|
Israeli air strikes on Gaza kill 192 (pg. 30)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Please refrain from addressing me personally, thank you...:rolleyes:
|
Please refrain from roll-eyeing me :rolleyes:
| quote: |
And the USSR was sworn to the destruction of America. But the two still dealt with each other didn't they? And yes, the blockade has a lot to do with the current campaign of rocket strikes because more rockets are being launched now than ever before the blockade. It's easy to call Hamas a fascist terrorist organization, then again, it's easy to call Israel a Zionist terrorist aparteid state. Where are we? Absolutely nowhere. |
The big difference is that Islamist terror organizations are radical up to suicidal and in their essence theological and thus reluctant to rational arguments.
Again, please, at least take a few seconds to think about it: Fatah / the PLO was, although radical and violent at times, always secular and politically motivated. Hamas is beyond politics. Current political issues (once it was the occupation and the settelements, after the disengagement it's the "blockade", next it will be Jerusalem, then the refugees, then, eventually, the core problem, namel Israel's very existence) are means of justification. They are tools. I admit that as long as these "excuses" can be grasped, the might find more followers. But on the other hand, as I already tried to point out in my previous post, "desperation" alone does not smuggle rockets and establish a highly sophisticated terror infrastructure. Hamas is the catalyst that is consciously perptuating the Palestinian misery in order to maintain their fertile recruitment soil. You're confusing cause and effect. |
|
|
| Flotser |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
How else would they resist a blockade?
|
after israel withdrew form Gaza there was no blockade.
blockades were always imposed in response to rocket attacks.
The same was during 6-month truce this year, there were no blockades, but only afttaer rocket attaks:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...e+--+World+News
Associated Press / June 25, 2008
| quote: | Palestinian militants fired three homemade rockets into southern Israel yesterday, threatening to unravel a cease-fire days after it began, and Israel responded by closing vital border crossings into Gaza.
Despite what it called a "gross violation" of the truce, Israel refrained from military action and said it would send an envoy soon to Egypt to work on the next stage of a broader cease-fire agreement: a prisoner swap that would bring home an Israeli soldier held by Hamas for more than two years. |
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
That they aren't very good at what they do does not make their orientation any less contemptible. |
of course not. but it should mitigate how you choose to engage with them. ordered & advanced states have a higher level of responsibility when it comes to 'international' relations, especially when they possess the big stick. its like beating each of your children within an inch of their life for the behaviour of one.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Moreover, it is impossible to know how much more successful they might be at killing Israelis but for complained-of actions of Israel to protect itself in the past, |
and its also impossible to know how much less influence they might have had in the region but for the complained-of actions of israel to 'protect' itself in the past.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
and it is also impossible to know how much more successful they might become in the future if allowed to fester. |
well, its been festering now for an awfully long time and i see no evidence of a significant increase in their capability of killing israelis, particularly civilians.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well, that's an inevitable result of armed conflict with an enemy located in dense civilian areas. |
true, but i think we have a pretty well-established history of israel's tendency to be indiscriminate.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
If we hesitate to use necessary force to eliminate them because of the unfortunate side-effect of destroying civilian infrastructure, we only provide every other such group the world-over with an incentive to similarly structure their organizations so that they cannot be attacked without destroying civilian infrastructure. |
its a matter of proportion. how can a couple dozen rocket-attack deaths over a decade warrant the wholesale slaughter of hundreds or thousands of people? the level or number of casualties hamas wreaks on israel is barely organised crime.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
In the long run, this state of affairs (which is already occurring) will serve to cause even more suffering. This misguided pseudo-humanitarianism is a particularly insidious ideology, spawned by a toxic mixture of myopia and false hope; save a life today, lose five later.[ I think it's a lousy bargain, but that is precisely the bargain that is achieved time and time again by "international pressure" on Israel. |
i dunno mate. israel's encroachment since 1967 looks and smells an awful lot like genocide, and im not sure whose lives you think might be saved in the future by murdering many today. are you saying that saving the next two-dozen israelis to be killed by rockets in the next decade justifies killing hundreds of palistinians?
