He said all cases must be judged on individual merits
He said Israel is doing drone strikes
He said Israel is considered an outlaw state
He said the drones should be a self-defense tactic

IMHO, the Israeli's position concerning terrorism is much more front line like than the US's.

I do not support Israel in all things, but when it comes to terrorism, I am all on their side.

RickyP quote
However, Israel isn't just conducting occasional drone strikes or assassinations against terrorists. Each of their actions has to be judged on its individual merits. And some of what they have done has been brutal.

If drone strikes need to be judged on individual merits, why does he mention other items?

bbauska
If drone strikes need to be judged on individual merits, why does he mention other items?

First of all, Sass is right when he says:

I don't think Ricky did say that actually. What he said was that drone strikes and state sponsored assassinations are only one of the tools that Israel uses and in some cases he can support it but in others he can't.

And why do I mention other items. becasue Israel has responded to what they consider terrorism in a number of ways. They've invaded Lebanon and sent tanks into Gaza.... They've bombed from conventional bombers... Etc.

Drones have the advantage of being a narrow focussed response. They also have the advantage of being able to provide surveillance of individuals for long periods of time, helping ensure that innocents aren't around when the missles are let loose.

And yet the US has responded to terrorism in a number of ways. We have invaded Afghanistan and sent our forces into Iraq. We have bombed form conventional bombers.

I agree with the drone program. I think it is a GREAT way to combat terrorism. It is one of the few areas that I approve of how President Obama is doing.

I have a problem with the US citizen aspect of it, but am willing to consider that when a US citizen becomes a terrorist, they deserve what they get.

Are you saying that Israel is within it's rights to defend itself against terrorism? Can that defense only be with drones?

Brad, I think you're veering too far into the territory of trying to score cheap points at the expense of meaningful conversation. Ricky has made clear that in his opinion this is a complex issue and not one that can easily be classified by a few simple rules to identify right and wrong. Your constant attempots to goad him into making a hypocritical statement aren't really shedding any light on the subject, especially since the two of you largely agree about the drone program. It's a bizarre little digression.

freeman

The question is whether the infringed country wants the raids or not (if they do it does not infringe on their sovereignty)

Not entirely. If the infringed country is deliberately shielding known terrorists from extradition or legal proceedings in their own country, then they are complicit in conducting terrorist activity.
Or if, they are demonstrably incapable of enforcing their own laws, or International laws, helpless in the face of terror organizations operating in their territory - then their protestations about infringement of sovereignty are dubious. A nation that cannot defend its sovereignty from terrorists has lost claim to sovereignty generally.

It may boggle your mind Bbbauska to have to compare the merits of each individual act by israel in striking against what they consider terror - but it boggles my mind that one could consider a blanket amnesty for anything Israel, or the Us or any nation does - just because they label someone a terrorist... Nelson Mandela was a terrorist according to some. (Including the US state department for awhile...) Just because Israel labels some Arab working in gaza a terrorist doesn't mean he is... Nor does it mean the same thing for someone the US labels a terrorist. When drone strikes become common place, rather than rare.... there is good reason to worry that labels are being handed out rather freely.
All I've been arguing is that they are at times particularly apt responses.

We're really getting into the moral swamp that covert operations produce, and which their administrators intended to hide us from. and hide the administrators of these operations from examination.
Drone strikes represent the best way to strike against the individuals and small groups who are able to hide in largely lawless geographies. But they are by no means perfect. And one strike is not the same as another strike.
Striking a balance between their occasional judicious use, and a reasonable over sight .... is going to be difficult.

I am not trying to goad him into hypocrisy. I am trying to get him to admit his view is somewhat confusing.

I perceive the following:
Killing terrorists with a drone is OK
Water boarding terrorists in not OK
Attacking Afghanistan to kill terrorists is OK
Attacking Gaza to kill terrorists is not OK
Attacking Pakistan's sovereignty via invasion to kill Bin Laden is OK
Attacking a convoy in Syria/Lebanon ???

We need a standard, not just I feel that the target is a terrorist. Otherwise Israel can "feel" that person X is a terrorist, while Iran can "feel" that President Bush is a terrorist.

I would hope that RickyP and I could agree that admission of terrorist acts is acceptable as evidence. Being found guilty in court (World Court?) is cause enough as well.

I am glad that RickyP and I are somewhat agreeing, but his view of what is allowed and not allowed are (in my opinion) conflictive.

danivon wrote:Be fair, RJ, also places where there aren't any settlements. The settlements themselves are not all that legal (Israeli law has been violated in some cases). However, the wall's legality is not related to the legality or morality of an assassination programmme.

I happen to think that such programmes are immoral and should be illegal. The film Munich was mentioned. What the film doesn't really go into is the guy the agents killed through mistaken identity who had no connection. That is always my concern with state-sanctioned murder - the assumption that it's just going to be about gettingbad guys and overconfidence in the infallibility of security services etc.

There is also the "what's sauce for the goose" argument.

I was being fair. This is what Ricky wrote:

Israel is an outlaw themselves. The existence of most of the West Bank settlements, and their continued expansion is in contravention of several rulings by the World Court.

I was trying to put some definition around that and frankly to figure out the specifics. He didn't define "World Court". He got the specifics and quantity of rulings wrong. He didn't link. He didn't mention it was an advisory opinion. It' a very serious charge. It deserves some detail. Other coutrnies have also been considered wrong by the ICJ. Are they also "outlaws"? I guess I missed one detail, but I was trying to be as fair as possible. Do you think Ricky was being fair as he missed many more details?

