Israel and Palestine.

[N. Escalona]

@N. Escalona: Atrocities are actions shockingly cruel or inhumane.

This is no political stunt. Israel has already admitted to breaking international law by using phosphorous shells, a chemical weapon that burns through flesh. Beyond that, bombing the city of Gaza was a very questionable maneuver which many claim to be illegal.

White phosphorus has legitimate uses in warfare. We could discuss that, but it would be missing the larger picture.

How would you have had the IDF conduct the attack, except by bombing within the city? Illegal (under what government?) or not, it seems to me to have been the best way of getting things done.

My question, then, is what are atrocities in this context?

I dunno, how about shooting unarmed children? Bombing schools and hospitals? Setting UN buildings on fire? Bombing as many innocent kids as armed enemies?

Seeing how Israel runs its wars these days, maybe this doesn't qualify as shockingly cruel or inhumane.

I'm going to need evidence before I can accept any of these vague assertions.

[Dascoo]

I dunno, how about shooting unarmed children? Bombing schools and hospitals? Setting UN buildings on fire? Bombing as many innocent kids as armed enemies?

Liberal media propoganda.

[ElephantHunter]

@N. Escalona: If the decision were up to me, Operation Cast Lead would never have taken place. There would be no attack on Gaza. Most importantly, hundreds of innocent people would still be alive.

January 6th 2009 - Israeli Shells Kill 40 at Gaza U.N. School
January 15th - Israeli forces shell UN headquarters [and hospital] in Gaza

[N. Escalona]

@N. Escalona: If the decision were up to me, Operation Cast Lead would never have taken place. There would be no attack on Gaza. Most importantly, hundreds of innocent people would still be alive.

January 6th 2009 - Israeli Shells Kill 40 at Gaza U.N. School
January 15th - Israeli forces shell UN headquarters [and hospital] in Gaza

The Israeli military contended that Hamas fighters had fired mortars from the school compound, and United Nations officials called for an independent inquiry into the episode.
...
“They shot back to save their own lives,” said Ilan Tal, an Israeli military spokesman and a brigadier general in the reserves. Among the dead, the military said in a statement, were “Hamas terrorist operatives and a mortar battery cell.”

The military identified two Hamas operatives, Imad Abu Asker and Hassan Abu Asker, as having been killed.

That's enough for me.

He said Barak told him there had been a "grave mistake" and promised to pay extra attention to protecting U.N. installations.

This was a disaster. Disasters tend to occur in wars, and they should be avoided. The occurrence of a disaster does not mean that the military commanders of Israel are at fault. It also has no impact on the question of whether the invasion was just.

[Demonic]

You see, there has been a shift in regards of military mentality. If you take the previous example for the same scenario, Germany and Britain in WW2 with the terror bombings of London, the logical step to take was to amass forces and drive the germans out of range.

However, since democracy is very, very vulnerable to the manipulation of the masses, this is not possible anymore. Taking that number of troops would result in a lot more casualties from the IDF's side [I emphasis: military personel], but each soldier that comes home in a coffin takes it's heavy toll on the popularity polls. Thus, while Israel has the equipment to spare the life of it's soldiers, it will use it, even if it does 'colletoral damage' on civilians. Long story short, because of the elections around the corner, Israel can't afford losing soldiers, and will operate on the math of 1 IDF soldier > any number of palestinian civilians. [the dodgy point of this is accepting that a land force could precisely take out hamas soldiers, whilst bombardment leaves God to sort them out.]

[Slashnoob]

This thread has turned into a s**tfest faster than I thought, but it's not so bad and full of misinformation as it would be if m00 was present I suppose.

Anyway, yes, civilians are killed. Ever asked yourself why? It's not like Israel enjoys the global pressure everytime a boy is shown dead on TV.
It's just highly irrational to blame Israel for the killing of civilians when Hamas is shooting rockets at civilians on the Israeli side while using overpopulated civilian neighborhoods, schools, mosques as launching platforms.

You can use the good'ol "ISRAEL BREAKS INTERNATIONAL LAW THEY ARE SHOOTING SCHOOLS" - but have you ever wondered why are they shooting schools? What military, politicaly, moraly or any kind of goal would that accomplish for the Israelies?

I'd like to hear about those "other options" you speak about, instead of a military campaign. The Hamas is doing this for the past 8 years, every effort to use a political solution has been ended with Hamas declaring again they do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

The whole "if you support Israel you are mad" is just idiotic and should not even be approached, so I will ignore that one ofcourse.

