This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ↠| Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
I removed Frykberg's Antiwar.com cite. Antiwar.com is a partisan blog and should not be used except when speaking about itself.-- Cerejota ( talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I performed following edit, but the change was reverted. Can we reach some fair compromise, without pushing kick and ban big buttons? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Agada you are getting quite ridiculous. I'm beginning to think you are not right. Are you ill? I don't mean the good ill, i mean the oldness type ill.
There was consensus on putting Shaliat on Ceasefire here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_39#Israel_ties_ceasefire_to_Shalit
I REPEAT THERE WAS CONSENSUS - somebody pleaseee tell me how to say this in Hebrew. THERE WAS CONSENSUS. The big bang started the consensus and it blew up into this fruitful addition do you agree? What the freak is wrong with you man? You are about to make me curse and all, have you noticed I DONT CURSE?
There was consensus on the flag here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_40#Belligerents_2
DO YOU AGREE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS CONSENSUS FOR THESE ISSUES??? if you say no, that is alright man, i will find a way to translate these things to you in Hebrew. Stop the smoking, we are not in peace time, stop the peace pipe, put it away.
This is getting too freaking old Agada. Stop it at once, just freaking stop it man. What the freak are you on, not because i want any, but because i want to avoid it. sheeze, oh man my freaking natural buss is almost gone because of you. somebody ban me already before i go off on this dude. BAN ME BEFORE NABLEEZY PLEASEEEEE. Then the state of the article can be solely be blamed on him. BAN ME!!! what is it that i have to do to get bannnned!? Cryptonio ( talk) 10:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
no no no no non n onon n ono non no no non no n... just stop it, no empty threat here, but i will pursuit your actions under the 'collective bargaining agreement' that we all are under. just one more 'out of place' 'reactionary' 'faulty' 'incoherent' ANYTHING out of you and i will pursuit this. knowing you, it's going to happen tomorrow. it just have to happen, everybody here wants to move on to other articles, i have a long list of things i want to do in here. just stop it dude, stop it, stop it. it's been going on for too long. no more rational conversation with you, no more wasting time, no more, either you "win" or i find somebody to deal with you. im telling you, if i have to take this 'outside' the "house"(we've been keeping your actions 'inhouse') i will, and knowing you, most likely it's going to happen tomorrow...no more crap from you, freak this bullcrap, freak it all. Cryptonio ( talk) 10:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Your latest edit is incoherent. let it be. tomorrow is another day. Cryptonio ( talk) 10:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Agada, I'm not sure if it was intentional or not but your fruitful discussion is crawling with lizards and insects. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 07:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to the subject matter at hand, I have a problem with this picture of the rockets as presented. First of all, it seems to have a claimed copyright here, despite being posted at wikipedia. Second, it was taken back in February (maybe July - 02.07.) of 2008. While it might be relevant to the general situation between Israel and Gaza, it is not specific to this conflict. However, the blurb Agada used to present the picture did not mention this, making the posting somewhat misleading. I've posted his version to the left. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
While I agree about technicalities, I disagree that pile of Qassam rockets near Sderot municipality is irrelevant to this conflict in general and Rocket attacks into Israel section in particular. This pile became a symbol since many world leaders took a picture near it and the pile is getting bigger. Call it Israeli propaganda if you want :). Current picture with kid in the center try to do emotional tricks. Thus the image is problematic at least. In my eyes "kid" image informational relevancy is questionable to the "rocket" section. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody mind this picture of a Grad rocket exploding in Beersheba?-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) WikiBlame says the grad rocket pic was removed here. It should be restored. It's a good one. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, lots of improvement in use of the {{ cite news}} template, but still lots of issues with multiple references and one instance of two separate references named the same.
These are not trivial things, and you all should be careful to learn the tools and use them correctly. -- Cerejota ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I know that we already have weapons sections but I've brought this up already and I think it gets lost in the noise. I think everyone should read the Amnesty International weapons report that I linked to earlier. [10] I'm surprised that nobody else has been interested in the cube-shaped microshrapnel weapon. Unlike DIMEs, AI says they have actual proof of use. It is also interesting to read their take on DIMEs. I'd add this all myself but the hyphen in "cube-shaped" will require the removal of a semicolon for balance and I can't decide which one of those I like least. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
[od] same old, same old, re AI [12] Tundrabuggy ( talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed 3d paragraph of this section, see edit diff. The first sentence was Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated that Israel would not agree to any potential ceasefire that did not include the freeing of Gilad Shalit I re-read the source it did mention "truce". From other hand Israeli PM offered cease-fire (not limited in time) on January 17 2009, without mentioning Shalit, see other RS. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully new version closer to source. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think anything about this should be anywhere in the article?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236603390290&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Basically an aid convoy led by Galloway arrived in Gaza. Galloway made comments condemning the Israeli actions in the war Israel-Gaza conflict.
