tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post4213287964162035091..comments2024-01-01T01:47:59.449+02:00Comments on Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: No-One Really Cares About the Laws of WarYaacovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12835192312242961481noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-89125083667778663392009-08-14T16:17:12.887+03:002009-08-14T16:17:12.887+03:00Well, kung fu, I responded here
http://yaacovlozow...Well, kung fu, I responded here<br />http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-and-occupation.htmlYaacovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12835192312242961481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-75981747280764139502009-08-14T09:08:19.259+03:002009-08-14T09:08:19.259+03:00I think we need to acknowledge that warfare is ind...I think we need to acknowledge that warfare is indeed changing since Israel's inception. But all I'm sensing here is disgruntled complaints about how it's not fair that Israel can't play by the older, more barbaric set of rules. Or how other countries can get away with it, but Israel can't. Suggesting that we lower the bar for Israel, not raise it for other countries, strikes me as wrong.<br /><br />There is a necessary adaptation to a new contemporary understanding of war that the world must make. Changing our international laws of war to account for guerrilla terrorism is part of that. But at least America's public voted down Bush's version of the answer. (And largely Israel's answer, by similarity.) <br /><br />I also think it's fair to say that Israel can't be sympathized with for trying to fight an unjust war justly. Having done work in the territories, I can say that I don't need the majority voices to tell me that what goes on there is unacceptable. I have eyes, it's pretty plain to me that settlement expansion and a majority of the security barrier are not for security at all. There is no just war Israel can fight until the occupation is over. And I feel comfortable with that.Kung Fu Jew 18https://www.blogger.com/profile/17059079030140891503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-44461326569789604492009-07-30T22:20:43.595+03:002009-07-30T22:20:43.595+03:00"The theory of Just War distinguishes between..."The theory of Just War distinguishes between waging a just war (this one certainly is), and waging a war justly. Yet the more I follow the way we report to ourselves on the wars of the world, the more I become convinced this distinction is meaningless in the real world. Wars are judged bythe first criteria only."<br /><br />A smart insight, though one that needs a major footnote: What people see as a just war owes little or nothing to legal theory or international law. It is entirely subjective and strongly shaped by the loudest voices in the public sphere (or the ones most able to wrap their opinion in ideologically fashionable clothing). <br /><br />Pakistan still has popular goodwill; for Israel today no war will be deemed just, regardless of what the theory says.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-12851002593647499462009-07-29T21:39:38.522+03:002009-07-29T21:39:38.522+03:00Anon, is the "phased strategy" or "...Anon, is the "phased strategy" or "people's war" what you're referring to? As a quote:<br /><br />"In view of this new situation, it is necessary to reevaluate the basic assumptions of Israel's policy. The fact that Israel faces a people's war means that there is no "peace process" in the generally accepted meaning of the term, nor is a genuine settlement in prospect. There is no deal to be done. Instead, there is a condition of a protracted, decades-long war whose purpose is to weaken the Jewish state in order to destroy it. Negotiations and occasional pauses take place mainly as a tactic subordinated to the enemy's greater goal and to enable it to take territory without a struggle.78 As David Makovsky wrote, the consequences of this type of encounter, as in the case of the Taba negotiations, have been to raise the cost to Israel of a settlement in a future negotiation. This is called "moving the concessionary baseline."79 Such negotiations also provide the other side the opportunity to consolidate gains and the legitimacy of being in the company of respectable partners."<br /><br />Source:<br />http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp503.htm<br />TEN YEARS SINCE OSLO: THE PLO'S "PEOPLE'S WAR"<br />STRATEGY AND ISRAEL'S INADEQUATE RESPONSE<br />Joel S. Fishmanrashkovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11957522977917798197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-53588737825515084512009-07-29T20:40:19.709+03:002009-07-29T20:40:19.709+03:00First, I've found that no one is rational rega...First, I've found that no one is rational regarding Israel. The PLO's post-1970 framing is dominant to the point that anyone who disagrees with it, anyone citing opposing facts or history from before that framing was invented, is immediately dismissed as "racist" and ostracized from the discussion. <br /><br />As for the laws for war, it is not only that no one cares when non-Western governments break them, but that there are special legal interpretations for the Jews. Israel has not broken the laws of war except for a few misdemeanors that are nothing to crow about. The legal interpretations used to condemn Israel seem to have been invented recently at the time that they were needed to condemn Israel. There is no pre-2000 precedent for calling a closed border "collective punishment", calling surrendered and abandoned territory "occupied", or finding any fault in the targeting of enemy positions in an urban area.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-49801437566457473912009-07-29T20:05:41.658+03:002009-07-29T20:05:41.658+03:00yaacov
It goes without saying - if the Jews were ...yaacov<br /><br />It goes without saying - if the Jews were involved, there would be a general strike, worldwide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com