| quote: | [b]Originally posted by Arbiter
I do not blame anyone for being dismayed when they see the carnage of war, but it is a mistake to infer from the fact that it is horrible that the alternative is preferable. Cancer treatments have the unfortunate effect of harming healthy human cells, but they are still cost-justified. Well, Hamas is a cancer, and delaying treatment is ill-advised. |
good point, but it often feels as though israel is cutting off both legs to treat the cancer in one foot. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Please refrain from roll-eyeing me :rolleyes: |
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:p
| quote: | | The big difference is that Islamist terror organizations are radical up to suicidal and in their essence theological and thus reluctant to rational arguments. |
And what, extremist Jewist settlers are not?
| quote: | | Again, please, at least take a few seconds to think about it: Fatah / the PLO was, although radical and violent at times, always secular and politically motivated. Hamas is beyond politics. Current political issues (once it was the occupation and the settelements, after the disengagement it's the "blockade", next it will be Jerusalem, then the refugees, then, eventually, the core problem, namel Israel's very existence) are means of justification. They are tools. I admit that as long as these "excuses" can be grasped, the might find more followers. But on the other hand, as I already tried to point out in my previous post, "desperation" alone does not smuggle rockets and establish a highly sophisticated terror infrastructure. Hamas is the catalyst that is consciously perptuating the Palestinian misery in order to maintain their fertile recruitment soil. You're confusing cause and effect. |
And what, are you telling me Jews don't believe they have a "Promised Land" from god? Tell me, how can you negotiate with someone who believes god is on their side? The extremist Zionists are no better than the extremist Muslims. Only difference is the Zionists are in a much stronger position.
As for the blockade, it was initiated after Hamas rightly took control of the Gaza Strip, not in response to rockets. I can pull up sources if you so desire. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, its been festering now for an awfully long time and i see no evidence of a significant increase in their capability of killing israelis, particularly civilians. |
I don't mean this in a smart ass way at all, but it sounds silly that you are using that statement as an argument because, how are you personally qualified to comment on such evidence?
| quote: | | its a matter of proportion. how can a couple dozen rocket-attack deaths over a decade warrant the wholesale slaughter of hundreds or thousands of people? the level or number of casualties hamas wreaks on israel is barely organised crime. |
The proportionality defense is weak: war is not a tit-for-tat thing where fairness is defined as killing no more than you lose. [Victor D. Hanson]
I think this article puts things into really good perspective, and as one of the more logical thinkers on this forum, I'd like you know your opinion about it.
| quote: | The 'Oldest Hatred'
by Mark Steyn
In Toronto, anti-Israel demonstrators yell "You are the brothers of pigs!", and a protester complains to his interviewer that "Hitler didn't do a good job."
In Fort Lauderdale, Palestinian supporters sneer at Jews, "You need a big oven, that's what you need!"
In Amsterdam, the crowd shouts, "Hamas, Hamas! Jews to the gas!"
Forget, for the moment, Gaza. Forget that the Palestinian people are the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the earth. For the past sixty years they have been entrusted to the care of the United Nations, the Arab League, the PLO, Hamas and the "global community" — and the results are pretty much what you'd expect. You would have to be very hardhearted not to weep at the sight of dead Palestinian children, but you would also have to accord a measure of blame to the Hamas officials who choose to use grade schools as launch pads for Israeli-bound rockets, and to the UN refugee agency that turns a blind eye to it. And, even if you don't deplore Fatah and Hamas for marinating their infants in a sick death cult in which martyrdom in the course of Jew-killing is the greatest goal to which a citizen can aspire, any fair-minded visitor to the West Bank or Gaza in the decade and a half in which the "Palestinian Authority" has exercised sovereign powers roughly equivalent to those of the nascent Irish Free State in 1922 would have to concede that the Palestinian "nationalist movement" has a profound shortage of nationalists interested in running a nation, or indeed capable of doing so. There is fault on both sides, of course, and Israel has few good long-term options. But, if this was a conventional ethno-nationalist dispute, it would have been over long ago.
