Tzipi Hotovely and others like her are so full of themselves, repeating history as if they know what they are talking about. Hotovely was being interviewed on the BBC when she went into this BS statement. What is strange is the BBC does not know world history either, more-or-less the history of WWII.
In this modern era, there is a document called the Geneva Convention. The BBC should know the existence of this world-wide document. What most people do not know about the Geneva Convention is, there are four treaties and three additional protocols. It took over 100 years to make this treaty.
From Wikipedia:
The Geneva Conventions are international humanitarian laws consisting of four treaties and three additional protocols that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–1945), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively define the basic rights of wartime prisoners, civilians and military personnel; establish protections for the wounded and sick; and provide protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone.
The Geneva Conventions define the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants who fulfill the criteria of being protected persons. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in their entirety or with reservations, by 196 countries. The Geneva Conventions concern only protected non-combatants in war. The use of wartime conventional weapons is addressed by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, while the biological and chemical warfare in international armed conflicts is addressed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol.
<snip>
The First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" was the fourth update of the original 1864 convention and replaced the 1929 convention on the same subject matter.
The Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" replaced the Hague Convention (X) of 1907. It was the first Geneva Convention on the protection of the victims of maritime warfare and mimicked the structure and provisions of the First Geneva Convention.
The Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" replaced the 1929 Geneva Convention that dealt with prisoners of war.
In addition to these three conventions, the conference also added a new elaborate Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War". It was the first Geneva Convention not to deal with combatants, rather it had the protection of civilians as its subject matter. The 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions had already contained some provisions on the protection of civilians and occupied territory. Article 154 specifically provides that the Fourth Geneva Convention is supplementary to these provisions in the Hague Conventions.
During WWII, the bombing of London, Dresden and other civilian targets was not a war crime. Today it is. Hotovely, being a government official, plus advocating for the bombing of civilian targets, makes her a war criminal. So it goes.
Leaders of the world after WWII came to the same conclusions Uncle Justin and Kurt Vonnegut did. So it goes.
In other news, Gavin Newsom had a visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in China. That must really burn Joe Biden's butt. So it goes.
I may have been mistaken about the BCC. The interview may have been on Sky News. Officials from Israel did go onto UK TV to advocate for an action on Gaza such as the Dresden, Germany in WWII.
No, Dresden had no war production going on at all. That was why the Allies didn't bomb it before they did. Funny you mention Hitler, because he actually made a good decision after Dresden.
Some Germans wanted to execute all British and American POWs in retaliation for Dresden. Hitler refused, by all accounts emphatically.
Just one of those annoying little things that proves no human being is purely Good or Evil.
I think the intent of putting ambassadors like Tzipi Hotovely in charge of a "coexistence" allows an account of history to be re-written. All I seem to hear from the mainstream (get ready, as it's Sunday, and you know you'll hear it again) is projection of what Netanyahu does against an entire population of refugees. I'm not buying it, never bought it, and my only recourse to remind "the government" is in an electronic form that is supposed to represent my US Senators, member of the House and cognitively empty Biden of Cornpop. It is the only path of communication I seem to have. Meanwhile, these insane "Israeli leaders" whine as the rest of the world waits to see a full engagement of everyone in the streets... By that time, Israel will be dealing with their own Final Solution. I'm sick over this. My grandfather and father will join a twist and shout from their graves.
While Don is correct that the Geneva Conventions on non-combatants was only made and ratified after WW2, there were still principles of Just War which should have guided Britain not to target civilians. To begin with, the RAF steered away from targeting civilians, but this changed from 1942, and history has and will continue to judge the fire-bombing of Dresden as a war crime. Bomber Harris was shunned in Britain even before the Geneva Conventions were written.
Because of Allied bombing, 40% of Germany's war effort was funnelled into air defence, and this very significantly drained its war effort elsewhere. Does this justify Bomber Command's strategy from 1942 onward of Morale Bombing? No. There were many other bombing effects which further reduced the Reich's war effort, and they were mainly ones which did target the German war effort, eg against its oil production, which itself bolsters the Just War approach.
