Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
Actually, a war crime was an act forbidden by the Hague Conventions of 1907 (and a few earlier).
There was nothing about disproportionality in them.
Attacks on undefended dwellings were forbidden which was understood as attacks without military justification - because obviously, it was usually impossible to establish with certainty if the dwelling was defended or not.
There was nothing about disproportionality in them.
Attacks on undefended dwellings were forbidden which was understood as attacks without military justification - because obviously, it was usually impossible to establish with certainty if the dwelling was defended or not.
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
You can't have an occupation that is "licensed". Legally, the properly constituted government of France remained in charge and chose to be on the front line of a war. The German side of it. Most French forces fought - or expected to fight - for Hitler. You can accuse Petain of collaboration but I don't think he was accused of being a puppet of Hitler (until later!).
That's a different matter - that's a full-blooded occupation, condemned by the entire world. Palestinians never been allowed to choose their own leader. Not Husseini, not Abbas. Arafat was a valid leader of a government in exile - but he returned under terrible conditions, Israel had murdered all of his companions, rendering him hopelessly vulnerable to all his new advisors, who had been collaborating for years.
I'd have said it was a terrrorist group. Far more so than Hezbollah, which is firmly integrated into Lebanon's legitimate forces.
The Netherlands were under true occupation, with the government in exile. The SS-volunteer was properly found to have committed treason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_government-in-exile wrote:The Dutch government-in-exile (Dutch: Nederlandse regering in ballingschap), also known as the London Cabinet (Dutch: Londens kabinet), was the government in exile of the Netherlands, supervised by Queen Wilhelmina, that fled to London after the German invasion of the country during World War II on 10 May 1940.[citation needed]
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
NickA wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 20:47You can't have an occupation that is "licensed". Legally, the properly constituted government of France remained in charge and chose to be on the front line of a war. The German side of it. Most French forces fought - or expected to fight - for Hitler. You can accuse Petain of collaboration but I don't think he was accused of being a puppet of Hitler.
The Netherlands were under true occupation, with the government in exile. The SS-volunteer was properly found to have committed treason.
Treason against an government in exile who fled but left the country and it's citizens behind..
I'd join the SS rather than hold my loyalty for those cabinet members and the Queen Herself.
That SS-Volunteer was given an German Citizenship and lived in Germany.
Last edited by Totenkomf on 03 Feb 2022, 22:27, edited 2 times in total.
"Befehl ist Befehl"
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
You've got that wrong. Some governments surrender and dissolve, some form an alliance, some - like the Polish - fought on.
You've definitely got that wrong.
The truth is that continentals are bound to have mixed loyalties. Both French and Dutch might choose to fight with the Germans - but their legal position is very different. The SS-volunteer had committed an act of betrayal before any other crimes.
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
How did I get "that/it wrong"?. I did not say that in every single country that got occupied by the German Troops that all government officials, Ministers, Military commanders or Officers, etc leave that country and flee to lick the British Boots...
I only spoke about the Dutch Government-in-exile including top politicians and the Royal Monarch.
So it would have been better then that the mentioned SS-Volunteer just didn't join the Waffen-SS and handed around at ease until the Yanks and Brits showed up and then went to shave the heads of local women who served the Germans Coffee at the local Cáfe??.
Ps. He (The Dutch SS-Volunteer) was not charged for treason either.
-~Totenkomf.
Better now "friend"?...
I only spoke about the Dutch Government-in-exile including top politicians and the Royal Monarch.
So it would have been better then that the mentioned SS-Volunteer just didn't join the Waffen-SS and handed around at ease until the Yanks and Brits showed up and then went to shave the heads of local women who served the Germans Coffee at the local Cáfe??.
Ps. He (The Dutch SS-Volunteer) was not charged for treason either.
-~Totenkomf.
Better now "friend"?...
Last edited by Totenkomf on 04 Feb 2022, 17:24, edited 2 times in total.
