May 20, 2008
WHAT SORT OF NATION CAN'T DEFEND ITSELF?:
Palestinians demand regular army for new state (Roni Sofer, 05.19.08, Israel News)
Despite previous understandings that a future Palestinian state would be demilitarized, Ynet has learned that in talks held behind closed doors, the top negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Qureia, is demanding the establishment of a regular army.
Especially when surrounded by enemies? Are Israel, Hezbollahstan, Syria and Arabia going to demilitarize too? Posted by Orrin Judd at May 20, 2008 11:16 AM
Yes, they should have "a regular army." That way they can begin to follow modern (Western) rules governing warfare, and Israel will have something to bomb that the rest of the world won't whine about. Which is why they never will form a regular army, of course.
Posted by: b at May 20, 2008 1:28 PMExactly, Europe isn't a nation.
Posted by: oj at May 20, 2008 4:12 PMWhich is why you make them a nation. Slaughtering civilians in occupied territory is a war crime. Nuking them in an enemy state is just good policy.
Posted by: oj at May 20, 2008 4:13 PMOperating in civilian areas in order to provoke enemy response is a war crime.
Israel's actions cannot be reasonably described as "slaughtering civilians" and you know it.
Posted by: b at May 20, 2008 4:31 PMAt this point, a regular Army would be too much of a threat to Hamas, Fatah, Al-Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and all the rest of the gangs.
It's why the Guard (and all the sub-factions thereof) wield the real power in Iran, rather than the 'regular' Army.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 20, 2008 6:22 PMYes, Hamas will convert its forces into a standard military and purge the rest.
Posted by: oj at May 20, 2008 7:45 PMIt's a civilian area.
No, but to win they need to. They can only do so if they make it a nation first.
Posted by: oj at May 20, 2008 7:48 PMAll of the LoW tests governing the above oj/b discussion involve balancing military necessity against the proportionality of the harm to protected persons occasioned by the exercise of military necessity.
In the case under discussion, Israel appears to be acting reasonably, and, yes, the other side appears to be intentionally using protected persons as cover and concealment.
I realize that what I am about to say is probably a minority position, and that Israel has been folowing more generous RoE's. My opinion is that it is never a war crime to return fire in self defense, self-defense including suppression of enemy fires. It is only that such return fire may not be exessive to the threat nor needlessly indiscriminate.
Posted by: Lou Gots at May 20, 2008 8:09 PMThe case under discussion is a Holocaust of the Palestinians by Israel. Yes, it's perfectly permissible in self-defense against a Palestinian nation. It's not allowed against an internal population, no matter how rambunctious..
Posted by: oj at May 20, 2008 10:13 PMThe most interesting part will be when this new "army" buys its weapons from Israel.
Posted by: ratbert at May 20, 2008 10:36 PMOne really ought to stick to one's strengths: more recipes.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at May 21, 2008 1:50 AMAnd is trained at Fort Benning.
Posted by: oj at May 21, 2008 7:10 AMAnd kills terrorists rather than Jews.
Posted by: ratbert at May 21, 2008 7:17 AMWhen you're occupied Israel is the enemy. When you're a state terrorists are.
Posted by: oj at May 21, 2008 7:51 AM