But why worry about European Muslims? The European political and media class essentially shares the same view of the situation — to the point where state TV stations are broadcasting fake Israeli "war crimes." As I always say, the "oldest hatred" didn't get that way without an ability to adapt: Once upon a time on the Continent, Jews were hated as rootless cosmopolitan figures who owed no national allegiance. So they became a conventional nation state, and now they're hated for that. And, if Hamas get their way and destroy the Jewish state, the few who survive will be hated for something else. So it goes.
In Paris, the state-owned TV network France-2 broadcasts film of dozens of dead Palestinians killed in an Israeli air raid on New Year's Day. The channel subsequently admits that, in fact, the footage is not from January 1st 2009 but from 2005, and, while the corpses are certainly Palestinian, they were killed when a truck loaded with Hamas explosives detonated prematurely while leaving the Jabaliya refugee camp in another of those unfortunate work-related accidents to which Gaza is sadly prone. Conceding that the Palestinians supposedly killed by Israel were, alas, killed by Hamas, France-2 says the footage was broadcast "accidentally."
In Toulouse, a synagogue is firebombed; in Bordeaux, two kosher butchers are attacked; at the Auber RER train station, a Jewish man is savagely assaulted by 20 youths taunting, "Palestine will kill the Jews;" in Villiers-le-Bel, a Jewish schoolgirl is brutally beaten by a gang jeering, "Jews must die."
In Helsingborg, the congregation at a Swedish synagogue takes shelter as a window is broken and burning cloths thrown in; in Odense, principal Olav Nielsen announces that he will no longer admit Jewish children to the local school after a Dane of Lebanese extraction goes to the shopping mall and shoots two men working at the Dead Sea Products store; in Brussels, a Molotov cocktail is hurled at a Belgian synagogue; in Antwerp, lit rags are pushed through the mail flap of a Jewish home; and, across the Channel, "youths" attempt to burn the Brondesbury Park Synagogue.
In London, the police advise British Jews to review their security procedures because of potential revenge attacks. The Sun reports "fears" that "Islamic extremists" are drawing up a "hit list" of prominent Jews, including the Foreign Secretary, Amy Winehouse's record producer, and the late Princess of Wales's divorce lawyer. Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that Islamic non-extremists from the British Muslim Forum, the Islamic Foundation and other impeccably respectable "moderate" groups have warned the government that the Israelis' "disproportionate force" in Gaza risks inflaming British Muslims, "reviving extremist groups," and provoking "UK terrorist attacks" — not against Amy Winehouse's record producer and other sinister members of the International Jewish Conspiracy but against targets of, ah, more general interest.
So, as I said, forget Gaza. And instead ponder the reaction to Gaza in Scandinavia, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and golly, even Florida. As the delegitimization of Israel has metastasized, we are assured that criticism of the Jewish state is not the same as anti-Semitism. We are further assured that anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism, which is a wee bit more of a stretch. Only Israel attracts an intellectually respectable movement querying its very existence. For the purposes of comparison, let's take a state that came into existence at the exact same time as the Zionist Entity, and involved far bloodier population displacements. I happen to think the creation of Pakistan was the greatest failure of post-war British imperial policy. But the fact is that Pakistan exists, and if I were to launch a movement of anti-Pakism it would get pretty short shrift.
But, even allowing for that, what has a schoolgirl in Villiers-le-Bel to do with Israeli government policy? Just last month terrorists attacked Bombay, seized hostages, tortured them, killed them, and mutilated their bodies. The police intercepts of the phone conversations between the terrorists and their controllers make for lively reading:
"Pakistan caller 1: 'Kill all hostages, except the two Muslims. Keep your phone switched on so that we can hear the gunfire.'
"Mumbai terrorist 2: 'We have three foreigners, including women. From Singapore and China.'
"Pakistan caller 1: 'Kill them.'
"(Voices of gunmen can be heard directing hostages to stand in a line, and telling two Muslims to stand aside. Sound of gunfire. Sound of cheering voices.)"