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The convoy reached the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing on Sunday, but it was delayed due to the Egyptian security forces' objection to the delivery of non-medical aid. The activists spent the night in El-Arish, where, reportedly, locals pelted them with stones and also sprayed anti-Hamas graffiti on their cars. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
what sup with that? expanding it? more like removing it if it needs further expanding. unnecessary tag, on a substance less part of the article. i'm all for removing that tag, and eventually(hopefully in a couple of days, removing the tags on the article itself, except that of course that people feel the article is not neutral). Cryptonio ( talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The opening to the international law section seems like unneeded commentary and doesn't match the sources. There are cites from 2004 and 2006 mentioning the "occupation" then the other two sources which are more recent are Israeli rebuttals. The lines also don't match the rebuttals very well. Is this information needed in this particular article? If so: Are there any talking points that are essential? Should it go under the Israel subsection? I'm OK with deleting but could also see it fitting if we can find sources mentioning this particular conflict and used better. Cptnono ( talk) 05:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Re this excerpt from the Int Law section, "Israel maintains control of the Gaza strip's airspace, land borders (with the exception of the Philadelphi Route) as well as Gaza's territorial waters." -
Do Gaza and Egypt have legal control of the 12 kilometer Gaza-Egypt border? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Baseball season is about to start(and by golly, about freaking time). The season last about 6 months, so it seems very possible all of the usual suspects will be here as well. I have no fear of fear, for fear is not useful. Except of course, to stay alive in dead-end situations. I stated this from the beginning, "the less pro-israel the article looks, the more anti-israel will it look like, it is the standard". And of course i already let wikifan know about 'victim hood' and 'aggressor syndrome'. For all we know wikifan probably has a PhD on something. get it, on "something". Cryptonio ( talk) 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Freak this, this is how i roll. If you are waiting for someone to fall and hit their head, i will show you that i can hit my head, without falling.
"I pledge no allegiance, to no flag, specially the one from the United States of America, for a thought like that couldn't be more idealist. And for its actions, as a federal government against the world, supposedly under a Zeus(which i know nothing of), with complete immunity(for the world is deaf towards the UN) and arrogance even against itself." Cryptonio ( talk) 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The Israelis were reportedly held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released after they were suspected of being Mossad agents.
Citing two former CIA operatives, the Forward weekly then reported that at least two of the detained Israelis were found to be members of a Mossad surveillance team.
"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11," the weekly stated. Cryptonio ( talk) 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I too am tired of creating a section where critics engage in a never-ending 1up festival. According to Finkelstein, Cordesman's analysis is unreliable because it does not consider Btselem and United Nations reports and relies solely on Israeli reports. A valid point, but I've read through the research and it is seems Cordesman also used Arab officials and Hamas reports when available. Finkelstein's reads like an op-ed and does its best to discredit the Israeli military simply because it is Israeli while enumerating every humanitarian cost, whereas Cordesman is focused on the legal aspect. After recording evidence he believes: "These [targets], however, are legitimate military objectives in spite of their very real humanitarian costs. Point is: Cordeman is a military strategist and Finkelstein is a political scientist with a notorious anti-Israeli edge. Either way, both opinions should be included. Though I think a little googling will find supporters for Cordesman's report. Practically everything in this article has been challenged by x pundit, remember that. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a very rough draft so don't get your feelings hurt if it does not include your favorite lines. Also, beer and proper writing are not good buddies so style and grammar need improvement.
Various human rights observers have accused Israel of using disproportionate force and war crimes in Gaza which some consider an occupied territory. Israel's response is that the operation was an act of self-defense
Israel was criticized by B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch for targeting of public buildings including the educational institutions, interior and foreign ministries, police stations, and the parliament building. Israel argued that the buildings were part of the Hamas infrastructure. The IDF justified the strike on Gazan police stations since some police participated in military activities. Human Rights Watch argued that even if the Israeli claim is true, it is not legal to target police that were not engaged in combat.[253]
Amnesty International stated that Israeli troops had engaged in "wanton destruction" of Palestinian homes. Israel's military said civilian buildings were destroyed because of military "substantial operational needs" such as when they were booby trapped, hid tunnels, or were fired from. Both Amnesty International and Breaking the Silence claimed that demolitions had been carried out when there was no immediate threat to soldiers.[262]
The Red Cross was critical of Israel's failure "to care for and evacuate the wounded" during incidents where the IDF did not halt military action to allow aid workers access to wounded civilians.[250] The Red Cross also equated IDF soldiers forcing residence to stay in homes they had taken over to the use of human shields.[251]
The Israeli military used white phosphorus munitions in the Gaza strip.[257] The IDF originally denied this but acknowledged use after the conflict. Israel claims the use was in compliance with international law. The use of white phosphorus against civilians or in civilian areas is banned under international law, but it is legal to use the substance in other conditions such as to illuminate areas during night[258] or as a smoke screen. White phosphorus spread burning phosphorus, which burns at over 800 degrees Celsius, over a wide area up to several hundred square metres. The weapon has a potential to cause severe and painful burns or death.[259]
Amnesty International was also concerned with the use of other munitions in civilian areas such as tank shells, rockets that spread cube-shaped shrapnel, and shells that disbursed
flechettes.
Cptnono (
talk)
03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. From what I know, the IDF insists they only implemented strikes against military targets (with anticipated exceptions naturally). Is this outdated? Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or knowingly putting civilians at risk. . Again, if we're going to become dependent on AI there are plenty of partisan Jewish equivalents that we could use to balance. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
With regard to white phosphorus, I would think the concern seems to be that Israel is in violation of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons which restricts the use of incendiary weapons. It should be pointed out that Israel is not a signatory to Protocol III. [15] However, if they were I think that with regard to International Law, the concern would be, not that Israel is targeting civilians, but that they used white phosphorus on a military target near a concentration of civilians. Under Protocol III, Article 2, section 2, "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons." Under Protocol III, Article 2, section 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." [16] "Concentration of civilians" is defined in Protocol III, Article 1, section 2, as "any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads." However, like I said, Israel is not a signatory to Protocol III, so that issue under this convention seems moot.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 15:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The rough draft is definitely rough. There is no justification for removing Professor Sand's statement, he makes an important point that cannot be expressed in fresh language hence the quote. There is no undue weight problem here either.
This sentence [..."you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved" as in the case of the Israeli strike on the police station] is correct, I don't see no justification for removing this line along with the rest of "silly" police stuff. All this information is in the BBC article, I should know, I added the text in question myself.