Anyway, untill there is a suggestion for a peacfull solution to all of this, I'll post some of my own opinions.

Opinion: About Hamas - Hamas staying in power means doom for the Palestinians. They will not go through the 'divine road' as Hamas promises them.
Hell, Hamas is exploiting the people's innocence or their pure weakness being unarmed, and 'convinces' them to join it's noble cause and become "martyrs". Yes, by their definition, anyone who even contributes money to the organisation but gets killed by it's own members in the end is a holy martyr. They are so desperate into brainwashing it's own people (the Palestinians ofcourse) that they even dared to declare a 'divine victory', while that idea is being supported by all kinds of mental arab leaders from the region (Ahmedinejad, Assad, Nasralla, Kadafi). You tell me - how in any way did Hamas achieved victory? By not being completley decimated? No, Israel's goals were to bring some quiet to the whole Israeli bombed aread. Israel even stated that it's possible that during the operation, there will be an increased number of rockets being launched. One of the goals by Israel was to topple Hamas, altho that was just a single announce out of Livni who is soon going through elections, Hamas' regime got pretty much toppled. The current cease-fire wasn't even negotiated with Hamas as it was in the past, and the Palestinian Authority is seemingly taking control again.
There is no way in hell a sane person would even dare to say Hamas has won in this conflict.

About the Palestinians - They deserve their land. Altho, I will strongly be against it aslong as they are being led by terrorist organisations like Hamas and it's minions.
These poor people are presented to the world by leftist media networks as people that are constantly being harassed by Israelies. That's just not it.
Before this operation Israel was not even inside Gaza, Israel pulled off from Gaza about three years ago, and was constantly evecuating illegal settlements(1) in order to please the Palestinian people. Israel is also providing gas(2), electricity and funds transfering(3) into the strip in order to try and stabilize the region untill there's a governing force on their behalf that can declare independence.
1. Each and every Israeli settlement that was evacuated (by Israel ofcourse), has been used as a launching area by Hamas (even in this very conflict) in order to increase their rocket range. What kind of reason would Israel have to evacuate more settlements while Hamas is in power if things like this are happening to the land it returns?
2. Gas transfering stations maintained by Israeli workers that their only purpose was to transfer gas into Gasa have been constantly bombed by Hamas. What kind of backwards approach is that? Mind you, they are still operational, and gas is being transfered into Gaza even now.
3. Funding for the Palestinians is valued by astronomical figures. Yet, what is it being used for? It takes a very one-sided approach to ignore the fact that Hamas has a seemingly endless supply of rockets, launchers, and a whole underground city built to smuggle even more weapons, while there are barely any schools, educational industries, industries at all, and a proper infrastructure in general. What is the point in complaining about the economical crisis in Gaza when a single militant organisation is using almost every last bit of the funding to purchase more weapons and maintain it's weapon factories?
So yeah, there are borders and a blockade, but did you ever wondered why are there borders and a blockade? Is it just because Israel is feeling a need to revenge about what the Nazis did to them? Is it just because Israeli leaders are insane? No, it's because without the blockade Hamas was getting constantly re-armed. That is why the smuggling tunnels were invented.
Things like this will happen every now and then if the blockade was off. That article explains how Iran, used a Cyprus-flagged ship in order to transfer weapons into Gaza. Gee, where have I heard that one before? Was it "THE EVIL JOOISH NAVY IS PREVENTING OUR SHIPS TO ENTER GAZA AND DELIVER HUMANITARIAN HELP" from Ahmedinejad during the war? Yeah, so much for the humanitarian aid.
About the borders. Borders are simply a result of suicide bombers, simple as that. There was a time that every month had it's terror event that was either a suicide bomber setting itself off inside an Israeli club filled with minors, or some terrorist armed with AK47 that crashed into weddings and started shooting everybody untill it's out of ammo or it was stopped somehow, suicide bombings in buses and on and on.. That, I bet, has not recieved that much global coverage because it didn't have the "Strong harassing the weak" factor. I havn't seen any european country or the UN itself calling those actions 'atrocities' or even condemning them, no, it asked for Israel to show restraint.
..Anyhow, that is the purpose of border checks, and I support sticking with them. I was really fed up with going into a night out, or just taking the bus, with fears that someone is going to detonate itself near me.
To add to the fact that Israel is barely the biggest enemy of the Palestinian people like it is presented as, you could dig up and read what happens to any Palestinian be it an innocent child, or a pregnant woman, if they try to cross the Egyptian border. Hint: They get shot. Do I hear anything about the Egyptian blockade? Anyone complaining about the killing of innocents? Shooting at unarmed children? No.