By the way, the thing that Munich really got wrong was the sequence. First Palestinian terrorists killed innocent Israeli citizens in the most cold hearted way possible at an international venue whose very meaning is nations working together. Then the Israelis responded. The fence/wall was also precipitated by terrorism and the loss of many lives. I agree that the Israelis were too agressive on the boundaries.

ray

I was trying to put some definition around that and frankly to figure out the specifics.

Perhaps my short hand reference wasn't to your liking... But if you want more specifics about how the term "outlaw" applies. Here.

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law,[1][2][3][4][5] but Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, due to lack of a legal sovereign of these territories.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9]

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980.[10][11][12] UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal[13] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[14] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ettlements

Ray

I agree that the Israelis were too agressive on the boundaries.

Does that mean you agree that they are illegal?
The term "out law" may seem harsh. However, it narrowly means that Israel has placed the occupied territories beyond the reach of International Law. Clearly, if Israel abides by the unanimous opinion of the worlds nations and international justice system, they would NOT be building settlements.

ray

By the way, the thing that Munich really got wrong was the sequence

? The movie's narrative moved back in forth in time, but it didn't change the sequence of real life events...

bbauska

I am not trying to goad him into hypocrisy. I am trying to get him to admit his view is somewhat confusing.

Complexity can be confusing. Simple clear cut rules do not always apply.I'll try to expound on your "perceptions".

I perceive the following:
Killing terrorists with a drone is OK

Can be okay. If the terrorists are really terrorists and not just someone labelled as such by a political figure. Without the normal systems of justice, neither accuser nor accused are proven... Where there is doubt, the accuser should abstain from violence. Of course, that comes down to who measures the doubt? If it were Dick Cheney I'd be troubled.
And then only if, the geography is beyond the reach of international law or if the nations protecting themselves from terrorism, have no other recourse than violence.

Water boarding terrorists in not OK

No, its not. Torture is counter productive, leading to false confession and false information more often than anything useful. And any information gleaned needs re-examination under that lens. What they don't show in Zero Dark Thirty is the enormous amount of wasted time, money and effort wasted from false confessions by those tortured. .,Years of drowning witches into confession should have taught us this, and settled the use as a nonstarter. But people refuse to accept evidence sometimes..

Attacking Afghanistan to kill terrorists is OK

At the moment, its has considerable geography that is out of reach of international and national laws.... It is a de facto war zone isn't it?

Attacking Gaza to kill terrorists is not OK

I don't know about this... Its certainly not even close to what I wrote.
If there are crews in the act of setting up and firing rockets into Israel, I'd say they were fair game. What I said was that "Some Arab in Gaza" isn't necessarily a terrorist just because Israel labels him such. I'm pretty certain that Mossad and Israelis army intelligence have a less rigid idea about convincing evidence regarding what constitutes a terrorist than many other agencies or the courts.. ... but each case, each target would need to be evaluated on its own terms.

Attacking Pakistan's sovereignty via invasion to kill Bin Laden is OK

Under the circumstances, it was acceptable to me. He was guilty beyond doubt. Collaboration with the Pakistani military or ISI was dubious, especially when you consider his location and time in that location. And it wasn't an invasion so much as an incursion... No one had designs on staying, and part of the reason for incursion versus bombing was to try to eliminate the deaths of innocents residing in his compound.

Attacking a convoy in Syria/Lebanon ???

I don't know? who's convoy? Who's attacking? Why?
Very little to go on here.

You seem to want to make simple blanket judgements. I think that's pretty difficult in a world with so much complexity and ambiguity. There are things I'm certain we can say clearly. Like, torture is wrong, and useless.
But we don't live a perfect world where International law is abide to by every nation. Until we do, we need to be able to reserve some otherwise criminal acts (assassination in this case) for extraordinary circumstance with very narrow definitions.

Ricky,

Does that mean you agree that they [The Settlements] are illegal?

As with the drone program, i think it is about facts and circumstances. As you've said, "simple clear cut rules do not always apply". You've also said:

You seem to want to make simple blanket judgements. I think that's pretty difficult in a world with so much complexity and ambiguity.

Illegal is a technical term which requires that you define whose law they operate on. Israel has the right to live in secure borders. Settlements on the West Bank for security are appropriate. Settlements because Israel wants the land are not.

Ricky:

? The movie's narrative moved back in forth in time, but it didn't change the sequence of real life events...

My issue is that they should show the horrific Munich massacre first so that the Israeli actions are put in proper context.

ray

Illegal is a technical term which requires that you define whose law they operate on.

We're talking about International Law. Israel is in contravention. It couldn't be any clearer.

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law,[1][2][3][4][5] but Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, due to lack of a legal sovereign of these territories.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9

When a guilty man does not agree with the verdict of the court.... it doesn't make him innocent.

But the US is not in contravention why?
...because they can simply veto this discussion , doesn't change reality and your wanting to accept one nation vs another when the two situations are identical seems like you are simply "anti-Israel" at least?

tom i'm not exactly sure of what you are saying. I think I refer you to my comment of February 11, at 6:21 AM (PST?)
I can hardly be said to be anit-Israel if I agree that there are times when unilateral action like this is justified.... Same goes with being anti-American if I've also said that...