"Befehl ist Befehl"
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
Please don't block quote my words back to me - there are at least 3 ideas in what I wrote to you, and it doesn't appear you're dealing with any of them. Just filling the pages with stuff that I and others have seen already.
Your comments were not very helpful.
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
The complainer: Your comments were not very helpful.
[/quote]
Okay man. Are you too tired to just read what is not quoted?
It was a helpful comment as I answered back to you with my own opinion about what you wrote firstly to me.
[/quote]
Okay man. Are you too tired to just read what is not quoted?
It was a helpful comment as I answered back to you with my own opinion about what you wrote firstly to me.
"Befehl ist Befehl"
- Loïc
- Member
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003, 04:38
- Location: Riom Auvergne & Bourbonnais France
- Contact:
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
this member is a troll or what
my understanding is that Great Britain and Germany were allied against France given that Britain attacked the French while the French forces still resisted to the German and Italians invading and occupying the country...
this kind of intellectualisme bistrotier comment forgets that the forced labour was raised 3 years after
and also that for 10 000 French remaining in Britain who had the opportunity to "be free in Britain instead forced labourers in Nazi Germany" first of all they had the good luck to be attacked by the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and sent to prisoners camps to realize maybe at such point it is good to be free there
if I am sure there were more than one million and a half of French POW's?
well at least certainly more than Hitler as great admiral of the French military Fleet in the merchant port of "Marseilles" southern free zone until november 1942 and others "strange" fake news and falses excuses of that kind to give good conscience to open the fire to kill 1300 French sailors
but I am not sure of my participation in this forum when I read this kind of non-sense posts
there is no Armistice...OK...
my understanding is that Great Britain and Germany were allied against France given that Britain attacked the French while the French forces still resisted to the German and Italians invading and occupying the country...
the écrivaillon Max Hastings or others have of course largely forgotten that these French "preferring to be forced labourers in Nazi Germany than free in Britain" - once their British soldiers allies were safe them in their island thanks to the French remaining dead or alive on the beaches of Dunkirk - were repatriated to be disembarked in Britanny Normandy 4 years before them and still fought against the Germans while the British Army was already on the other side of the ChannelOne third of the soldiers taken off at Dunkirk were French and virtually all had to be repatriated: they would rather be forced labourers in Nazi Germany than free in Britain. Comment at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/ ... ngs-review
this kind of intellectualisme bistrotier comment forgets that the forced labour was raised 3 years after
and also that for 10 000 French remaining in Britain who had the opportunity to "be free in Britain instead forced labourers in Nazi Germany" first of all they had the good luck to be attacked by the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and sent to prisoners camps to realize maybe at such point it is good to be free there
...?...glad to learn there is a link between Mers-el-Kébir and the number of French POW's...You tell us that "1 800 000 French Prisoners OF WAR in the german fronstalags and stalags" - are you sure about that?
Churchill sank the French Fleet, 1,297 French sailors and 2 British airmen killed. It was about to sail back to Marseilles and put itself under Hitler's command. At least, that's what it used to say at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Nav ... _World_War - strangely, that section has been disappeared.
if I am sure there were more than one million and a half of French POW's?
well at least certainly more than Hitler as great admiral of the French military Fleet in the merchant port of "Marseilles" southern free zone until november 1942 and others "strange" fake news and falses excuses of that kind to give good conscience to open the fire to kill 1300 French sailors
but I am not sure of my participation in this forum when I read this kind of non-sense posts
perhaps being more aware of the Armistice would avoid such non-sense sentences where the French Army and Navy should fight or not in "front line of war under Hitler's command"You can't have an occupation that is "licensed". Legally, the properly constituted government of France remained in charge and chose to be on the front line of a war. The German side of it. Most French forces fought - or expected to fight - for Hitler.
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
I'm here to share understanding - some people don't come here to share anything. I said "Armistice" when I meant to say "Peace Treaty".