About the global media and opinion - Quite frankly, I can't say I care about it like I did in the past. People have proven themselves unable to judge things out of an objective point of view. Even I as an Israeli jew can admit some actions the IDF has taken in this conflict were un-needed, but hey - it is a war after all. People all over the world seem to forget that in wars, things like this are happening. There were barely any wars at all that were finished without civilian casualties.
The "strongest" (in my opinion it is self-demeaning at best) arguement the anti-Israelies have in this conflict are pictures of dead children, infants and women. One who is sane would end up thinking why are people judging a conflict that was fueled for centuries just by a picture of a dead child? Yes, it is sad, nobody wants this to happen, but how come people are judging the Israeli actions as 'cowardice, inhumane' just by seeing a footage of dead civilians?
There are many other reasons that make me realise it is a lost cause trying to prove Israel is not the satanic power it is. One of those reasons is just the mis-information of the masses.
For example, check this out. This is not going to explain the entire situation, it just explains how mis-informed people really are. The interview is between a Fox network presentor and Diana Buttu, a former spokeswoman of the PLO and now.. well I don't know what is her job now. In the article she says that the rockets Hamas is shooting aren't even explosive (..by the way they do not even have explosive heads!..). Now, a sane person on any side with an interest to see things in clearer ways will find that remark simply laughable, but the problem is that most of the people do not want to see things in clearer ways. That woman is being ridiculed because it is Fox network, on other occasions where she is given a platform to speak her mind, she gets huge ammounts of support. If that interview happened on BBC for example, I highly doubt the presentor will try to even hint that her claim is extremely flawed at best.
Moving on, the global opinion seems to sometime consider Hamas as a legitimate resitiance force which is doing it's best to protect and preserve the Palestinian people, which is ofcourse wrong again.
This footage presented by a former citizen of Gaza, an arab muslim, is showing how Hamas looks like when the glorious big european news agencies aren't around.
Take a look at what this video is showing, and consider again who's acting like the Nazi army to the Palestinians. It's not only that tho, Hamas sometimes doesn't even need to force people around because people are already supporting it. Global opinion also seem to forget that Hamas was democraticaly elected by the Palestinians themselves.
The whole "I hate Bush, USA, Israel, Democrats, anything which isn't left wing (etc)" approach is best seen when people were saying nothing when the Palestinians were celebrating in the streets after 9\11, they were celebrating as if it was a victory for the Palestinian community, that over 2000 people who were completley innocent of any military conflict, have lost their lives in a terrorist attack.
And now, when their civilians die, all of a sudden it's morally wrong, and dead babies are showing, dead children turn into a feast for the camera, and so on.

Sometimes I wonder if Hamas had any kind of power if the global media, including the UN, wouldn't be so blind to protect every of it's whims. What if people stopped looking at a dead baby as an excuse to demonise Israel, but started looking at it and wonder "wait, what is the Hamas doing near that baby anyway?". Hamas would lose it's main weapon - the whining to the global media.

Anyway, if anyone has any complaints about the proportion of the Gaza conflict, he should ask himself if it would be much better if for every Qassam/Grad that Hamas would launch into Israel, Israel were to respond with an MLRS missile of it's own with about the same payload. Just launching into Gaza, with no aim or anything what-so-ever.
That would be a perfectly proportionate retaliation - will it make anything better? The only thing it will prevent is the proportionate arguement and that is all, but surely anti-Israelies will find another excuse to blame Israel for, like how MLRS missiles are being used in contrast of a homemade Qassam rocket, and would again try to hint something unproportionate in this conflict.

Nevermind, I'm not sure if all of this can even get inside a post.
What I'm mostly sure about is that even tho I have taken the time to write such a detailed opinion about the whole situation, someone will not even read it and reply to my post something like "YEAH AND THE ISRAELIES ARE KILLING BABIES HOW JUSTIFIED IS THAT???". Again, I don't expect much as I already know this is a lost cause.

If I ever got insulted in the past when someone said that Israelies are 'racist murderer b*****ds', now it's just going to make me happy.

[GSx_Major]

I'm glad you brought up media since studies about it (regarding Israel and Palestine) show that most of the media (in the US and the UK at least) are in favor of Israel. This time it took them a couple of weeks to even bring up the fact that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire. But, they kinda have to side with the palestinian people (not Hamas) in this conflict, as they are the ones paying the price for both Hamas and Israels actions.

