Hundreds die in Israel raid on Gaza

[russ_watters]

Spot the irony :rofl:. 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.

Even if you could find and quote some international law about police forces that applies to the Middle East, it still wouldn't be relevant: The Hamas police force is not a civilian police force. It is a paramilitary force. It participates in Hamas's paramilitary activities. Example:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday outlawed the Hamas-led Interior Ministry’s police force, the most powerful armed unit outside his control in factional fighting that has left 33 people dead in the last month...

Abbas claims authority over the various armed Palestinian forces created in the 1990s by Yasser Arafat, the late Fatah and Palestinian Authority leader. Today they include two police agencies with 15,000 members each in addition to the elite Presidential Guard, which is being enlarged from 4,000 to 6,000 members.

Hamas formed the Executive Force in March, saying the Fatah-led forces had become corrupt and ineffective.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/07/world/fg-palestinian7

Heck, you can even get this for alJazeera:

On Wednesday evening it was reported that Hamas had attacked the three main security force compounds in Gaza City - the headquarters of the Preventive Security, the Intelligence Service and the National Forces.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/06/2008525142614111868.html

These article is an example of how the various security/police forces are being used as paramilitary fighters in their warlord infighting. They can't have it both ways.

 

[tiny-tim]

plenty of Islamic states …

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.

Actually, the UK is a Christian state … the Church of England is the "established church", with the Queen as its head.

More to the point, there are plenty of Islamic states …

do you "imagine members of minority religions would feel rather threatened" in those existing Islamic states?

Since there are existing Christian and Islamic states, isn't it rather racist to suggest there's something intrinsically wrong with a Jewish state?

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.

No mainstream Israeli politician ever suggests resettlement of Arabs …

Israeli Arabs are integrated Israeli citizens, with full legal rights, their own MKs, etc …

being a Jewish state makes no difference to that …

the closest an Israeli politician has got to suggesting reducing the Arab population is suggestions of redrawing the Israeli border.

 

[Art]

uhh?

this (from the http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600049?OpenDocument") 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.​

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills. It mentions law enforcement agencies, fyi this means police

They are considered civilian unless they are specifically nominated as part of the military forces by their commanding party.

Article 43-Armed forces

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

To my knowledge no such communication has been made by Hamas therefore under the Geneva Conventions the Gaza police have the legal status of civilians.

 

[Hurkyl]

To my knowledge no such communication has been made by Hamas therefore under the Geneva Conventions the Gaza police have the legal status of civilians.

Huh? The clause you quoted says nothing about whether a police force counts as civilian or not. The clause merely compels a party to announce when they incorporate the police into their armed forces -- not making such an announcement would constitute a violation of the convention.

 

[Phrak]

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.

I'd have to disagree with you on a couple points.

War doesn't have a purpose in and of itself. Warring parties have purposes.

An entitlement is a legal instrument. When someone comes to kill or your family, do you first consult a law book to see if the UN will let you protect yourself?

Israel's reluctance in protecting itself as it is militarily capable has been the direct result of international sanctions laid down explicitly in UN resolutions.

Tchitt asks the right quesion "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."

Historically the UN establishs uneasy peace. Korea, Sierra Leon, Bosnia, Isreal...

 

[Art]

Actually, the UK is a Christian state … the Church of England is the "established church", with the Queen as its head.

Actually the UK is not a Christian state in any legal sense whatsoever.

More to the point, there are plenty of Islamic states …

do you "imagine members of minority religions would feel rather threatened" in those existing Islamic states?

Yes I do so imagine.

Since there are existing Christian and Islamic states, isn't it rather racist to suggest there's something intrinsically wrong with a Jewish state?

Still waiting for an example of a Christian state enshrined in law as Israel wishes to do with it's Jewish state. As for Islamic states, no I don't agree with them either. I'm against all forms of religious bigotry.

No mainstream Israeli politician ever suggests resettlement of Arabs …

Israeli Arabs are integrated Israeli citizens, with full legal rights, their own MKs, etc …

being a Jewish state makes no difference to that …

the closest an Israeli politician has got to suggesting reducing the Arab population is suggestions of redrawing the Israeli border.