You really should not be calling other people's work silly and garbage when you produce worst crap. Drunkenness is not an excuse. I don't approve of this rough draft. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 20:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Lets get back to the point. My view is the occupation information should be kept close to as is, so I disagree with the now removed proposal on that. But lets go paragraph by paragraph and see what we can agree on. Nableezy ( talk) 04:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Decided to make a new section because I felt it was important. This relates to the internal law and overall assessment of the situation. Cordesman wrote a 90+ page analysis of the war. It touches on not only the legal aspect, but the political and social realities. Also contains a vast amount of information on the media campaign and Arab opinion. Considering he's been involved with the United States government, Georgetown University, authored over 50 books (mostly about the Middle East), and served in UK, West Germany, Turkey, Gulf States etc... as part of NATO, I think his POV is rather notable. I'm surprised he isn't in the article yet. Thoughts in how we might incorporate his analysis in the article? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently, in edit mode this section reads:
|casualties3=One [[Egyptian army|Egyptian]] border guard officer killed and three guards and two children wounded<!--before blaming Hamas or Palestinians see Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Infobox_blaming-->.<!--Source for one guard dead, one wounded--><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=605368&sid=126|title=קצין מצרי × ×”×¨×’ מירי ×× ×©×™ חמ×ס סמוך למעבר רפיח|last=×¡×•×›× ×•×™×•×ª הידיעות|publisher=nana10.co.il|language=Hebrew|accessdate=2009-01-01}}</ref><!--Source for two guards, kids wounded--><ref name="egyptian1"/><br /> <!--Notes once again removed per earlier consensus. Anyone wishing to add them in is welcome to discuss it again. Otherwise, it is assumed to be vandalism via reversion. Multiple editors have been involved in making this right.-->}}
1. The "notes removed earlier" refers to this, which I believe should be included here (or at least, something similar):
I remember a discussion, but I don't remember an overwhelming consensus, so I would like to re-open this discussion. I believe those notes should be reinstated, at least in some form.
2.Can we clean all the hidden comments up. As far as I know, there are two attacks: First, one border guard killed and one wounded, by Palestinians ( http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BR24Y20081228) Second, two Egyptian children and two police officers wounded by shrapnel from Israeli bombs "( http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LB23204.htm).
3. Information on foreign casualties should surely go here, especially as the border guards are included? This used to be in the article: "Two foreigners, a Ukrainian woman and her child were among the killed civilians in Gaza." Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 17:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I support the reintroduction in the notes section the number of foreign casualties, it should be noted that among the 960 civilians killed where the Ukranians, also there was an earlier discussion about two months ago to put in the notes section how many policemen there were among the number of killed palestinian combatants, that also should be introduced. BobaFett85 ( talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that both Palestinian and IDF sources were used in the infobox, which is good as they differ. However, in the first note, only Palestinian sources are cited. Is there no Israeli source to that claim? I also think that it could be good to explain that IDF has not identified all the killed as either civilians or combatants which explains why summing up the two figures does not give the Israeli number of totally killed. -- KMA "HF" N ( talk) 16:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I was looking through the news articles today and I noticed there are some new numbers out. The PCHR has a final tally of 1,434 killed including 960 civilians (288 children, 121 women) and 239 police. [17]
As well, this other Reuters story has the number of homes destroyed at 5,000. [18] We currently report 4,000 (4,100 in the Effects article). -- JGGardiner ( talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay well I've just updated PCHR figures where we already use them. This is the actual PCHR report by the way. [19] Their civilian wounded number is only three more than the MoH so no big deal, although I'd prefer them to the MoH if that is okay. They are more recent, thorough, specific and perhaps reliable. I'd also like to update the houses number if that's okay. We already discuss the subject and I think the recent Reuters story is better than the older BBC one. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 22:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
<ignores> Falastine...again</ignores> Let me put it this way, In January 2009 USA today said 5,000 homes were destroyed. Christian Science Monitor reports 5,000 in January as well.. January 26k, NY times says 4,000. Amnesty International says 4,000 in January. Feb Washington Post says 4,0000. Do you seem where I'm going at here? There is an unsettling inconsistency, with +/- 1,000 changing regardless of time. What separates Reuters from the above sources? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Noam on Vietnam(and of course, etc.) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ramachandran: Over which period? Chomsky: They usually start in 1965, because the U.S. does not want to admit that it started attacking Vietnam in 1961. In fact, there were probably 70,000 or so people killed in the late 1950s. According to the official chronology, however, the war started in 1965, when you can claim that the North Vietnamese got involved (before that the U.S. was just bombing South Vietnam). The general estimates from the early 1960s to 1975 are in the neighbourhood of 2 to 4 million for all of Indochina. It is not a precise number by any means because nobody looks. Ramachandran: Two to four million is a pretty wide range. Chomsky: And what do you count? Do you count the people who are still dying of U.S. chemical warfare? The U.S. deluged the place - South Vietnam, not North Vietnam - with poisonous chemicals. Nobody counts the effects of having wiped out most of Quang-ngai province, an agricultural area - who cares? Whatever the estimates are, it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of several millions. When people in the United States are asked to estimate the number of Vietnamese dead, the median response is 100,000, a number that gives you the impression of the way the culture works. For example, if in Germany you asked how many people died in the Holocaust and they said 200,000, you would think there is a problem in German culture. This is comparable, but it is our atrocity, and therefore the intellectual classes and the media and anyone responsible for controlling thought and opinion suppress it. They don't know themselves and they don't want anyone else to know. It is going to be the same in Afghanistan. The humanitarian catastrophe is traceable to the United States and its allies, and therefore it is not going to be investigated. That is almost a historical law."
