Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Dershowitz on Israel  (Read 6188 times)

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2006, 08:33:37 AM »
kill!

chris43

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2006, 11:28:29 AM »
Ward Churchill: American Civilians' political support for America's unjust foreign policy perogatives justified their being targeted by terrorists.

The reasoning in which of the following statements most closely parallels the reasoning in the stimulus?


A) AI: In the case of the attack on Qana the Israeli authorities have claimed that Hizbullah used civilians as “human shields” -- a tactic clearly prohibited under international humanitarian law. However, Israel has provided no evidence to support that allegation. Moreover, any such violation of international humanitarian law by Hizbullah would not have absolved Israel from its legal obligations to protect civilians by strictly observing the principle of proportionality. For its part, Hizbullah’s firing of rockets against Israeli cities and towns violates the prohibition of direct attacks against the civilian population.

B) HRW: Human Rights Watch has documented the Israeli military’s persistent use of indiscriminate force, which has killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians...But war crimes by one side in a conflict never justify war crimes by another. Hezbollah must stop using the excuse of Israeli misconduct to justify its own.

C) Alan Dershowitz: We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished.... The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit.

TrojanChispas

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2006, 12:18:38 PM »
Ward Churchill: American Civilians' political support for America's unjust foreign policy perogatives justified their being targeted by terrorists.

The reasoning in which of the following statements most closely parallels the reasoning in the stimulus?


A) AI: In the case of the attack on Qana the Israeli authorities have claimed that Hizbullah used civilians as “human shields” -- a tactic clearly prohibited under international humanitarian law. However, Israel has provided no evidence to support that allegation. Moreover, any such violation of international humanitarian law by Hizbullah would not have absolved Israel from its legal obligations to protect civilians by strictly observing the principle of proportionality. For its part, Hizbullah’s firing of rockets against Israeli cities and towns violates the prohibition of direct attacks against the civilian population.

B) HRW: Human Rights Watch has documented the Israeli military’s persistent use of indiscriminate force, which has killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians...But war crimes by one side in a conflict never justify war crimes by another. Hezbollah must stop using the excuse of Israeli misconduct to justify its own.

C) Alan Dershowitz: We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished.... The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit.


It is undisputed that Hezbollah fired rockets from Qana.  Israel just returned fire. 

BTW, I dont think that Hezbollah should be allowed to fire from civilian areas with impunity merely because there is a loophole for them in international law.  Sorry, international law is not binding on anyone, especially when it inherently favors one side over another side in a war.
Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent
http://www.nysun.com/article/36110?page_no=1

chris43

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2006, 01:05:25 PM »
Ward Churchill: American Civilians' political support for America's unjust foreign policy perogatives justified their being targeted by terrorists.

The reasoning in which of the following statements most closely parallels the reasoning in the stimulus?


A) AI: In the case of the attack on Qana the Israeli authorities have claimed that Hizbullah used civilians as “human shields” -- a tactic clearly prohibited under international humanitarian law. However, Israel has provided no evidence to support that allegation. Moreover, any such violation of international humanitarian law by Hizbullah would not have absolved Israel from its legal obligations to protect civilians by strictly observing the principle of proportionality. For its part, Hizbullah’s firing of rockets against Israeli cities and towns violates the prohibition of direct attacks against the civilian population.

B) HRW: Human Rights Watch has documented the Israeli military’s persistent use of indiscriminate force, which has killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians...But war crimes by one side in a conflict never justify war crimes by another. Hezbollah must stop using the excuse of Israeli misconduct to justify its own.

C) Alan Dershowitz: We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished.... The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit.


It is undisputed that Hezbollah fired rockets from Qana.  Israel just returned fire. 

BTW, I dont think that Hezbollah should be allowed to fire from civilian areas with impunity merely because there is a loophole for them in international law.  Sorry, international law is not binding on anyone, especially when it inherently favors one side over another side in a war.

israel didn't "return fire."  it attacked a target that had nothing with the rocket attacks on northern israel.  if the dozens of children that died in the attack on qana had previously fired missiles at israel, then it would be correct to say that israel "returned fire."  but we all know that's not what happened.

also, there is no "loophole for [hezbollah] in international law." their rocket attacks on civilians are clearly illegal; no one denies that.