Yes, Hamas are terrorists. But that Hamas does something doesn't mean Israel can do the same thing. If you do the same thing as a terrorist organisation, guess what? You're equally bad. And could you make up your mind on the Palestinians, are they evil terrorists who praised 9/11 or are they innocent and weak, unarmed, exploited people?

As for the blockade and the tunnels, obviously Hamas is arming itself with or without a blockade. You can argue it leads to less and weaker weapons, and sure, no problem. I don't think Israel has the right to do so, but overall it's a reasonable thing to do. Blocking off food, people and the bloody red cross, however...

As for "wait, what is the Hamas doing near that baby anyway?", maybe you should take a look at a map of the Gaza strip. It's not a big place, and it's rather crowded.

I don't have a problem with Hamas and the IDF fighting, they can kill every last one of eachother for all I care. To me, they're both dead wrong. The proportionate part comes where theres a hundred dead palestinian civilians for each israeli. Actually, I think that if the IDF did go with a "same payload" approach (and nothing else) the situation would be a lot better. The difference in population density might have to be factored in and sure, there's enough nutjobs in Hamas to continue launching but they would lose the support of the people. Short term, however... It's potentially disastrous. And political suicide.

But it would be a better way to kill off Hamas than the -cut off a head and two more grow out- strategy (well, it's the result of the strategy) Israel is currently using. Cause right now everyone is losing, and since Israel is supposedly the reasonable people in this conflict they should be working for a solution for the whole situation.

[Slashnoob]

The only "cease-fire" that ever took place, were a couple of days, a "lull", that rockets have indeed landed on Israeli soil. Guess what, the only reason it is called a cease-fire was because Hamas didn't take responsibility about the launches as it usualy does. Overpolitically correctness comes in mind. Other than that, even if Israel did break the last cease-fire, what is even the point in using it as an arguement seeing as Hamas disregarded every cease-fire agreement for the last 8 years? Is it justified that Hamas is ignoring cease-fire agreements just because they are called a terrorist group, but not okay when Israel chose to attack when it finally had enough? I am perfectly aware of your answer to that, so don't even bother.

I am not even going to bother answering your arguement regarding who the media is 'in favor' of, seeing as you claim they are in favor of Israel, but they have to side with the Palestinians (?). Nevermind, I guess I am lucky you didn't claim jews are controlling the media.

For the tenth time - Israel is not doing the same thing. Does Israel launch unguided rockets from afar, using civilian buildings as launching areas? Was Israel's goal to kill as many civilians as possible? Is anything in the Israeli doctrines saying anything about not recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to exist?
No, Israel is not doing the same thing. Again, for the tenth time, if Israel wanted to do the same thing, just to prove it's willingness to fight, it would shoot an unguided MLRS rocket everytime a Qassam hits it's soil.

The blockade is indeed unable to stop the whole weapon smuggling, but it certainly reduces the sizes of weapons that Hamas is able to get it's hands upon.
The only times the UN humanitarian aids trucks were denied entrance is at the beginning of the operation, when ground entrance was on it's standby process. Nevertheless, Israel has still delivered tons of humanitarian aids into Gaza using it's own budget, only to have the payload kidnapped by Hamas. Eventually, when the UN trucks were allowed to enter Gaza after the ground operation, their trucks got stolen aswell. Still, nobody blames Hamas, Israel is the only one to blame for not approving UN trucks' entrance in the first days of the operation.

Gaza strip is small indeed, but it is simply amusing to hear that the reason they are operating in the vincinity of innocent civilians is because it is small. Yes, amusing.
As small as Gaza may be, if Hamas indeed wanted to have a fight with the IDF without endangering innocent civilians, children, women, it could do so with ease. There are enough unpopulated areas in the strip that could be used for military actions by Hamas. Obviously tho, they choose assymetrical warfare, because that means that whenever a Hamas militant dies, a civilian will die along with him. And obviously enough again, some people never see that fact.

How is the "same payload" approach would be 'alot better'? I'm not sure I even want to hear such an explanation for the sake of the sanity this thread has left.

Dissapointing yet expected that such posts that choose to ignore any common sense of the conflict, yet cling to being overly politically correct would emerge. I did hope more would come out as a reply, but I expected no such thing.

[N. Escalona]

I'm glad you brought up media since studies about it (regarding Israel and Palestine) show that most of the media (in the US and the UK at least) are in favor of Israel. This time it took them a couple of weeks to even bring up the fact that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire. But, they kinda have to side with the palestinian people (not Hamas) in this conflict, as they are the ones paying the price for both Hamas and Israels actions.