Really? If everyone is so equal why are there issues such as this,

Today, 23 September 2007, Adalah filed a petition to the Supreme Court of Israel demanding the cancellation of regional selection committees, which select their residents from among candidates who wish to live in ‘community towns’ in Israel. In practice these selection committees exclude certain groups, such as Arab citizens, Mizrahi Jews (Eastern Jews), single parents and gay people, from community towns as ‘socially unsuitable’.

or articles like this in the Israeli press

It smells like discrimination
By Muhammad Amara

The widening gap between Israel's Jewish majority and the Arab minority is worrying and poses many questions as to the country's Arab-Jewish coexistence. Nearly every day statements are heard from senior figures concerning the legitimacy of Arab citizens, and unbridled attacks have become routine: MK Israel Hasson of Yisrael Beiteinu is talking about a second War of Independence against the Arab citizens in Israel, MK Otniel Schneller of Kadima is talking about establishing task forces to examine the possibility of population exchanges and the head of the Shin Bet security service is talking about the Arabs as a strategic threat.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/857766.html Maybe you should take the blinkers off

 

[tiny-tim]

It mentions law enforcement agencies …

No it doesn't! :rofl:​

What document are you quoting from?

They are considered civilian unless they are specifically nominated as part of the military forces by their commanding party.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

oh i see … that's Part III, Article 43, of the Protocol I of 1979 to the Geneva Conventions

which I don't think have been ratified by any Middle eastern country (including Israel), or even the USA​

… but let's have a look anyway …

Article 43.-Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Well, this clearly says that an armed law enforcement agency can be "armed forces" (and therefore not civilians)!

To my knowledge no such communication has been made by Hamas therefore under the Geneva Conventions the Gaza police have the legal status of civilians.

erm … oh, Hurkyl has beaten me to it!

 

[Art]

Huh? The clause you quoted says nothing about whether a police force counts as civilian or not. The clause merely compels a party to announce when they incorporate the police into their armed forces -- not making such an announcement would constitute a violation of the convention.

If you don't understand the clause and it's ramifications maybe you could ask a patient friend to explain it to you. Though if you try really hard you might be able to think it through for yourself. As a hint start by looking at the heading - Armed Forces and then the subsections; what constitutes armed forces, and by omission what doesn't. See it yet?? What doesn't constitute armed forces equals civilian. See it's simple really.

 

[tiny-tim]

Actually the UK is not a Christian state in any legal sense whatsoever.

uhh? I'm a UK citizen, resident in the UK, and …

yes it is! :rofl: (for the reasons I've already given)​

Really? If everyone is so equal why are there issues such as this
…[]
or articles like this in the Israeli press

uhh? How does that contradict what I said …

Israeli Arabs are integrated Israeli citizens, with full legal rights, their own MKs, etc …

these issues are reported in a free press, and (as the first quote specifies) show that the Israeli Arabs do have full access to the courts when their rights are in issue!

(btw, no country is perfect …

but Israel is probably less racist than the UK or USA (despite having been at war for 60 years) …)

You originally completely misquoted Livni (about wanting to resettle Israeli Arabs), and instead of admitting it, you're now trying to steer discussion away from the point. ​

 

[Art]

No it doesn't! :rofl:​

Still struggling with the reading comprehension I see :rofl:

What document are you quoting from?

Err, try the one I linked to

oh i see … that's Part III, Article 43, of the Protocol I of 1979 to the Geneva Conventions

which I don't think have been ratified by any Middle eastern country (including Israel), or even the USA​

Ah the penny drops, finally

… but let's have a look anyway …


Well, this clearly says that an armed law enforcement agency can be "armed forces" (and therefore not civilians)!


erm … oh, Hurkyl has beaten me to it!