At first the U.S. used the word "crusade," but it was quickly pointed out that if they hope to enlist thier allies in the Islamic world, it would be a serious mistake, for obvious reasons. The rhetoric therefore shifted to "war." The Gulf War of 1991 was called a "war." The bombing of Serbia was called a "humanitarian intervention," by no means a novel usage. That was a standard description of European imperialist ventures in the 19th century. To cite some more recent examples, the major recent scholarly work on "humanitarian intervention" cites three examples of "humanitarian intervention" in the immediate pre-World War II period: Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia, and Hitler's takeover of the Sudetenland. The author of course is not suggesting that the term is apt; rather, that the crimes were masked as "humanitarian." Whether the Kosovo intervention indeed was "humanitarian," possibly the first such case in history, is a matter of fact: passionate declaration does not suffice, if only becasue virtually every use of force is justified in these terms. It is quite extraordinary how weak the arguments are to justify the claim of humanitarian intent in the Kosovo case; more accurately, they scarcely exist, and the official government reasons are quite different. But that's a seperate matter, which I've written about in some detail elsewhere. But even the pretext of "humanitarian intervention" cannot be used in the normal way in the present case. So we are left with "war." The proper term would be "crime"-perhaps "crime against humanity," as Robert Fisk has stressed. But there are laws for punishing crimes: identify the perpetrators, and hold them accountable, the course that is widely recommended in the Middle East, by the Vatican, and many others. But that requires solid evidence, and it opens doors to dangerous questions: to mention only the most obvious one, who were the perpetrators of the crime of international terrorism condemned by the World Court 15 years ago? For such reasons, it is better to use a vague term, like "war." To call it a "war against terrorism," however, is simply more propaganda, unless the "war" really does target terrorism. But that is plainly not contemplated because Western powers could never abide by their own official definitions of the term, as in the U.S. Code* or Army manuals. To do so would at once reveal that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients. Perhaps I may quote politcal scientist Michael Stohl: "We must recognize that by convention- and it must be emphasized only by convention-great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic," in accord with the literal meaning of the term. Under the (admittedly unimaginable) circumstances that Western intellectual cultures were willing to adopt the literal meaning, the war against terrorism would take quite a different "[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct 19, volume 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])." form, along lines spelled out in extensive detail in literature that does not enter the respectable canon. The quote I just gave is cited in a survey volume called Western State Terrorism, edited by Alex George and published by a major publisher 10 years ago, but unmentionable in the United States. Stohl's point is then illustrated in detail throughout the book. And there are many others, extensively documented from the most reliable sources-for example, official government documents- but also unmentionable in the U.S., though the taboo is not so strict in other English-speaking countries, or elsewhere. " |
(outdent) I've probably read almost everything he's written. It would be foolish not to. It's also true that I spend more time reading Chomsky than my set of Chris Ware's Acme Novelty Library comics despite the outstanding quality of that work. I regard Chomsky as an reliable academic source on these matters albeit with strong views but I'm curious what WPs official position is. I had a quick look at the WP:RSN which didn't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The major recent academic study of humanitarian intervention |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Same with Mussolini. The State Department hailed Mussolini for his magnificent achievements in Ethiopia and also, incidentally, for his astonishing accomplishments in raising the level of the masses in Italy. This is the late 1930s, several years after the invasion. Roosevelt described Mussolini as “that admirable Italian gentleman.†In 1939 he praised the fascist experiment in Italy—as did almost everyone, it’s not a particular criticism of Roosevelt—and said it had been “corrupted†by Hitler, but other than that it was a good experiment. How about Hitler’s taking over the Sudetenland in 1938? One of Roosevelt’s major advisors was A.A. Berle. He said that there’s nothing alarming about the takeover. It was probably necessary for the Austrian Empire to be reconstituted under German rule, so it’s all right. That’s a typical remark. That’s the way every monster is described, a moderate standing between the extremes of right and left, and we have to support him, or too bad. That’s a famous remark of John F. Kennedy’s about Trujillo reported by Arthur Schlesinger, the liberal historian and Kennedy aide. Kennedy said something like, We don’t like Trujillo. He’s a murderous gangster. But unless we can be assured that there won’t be a Castro, we’ll have to support Trujillo. The threat of a good example or it’s sometimes called the virus effect. The virus of independent nationalism might succeed and inspire others. Actually, the war in Vietnam started the same way. When you ask whether a certain action is or is not a case of humanitarian intervention, you should at least approach it with a sense of history and an understanding of what’s happened in the past. Then you have to evaluate the case on its own terms. You have to ask, for example, whether the bombing of Yugoslavia was a case of humanitarian intervention? When you ask that question, in this case, I think you find quite the opposite. The bombing was undertaken with the expectation that it would lead to a very sharp escalation of atrocities and had nothing to do with humanitarian goals. The opposite is very passionately claimed, but with no credible evidence or argument, to my knowledge. We can ask the same question about the other main atrocity that was being carried out at the time, namely East Timor. The standard line is, even if you were opposed to the war in Yugoslavia, there’s one good thing about it, namely that it served as a precedent for the intervention in East Timor, and we all agreed that that was good. So that was one favorable thing. The only trouble with that is the facts, which are totally different. There never was any intervention in East Timor in any serious sense of the term, hence it couldn’t have been a humanitarian one. The U.S. and Britain withheld any interference with Indonesian atrocities until after the worst had taken place, continuing to support the Indonesian army. It was not until after the Indonesian army withdrew (having been informed by Clinton that the time had come) that they were willing to allow a peacekeeping force to enter. That’s not intervention. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC) |
Um, is some of that a copyvio? -- JGGardiner ( talk) 10:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ↠| Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
I removed Frykberg's Antiwar.com cite. Antiwar.com is a partisan blog and should not be used except when speaking about itself.-- Cerejota ( talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I performed following edit, but the change was reverted. Can we reach some fair compromise, without pushing kick and ban big buttons? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Agada you are getting quite ridiculous. I'm beginning to think you are not right. Are you ill? I don't mean the good ill, i mean the oldness type ill.