Here is a short retort concerning principles during the time of war. Dresden was not the only city in WWII to be firebombed. Tokyo, Japan, was another city burned down to the ground. Although Tokyo may have been more of a military target than Dresden, civilians suffered most of the assault. So why not mention Tokyo? Maybe, just a big maybe, Japan was nuked twice. As we now know, Japan was going to surrender before the nuclear bombs were dropped, and the U.S.A. knew it, but nobody went to jail or were hung for that misdeed. So much for principles.
So today we have the Geneva Convention, which states purposely bombing a civilian population for any reason is a crime against humanity. To further the point, the Geneva Conventions does not provide any exceptions. Nor should today's modern society. Now here is Israel attempting to worm their way around this worldwide rule. Once again, so much for principles.
You are right to point out other firebombed cities and civilians directly targeted, Don. The decay in principled policy that can happen during war is a further admonition for going to war, however just it may seem. Clausewitz warned that while war is partly political, it is also partly "hatred and animosity", which can take over from the reciprocity of restraint; and partly "blind chance". Those last two parts of his Trinity can combine such that unintended killing of civilians by one side encourages the other to retaliate. That is how the RAF changed.
Let's leave the issue of whether the 2 atomic bombs needed to be dropped to another post, however timely it might be with the screening of Oppenheimer.
The Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949 is not comprehensive, as Article 4 (Definition of protected persons) is not synonymous with civilians or non-combatants or innocents but is much narrower as they are "in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals".
Don, you will argue that more laws are needed to plug the gaps. Even while there are gaps, small 'c' convention of Jus In Bello has already established protection for civilians and non-combatants and innocents. For the differences between those protected persons, see Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars. The idea of Discrimination has been established in Principle but not fully in Law.
The idea of Proportionality has been established in Principle, and has also been established this century in Law. "An attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it ... may
be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life ... excessive in relation
Tzipi Hotovely and others like her are so full of themselves, repeating history as if they know what they are talking about. Hotovely was being interviewed on the BBC when she went into this BS statement. What is strange is the BBC does not know world history either, more-or-less the history of WWII.
In this modern era, there is a document called the Geneva Convention. The BBC should know the existence of this world-wide document. What most people do not know about the Geneva Convention is, there are four treaties and three additional protocols. It took over 100 years to make this treaty.
From Wikipedia:
The Geneva Conventions are international humanitarian laws consisting of four treaties and three additional protocols that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–1945), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively define the basic rights of wartime prisoners, civilians and military personnel; establish protections for the wounded and sick; and provide protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone.
The Geneva Conventions define the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants who fulfill the criteria of being protected persons. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in their entirety or with reservations, by 196 countries. The Geneva Conventions concern only protected non-combatants in war. The use of wartime conventional weapons is addressed by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, while the biological and chemical warfare in international armed conflicts is addressed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol.
<snip>
The First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" was the fourth update of the original 1864 convention and replaced the 1929 convention on the same subject matter.
The Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" replaced the Hague Convention (X) of 1907. It was the first Geneva Convention on the protection of the victims of maritime warfare and mimicked the structure and provisions of the First Geneva Convention.
The Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" replaced the 1929 Geneva Convention that dealt with prisoners of war.
In addition to these three conventions, the conference also added a new elaborate Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War". It was the first Geneva Convention not to deal with combatants, rather it had the protection of civilians as its subject matter. The 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions had already contained some provisions on the protection of civilians and occupied territory. Article 154 specifically provides that the Fourth Geneva Convention is supplementary to these provisions in the Hague Conventions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
During WWII, the bombing of London, Dresden and other civilian targets was not a war crime. Today it is. Hotovely, being a government official, plus advocating for the bombing of civilian targets, makes her a war criminal. So it goes.
Leaders of the world after WWII came to the same conclusions Uncle Justin and Kurt Vonnegut did. So it goes.
In other news, Gavin Newsom had a visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in China. That must really burn Joe Biden's butt. So it goes.
I'd be interested in the hyperlink to "Hotovely was being interviewed on the BBC", Don
I may have been mistaken about the BCC. The interview may have been on Sky News. Officials from Israel did go onto UK TV to advocate for an action on Gaza such as the Dresden, Germany in WWII.
https://rumble.com/v3rch6g-gaza-is-our-dresden-say-bloodthirsty-israeli-officials.html
For more info:
https://thegrayzone.com/2023/10/21/israeli-attack-axis-gaza-dresden/
The bombings of Dredson were because that was where Hitler had most of his war productions. The bombings in Gaze are just a war crime and an atrocity.
