quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi If hamas had israeli weapons, there'd be no ashdod, ashqelon, tel aviv, haifa, etc. I agree with your fundamental points, but as a first world democracy I hold Israeli military action to a higher standard. When you speak of the killing of palestinean civilians as unintentional, I would have to partially disagree. After the war on lebanon, the IDF must have employed a different strategy, evaluating how many enemy citizens one IDF soldier's life is really worth. There was outrage/embarrasment as to how successful hezbollah's infantry was in close quarter battles. In gaza, the collateral damage was weighed against the security of the forces. They very well succeeded at minimizing the cost of soliders'lives this time around(10, with a portion from freindly fire) Definately a concious tradeoff by intelligence and military strategists imo. Case for case, there is still much to be investigated in terms of alleged war crimes.

we should distinguish between the intentional killing of a civilian (e.g., purposefully shooting at an unarmed woman, bombing a residential district even though the IDF does not suspect any militant action in the area) and the acquiescence by the IDF that civilians will die as a result of their actions against militants (e.g., civlian deaths resulting from bombings of militant hideouts that are within a residential area). You may think it's splitting hairs, but it's not the same thing. Think about it, it would be intentional killing of civilians only if the IDF would conduct those activities regardless of whether there was suspected militant actions. Do you really think the IDF would bomb houses in Gaza if they didn't suspect militants were operating there? What goal would that serve for the Israelis?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 we should distinguish between the intentional killing of a civilian (e.g., purposefully shooting at an unarmed woman, bombing a residential district even though the IDF does not suspect any militant action in the area) and the acquiescence by the IDF that civilians will die as a result of their actions against militants (e.g., civlian deaths resulting from bombings of militant hideouts that are within a residential area). You may think it's splitting hairs, but it's not the same thing. Think about it, it would be intentional killing of civilians only if the IDF would conduct those activities regardless of whether there was suspected militant actions. Do you really think the IDF would bomb houses in Gaza if they didn't suspect militants were operating there? What goal would that serve for the Israelis?

I agree with you for the most part that the significant portion of deaths were due to collateral damage of suspected military action initiated by a very capable intelligence organization. This obviously doesn't compare to the shamelessness of random rocket fire that ironically has a good chance of hurting an Israeli Arab(especially if fired from Lebanon).

The rocket firing is obviously the extreme end of the the spectrum( in that its stated goal is to hurt civilians and cause panic),but there are obviously degrees of this misconduct.

I may have not been so clear in my last post, I was trying to say that the more Israel wanted to protect their soldiers in gaza, the more hawkish they would have to be by nailing anything that may have even a remote connection with the Hamas network. In my eyes, less gaza civilian deaths would have come at the expense of more Israeli soldier deaths. War is shit, people are going to die, but I do beleive Israel's action to minimize their soldiers' deaths,albeit successful, are morally questionable. but hey, since morals don't really matter, there are rules to conventional war. Some were broken.

Do I think a mature democracy like Israel would commence a military campaign to blatantly destroy houses that didn't have an iota to do with Hamas action-Fuck no. I do beleive that factions in the army are inclined to engage in questionable practices however, fueled on hatred and racism. The investigations are going on, but Israel took some preemptive measures to protect anyone that the international community thinks has commited warcrimes. What kind of message is this sending for future conflict?

All so, I agree with you that the two are distinguished from each other, but blowing up a coffee shop because Ismail hanyeh took a shit there in 1994 can constitute as a "strategic military initiative" but its equally bollocks as random rocket fire in reality.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi I agree with you for the most part that the significant portion of deaths were due to collateral damage of suspected military action initiated by a very capable intelligence organization. This obviously doesn't compare to the shamelessness of random rocket fire that ironically has a good chance of hurting an Israeli Arab(especially if fired from Lebanon). The rocket firing is obviously the extreme end of the the spectrum( in that its stated goal is to hurt civilians and cause panic),but there are obviously degrees of this misconduct. I may have not been so clear in my last post, I was trying to say that the more Israel wanted to protect their soldiers in gaza, the more hawkish they would have to be by nailing anything that may have even a remote connection with the Hamas network. In my eyes, less gaza civilian deaths would have come at the expense of more Israeli soldier deaths. War is shit, people are going to die, but I do beleive Israel's action to minimize their soldiers' deaths,albeit successful, are morally questionable. but hey, since morals don't really matter, there are rules to conventional war. Some were broken. Do I think a mature democracy like Israel would commence a military campaign to blatantly destroy houses that didn't have an iota to do with Hamas action-Fuck no. I do beleive that factions in the army are inclined to engage in questionable practices however, fueled on hatred and racism. The investigations are going on, but Israel took some preemptive measures to protect anyone that the international community thinks has commited warcrimes. What kind of message is this sending for future conflict? All so, I agree with you that the two are distinguished from each other, but blowing up a coffee shop because Ismail hanyeh took a shit there in 1994 can constitute as a "strategic military initiative" but its equally bollocks as random rocket fire in reality.

i agree 100% with everything you wrote.