There was consensus on putting Shaliat on Ceasefire here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_39#Israel_ties_ceasefire_to_Shalit
I REPEAT THERE WAS CONSENSUS - somebody pleaseee tell me how to say this in Hebrew. THERE WAS CONSENSUS. The big bang started the consensus and it blew up into this fruitful addition do you agree? What the freak is wrong with you man? You are about to make me curse and all, have you noticed I DONT CURSE?
There was consensus on the flag here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_40#Belligerents_2
DO YOU AGREE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS CONSENSUS FOR THESE ISSUES??? if you say no, that is alright man, i will find a way to translate these things to you in Hebrew. Stop the smoking, we are not in peace time, stop the peace pipe, put it away.
This is getting too freaking old Agada. Stop it at once, just freaking stop it man. What the freak are you on, not because i want any, but because i want to avoid it. sheeze, oh man my freaking natural buss is almost gone because of you. somebody ban me already before i go off on this dude. BAN ME BEFORE NABLEEZY PLEASEEEEE. Then the state of the article can be solely be blamed on him. BAN ME!!! what is it that i have to do to get bannnned!? Cryptonio ( talk) 10:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
no no no no non n onon n ono non no no non no n... just stop it, no empty threat here, but i will pursuit your actions under the 'collective bargaining agreement' that we all are under. just one more 'out of place' 'reactionary' 'faulty' 'incoherent' ANYTHING out of you and i will pursuit this. knowing you, it's going to happen tomorrow. it just have to happen, everybody here wants to move on to other articles, i have a long list of things i want to do in here. just stop it dude, stop it, stop it. it's been going on for too long. no more rational conversation with you, no more wasting time, no more, either you "win" or i find somebody to deal with you. im telling you, if i have to take this 'outside' the "house"(we've been keeping your actions 'inhouse') i will, and knowing you, most likely it's going to happen tomorrow...no more crap from you, freak this bullcrap, freak it all. Cryptonio ( talk) 10:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Your latest edit is incoherent. let it be. tomorrow is another day. Cryptonio ( talk) 10:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Agada, I'm not sure if it was intentional or not but your fruitful discussion is crawling with lizards and insects. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 07:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to the subject matter at hand, I have a problem with this picture of the rockets as presented. First of all, it seems to have a claimed copyright here, despite being posted at wikipedia. Second, it was taken back in February (maybe July - 02.07.) of 2008. While it might be relevant to the general situation between Israel and Gaza, it is not specific to this conflict. However, the blurb Agada used to present the picture did not mention this, making the posting somewhat misleading. I've posted his version to the left. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
While I agree about technicalities, I disagree that pile of Qassam rockets near Sderot municipality is irrelevant to this conflict in general and Rocket attacks into Israel section in particular. This pile became a symbol since many world leaders took a picture near it and the pile is getting bigger. Call it Israeli propaganda if you want :). Current picture with kid in the center try to do emotional tricks. Thus the image is problematic at least. In my eyes "kid" image informational relevancy is questionable to the "rocket" section. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody mind this picture of a Grad rocket exploding in Beersheba?-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) WikiBlame says the grad rocket pic was removed here. It should be restored. It's a good one. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, lots of improvement in use of the {{ cite news}} template, but still lots of issues with multiple references and one instance of two separate references named the same.
These are not trivial things, and you all should be careful to learn the tools and use them correctly. -- Cerejota ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I know that we already have weapons sections but I've brought this up already and I think it gets lost in the noise. I think everyone should read the Amnesty International weapons report that I linked to earlier. [10] I'm surprised that nobody else has been interested in the cube-shaped microshrapnel weapon. Unlike DIMEs, AI says they have actual proof of use. It is also interesting to read their take on DIMEs. I'd add this all myself but the hyphen in "cube-shaped" will require the removal of a semicolon for balance and I can't decide which one of those I like least. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
[od] same old, same old, re AI [12] Tundrabuggy ( talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed 3d paragraph of this section, see edit diff. The first sentence was Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated that Israel would not agree to any potential ceasefire that did not include the freeing of Gilad Shalit I re-read the source it did mention "truce". From other hand Israeli PM offered cease-fire (not limited in time) on January 17 2009, without mentioning Shalit, see other RS. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully new version closer to source. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think anything about this should be anywhere in the article?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236603390290&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Basically an aid convoy led by Galloway arrived in Gaza. Galloway made comments condemning the Israeli actions in the war Israel-Gaza conflict.