I live in the US myself. My impression is that most of the media is anti-Israel. These are the same parts of the media that are biased liberal. The rest of the media sources tend to be neoconservative and supporting Israel just about no-matter-what.
But you are incorrect in saying that "they kinds have to side with the palestinian people". The media does not have to side with the people getting killed and against those doing the killing. Sometimes killing is justified, believe it or not.

[N. Escalona]

Slashnoob, you get a high-five for typing so much and being so articulate. Thanks for bringing that into the discussion.

It also helps that I agree with you, more-or-less entirely.

[GSx_Major]

Please forgive me if I don't rate your impression as highly as independent studies of the major networks and newspapers. And maybe you didn't understand what I was saying, I said that they can't say "we don't care about dead civilians", so they are forced to bring up all the dead civilians. Which to you, as there's so many more palestinian, must seem to be anti-Israel.

Also worth mentioning is that the first major US network to bring up real problems with Israels invasion was actually Fox News. Famous for their liberal bias?

Quick note, "White phosphorus has legitimate uses in warfare. We could discuss that, but it would be missing the larger picture."
"It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons."

"Sometimes killing is justified, believe it or not.", I agree. Again, you're missing the whole point.

Slashnoob
As for Hamas not fighting in the areas where there are no civilians, of course they won't. First of all, they're not idiots. Going head to head with an enemy like Israel spells certain death. Second, they get stronger with each palestinian dead by an Israeli weapon. Which is why I don't think it's the right way to go after Hamas. I was talking about when the IDF has bombed the homes of Hamas members (not just fighting ones), and ended up with lots of dead civilians.

What you (amongst trying to straw man everyone and avoiding any valid point against your reasoning) fail to see is that no one says Hamas is innocent. They're called terrorists for a reason. "Nobody blames Hamas", are you kidding me? No one says that. As soon as someone says "Israel isn't innocent either", you stop listening.

I'm not sure what's "overly politically correct" about saying I wouldn't mind if the IDF killed civilians in the same way Hamas does. But I guess you have to think I'm an ignorant, insecure anti semite with no common sense since I don't share your opinion. (I can straw man too)

As for the UN humanitarian aids trucks, you're right. The only time they were stopped en masse was early on. After that it was really (regarding UN trucks, that is) more on a small scale. You didn't mention the "people and the bloody red cross, however..." part, though. Probably cause you can't defend cause you can't defend preventing the red cross from helping civilians. And hitting a UN warehouse five times, mistake?. Not saying it was meant to be an attack on it, but the IDF just didn't care that they burned down a warehouse with food, with hundreds of civilians next door.

It's fairly obvious that you're reading something completely different than what I wrote, if you think I was saying that it's "justified that Hamas is ignoring cease-fire agreements just because they are called a terrorist group, but not okay when Israel chose to attack when it finally had enough" (Israel has "finally had enough" every couple of years)

Not sure if you read what you wrote, since it says that terrorism is alright if you call it terrorism.

(On a side note, Israel wasn't keeping up their end of the cease-fire before they broke it)

What I'm actually saying is that BOTH SIDES are wrong. Since I emphatize with both sides goals and strongly disagree with both sides actions, I can't hold one higher than another.


Edit: Typo

[Slashnoob]

So by your logic, if they can't beat Israel it is completley going to be Israel's fault for fighting Hamas when they use methods such as hiding among civilians, because they can't go head on against Israel? That's hypocricy at it's best.
As an organisation which became a governing factor, and is supposed to do what is best for it's people, what is the point in taking on an enemy you cannot beat? It doesn't make it rational if just because they can't beat Israel they are using civilian populated neighborhood just so they would get to blame Israel later on for killing innocents. Ever thought that maybe they could, you know, not fight Israel, especially when they cannot beat them either way? Everybody - even the most extreme right-winged Israeli opinionated people, believes that eventually a political agreement with the Palestinians has to take place. Nobody thinks or wishes to simply fight them off. As long as Israel has a say, diplomatic or political solutions will always come in first. However, on the other side, an organisation like Hamas, that truely believes that death while fighting the Israelies will ultimately lead them to heaven alongside 72 virgins, and they brainwash that to the people aswell.
Seeing as they are completley out of their minds, and using houses or mosques as legitimate places for their militant causes (launching areas, ammo stocks, or simply hiding there), it is near impossible to avoid bombing the houses of their senior officers. The bombs the IAF uses are mainly SDB, small diameter bombs, the huge explosions you may sometimes see on TV are caused by rocket stocks that are hit.