My Grand-uncle would yell at Israel for bombing civilians.
No, Dresden had no war production going on at all. That was why the Allies didn't bomb it before they did. Funny you mention Hitler, because he actually made a good decision after Dresden.
Some Germans wanted to execute all British and American POWs in retaliation for Dresden. Hitler refused, by all accounts emphatically.
Just one of those annoying little things that proves no human being is purely Good or Evil.
I think the intent of putting ambassadors like Tzipi Hotovely in charge of a "coexistence" allows an account of history to be re-written. All I seem to hear from the mainstream (get ready, as it's Sunday, and you know you'll hear it again) is projection of what Netanyahu does against an entire population of refugees. I'm not buying it, never bought it, and my only recourse to remind "the government" is in an electronic form that is supposed to represent my US Senators, member of the House and cognitively empty Biden of Cornpop. It is the only path of communication I seem to have. Meanwhile, these insane "Israeli leaders" whine as the rest of the world waits to see a full engagement of everyone in the streets... By that time, Israel will be dealing with their own Final Solution. I'm sick over this. My grandfather and father will join a twist and shout from their graves.
While Don is correct that the Geneva Conventions on non-combatants was only made and ratified after WW2, there were still principles of Just War which should have guided Britain not to target civilians. To begin with, the RAF steered away from targeting civilians, but this changed from 1942, and history has and will continue to judge the fire-bombing of Dresden as a war crime. Bomber Harris was shunned in Britain even before the Geneva Conventions were written.
Because of Allied bombing, 40% of Germany's war effort was funnelled into air defence, and this very significantly drained its war effort elsewhere. Does this justify Bomber Command's strategy from 1942 onward of Morale Bombing? No. There were many other bombing effects which further reduced the Reich's war effort, and they were mainly ones which did target the German war effort, eg against its oil production, which itself bolsters the Just War approach.
Here is a short retort concerning principles during the time of war. Dresden was not the only city in WWII to be firebombed. Tokyo, Japan, was another city burned down to the ground. Although Tokyo may have been more of a military target than Dresden, civilians suffered most of the assault. So why not mention Tokyo? Maybe, just a big maybe, Japan was nuked twice. As we now know, Japan was going to surrender before the nuclear bombs were dropped, and the U.S.A. knew it, but nobody went to jail or were hung for that misdeed. So much for principles.
So today we have the Geneva Convention, which states purposely bombing a civilian population for any reason is a crime against humanity. To further the point, the Geneva Conventions does not provide any exceptions. Nor should today's modern society. Now here is Israel attempting to worm their way around this worldwide rule. Once again, so much for principles.
You are right to point out other firebombed cities and civilians directly targeted, Don. The decay in principled policy that can happen during war is a further admonition for going to war, however just it may seem. Clausewitz warned that while war is partly political, it is also partly "hatred and animosity", which can take over from the reciprocity of restraint; and partly "blind chance". Those last two parts of his Trinity can combine such that unintended killing of civilians by one side encourages the other to retaliate. That is how the RAF changed.
Let's leave the issue of whether the 2 atomic bombs needed to be dropped to another post, however timely it might be with the screening of Oppenheimer.
The Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949 is not comprehensive, as Article 4 (Definition of protected persons) is not synonymous with civilians or non-combatants or innocents but is much narrower as they are "in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals".
Don, you will argue that more laws are needed to plug the gaps. Even while there are gaps, small 'c' convention of Jus In Bello has already established protection for civilians and non-combatants and innocents. For the differences between those protected persons, see Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars. The idea of Discrimination has been established in Principle but not fully in Law.
The idea of Proportionality has been established in Principle, and has also been established this century in Law. "An attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it ... may
be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life ... excessive in relation
to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201125/volume-1125-I-17512-English.pdf Article 57 paragraph 2b
The last subsection is key: the Law allows for "collateral damage", as does the Principle of Jus In Bello with the Acts and Omissions Doctrine.
(Just in case you are thinking otherwise, I am a pacifist, and also believe that Britain should have stayed out of WW1 and also out of WW2).