Sigh, back to the reading comprehension problem again

 

[Art]

uhh? I'm a UK citizen, resident in the UK, and …

therefore you should know a lot more about the constitutional nature of your own country. Shame on you that you don't. To kick start your education you should know the UK doesn't even have an established religion. England does but Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland do not and even England is multi-faith as you may notice as you walk past the odd Hindu temple or mosque here and there.

yes it is! :rofl: (for the reasons I've already given)​

What reasons? You have not provided any reasons other than your own woefully ill-informed opinions.

uhh? How does that contradict what I said …these issues are reported in a free press, and (as the first quote specifies) show that the Israeli Arabs do have full access to the courts when their rights are in issue!

If Arabs weren't being discriminated against then these cases wouldn't have arisen in the first place, Doh!

(btw, no country is perfect …

but Israel is probably less racist than the UK or USA (despite having been at war for 60 years) …)

You originally completely misquoted Livni (about wanting to resettle Israeli Arabs), and instead of admitting it, you're now trying to steer discussion away from the point. ​

Misquoted? :rofl: I cut and pasted what she actually said. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[tiny-tim]

Misquoted? :rofl: I cut and pasted what she actually said. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

No … even after you edited it, you still misquoted her …

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.

Among other things I will also be able to approach the Palestinian residents of Israel... and tell them: 'Your national aspirations lie elsewhere.'"

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.

your two misquotations are the two parts I've emphasised, which are simply not borne out by your cut-and-paste.

 

[devil-fire]

I find it hard to believe that Israel is firmly pressed into these decisions to attack Gaza when the ratio of people killed is 200:1. I can't imagine how the death of an Israeli citizen calls for an entire campaign of military action by Israel and the deaths of hundreds of people, including the head of police and democratically elected politicians.

It seems to me like Israel would be perfectly happy if Gaza disappeared one morning by Divine intervention and they could get on with their business.

 

[Cyrus]

I find it hard to believe that Israel is firmly pressed into these decisions to attack Gaza when the ratio of people killed is 200:1. I can't imagine how the death of an Israeli citizen calls for an entire campaign of military action by Israel and the deaths of hundreds of people, including the head of police and democratically elected politicians.

It seems to me like Israel would be perfectly happy if Gaza disappeared one morning by Divine intervention and they could get on with their business.

You can't see why indescriminate attacks on the civilian population would necessitate the need for a show of force to stop said actions? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Phrak]

It seems to me like Israel would be perfectly happy if Gaza disappeared one morning by Divine intervention and they could get on with their business.

Who needs Devine intervention. A large team of bull dozers, and demolition units could work there way from one side to the Gaza Strip to the Egyptian boarder in fairly good time. This should take care of, what some see, as an unfair state of attrition.

 

[mheslep]

...
My opinion of Israel's culpability is echoed by the UN. This from Dec 10th http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7774988.stm

No, Richard Falk is not 'the UN'. He was appointed by the misnamed UN Human Rights Council, which includes Arab states Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Indonesia, and other human rights luminaries such as China, Cuba. The UN HRC has passed 60% of its resolutions on Israel and none on, say, Zimbabwe or Saudia Arabia. Its an abomination.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2301643.htm

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

do any of the other middle-eastern nations identify themselves as religious states? say... i dunno, Islamic states? does Israel recognize any of them? because if so, i don't see what the stumbling block here is.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

In practice you could suggest Goodwin's Law (after I believe 15 to 20 years now) should start to be questioned or reconsidered...but alas, the more trivialized/desensitized the topic becomes...the more relevant and accurate Goodwin becomes...I think it will stand the test of time.

 

[devil-fire]

You can't see why indescriminate attacks on the civilian population would necessitate the need for a show of force to stop said actions? I find that hard to believe.

So the solution to lasting peace to is to kill enough people in Gaza so only the people who don't hate Israel are left? I don't think this will help bring peace to the area.

 

[Cyrus]

So the solution to lasting peace to is to kill enough people in Gaza so only the people who don't hate Israel are left? I don't think this will help bring peace to the area.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The attack was not indiscriminate, so to claim 'lasting peace is to kill enough people in Gaza' is beyond ridiculous.

