 60% majority (de facto) because of filibuster/cloture (which is an oddity in the Western world and gives the minority party basically complete veto power as long as they have 40% or more of the vote). Nobody would really seriously hold up America's electoral system as a role model.

 

I'm assuming that proportional Represnetation means that if theres 40% Jewish and 60% Islamic, then the seats on the council or congress or parliament will fall that way.

 

No. It's got nothing to do with ethnicity. It means if there's 30% of people who vote for party A, and 50% who vote for party B, and 10% who support party C, then that's how many seats each party gets as a proportion, roughly.

 

Now looking at some census data from years ago the Jewish population is above the Islamic population by 2 to 1. How reliable those figures are I'm unsure because they come from the census which I don't believe accounts for illegals or non citizens. I would expect that the real figures for the islamic populations are MUCH higher.

 

Eh, as I said it's not based on ethnicity, and moreover, non-citizens don't get to vote in most countries (including Israel, Australia, and America).

[Calax]

I wasn't attempting to break it down by ethnicity. I was just surmising that the Arabic and Jewish groups would (if placed in a position where they had to defend their power against the other ethnic group) presumably vote down ethnic lines. I guess being an American means I'm to attached to the two party system to even consider that the parliament or what have you would have more than 2 or 3 factions vying for power within it.

[Yuusha]

Israeli White Phosphorus killed 3, wounded 60. Children included. White phosphorus are illegal to use against civilians according to the Geneva Convention.

 

During the past 15 days, more than 854 people killed and 3,500 others wounded. As of late there have been 235 children, 90 women and 12 medics among the victims of this war.

 

235 children killed... This is ****ing insane.

[Humodour]

White phosphorus are illegal to use against civilians according to the Geneva Convention.

 

Willy Peter is often used as a smoke screen. It is only illegal against military targets in built-up areas due to the potential for civilian loss of life. It certainly reasonable to call on Israel to stop using it in such areas if indeed they are (which has not been determined).

 

Nice use of unbiased sources, BTW. I love Iranian journalism. It always touches my special place with it's mischaracterisations and propaganda.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Ive read about the use of white phosphor in other sources as well, although in the Swedish papers there was nothing about people actually witnessing the usage, just doctors reporting patients that seemed to have been injured by something like WP. But it wouldnt be strange at all if the Israeli used it against hamas, the US admitted to using WP as an incendiary/anti-personel weapon against insurgents in Iraq. IMO, its a horrible weapon and should be banned along with chlorine gas and so on, but its still semi-legal to use.

 

 

 

here's reuters take on it http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA617723.htm

[Wrath of Dagon]

America's Senate also requires a 60% majority (de facto) because of filibuster/cloture (which is an oddity in the Western world and gives the minority party basically complete veto power as long as they have 40% or more of the vote). Nobody would really seriously hold up America's electoral system as a role model.

We like it, worked for us for over 200 years.

[Wrath of Dagon]

IMO, its a horrible weapon and should be banned along with chlorine gas and so on, but its still semi-legal to use.

All weapons are horrible, WP is used mostly for lighting and smoke screens.

[Hildegard]

IMO, its a horrible weapon and should be banned along with chlorine gas and so on, but its still semi-legal to use.

All weapons are horrible, WP is used mostly for lighting and smoke screens.

 

Burns on civilians during the fight in Falluja shows the effect it has on a human body. That weapon is even banned using it on so called legal enemy soldiers by the Geneva Convention. But nowdays everybody declares their opponent a terrorist so it's weapon hot on almost everything in your arsenal in any way given.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Terrorist, enemy combatant, enemy soldier...

 

They are all the same to me and should be all the same to the Geneva Convention along with any civilized nation.

[Gfted1]