They should instead wear Chuck Norris paraphernelia.

i.e. Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 proves what? your response has nothing to do with the sentiment of the people. The civilians that were killed was a consequence of collateral damage, not intentional killings. And, the vast majority of Israeli citizens were not cheering the death of palestinian children. On the other hand, suicide bombers who target civilians get a heroes funeral from average palestinians. I'm not saying Israeli soldiers don't get the same, but for the most part, the killing of Palestinian civilians is unintentional (and a result of the palestinian militants using the people to further their goal to make israel look bad internationally), whereas the israeli civilian is the target (even though few israelis die, if palestinians had israeli weapons you could be sure the number of israeli deaths would increase dramatically). The only reason the death tolls are so disparate, as I allude to in the parenthetical above, is that palestinians make bombs out of fertilizer. If they had 1000 tons lazer guided bombs, who knows how many israeli civlians would be dead. My guess is the number would be much higher than the number of palestinians. /end of discussion (because people like yourself don't see both sides of the issue and feel your are morally correct regardless of the truth).

^

Yeah ... and you living in the US , see both sides of the story clearly i assume ... ?

i am not going to argue with you because in the end , the truth remains , you will never know HALF of what is really going on in Palestine , or any other place outside your hometown !

Just look at this , and rethink your post .. dont reply , just think ... !

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=480281

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSrI...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjw8U0AcH4Q

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/m...hosphorus.gaza/

and just today , March 26th , Human Rights Watch said that Hamas did NOT use civilians as human shields during the Israeli offensive in Gaza ... Or are we not allowed to believe other than what the IDF says ?

Enjoy your spring break !!!!

___________________
Actively Muslim >>> Jerusalem , Palestine !

quote:

Originally posted by qussay ^ Yeah ... and you living in the US , see both sides of the story clearly i assume ... ? i am not going to argue with you because in the end , the truth remains , you will never know HALF of what is really going on in Palestine , or any other place outside your hometown !

If you are from Jordan (as your profile indicates) and are not royalty (or an oilman), I'm sure I have traveled many more places around this globe than you, and experienced many more cultures. The simple fact that I work and live in NYC means i experience the views of people from more cultures in a month than you will in jordan during your entire life. It's kind of difficult to truly understand the perspective of people from outside the muslim world when you live in a country with 98% arabs, 90% muslims, and only about 7% of the people are non jordanian (of which most are likely from other arab countries). That kind of homogeny isn't the most conducive environment to learn about other perspectives. By contrast, I either work with, went to school with, or live in the same neighborhood as people from every part of the world, including many from the middle east (at work i sit near immigrants from Nigeria, Barbados, Peru, China, Korea, Europe, India, and New Zealand; my immediate neighbors are Mexican and Puerto Rican; and I went to two of the most ethnically diverse schools in the US - Rutgers and NYU). Most americans aren't sheltered kids from Iowa. Many americans (especially on the coasts) are exposed to immigrant cultures from varying countries around the world. So, your implication that I don't understand the perspective of non-americans is way off-the-mark!

quote:

Originally posted by qussay Just look at this , and rethink your post .. dont reply , just think ... ! http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=480281 http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSrI...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjw8U0AcH4Q http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/m...hosphorus.gaza/ and just today , March 26th , Human Rights Watch said that Hamas did NOT use civilians as human shields during the Israeli offensive in Gaza ... Or are we not allowed to believe other than what the IDF says ? Enjoy your spring break !!!!

people give 'victims' only so much sympathy, and eventually it gets old. Nothing will change in the middle east until people in the muslim world learn to openly criticize their own ways. Compromises are not achieved by one party succumbing to all the demands of the other party. To achieve standing peace and an accord that neither party despises, both sides must see the strengths of the other side and their own weaknesses. Since people in the muslim world put all the blame squarely on Israel, how can anything ever be achieved (surely israel won't simply give in to all the demands of the muslim world)? Human nature dictates that people are more willing to negotiate when the other side is reasonable. Blaming everything on the party (israel) that is being asked to concede everything is not productive. This is just simple logic.

I'm not saying israel is always right. Sure, they are extremely heavy handed at times. Personally, I would never ok the bombing of residential districts (especially not with phosphorous). I would use more precise means to accomplish my goals. Nevertheless, Israel receives far more internal criticism for its actions than Palestinians do for their actions. As a result, they are more likely to be serious about achieving a realistic compromise.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Mar-26-2009 at 15:17