If you really do believe that if the IDF will constantly shoot random rockets for every random rockets Hamas will fire, I don't think you're an ignorant anti-semite, I just think you're ignorant of the situation. How could that possible be 'better'? That contradicts your entire opinion that civilians should be spared. Honestly, this isn't even worthy of discussing, but I would still like to hear how exactly is it going to make anything better.

From what I know, that specific food storage warehouse that was burned has also been used to store weaponry and rockets. If I'm wrong, then it was a mistake on the IDF's sake to hit it. I'm not saying Israel or the IDF are perfect saints, they do have their fair share of mistakes, but not on a scale of blaming the entire conflict upon them.
Saying they just 'did not care' is wrong aswell. A few IDF soldiers have lost their lives due to friendly fire, does that mean they 'did not care' about their own men aswell? No, mistakes happen. Identification errors play a very major part in wars, let alone urban areas.

What's your point that Israel has enough every couple of years? What are you suggesting then, constant random fire for years upon years? It's more than obvious that every once in a while there will be a military operation if the rocket fire continues. I also believe this is not going to be the last operation. Does that fall in Israel's fault again? Again, don't even bother answering.

The only thing you've written that I cannot say it is completley ignorant of the situation, is that both sides are at fault. True to every extent that politicans from both sides have made errornous calls ever since the creations of Israel. The point still remains tho that the Israelis were always open to diplomatic solutions. If anyone is thinking Israel must negotiate with the Palestinians even if they are being led and governed by a terrorist organisation, I say he is mad.

Also, your pokey insults have no place here. It's fine to be misinformed, but resorting to "not sure if you read what you wrote" is just childish. Mind you, it was a completley misguided claim by your part since the subject it tried to mock was actually sarcasm by me. Nice going.

Edit - The first part of your post concerning the media is flawed and again laughable. I will take the liberty of answering before Escalona will.
Al-Arabiya is both an independent and major news network, will you consider gathering your information from such a place to be a smart thing to do? It will indeed be the smartest thing to do, if you're just looking for articles that will fuel your rage against Israel, or just biased articles and propoganda in general.

But again, I don't even wish to discuss which side is the global media biased towards, so I suggest you only read what I wrote about it as a piece of informative opinion, and will not try to answer me about it since I simply will not answer back.

[Dascoo]

As for Hamas not fighting in the areas where there are no civilians, of course they won't. First of all, they're not idiots. Going head to head with an enemy like Israel spells certain death.

I am convinced you're fucking retarded. They're starting fights in civilian areas, therefore they are responsible for any civilian deaths in that area. Maybe if they weren't such incompetent fighters they'd win a few victories... Instead they're just causing more shit.

[Slashnoob]

You know what? These three lines of your's are actually more spot-on than my entire previous post.
If the IDF is going to station itself right inside or even next to my appartment, I'd know who to blame when it's eventually hit.

[GSx_Major]

(Does your blunt, downright false, insults have place here?)

First of all, go troll somewhere else. Hamas CAN'T figth anywhere else. And they CAN'T win a military victory. They're outnumbered and outgunned. They got inaccurate, weak rockets which you want them to hit artillery, jets and helicopters with? Anywhere else than in areas with civilians they are sitting ducks. Is it wrong of Hamas? Yes. Is it then wrong of Isreal to then hit that spot and kill a dozen civilians too? Yes.

Is it wrong of you to say its good vs evil? Yes.

As I said in the first post, it would be nuts to suggest that the IDF would "constantly shoot random rockets for every random rockets Hamas will fire" and I said it was better than responding with ten times the strength and still get no results. I don't see how wanting less civilians dead "contradicts my entire opinion that civilians should be spared."

"What's your point that Israel has enough every couple of years?"
Well, you said "finally had enough". Which was fairly misguiding.

Not sure if you got the part about the mediaI was talking about independent STUDIES of the major US networks. I don't watch Al-Arabiya (and would never consider it a credible news source), I have no rage against Israel as a country, and I don't judge the people of it by the actions of its military forces. Also, using the term "global media" is simplifying something to a point where it becomes irrelevant.

Seeing how you didn't get the general theme of the post (not sure how I could possibly be clearer), I'm not blaming the entire conflict upon the IDF. Remember the part about both sides being at fault? As for "Identification errors", it has been established that the IDF had the coordinates of the UN warehouses (where no weapons were stored), knew what it was and that they would hit it, and didn't care.