All of the above is my understanding. The French were in disbelief that the British insisted on carrying on the war.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_of_22_June_1940 wrote:Adolf Hitler had a number of reasons for agreeing to an armistice. He wanted to ensure that France did not continue to fight from French North Africa ... as Germany lacked a navy sufficient to occupy France's overseas territories, Hitler's only practical recourse to deny the British use of them was to maintain a formally independent and neutral French rump state. ... As one of Hitler's few concessions, the French Navy was to be disarmed but not surrendered, for Hitler realized that pushing France too far could result in France fighting on from the French colonial empire. An unoccupied region in the south, the Zone libre, was left relatively free to be governed by a rump French administration based in Vichy, which also administered the occupied zones, albeit under severe restrictions.
This was envisaged to last until a final peace treaty was negotiated ... both French and Germans thought the occupation would be a provisional state of affairs and last only until Britain came to terms, which was believed to be imminent [citation needed] ... During negotiations for the Armistice of 22 June 1940, the Vichy French government adopted a policy of collaboration in hopes for German concessions allowing repatriation. The Germans nevertheless deferred the return of prisoners until the negotiation of a final peace treaty, which never occurred due to the United Kingdom's refusal to surrender and Germany's defeat in the Battle of Britain.[1]
I see mention of trolling and wonder if they apply to you.
OK, I've learned one thing from you - that a huge number of French POWs were taken and some/many/most were prisoners until 1945. And nobody wanted to speak to them after the war.Loïc wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 00:19the écrivaillon Max Hastings or others have of course largely forgotten that these French "preferring to be forced labourers in Nazi Germany than free in Britain" - once their British soldiers allies were safe them in their island thanks to the French remaining dead or alive on the beaches of Dunkirk - were repatriated to be disembarked in Britanny Normandy 4 years before them and still fought against the Germans while the British Army was already on the other side of the Channel ... this kind of intellectualisme bistrotier comment forgets that the forced labour was raised 3 years after and also that for 10 000 French remaining in Britain who had the opportunity to "be free in Britain instead forced labourers in Nazi Germany" first of all they had the good luck to be attacked by the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and sent to prisoners camps to realize maybe at such point it is good to be free there
But then, when Paul Rassinier talked about his experience in camps he became known as "The Father of Holocaust Denial". Lost his job and died prematurely, probably because of what the beastly Germans had done to him, not the destitution that the French imposed on him.
So I'm back where I started - nobody wanted to listen to Holocaust survivors - but nor did they want to listen to potential French collaborators. Better they be labelled as POWs and stick to talking about the rottenness of the food.
I see mention of trolling and wonder if I need to bother responding.Loïc wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 00:19...?...glad to learn there is a link between Mers-el-Kébir and the number of French POW's... if I am sure there were more than one million and a half of French POW's? well at least certainly more than Hitler as great admiral of the French military Fleet in the merchant port of "Marseilles" southern free zone until november 1942 and others "strange" fake news and falses excuses of that kind to give good conscience to open the fire to kill 1300 French sailors but I am not sure of my participation in this forum when I read this kind of non-sense posts ... perhaps being more aware of the Armistice would avoid such non-sense sentences where the French Army and Navy should fight or not in "front line of war under Hitler's command"
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
Articles from the perpetrator regime and nation are never proof of anything. In this case, while documenting some of what happened, it is denialist, claiming that "most researchers state that 110 inhabitants of the village, among them women, children and elderly people, were killed there."
That's entirely untrue - the only neutral observer was the head of the Red Cross, who estimated 350 dead in "Diary of Jacques De Reynier" 27 March 1948, quoted in Collins and Lapierre "O Jerusalem!" p.238. The perpetrators themselves claimed 254. Jacques de Reynier seems to have accepted that figure in " A Jerusalem un Drapeau flottait sur la Ligne de Feu" 1950.
The 107 to 110 figure is not "most researchers" its a list of some of the dead, inadequately collected 40 years later by people under brutal occupation in a publication nobody has ever seen. The only survivors known to have testified are Fahimi Zeidan, a 12-year-old girl, in 1987 and Mohamed Aref Samir, schoolteacher in Deir Yassin and later education official in Jordan.
