Hundreds die in Israel raid on Gaza

tchitt

I don't understand this "war"... why are they just lobbing explosives back and forth at each other? It would seem to me that someone should just invade and occupy someone else and be done with it. Of course Hamas would lose but something's gotta give. This is idiotic.

Do both sides just lack the stones or what?

I don't know a lot about this but it seems like enough is enough. Is Hamas not a terrorist organization? Why haven't they been crushed yet?

tiny-tim

Hi Abdelrahman!

You obviously don't understand what a holocaust camp was.

There were two types … death camps and "ordinary" camps.

In the death camps, such as Auschwitz II and Sobibor, a thousand or so Jews (or occasionally Gypsies) would arrive by train, hundreds of miles from their homes, and would within an hour or so be taken into "shower-rooms" where they would be killed by gas.

In the "ordinary" camps, Jews and others would be gradually worked to death.

Look it up on the internet, or in books … you'll see that there's no comparison between the holocaust and Gaza at all.

Germany's aim was to exterminate the Jews (and the inter-marrying tribes of Gypsies).

Israel's aim is to live at peace with its Arab neighbours.
War isn't supposed to be fair … it isn't a sport, like boxing, where you don't fight someone who's much smaller than you.

In war, if you have overwhelming force, then you're perfectly entitled to start using it, and the other side, if it's really interested in peace, will stop.

War is an unfortunate means of protecting your legal rights … in this case, Israelis' right to live.

Hamas has for many months been killing as many Israeli civilians as it can … under international law, that is undoubtedly an act of war.

Israel, under international law, is entitled to retaliate, first by economic sanctions, and then militarily.

Israel's reluctance is clear from the long time that it has waited before military retaliation.

Art

Hamas had killed a grand total of exactly zero Israelis in the months preceding this attack whilst Israel has killed dozens of Palestinians in the same time frame. But eh, Palestinians are all terrorists so that's okay right?

Meanwhile the war warmongering, evil witch, Tzipi Livni, who recently suggested all Arabs living in Israel should be removed is really a peace loving humanitarian I suppose. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7779087.stm Then again she is by no means the only leading politician in Israel to promote a little ethnic cleansing but it seems such policies are only illegal if pursued by non-zionists.

mjsd

Oh mine.... I have been away from this forum for 6 months due to study commitments... but it seems that nothing has changed... we are still arguing whether Israel/Palestine's actions are legit or not.

It amazes, as well as saddens me that both sides are still playing the same only game which perpetuate the situation despite that it is obviously unworkable.

Recently, we had an exchange student from Israel (by the way, he is not Jewish, he is originally from Russia but studied physics in Israel) joining our department. The first thing I asked him was on the topic of "the threat of rocket attacks" and whether "he fears everyday about the possibility of an attack". I must say that I was surprised to hear his response which went somehting like:
"... it is all a bit of an exaggeration... we, in the capital city, don't get any rockets at all.. it is only the small regions of the border towns are affected...", he then added,
"... seriously, I didn't feel threaten at all.. and most ppl (at least the ppl I knew).. simply go by their daily business without any concerns.... the TV stations do make a big fuss about the rockets though..."

No doubt, whether it is just border towns or the entire map of Israel is threaten by rockets, it should not in any way change our perspective of right and wrong.... whether it is just 1 or 229 civilians killed, it is equally bad. However, time and again the impression I've got from the media is that Israel is responding in the current way because "they have no other choices available, and that their entire population cannot live a normal life"

seriously? have we, the western ppl, run of new ideas already? Well, I guess the "terrorists" have and can only resort to barbaric means of retaliation, but surely, we can do better than just perpetuating the situation?

tiny-tim

I just googled "sderot + ceasefire", and came up with this …
As I said, Hamas has for many months been killing as many Israeli civilians as it can … under international law, that is undoubtedly an act of war.

The low number of deaths (as opposed to "mere" injuries) is not for Hamas' want of trying, and does not make it any less an act of war.
erm … "removed"? … the actual quote from Livni in that report is:
To me, that looks like exchanging land for peace.

Art

The low number of deaths you keep referring to is, as I said previously, precisely ZERO! Whereas the Israelis have been far more successful in their attempts to kill Palestinians with dozens of 'successes' prior to Saturdays murderous assault.