Talking about Israeli friendly fire has nothing to do with it, as it wasn't a mistake (they knew what it was, and hit it SEVERAL times). I do agree that mistakes happen, though - like when a UN worker was killed by IDF troops with small arms while sitting in a parked UN truck.

As for your sarcasm, as I pointed out it was MISPLACED. But you refuse to understand what I'm saying.

The first part is the best part though, right after I say "both sides are wrong", you say I think Israel is responsible for everything if Hamas doesn't "win". First of all, Hamas can't win. The best they (for their purposes) can do is turn public opinion against Israel - which they don't even try to do, plus Israel doesn't really need any help with it.

Calling them religious fundamentalist, while partially true, is not much more than a weak attempt at illegitimizing their political motives.

Anyway, since you didn't get it in the other posts,
Both sides are at fault.

[Dascoo]

GUH TRULL SUMWOR OLSE

Trolling is baiting you faggot, and I don't think I'm doing that.

 

[Slashnoob]

Are you even serious? Are you aware to the number of ways in which you are contradicting not only yourself, but common sense and logic thinking in general?
If they can't come up with a good fight, and are in such a desperate condition compared to the Israeli army, why would they even fight, let alone fight from within civilian areas? Is it not a lost goal? Surely it isn't in their eyes. I say this not only as an Israeli, but as a person who will not want to see his or any country in the world submit to global terror and it's dirty ways of fighting - I would like to see my country always retaliate like this whenever a barrage of rockets hits our soil. No matter by whom, no matter where did they fire from.

It is actually not wrong by Israel to hit that spot, I say again that there is a Geneva ammendmant that specificaly says the usage of civilians by a militant force does not render an area immune. Geneve convention disagrees with you and your logic.

What's wrong about Israel finaly having enough every couple of years? It will keep happening untill there is no terrorist group that's in charge of buisness in Gaza.

No, I am not going to discuss the media issue any further. Atleast not with you, no offence.

I got the general idea of your post very well, even tho it is not only unclear but your opinion is slightly changing with each and every post. I say again, from what I gathered at the time, that specific UN food storage you are referring to was used as an ammo stock. Hitting it does not mean the IDF did not care about it. By saying errornous identification, one could also mean an intel mistake, which still doesn't mean the IDF simply didn't care. If you need me to explain this further in a clearer way, I mean that it is absolutely affirmative that the IDF knew what that place was, it knew it is a UN place and what is it's purpose, but recieved intelligence information that it is used as an ammo stock - if this intel information was indeed wrong, then this is where errornous identification comes in. I hope to god you understand that now, but please, don't go there any further as it is fairly obvious you haven't got much knowledge on such combat related subject. That is also why it is important to say Israeli friendly fire took place - errornous identification and intelligence.

Excuse me for not seeing the invisible, but please do show me where in this sentence have you said it was misplaced: "Not sure if you read what you wrote, since it says that terrorism is alright if you call it terrorism". Sorry, I don't see anything about misplaced sarcasm written in here. My 2cents are willing to bet you just didn't understand what I mean, but was too busy accusing me for not understanding you. Happens, although it's simply idiotic. Sorry.

Last part of your post is as pathetic as it gets. This is the part where you lose all your credibility and logic in my opinion, not that you had much to begin with. Sorry, I will not even address that part. Feel free to shout how much I am mentally inferior and cannot come up with anything against that. Really, do that.

I saved this part for last, as it was by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I am ofcourse talking about what you said regarding the nature of response, and how it would rather be some random MLRS shots everytime a Qassam falls in Israel. Ofcourse, you are saying it is better because one could not see how it wouldn't be better to have less civilian deaths. . .
Forgive me, you are not contradicting yourself - you are just so ignorant of the situation puts you in a bad light to say the least.

Have you forgotten this whole rocket barrage lasted for the past 8 years? Are you really convinced that Israel would cause LESS civilian deaths, if it fired MLRS at random directions into Gaza for 8 years? Are you insane?
The extremely low number of Israeli civilian deaths in this conflict is a result of people leaving the area. Sderot, a town of roughly 30,000 residents, have been narrowed down almost in half since the conflict rose, not to mention the neighbor, more densely populated cities. Take some notes at how many Israelies have been killed ever since Hamas started firing rockets, and multiply it by those factors:
-Gazans will not have anywhere to run, as Israel could reach anywhere in Gaza if they wanted to simply dumbfire it.
-Buildings in Gaza havn't got safeguarded areas like in Israel.
-Gaza as a whole is alot more crowded than any Israeli city.