"Kill all hostages, except the two Muslims." Tough for those Singaporean women. Yet no mosques in Singapore have been attacked. The large Hindu populations in London, Toronto, and Fort Lauderdale have not shouted "Muslims must die!" or firebombed Halal butchers or attacked hijab-clad schoolgirls. CAIR and other Muslim lobby groups' eternal bleating about "Islamophobia" is in inverse proportion to any examples of it. Meanwhile, "moderate Muslims" in London warn the government: "I'm a peaceful fellow myself, but I can't speak for my excitable friends. Nice little G7 advanced western democracy you got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it."
But Jew-hating has consequences for the Jew-hater, too. A few years ago the poet Nizar Qabbani wrote an ode to the intifada:
O mad people of Gaza,
a thousand greetings to the mad
The age of political reason
has long departed
so teach us madness
You can just about understand why living in Gaza would teach you madness. The enthusiastic adoption of the same pathologies by mainstream Europe is even more deranged — and in the end will prove just as self-destructive.
|
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I don't mean this in a smart ass way at all, but it sounds silly that you are using that statement as an argument because, how are you personally qualified to comment on such evidence? |
oh right, because israel keeps the number of attacks by hamas and the result of them a state secret? lol.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
The proportionality defense is weak: war is not a tit-for-tat thing where fairness is defined as killing no more than you lose. [Victor D. Hanson] |
proportion is how mature states conduct international relations. it has nothing to do with 'tit for tat', its more like "if hamas fire rockets into israel that don't hit anything, you don't invade and slaughter hundreds of civilians". |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Heck, even some prominent British Jews, who are staunch supporters of Israel, are buckling here ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7822656.stm
| quote: |
UK Jews demand Israeli ceasefire
A number of prominent British Jews have written an open letter calling on the Israeli government to halt its military operations in Gaza immediately.
The letter, published in the Observer, warns the military action, far from improving security, will strengthen extremism and destabilise the region.
The signatories, who declare themselves "passionate supporters of Israel", include several rabbis.
The first major rally in support of Israel in the UK will take place later.
Prominent rabbis, academics and political figures supported the open letter, including Rabbi Dr Tony Bayfield, head of the Movement for Reform Judaism; Sir Jeremy Beecham, former chairman of the Labour party; Professor Shalom Lappin of the University of London and Baroness Julia Neuberger.
Pro-Israeli rally
They write: "We look upon the increasing loss of life on both sides of the Gaza conflict with horror.
"We have no doubt that rocket attacks into southern Israel, by Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups, are war crimes against Israel.
"No sovereign state should, or would, tolerate continued attacks and the deliberate targeting of civilians.
Israeli army paratrooper moving through the Gaza Strip - IDF handout picture
Israel has warned its may intensify its two-week-old offensive
"Israel had a right to respond and we support the Israeli government's decision to make stopping the rocket attacks an urgent priority.
"However, we believe that now only negotiations can secure long-term security for Israel and the region."
Earlier Jewish officials reacted angrily after a hoax e-mail claimed a rally planned to take place in London on Sunday had been cancelled.
The event at Trafalgar Square is expected to draw thousands of people - it will be the first major rally organised by the Jewish community in the UK over Israel's offensive against Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.
The e-mail purported to come from the UK's Jewish communal leadership, the Board of Deputies (BoD).
A rally is also being held in Manchester.
'8,000 rockets'
BoD chief executive John Benjamin said despite support for Israel's position, the events are primarily a call for peace.
He said: "Certainly I think the people who will be there will understand that Israel has felt it necessary to take action to stop the many thousands of rockets that have been launched from Gaza in the last several years.
"We're not just talking about the last two weeks but over the course of years I think there have been something like 8,000 rockets.
"So, there is an understanding of that position but it's not a rally that is either commending exactly what's going on on day by day, or even, as British Jews and British Christians and others who are coming together, making a statement about the military action - it's a call for peace."
Protesters at Hyde Park Corner
Pro-Palestinian protesters have already been out in force
On Saturday thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched through London to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
The protest started peacefully but there were confrontations as police tried to move demonstrators away from the gates of the Israeli embassy.
Protests also took place in Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Belfast, Newcastle and Southampton.
In Gaza three Palestinians have been killed and dozens more injured by new Israeli tank fire and air strikes, according to medical sources.