TrojanChispas

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2006, 02:59:24 PM »
Hezbollah was firing rockets from Qana.  No one disputes this.

The loophole is that if one hezbollah soldier fires a rocket from a civilian area, Israel cannot attack that area without killing civilians and thus allegedly using "disproportionate force."  In that case, there is no way for Israel to comply with international law and return fire for the protection of its citizens.  Frankly, I would not expect Israel or any other country to refrain from attacking because Hezbollah found a loophole in international law.
Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent
http://www.nysun.com/article/36110?page_no=1

chris43

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2006, 03:25:09 PM »
there is no evidence that there were any hezbollah targets in the four story building that was destroyed by israel, resulting in the deaths of about fifty people.  there may have been hezbollah forces operating in the village, but that doesn't matter for the same reason that it didn't matter that whether or not there were vc forces in my lai.

also, the fact that civilians die does not necessarily mean that disproportionate force was used.  what constitutes disproportionate force is failing to take reasonable steps to protect civilians and distinguish them from combatants.  the steps israel has taken to protect civilians has generally been limited to declaring entire areas free-fire zone, advising innnocent civilians to leave, and then reasoning that those who are still around after a certain period of time are, ipso facto, combatants.  this is both immoral and illegal.

TrojanChispas

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2006, 04:28:11 PM »
there is no evidence that there were any hezbollah targets in the four story building that was destroyed by israel, resulting in the deaths of about fifty people.  there may have been hezbollah forces operating in the village, but that doesn't matter for the same reason that it didn't matter that whether or not there were vc forces in my lai.

There may not have been Hezbollah in the actual building when it was destroyed, but what about shortly before it was destryed, or in the surrounding area?  I do not believe that Israel intentionally targeted a bunch of children because if they wanted to kill civilians they would have hit the airport terminal rather than the runway.

It is unfair to the civilians there, but there is no solution that is fair to the civilians.  The impetus shoudl not be on Israel to refrain from retaliating, but on Hezbollah from instigating. 

Quote
also, the fact that civilians die does not necessarily mean that disproportionate force was used.  what constitutes disproportionate force is failing to take reasonable steps to protect civilians and distinguish them from combatants.  the steps israel has taken to protect civilians has generally been limited to declaring entire areas free-fire zone, advising innnocent civilians to leave, and then reasoning that those who are still around after a certain period of time are, ipso facto, combatants.  this is both immoral and illegal.

Hezbollah hides amongst civilians so that it can claim Israel is a bunch of murdering savages when Israel attempts to root them out and kills civilians in the process. 

If Hezbollah is good enough such that it can fit seamlessly into the civilian population, under your standard, they can attack Israel with impunity because Israel wont be able to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

I reject this loophole in international law.  No country should have to sit back and be attacked simply because to attack back would be unfair to the civilians which are being used as human shields.
Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent
http://www.nysun.com/article/36110?page_no=1

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2006, 05:52:29 PM »
It would be interesting if people posted their narratives about what is happening between Israel and Lebanon right now.  Each specator might write a slightly different history.  Also it would be wierd to see the common ground and what can't be agreed on.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School

krumanadi

  • Guest
Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2006, 06:06:29 PM »
before you sentence israel for the deaths of "dozens of children" read this:

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/188571.php

krumanadi

  • Guest
Re: Dershowitz on Israel
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2006, 06:10:59 PM »
Hezbollah was firing rockets from Qana.  No one disputes this.

The loophole is that if one hezbollah soldier fires a rocket from a civilian area, Israel cannot attack that area without killing civilians and thus allegedly using "disproportionate force."  In that case, there is no way for Israel to comply with international law and return fire for the protection of its citizens.  Frankly, I would not expect Israel or any other country to refrain from attacking because Hezbollah found a loophole in international law.

This is very true.  Israel has no choice in the matter.  I cant believe anyone is arguing this.

As PM Olmert said "If you sleep with missiles, sometimes you dont wake up."