..And that would be the result of how many Gazans will lose their lives if Israel will take such a "tooth for a tooth" approach.

...Needless to say, launching from both sides will be escelated into easily 100-200 or more in a single day, seeing as they sometime reached above 80 with no Israeli response at all.

....Even more needless to say - it will gain nothing besides even more rage from both sides.

I am an idiot for even explaining this to you, but I really wanted to hear your grand reasoning as to why is this a better approach than the operation. I expected to hear something I've never heard before and I was right, but I was expecting it to be a whole lot more educated than that. You have dragged me into a s**tfest of the finest order and I do not appreciate that. Concerning me, only vital parts of your posts are going to be replied to from this moment on. I am not going to waste any more effort on such idiocy. I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but that's just what it is.

Not only that, but now I have realised I've been argueing, and spending so much time over explaining something to a person with such a twisted grasp of reality.. Ugh, your misconception of reality is so messed up you made me feel angry for even answering you. Thanks alot.

[N. Escalona]

Gah my post was deleted before I could post it, here it is again.

Please forgive me if I don't rate your impression as highly as independent studies of the major networks and newspapers. And maybe you didn't understand what I was saying, I said that they can't say "we don't care about dead civilians", so they are forced to bring up all the dead civilians. Which to you, as there's so many more palestinian, must seem to be anti-Israel.

I contributed my impression as-is, without asserting that its fact. Yet it is what I have observed.

Also worth mentioning is that the first major US network to bring up real problems with Israels invasion was actually Fox News. Famous for their liberal bias?

Bully for them, if these problems are really problems.

Quick note, "White phosphorus has legitimate uses in warfare. We could discuss that, but it would be missing the larger picture."
"It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons."

Wherever that quotation is from (UN?), I don't accept it as an authority on how to go about making war.

What I'm actually saying is that BOTH SIDES are wrong. Since I emphatize with both sides goals and strongly disagree with both sides actions, I can't hold one higher than another.

Yes, both sides are wrong. But like I said, this is always true in any human conflict. But one side has more of the right than the opposing side. That's why we're discussing this: to figure out which side is more in the right.

[GSx_Major]

"It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons."
It's a part of the Geneva conventions. You don't accept it as an authority on how to go about making war?

 

I never said it was illegal to attack areas with civilians. I said it was wrong. There's legal things that are wrong, and illegal things that aren't.

And instead of saying that I contradict myself and say stupid things, please point them out instead of whining. So far you've been misunderstanding pretty much everything (and if you think I misunderstand everything isn't relevant for if you misunderstand). And how has my opinion slowly changed? Show me (if you're gonna reply at all).

As for the UN warehouse thing, you can call it a mistake if you want to. They knew it was a UN building, and they knew there were refugees there. It wasn't likely that there would be any weapons there and a hunch just isn't gonna cut it. Simply put, there's no evidence there were weapons there, please forgive me if I don't take "we don't do white phosphorus" - IDF's word for it. Also, if it actually was a warehouse full of ammunition, it would have been a lot worse than just burning down.

What's wrong about Israel finaly having enough every couple of years?
Nothing. I've said nothing to indicate that's my opinion. I have no problem with Israel getting pissed every now and then - that doesn't mean I approve of its actions.

With the whole sarcasm thing, you read the wrong part - read the line before that one. I said, "It's fairly obvious that you're reading something completely different than what I wrote" as in "what you said has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said".

By now I should know not to be subtle in a discussion with you, but you should scroll up a bit regarding the whole eye for an eye thing. Instead of seeing what I've actually said - that it would be disastrous and nuts, you reply to something that only exists in your head. That I said that proportionate force sounds better (in any way) to me in the same section was unfortunate, since you've connected two dots that weren't related.

What I said there was basically that your misconception of my conception of reality is unfortunate. I haven't dragged you into anything, you fail to even get the basics of what I'm saying and get angry at things I haven't said.

And the result of a "tooth for a tooth" approach would be nowhere near as many dead palestinians (one percent as many for the last month). Actual teeth, that is.

[jap_man]

Seriously, ceasefires don't work, let both sides completely obliterate each other, if Israel wins then that's one less terrorist organization to worry about, if hamas wins, well at least the world can stop caring about this absolute shit sandwich of a conflict and hopefully we will never have another ISRAEL VS PALESTINE argument ever again.

Also LOL at somebody sourcing fox news. hahahahahahahahaha