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The convoy reached the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing on Sunday, but it was delayed due to the Egyptian security forces' objection to the delivery of non-medical aid. The activists spent the night in El-Arish, where, reportedly, locals pelted them with stones and also sprayed anti-Hamas graffiti on their cars. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
what sup with that? expanding it? more like removing it if it needs further expanding. unnecessary tag, on a substance less part of the article. i'm all for removing that tag, and eventually(hopefully in a couple of days, removing the tags on the article itself, except that of course that people feel the article is not neutral). Cryptonio ( talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The opening to the international law section seems like unneeded commentary and doesn't match the sources. There are cites from 2004 and 2006 mentioning the "occupation" then the other two sources which are more recent are Israeli rebuttals. The lines also don't match the rebuttals very well. Is this information needed in this particular article? If so: Are there any talking points that are essential? Should it go under the Israel subsection? I'm OK with deleting but could also see it fitting if we can find sources mentioning this particular conflict and used better. Cptnono ( talk) 05:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Re this excerpt from the Int Law section, "Israel maintains control of the Gaza strip's airspace, land borders (with the exception of the Philadelphi Route) as well as Gaza's territorial waters." -
Do Gaza and Egypt have legal control of the 12 kilometer Gaza-Egypt border? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Baseball season is about to start(and by golly, about freaking time). The season last about 6 months, so it seems very possible all of the usual suspects will be here as well. I have no fear of fear, for fear is not useful. Except of course, to stay alive in dead-end situations. I stated this from the beginning, "the less pro-israel the article looks, the more anti-israel will it look like, it is the standard". And of course i already let wikifan know about 'victim hood' and 'aggressor syndrome'. For all we know wikifan probably has a PhD on something. get it, on "something". Cryptonio ( talk) 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Freak this, this is how i roll. If you are waiting for someone to fall and hit their head, i will show you that i can hit my head, without falling.
"I pledge no allegiance, to no flag, specially the one from the United States of America, for a thought like that couldn't be more idealist. And for its actions, as a federal government against the world, supposedly under a Zeus(which i know nothing of), with complete immunity(for the world is deaf towards the UN) and arrogance even against itself." Cryptonio ( talk) 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The Israelis were reportedly held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released after they were suspected of being Mossad agents.
Citing two former CIA operatives, the Forward weekly then reported that at least two of the detained Israelis were found to be members of a Mossad surveillance team.
"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11," the weekly stated. Cryptonio ( talk) 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I too am tired of creating a section where critics engage in a never-ending 1up festival. According to Finkelstein, Cordesman's analysis is unreliable because it does not consider Btselem and United Nations reports and relies solely on Israeli reports. A valid point, but I've read through the research and it is seems Cordesman also used Arab officials and Hamas reports when available. Finkelstein's reads like an op-ed and does its best to discredit the Israeli military simply because it is Israeli while enumerating every humanitarian cost, whereas Cordesman is focused on the legal aspect. After recording evidence he believes: "These [targets], however, are legitimate military objectives in spite of their very real humanitarian costs. Point is: Cordeman is a military strategist and Finkelstein is a political scientist with a notorious anti-Israeli edge. Either way, both opinions should be included. Though I think a little googling will find supporters for Cordesman's report. Practically everything in this article has been challenged by x pundit, remember that. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a very rough draft so don't get your feelings hurt if it does not include your favorite lines. Also, beer and proper writing are not good buddies so style and grammar need improvement.
Various human rights observers have accused Israel of using disproportionate force and war crimes in Gaza which some consider an occupied territory. Israel's response is that the operation was an act of self-defense
Israel was criticized by B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch for targeting of public buildings including the educational institutions, interior and foreign ministries, police stations, and the parliament building. Israel argued that the buildings were part of the Hamas infrastructure. The IDF justified the strike on Gazan police stations since some police participated in military activities. Human Rights Watch argued that even if the Israeli claim is true, it is not legal to target police that were not engaged in combat.[253]
Amnesty International stated that Israeli troops had engaged in "wanton destruction" of Palestinian homes. Israel's military said civilian buildings were destroyed because of military "substantial operational needs" such as when they were booby trapped, hid tunnels, or were fired from. Both Amnesty International and Breaking the Silence claimed that demolitions had been carried out when there was no immediate threat to soldiers.[262]
The Red Cross was critical of Israel's failure "to care for and evacuate the wounded" during incidents where the IDF did not halt military action to allow aid workers access to wounded civilians.[250] The Red Cross also equated IDF soldiers forcing residence to stay in homes they had taken over to the use of human shields.[251]
The Israeli military used white phosphorus munitions in the Gaza strip.[257] The IDF originally denied this but acknowledged use after the conflict. Israel claims the use was in compliance with international law. The use of white phosphorus against civilians or in civilian areas is banned under international law, but it is legal to use the substance in other conditions such as to illuminate areas during night[258] or as a smoke screen. White phosphorus spread burning phosphorus, which burns at over 800 degrees Celsius, over a wide area up to several hundred square metres. The weapon has a potential to cause severe and painful burns or death.[259]
Amnesty International was also concerned with the use of other munitions in civilian areas such as tank shells, rockets that spread cube-shaped shrapnel, and shells that disbursed
flechettes.
Cptnono (
talk)
03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. From what I know, the IDF insists they only implemented strikes against military targets (with anticipated exceptions naturally). Is this outdated? Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or knowingly putting civilians at risk. . Again, if we're going to become dependent on AI there are plenty of partisan Jewish equivalents that we could use to balance. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
With regard to white phosphorus, I would think the concern seems to be that Israel is in violation of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons which restricts the use of incendiary weapons. It should be pointed out that Israel is not a signatory to Protocol III. [15] However, if they were I think that with regard to International Law, the concern would be, not that Israel is targeting civilians, but that they used white phosphorus on a military target near a concentration of civilians. Under Protocol III, Article 2, section 2, "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons." Under Protocol III, Article 2, section 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." [16] "Concentration of civilians" is defined in Protocol III, Article 1, section 2, as "any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads." However, like I said, Israel is not a signatory to Protocol III, so that issue under this convention seems moot.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 15:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The rough draft is definitely rough. There is no justification for removing Professor Sand's statement, he makes an important point that cannot be expressed in fresh language hence the quote. There is no undue weight problem here either.
This sentence [..."you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved" as in the case of the Israeli strike on the police station] is correct, I don't see no justification for removing this line along with the rest of "silly" police stuff. All this information is in the BBC article, I should know, I added the text in question myself.