Reports of the deaths came hours after Israel dropped leaflets warning Gazans to stay away from areas used by Hamas, saying its operation would escalate.
Some 820 Gazans and 13 Israelis have reportedly died in 14 days of fighting. |
|
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
proportion is how mature states conduct international relations. it has nothing to do with 'tit for tat', its more like "if hamas fire rockets into israel that don't hit anything, you don't invade and slaughter hundreds of civilians". |
"slaughter hundreds of citizens"... sweet propoganda lingo. It's simple; Hamas asked for it, and strategically placed their points of interest within those civillian populations for the very reason of hoping they'd get slaughtered to exploit them and play victim to the world. If anything, Hamas is at fault for their "slaughter". Go back and re-read Arbiter's last 2 posts... his argument is objective and emotionless, and makes what you say not so credible when compared. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
true, but i think we have a pretty well-established history of israel's tendency to be indiscriminate. |
At best, that's in dispute. I certainly do not grant it -- in fact, I think Israel's efforts to avoid killing civilians have compromised the effectiveness of their operations and also provided Hamas with a perverse incentive to structure their conduct so as to ensure greater civilian casualties when Israel engages them (although the foolishness of the international community provides some incentive in either case, unfortunately.)
It's really very simple: if Hamas knows that Israel is less likely to attack a position where there are likely to be large numbers of citizens, then Hamas has an incentive to locate its weapons/personnel/et cetera in that area. The result over time is more civilian casualties than if Israel was not less likely to attack a position where there are likely to be large numbers of citizens.
| quote: | | its a matter of proportion. how can a couple dozen rocket-attack deaths over a decade warrant the wholesale slaughter of hundreds or thousands of people? the level or number of casualties hamas wreaks on israel is barely organised crime. |
Proportion is irrelevant; this is not a "punishment" being meted out in response to a particular act. The amount of force that is appropriate is the amount of force reasonably necessary to accomplish the end to which the force is directed -- the removal of Hamas and elimination of like-minded individuals and organizations. A response proportional to mere present detriments to Israel would not be effective to this end.
That said, if Israel eventually relents without actually accomplishing that objective -- which is likely -- then that is even worse than having done nothing to begin with. I am certainly not advocating that.
| quote: | | i dunno mate. israel's encroachment since 1967 looks and smells an awful lot like genocide, and im not sure whose lives you think might be saved in the future by murdering many today. are you saying that saving the next two-dozen israelis to be killed by rockets in the next decade justifies killing hundreds of palistinians? |
Well, it's the absolute worst job I've ever seen of genocide, if that's the case -- why, they aren't even killing them faster than they're reproducing, so this "genocide" is poised to take a literally infinite amount of time. There also seems to be surprisingly little evidence of any intent on the part of Israel to kill the many Palestinians currently living peaceably within Israel as Israeli citizens...
Casualties directly caused by rocket attacks alone would not justify a response of the magnitude I am suggesting; however, they must be considered in context. The indefinite persistence of terrorist elements in Gaza has two serious consequences: first, it creates an unquantifiable risk of future casualties to both Israelis and Palestinians that is the product of postponing addressing the problem, which is not realistically going to resolve itself through mere idleness. Since both populations are likely to grow, and the destructive capabilities of both sides are likely to increase, casualties will likely be higher in the future than they are presently -- not even counting casualties incurred on both sides in the meantime as the Palestinians continue to do everything they can to kill Israelis, and the Israelis continue to impose harsh restrictions in an effort to reduce the Palestinians' capacity to do so. Second, it makes negotiation with the Palestinians impracticable, thereby ensuring the perpetuation of their present circumstances. Since no concession can be made to the Palestinians while they are engaging in terrorism without providing an incentive (not only to Palestinians, but any group the world over which considers itself to be aggrieved) to engage in terrorism, it follows that eliminating the terrorists is a necessary first step which must be taken before we can begin to move forward with plans to hopefully resolve their grievances.