I suggest you have another look then. She was referring to the 1 million Arabs living in the state of Israel, unless you are suggesting she intends handing over lumps of Israel to them. Somewhat unlikely don't you think Her qualifying remarks came AFTER there was an international outcry about her first statement.

Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

russ_watters

So Hamas is not very good at killing Jews. We know. But they really should know by now that if you mess with the bull too long, eventually you'll get the horns. Hamas had been poking that hornets nest with a stick for weeks before it swarmed them.

russ_watters

Perhaps - but either way, if it is a violation of the cease fire or just a unilateral resumption of hostilities by Hamas after it ended, it's still on Hamas.

russ_watters

Who said war was supposed to be fair? But hey, I'm a fair guy - I'll trade you those 400 Hamas rockets (from a quote above) for 400 Israeli laser guided bombs. Sound good to you? You should really look up Goodwin's law.

You could also try arguing your own case instead of dropping an open-ended, intentionally leading question. Our standards are higher here than you are probably used to and we don't fall for such tactics here.

russ_watters

By what logic should a response be proportional? (Hint: there is no such school of thought on warfare.)

It's not exactly rocket science: http://www.military-quotes.com/Sun-Tzu.htm

russ_watters

Since that bears no resemblance to what happened, the response is obvious: the intentional killing of civilians by Hamas is a crime against humanity. It's the same in your fictional scenario as it is in real life.

Or, alternately, if Hamas began to confine it's attacks to strictly military targets, perhaps they could shake the "terrorist" label. Their attacks are, by definition, indiscriminate attacks on civilians - they use unguided rockets. For defending itself? Please. Well try actually applying some logic then, instead of just making open-ended pronouncements. No one's going to do your work for you.

tiny-tim

Well, yes I am …

because that's what she said!

Yes, she's unambiguously saying that she wants two national states.

And that, just as if Jews living in the UK or US want "national aspirations" as Jews, they have to look to Israel (but if they want national aspirations as Britons or Americans, they look to Britain or America) …

so if Palestinians living in Israel want "national aspirations" as Palestinians, they have to look to Palestine (but if they want national aspirations as Israelis, as many apparently do, they look to Israel).

What does that have to do with removing them?

What "international outcry"?

The BBC report you linked to only mentions …
… Israeli Arab MKs asking (perfectly reasonable ) awkward pre-election questions.

russ_watters

By the way, we have standards of intellectual honesty here and some assertions and implications about the nature of the attacks by Israle have been made that are factually untrue. In particular:

-Most of the dead in Gaza are not civilians, they are Hamas security personnel. Hamas is a paramilitary organization and their police force most definitely are combatants.
-Israel is targeting military/government installations, not civilians.

These facts can be gained from any responsible news source. Here are two:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...kes/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...alestine_N.htm

[edit] Note also that as Al Jazeera articles go, that one in the OP isn't too bad and it does not make the claim that Israel is targeting anything but Hamas and it does not make the claim that more civilians than Hamas personnel were killed (though it does include a quote from Hamas that implies it).

OAQfirst

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7801662.stm
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...PRq3gD958NJFO0
Should Israel concede and open the border, would the violence stop? Would Hamas be satisfied? I'm not seeing it.

Art

Spot the irony . Under the Geneva Convention, Paragraph 3 Article 43, police forces are categorised as civilians and their civilian status is further underlined in UN Resolution 690 (1979). but hey don't let a few facts stand in the way of your intellectual dishonesty.

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/Ad...79/ERES690.htm




Next time some gangbangers in LA kills some rich white person perhaps the US military should wipe out the LA police force and the local neighbourhood for not forestalling the attack. Afterall if it is good enough for Palestinians it should be good enough for Americans.

tiny-tim

uhh?

this (from the international red cross website) is Geneva Convention (IV), Part III Article 43 …
It doesn't even mention police or civilians, …

and, so far as I know, nor does any part of the Geneva conventions.

Does "intellectual dishonesty" include making things up?

This is a Council of Europe article …

It has no legal force, and no application whatever, to the Middle East.

Why are you mentioning it?

Hamas security personnel are not civilians.

Art

There's a slight difference. If the UK or the US declared itself a Christian state for Christians then I imagine members of minority religions would feel rather threatened.

A major stumbling block in the recognition of Israel by the PLO is Israel's insistence that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state. This is no mere semantics. By declaring the state Jewish the Zionists look to bolster their position in refusing re-entry to the displaced Palestinians and to allow for forced resettlement of non-Jews i.e. Arabs.