But more to the point, you're also wrong. If there is no one that hates Israel, then by definition that would bring lasting peace. I am not making the claim to this position, nor has anyone else (except you). But the argument you make against this claim is flat out wrong.

 

[drankin]

Does everyone here believe that Isreal should be able to defend themselves or not? If someone lobs missiles in my yard I'm hunting them and everyone associated with them down. That's just me but it seems the right way to defend yourself. I don't understand why everyone is kicking on Isreal when a cease fire was violated by Hamas. Hamas was attacking civilians for crying out loud. So what if Hamas didn't accomplish the killing they intended. What kind of government sits back and says, "ah, they only killed one of our citizens, we will just wait until they kill more before we get off our duffs and defend them."? I give props to Isreal for actually having the balls to go out and take care of business.

 

[Phrak]

Does everyone here believe that Isreal should be able to defend themselves or not? If someone lobs missiles in my yard I'm hunting them and everyone associated with them down. That's just me but it seems the right way to defend yourself. I don't understand why everyone is kicking on Isreal when a cease fire was violated by Hamas. Hamas was attacking civilians for crying out loud. So what if Hamas didn't accomplish the killing they intended. What kind of government sits back and says, "ah, they only killed one of our citizens, we will just wait until they kill more before we get off our duffs and defend them."? I give props to Isreal for actually having the balls to go out and take care of business.

Was it Hamas? One report says it was Islamic Jihad--the Iranians--who are claiming credit. But, if so, they didn't provide them with their best missles. Interesting. And I wonder how the Sunnis fell about being cats-paws for the Shites--given it's true, of course. The flow of funds hasn't stopped Hamas. They love the money and power. But, hey, if it's killing Jew, what's to stop mortal enemies from joining forces?

 

[tiny-tim]

a physics forum should have certain standards …

We're a physics forum, and we should have the same standards of argument and quotation as we use professionally as scientists.

This thread has produced several examples of quotation without reference, or quotation with the wrong reference, or quotation or opinion attributed to the wrong persons or body, or a "headline" purportedly supported by a reference which on examination doesn't support it.

Such misquotation in a scientific paper would result in professional censure … so why do scientists here feel it acceptable when we're discussing Israel?

And now we have doubtful use of data …

I find it hard to believe that Israel is firmly pressed into these decisions to attack Gaza when the ratio of people killed is 200:1. I can't imagine how the death of an Israeli citizen calls for an entire campaign of military action by Israel and the deaths of hundreds of people, including the head of police and democratically elected politicians.

It seems to me like Israel would be perfectly happy if Gaza disappeared one morning by Divine intervention and they could get on with their business.

We have plenty of homework questions in the Precalculus Mathematics forum where we help each other to understand how to count probabilities.

Mark Twain popularised Disraeli's (allegedly) quote …

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!

… meaning that if you choose your statistics misleadingly enough, you can prove anything.

"200:1" is not a lie, of course … it's fairly accurate …

but even an elementary knowledge of the situation shows that it's a measure neither of the risks-and-benefits which Israel is taking into account, nor of those which the international community and international law entitles Israel to take into account …

a country under attack is entitled also to take past and future deaths into account …

and the proportion of civilian and non-civilian deaths …

and of course the ratio would be very different if injuries were also counted.

This is quite apart from the moral issues, of course … for example, as to how far "proportionality" can stretch … and whether retaining "good guy" status requires you always to "play catch-up" … but scientists should not try to discuss proportionality on the basis of missing out much of the relevant data on which the proportion should be calculated.​

In this case, using this "200:1" to prove that Israel wants genocide (Divine or otherwise) is very sloppy precalculus homework.

Try again!

 

[mjsd]

I have no idea what you are talking about. The attack was not indiscriminate,

not indiscriminate? how sure are you on this one?

If you ask me, I wouldn't know either. But let just say, ok, given Israel is a democratic free society with high morals, it is perhaps difficult to imagine Israel would try to kill the innocents just to prove a point or two.. mmm... ok, so then it must be Hamas' fault to hide in civilian areas.

Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea whether the Hamas govt is democratic and just. All I really know is that our govt label them as some "terrorist organisations". So, they must be the bad guys by default and everything they do are wrong.

I am not sure whether this is good logic but that will do for the moment when there is a lack of information.

so to claim 'lasting peace is to kill enough people in Gaza' is beyond ridiculous.

this may sound silly, but lasting peace might actually be possible when there are no Palestinians, Arabs or muslims left in the region. Alternatively, if all Israelis and Jews suddenly disappear, it might also be a solution, don't you think?


Even if I do not question the intention of Israeli self-defence actions, it does LOOK BAD when 300+ ppl are killed. And there is no doubt that ppl will start asking question about genocide et al.

This is a propaganda war more than anything.

 

[tchitt]

It is the first time in the history of Israel that we, the Israelis, cannot understand the motives or the purposes of the ones who are shooting at us. It is the most unreasonable war, done by the most unreasonable warriors.

The story is simple. Israel has left Gaza completely, out of our own free will, at a high cost. In Gaza there is no single Israeli civilian or soldier. They were evacuated from Gaza, our settlements, which called for a very expensive cost. We had to mobilize 45,000 policemen to take out our settlers from there. We spent $2.5 billion. The passages were open. Money was sent to Gaza. We suggested aid in many ways - economically, medically, and otherwise. We were very careful not to make the lives of the civilian people in Gaza difficult. Still I have not heard until now a single person who could explain to us reasonably: why are they firing rockets against Israel? What are the reasons? What is the purpose?

And I must say also that the phenomenon about Israel is the restraint of the army and the unity of the people. The army waited and waited; the Palestinians asked for a ceasefire, and we agreed. They themselves have violated the ceasefire. Again, we didn’t know why, until it came to a point where we were left without a choice but to bring an end to it. The operation was planned carefully and the army was true to its principles: namely, to be precise in its targets and careful not to hit civilian life. There is a problem because many of the bombs were stored in private houses. We have contacted the owners of the houses, the people that dwell there, and told them leave it. You can’t live with bombs. We have to bring an end to the source of the bombs.

Israel doesn’t have any ambition in Gaza. We left out of our free choice. We have never gone back to the idea of returning to Gaza. It’s over. But we cannot permit that Gaza will become a permanent base of threatening and even killing children and innocent people in Israel for God knows why. I feel that in our hearts, we don’t have any hatred for the Gazan people. Their suffering doesn’t carry any joy in our hearts. On the contrary, we feel that the better they will have it, better neighbors we shall have. Now that Hamas is turning to the Arab world for help, the truth is that the Arab world has to turn to Hamas for the help of Hamas. If Hamas will stop it, there is no need for any help. Everything can come again to normalcy. Passages: open; economic life: free; no Israeli intervention; no Israeli participation in any of the turnarounds in Gaza.

As a nation, we feel united. As a nation, there is wholehearted support for the army, the way they handled it, their restraint, their discrimination, and their responsibility. The great winner can be reason, and reason will lead to peace. We are very serious, in a serious mood. Many of our children are still in the shelters, and we would like them, like the children of Gaza, to breathe fresh air again. This is the story, and whoever asks us to stop shooting - they have to change the address. Let them turn to Hamas and ask them to stop shooting, and there won’t be shooting. Thank you very much.

Makes sense to me...