I would be happy to endorse a less costly solution to the problem; however, for all the hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of people who I've seen argue against Israeli "aggression" I have yet to see one of them who can offer a realistic alternative. That alone is quite telling... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
"slaughter hundreds of citizens"... sweet propoganda lingo. It's simple; Hamas asked for it, and strategically placed their points of interest within those civillian populations for the very reason of hoping they'd get slaughtered to exploit them and play victim to the world. If anything, Hamas is at fault for their "slaughter". Go back and re-read Arbiter's last 2 posts... his argument is objective and emotionless, and makes what you say not so credible when compared. |
Well, luckily for me I am similar to most people here in that I don't give two s about your opinion in politics. |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
nice touch with the white phosphorus ;)
Israel-breaking International law for over half a century with grace:thepirate |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
At best, that's in dispute. I certainly do not grant it -- in fact, I think Israel's efforts to avoid killing civilians have compromised the effectiveness of their operations and also provided Hamas with a perverse incentive to structure their conduct so as to ensure greater civilian casualties when Israel engages them (although the foolishness of the international community provides some incentive in either case, unfortunately.) |
Well, let's look at our most recent high-profile example.
| quote: |
Amnesty International's report, Israel/Lebanon, Out of all proportion – civilians bear the brunt of the war, concludes that Israeli forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, such as the sustained artillery bombardment of south Lebanon. Of particular concern was the widespread use of cluster bombs in civilian areas in the last days of fighting, leaving a lethal legacy that continues to blight civilian lives. Other attacks indicate that Israeli forces consistently failed to adopt necessary precautionary measures to avoid civilian casualties. |
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...20352006en.html
The full report may be read here
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...20332006en.html
And from human rights watch
| quote: |
Human Rights Watch investigated some two dozen bombing incidents in Lebanon involving a third of the civilians who by then had been killed. In none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack.
How do we know? Through the same techniques we use in war zones around the world to cut through people's incentive to lie. We probed and cross-checked multiple eyewitnesses, many of whom talked openly of Hizbullah's presence elsewhere but were adamant that Hizbullah was not at the scene of the attack. We examined bombing sites for evidence of military activity such as trenches, destroyed rocket launchers and military equipment, or dead or wounded fighters. If we were unsure, we gave the IDF the benefit of the doubt.
…
So what was the cause of so many civilian deaths? The IDF seemed to assume that, because it gave warnings to civilians to evacuate southern Lebanon, anyone who remained was a Hizbullah fighter. When the IDF saw a civilian home or vehicle that Hizbullah might use, it often bombed, even if, as in Kana, Srifa, Marwahin, or Aitaroun, there was no evidence that Hizbullah was in fact using the structure or vehicle at the time of attack. In weighing the military advantage of an attack against the civilian cost, the IDF seemed to assume no civilian cost, because all the "innocent" civilians had supposedly fled. Through these calculations, the IDF effectively turned southern Lebanon into a free-fire zone. |
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/08/...ate-bombardment
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
It's really very simple: if Hamas knows that Israel is less likely to attack a position where there are likely to be large numbers of citizens, then Hamas has an incentive to locate its weapons/personnel/et cetera in that area. The result over time is more civilian casualties than if Israel was not less likely to attack a position where there are likely to be large numbers of citizens. |
I understand the argument, I just think it’s a moot point because such organisations will always do this, knowing that if/when retribution comes it will make israel look bad. Im not criticising their decision to engage in warfare in population centres, im criticising their decision to invade based on the low level threat they have been enduring.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Proportion is irrelevant; this is not a "punishment" being meted out in response to a particular act. The amount of force that is appropriate is the amount of force reasonably necessary to accomplish the end to which the force is directed -- the removal of Hamas and elimination of like-minded individuals and organizations. A response proportional to mere present detriments to Israel would not be effective to this end. |
I never said it was "punishment"; but state's have an obligation to grade the threats to their property and people and respond accordingly. At least, that's how mature states operate in regards to foreign policy or international relations. By your reasoning any state should be able to do whatever they wish as long as the force is appropriate to accomplish whatever aim they desire. Not a very wise yardstick to use world-wide I wouldn't have thought.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well, it's the absolute worst job I've ever seen of genocide, if that's the case -- why, they aren't even killing them faster than they're reproducing, so this "genocide" is poised to take a literally infinite amount of time. There also seems to be surprisingly little evidence of any intent on the part of Israel to kill the many Palestinians currently living peaceably within Israel as Israeli citizens… |
The last time I checked, the forceful removal of a people from their land is defined as genocide as far as the UN is concerned. And this is what israel has been doing gradually for the last several decades. How many UN resolutions have called for the abandonment of occupied-territory settlements? How many people have been displaced to make room for jewish-only towns? I wasn't aware there had to be "X amount of deaths per Y hours" to classify something as genocide?