You really should not be calling other people's work silly and garbage when you produce worst crap. Drunkenness is not an excuse. I don't approve of this rough draft. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 20:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Lets get back to the point. My view is the occupation information should be kept close to as is, so I disagree with the now removed proposal on that. But lets go paragraph by paragraph and see what we can agree on. Nableezy ( talk) 04:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Decided to make a new section because I felt it was important. This relates to the internal law and overall assessment of the situation. Cordesman wrote a 90+ page analysis of the war. It touches on not only the legal aspect, but the political and social realities. Also contains a vast amount of information on the media campaign and Arab opinion. Considering he's been involved with the United States government, Georgetown University, authored over 50 books (mostly about the Middle East), and served in UK, West Germany, Turkey, Gulf States etc... as part of NATO, I think his POV is rather notable. I'm surprised he isn't in the article yet. Thoughts in how we might incorporate his analysis in the article? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently, in edit mode this section reads:
|casualties3=One [[Egyptian army|Egyptian]] border guard officer killed and three guards and two children wounded<!--before blaming Hamas or Palestinians see Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Infobox_blaming-->.<!--Source for one guard dead, one wounded--><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=605368&sid=126|title=קצין מצרי × ×”×¨×’ מירי ×× ×©×™ חמ×ס סמוך למעבר רפיח|last=×¡×•×›× ×•×™×•×ª הידיעות|publisher=nana10.co.il|language=Hebrew|accessdate=2009-01-01}}</ref><!--Source for two guards, kids wounded--><ref name="egyptian1"/><br /> <!--Notes once again removed per earlier consensus. Anyone wishing to add them in is welcome to discuss it again. Otherwise, it is assumed to be vandalism via reversion. Multiple editors have been involved in making this right.-->}}
1. The "notes removed earlier" refers to this, which I believe should be included here (or at least, something similar):
I remember a discussion, but I don't remember an overwhelming consensus, so I would like to re-open this discussion. I believe those notes should be reinstated, at least in some form.
2.Can we clean all the hidden comments up. As far as I know, there are two attacks: First, one border guard killed and one wounded, by Palestinians ( http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BR24Y20081228) Second, two Egyptian children and two police officers wounded by shrapnel from Israeli bombs "( http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LB23204.htm).
3. Information on foreign casualties should surely go here, especially as the border guards are included? This used to be in the article: "Two foreigners, a Ukrainian woman and her child were among the killed civilians in Gaza." Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 17:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I support the reintroduction in the notes section the number of foreign casualties, it should be noted that among the 960 civilians killed where the Ukranians, also there was an earlier discussion about two months ago to put in the notes section how many policemen there were among the number of killed palestinian combatants, that also should be introduced. BobaFett85 ( talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that both Palestinian and IDF sources were used in the infobox, which is good as they differ. However, in the first note, only Palestinian sources are cited. Is there no Israeli source to that claim? I also think that it could be good to explain that IDF has not identified all the killed as either civilians or combatants which explains why summing up the two figures does not give the Israeli number of totally killed. -- KMA "HF" N ( talk) 16:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I was looking through the news articles today and I noticed there are some new numbers out. The PCHR has a final tally of 1,434 killed including 960 civilians (288 children, 121 women) and 239 police. [17]
As well, this other Reuters story has the number of homes destroyed at 5,000. [18] We currently report 4,000 (4,100 in the Effects article). -- JGGardiner ( talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay well I've just updated PCHR figures where we already use them. This is the actual PCHR report by the way. [19] Their civilian wounded number is only three more than the MoH so no big deal, although I'd prefer them to the MoH if that is okay. They are more recent, thorough, specific and perhaps reliable. I'd also like to update the houses number if that's okay. We already discuss the subject and I think the recent Reuters story is better than the older BBC one. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 22:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
<ignores> Falastine...again</ignores> Let me put it this way, In January 2009 USA today said 5,000 homes were destroyed. Christian Science Monitor reports 5,000 in January as well.. January 26k, NY times says 4,000. Amnesty International says 4,000 in January. Feb Washington Post says 4,0000. Do you seem where I'm going at here? There is an unsettling inconsistency, with +/- 1,000 changing regardless of time. What separates Reuters from the above sources? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Noam on Vietnam(and of course, etc.) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ramachandran: Over which period? Chomsky: They usually start in 1965, because the U.S. does not want to admit that it started attacking Vietnam in 1961. In fact, there were probably 70,000 or so people killed in the late 1950s. According to the official chronology, however, the war started in 1965, when you can claim that the North Vietnamese got involved (before that the U.S. was just bombing South Vietnam). The general estimates from the early 1960s to 1975 are in the neighbourhood of 2 to 4 million for all of Indochina. It is not a precise number by any means because nobody looks. Ramachandran: Two to four million is a pretty wide range. Chomsky: And what do you count? Do you count the people who are still dying of U.S. chemical warfare? The U.S. deluged the place - South Vietnam, not North Vietnam - with poisonous chemicals. Nobody counts the effects of having wiped out most of Quang-ngai province, an agricultural area - who cares? Whatever the estimates are, it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of several millions. When people in the United States are asked to estimate the number of Vietnamese dead, the median response is 100,000, a number that gives you the impression of the way the culture works. For example, if in Germany you asked how many people died in the Holocaust and they said 200,000, you would think there is a problem in German culture. This is comparable, but it is our atrocity, and therefore the intellectual classes and the media and anyone responsible for controlling thought and opinion suppress it. They don't know themselves and they don't want anyone else to know. It is going to be the same in Afghanistan. The humanitarian catastrophe is traceable to the United States and its allies, and therefore it is not going to be investigated. That is almost a historical law."