Show us: Kana'ana and Zeitawi, "The Village of Deir Yassin" Destroyed Village Series, Berzeit University Press, 1988. If there are any copies of it in existence they're still locked away along with the Palmach's own corruscating report and the photographs we know exist but Israel still insists would be a national security risk if even their own Israeli researchers were to see them.
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
I think the concept of "proportional" attack is what I said it was and, although it may have slipped in accidentally, is now accepted.wm wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 11:44Actually, a war crime was an act forbidden by the Hague Conventions of 1907 (and a few earlier). There was nothing about disproportionality in them. Attacks on undefended dwellings were forbidden which was understood as attacks without military justification - because obviously, it was usually impossible to establish with certainty if the dwelling was defended or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_(law) wrote:The Geneva Conventions of 1949 were the first significant protections for civilians in war. These protections were expanded by the Additional Protocols in 1977. Protocol I requires that attacks be limited to military objectives, which are defined as targets that make an "effective contribution to military action" where the destruction of the target provides a "definite military advantage" to the attacker.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_(law) wrote: ... When the use of force is excessive relative to its anticipated military advantage it is said to be disproportionate. Disproportionate force is prohibited under international law.
Please note - I'm quoting you (by clicking on the "" above) and this draws your attention to my message. I'm also being careful to cite each of my quotations back to its reference.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_(law) wrote:Risk to civilians does not bar military action, but the principle of proportionality requires that precautions be taken to minimize the harm to these protected persons. This analysis includes considerations like whether circumstances permit the attacker to time a military action to minimize the presence of civilians at the location.[16]
-
- Member
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
We were discussing Zionist / Israeli war crimes. Then got into definition of war crime. Whereby German mass murder of civilians in France are war crimes but Israeli / Zionist varieties in Palestine, are apparently, nor war crimes.
Then came name calling (troll) and the usual diversions. So an extremely informative thread is now smelling like cheese gone bad!
Cheers
Sandeep
Then came name calling (troll) and the usual diversions. So an extremely informative thread is now smelling like cheese gone bad!
Cheers
Sandeep
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
Let's get back on the subject -- claimed Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
David Thompson wrote: ↑07 Feb 2022, 03:45Let's get back on the subject -- claimed Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict.
Claimed is not proven
''Mass Murder'' by Israel on a WW2 Germany scale? what like the Jammu massacres?sandeepmukherjee196 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022, 20:40We were discussing Zionist / Israeli war crimes. Then got into definition of war crime. Whereby German mass murder of civilians in France are war crimes but Israeli / Zionist varieties in Palestine, are apparently, nor war crimes.
Then came name calling (troll) and the usual diversions. So an extremely informative thread is now smelling like cheese gone bad!
Cheers
Sandeep
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
-
- Member
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34
Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict
In case it was missed, I had specifically referred to German "non war crimes" in France, mentioning Oradour sur Glane .. I had not mentioned German war crimes, in general, in WWII..LineDoggie wrote: ↑14 Feb 2022, 02:12David Thompson wrote: ↑07 Feb 2022, 03:45Let's get back on the subject -- claimed Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict.
Claimed is not proven
''Mass Murder'' by Israel on a WW2 Germany scale? what like the Jammu massacres?sandeepmukherjee196 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2022, 20:40We were discussing Zionist / Israeli war crimes. Then got into definition of war crime. Whereby German mass murder of civilians in France are war crimes but Israeli / Zionist varieties in Palestine, are apparently, nor war crimes.
Then came name calling (troll) and the usual diversions. So an extremely informative thread is now smelling like cheese gone bad!
Cheers
Sandeep
Or maybe the poster is correcting me by pointing out that Israeli / Zionist war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon have been far more numerous than German "non war crimes" in France?
Thanks
Cheers
Sandeep