Sure, this is merely opinion but just wanted to point out that im not the only one that thinks so.
| quote: |
On Dec. 28, 2006, the Israeli human rights organization Betzelem published its annual report on Israeli atrocities in the occupied territories. In 2006, Israeli forces killed 660 citizens, triple the number of the previous year (around 200). Most of the dead are from the Gaza Strip, where Israeli forces demolished almost 300 houses and have slain entire families. Since 2000, almost 4,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces, half of them children, and more than 20,000 wounded.
The point is not just about escalating intentional killings but the strategy.
Annexation
Israeli policy makers are facing two very different realities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the former, they are finishing construction of their eastern border. Their internal ideological debate is over, and their master plan for annexing half of the West Bank is gaining speed.
The last phase was delayed due to the promises made by Israel, under the Road Map, not to build new settlements. Israel found two ways of circumventing this. First, it defined a third of the West Bank as Greater Jerusalem, which allowed it to build towns and community centers within this new annexed area. Second, it expanded old settlements to such proportions that there was no need to build new ones.
Creeping Transfer
The settlements, army bases, roads and the wall will allow Israel to annex almost half of the West Bank by 2010. Within these territories, Israeli authorities will continue to implement creeping transfer policies against the considerable number of Palestinians who remain.
There is no rush. As far as the Israeli are concerned they have the upper hand there; the daily abusive and dehumanizing combination of army and bureaucracy effectively adds to the dispossession process. |
http://www.countercurrents.org/pappe280108.htm
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Casualties directly caused by rocket attacks alone would not justify a response of the magnitude I am suggesting; however, they must be considered in context. The indefinite persistence of terrorist elements in Gaza has two serious consequences: first, it creates an unquantifiable risk of future casualties to both Israelis and Palestinians that is the product of postponing addressing the problem, which is not realistically going to resolve itself through mere idleness. Since both populations are likely to grow, and the destructive capabilities of both sides are likely to increase, casualties will likely be higher in the future than they are presently -- not even counting casualties incurred on both sides in the meantime as the Palestinians continue to do everything they can to kill Israelis, and the Israelis continue to impose harsh restrictions in an effort to reduce the Palestinians' capacity to do so. Second, it makes negotiation with the Palestinians impracticable, thereby ensuring the perpetuation of their present circumstances. Since no concession can be made to the Palestinians while they are engaging in terrorism without providing an incentive (not only to Palestinians, but any group the world over which considers itself to be aggrieved) to engage in terrorism, it follows that eliminating the terrorists is a necessary first step which must be taken before we can begin to move forward with plans to hopefully resolve their grievances. |
And why do you think current military activities will be any more successful in defeating the terrorists and terrorism than any of the failed operations in the past? Whilst I certainly blame hamas for their lack of commitment to politics without violence, israel's continued prescence in the occupied territories is hardly a blameless exercise. In other words, why is your emphasis purely on hamas' rather insiginifant commitment to violence, and not on israel's policy of creeping expansion?
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I would be happy to endorse a less costly solution to the problem; however, for all the hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of people who I've seen argue against Israeli "aggression" I have yet to see one of them who can offer a realistic alternative. That alone is quite telling... |
Well, that's where we'd agree that hamas need to learn what it means to be elected officials. But israel needs to abandon their process of settlement in the occupied territories, and stop carving up ghetto gaza and the west bank for their own Lebensraum. I wish I could find that picture of the israeli roads that criss-cross all over the territories making any chance of a real & viable palestinian state a ing joke. |
|
|
|
|