At first the U.S. used the word "crusade," but it was quickly pointed out that if they hope to enlist thier allies in the Islamic world, it would be a serious mistake, for obvious reasons. The rhetoric therefore shifted to "war." The Gulf War of 1991 was called a "war." The bombing of Serbia was called a "humanitarian intervention," by no means a novel usage. That was a standard description of European imperialist ventures in the 19th century. To cite some more recent examples, the major recent scholarly work on "humanitarian intervention" cites three examples of "humanitarian intervention" in the immediate pre-World War II period: Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia, and Hitler's takeover of the Sudetenland. The author of course is not suggesting that the term is apt; rather, that the crimes were masked as "humanitarian." Whether the Kosovo intervention indeed was "humanitarian," possibly the first such case in history, is a matter of fact: passionate declaration does not suffice, if only becasue virtually every use of force is justified in these terms. It is quite extraordinary how weak the arguments are to justify the claim of humanitarian intent in the Kosovo case; more accurately, they scarcely exist, and the official government reasons are quite different. But that's a seperate matter, which I've written about in some detail elsewhere. But even the pretext of "humanitarian intervention" cannot be used in the normal way in the present case. So we are left with "war." The proper term would be "crime"-perhaps "crime against humanity," as Robert Fisk has stressed. But there are laws for punishing crimes: identify the perpetrators, and hold them accountable, the course that is widely recommended in the Middle East, by the Vatican, and many others. But that requires solid evidence, and it opens doors to dangerous questions: to mention only the most obvious one, who were the perpetrators of the crime of international terrorism condemned by the World Court 15 years ago? For such reasons, it is better to use a vague term, like "war." To call it a "war against terrorism," however, is simply more propaganda, unless the "war" really does target terrorism. But that is plainly not contemplated because Western powers could never abide by their own official definitions of the term, as in the U.S. Code* or Army manuals. To do so would at once reveal that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients. Perhaps I may quote politcal scientist Michael Stohl: "We must recognize that by convention- and it must be emphasized only by convention-great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic," in accord with the literal meaning of the term. Under the (admittedly unimaginable) circumstances that Western intellectual cultures were willing to adopt the literal meaning, the war against terrorism would take quite a different "[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct 19, volume 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])." form, along lines spelled out in extensive detail in literature that does not enter the respectable canon. The quote I just gave is cited in a survey volume called Western State Terrorism, edited by Alex George and published by a major publisher 10 years ago, but unmentionable in the United States. Stohl's point is then illustrated in detail throughout the book. And there are many others, extensively documented from the most reliable sources-for example, official government documents- but also unmentionable in the U.S., though the taboo is not so strict in other English-speaking countries, or elsewhere. " |
(outdent) I've probably read almost everything he's written. It would be foolish not to. It's also true that I spend more time reading Chomsky than my set of Chris Ware's Acme Novelty Library comics despite the outstanding quality of that work. I regard Chomsky as an reliable academic source on these matters albeit with strong views but I'm curious what WPs official position is. I had a quick look at the WP:RSN which didn't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The major recent academic study of humanitarian intervention |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Same with Mussolini. The State Department hailed Mussolini for his magnificent achievements in Ethiopia and also, incidentally, for his astonishing accomplishments in raising the level of the masses in Italy. This is the late 1930s, several years after the invasion. Roosevelt described Mussolini as “that admirable Italian gentleman.†In 1939 he praised the fascist experiment in Italy—as did almost everyone, it’s not a particular criticism of Roosevelt—and said it had been “corrupted†by Hitler, but other than that it was a good experiment. How about Hitler’s taking over the Sudetenland in 1938? One of Roosevelt’s major advisors was A.A. Berle. He said that there’s nothing alarming about the takeover. It was probably necessary for the Austrian Empire to be reconstituted under German rule, so it’s all right. That’s a typical remark. That’s the way every monster is described, a moderate standing between the extremes of right and left, and we have to support him, or too bad. That’s a famous remark of John F. Kennedy’s about Trujillo reported by Arthur Schlesinger, the liberal historian and Kennedy aide. Kennedy said something like, We don’t like Trujillo. He’s a murderous gangster. But unless we can be assured that there won’t be a Castro, we’ll have to support Trujillo. The threat of a good example or it’s sometimes called the virus effect. The virus of independent nationalism might succeed and inspire others. Actually, the war in Vietnam started the same way. When you ask whether a certain action is or is not a case of humanitarian intervention, you should at least approach it with a sense of history and an understanding of what’s happened in the past. Then you have to evaluate the case on its own terms. You have to ask, for example, whether the bombing of Yugoslavia was a case of humanitarian intervention? When you ask that question, in this case, I think you find quite the opposite. The bombing was undertaken with the expectation that it would lead to a very sharp escalation of atrocities and had nothing to do with humanitarian goals. The opposite is very passionately claimed, but with no credible evidence or argument, to my knowledge. We can ask the same question about the other main atrocity that was being carried out at the time, namely East Timor. The standard line is, even if you were opposed to the war in Yugoslavia, there’s one good thing about it, namely that it served as a precedent for the intervention in East Timor, and we all agreed that that was good. So that was one favorable thing. The only trouble with that is the facts, which are totally different. There never was any intervention in East Timor in any serious sense of the term, hence it couldn’t have been a humanitarian one. The U.S. and Britain withheld any interference with Indonesian atrocities until after the worst had taken place, continuing to support the Indonesian army. It was not until after the Indonesian army withdrew (having been informed by Clinton that the time had come) that they were willing to allow a peacekeeping force to enter. That’s not intervention. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC) |
Um, is some of that a copyvio? -- JGGardiner ( talk) 10:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)