 

[schroder]

I am amazed at all these arm-chair military analyses! How many of you have ever been in a war, or even know anybody who was in a war? Where do you get all this expertise from? And, Tiny-Tim, applying your mathematical probability and odds, to the suffering and loss of life, just makes me puke. I am a disabled Vietnam veteran, and I can tell you this much, ALL wars are stupid. I also have experience with Israel, although I am not a Jew, I have served with the Israel MOD and have come to both love and hate the country. This entire problem was created by the Western powers that put Israel in business, without any regard for the Palestinians. I do not trust the Israelis, because they are carrying the psychological scars of the Holocaust, and cannot be trusted to think rationally. Even as they claim to want to provide a Palestinian homeland, they continue to build more settlements near Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians have nothing to lose by lobby rockets into Israel, they have nothing, no homeland, and so what do they have to lose? I do not pretend to understand this situation completely, but I do understand that there is NO fundamental difference between the Jews and the Palestinians; they are one and the same. It is Britain and the USA who mainly created this problem, and is those same powers that need to step in and solve it. Give the Palestinians some dignity, give them a homeland, and reign in the dogs of war. Once and for all, lest this conflict continue for another thousand years.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Alright so, hamas is wrong - all the kind of wrong you can imagine-. It is using the lives of innocent (yes, innocent) people to achieve its goals. No matter how many Palestinian civilian is dead,they don't care. I (and many many others) know they are not Palestinian. They receive foreign funds and are there because of a foreign agenda. They have even clashed with Egyptian border forces, killing an officer today and wounding 2 soldiers. They deprived the Muslim pilgrims from going to the SA. They broke their truce with Israel before Israel does anything (yes they did). They tried to break into Egypt and finally turned the lives of people in Gaza to a living hell. If Israel were to hit on hamas, I wouldn't mind.

However, this is not the case, Israel is having a demonstration through the use of overwhelmingly brute force (under the excuse of picking on Hamas to defend itself) against helpless CIVILIANS. They might have hit all the hamas offices in Gaza but the amount of destruction that took place and the number of civilian casualties (including women and children) is inexcusable. Yes hit hamas but only hamas. And also please refrain from making the generalisation that Gazans are all part of hamas or that hamas is hiding within the population.

Even if hamas combatants are hiding within the population this does not make legit targets out of them.

 

[Evo]

Even if hamas combatants are hiding within the population this does not make legit targets out of them.

What are the Palestinians doing to remove Hamas? As long as Hamas is hiding out within the civilian population, they are the ones responsible for what happens.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I would also like to add that the claim of self-defense is useless because there is alternative ways of defending oneself without exterminating a population and destroying infrastructure. Did it ever succeed , I mean the military campaigns and so, did Israeli massacres ever succeed ? I don't think so. Does the American people feel safer after destroying Iraq? I seriously doubt it.

 

[phyzmatix]

It seems that the point as to whether or not Hamas and/or law enforcement agencies are legally defined as civilians is moot. Just because civilians were killed, doesn't automatically mean that a war crime has been committed:

Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population

 

[Art]

What are the Palestinians doing to remove Hamas? As long as Hamas is hiding out within the civilian population, they are the ones responsible for what happens.

Where are you suggesting the Palestinians should build their police stations, municipal buildings and universities if not in urban areas

 

[Art]

Does everyone here believe that Isreal should be able to defend themselves or not? If someone lobs missiles in my yard I'm hunting them and everyone associated with them down. That's just me but it seems the right way to defend yourself. I don't understand why everyone is kicking on Isreal when a cease fire was violated by Hamas. Hamas was attacking civilians for crying out loud. So what if Hamas didn't accomplish the killing they intended. What kind of government sits back and says, "ah, they only killed one of our citizens, we will just wait until they kill more before we get off our duffs and defend them."? I give props to Isreal for actually having the balls to go out and take care of business.

Israel has every right to go after the criminals launching rockets at them. They expressly do not have the right to inflict collective punishment on the citizenry of the Gaza strip. To do so is defined under international law as a crime against humanity. Just as the Nazis were punished for their reprisal actions against French civilians in response to attacks from the resistance so should Israel's leaders be held accountable.

 

[Art]

Makes sense to me...

I wonder why then, Israel continued with it's policy of targeted assassinations (a nice euphemism for murder) during the ceasefire and why it continued to deny any commerce to and from the Gaza strip?

Would it have been acceptable for Gazans to assassinate Israel's politicians or do you think this would have been viewed as a breach of the ceasefire agreement.

It seems people have lost sight of the fact Hamas are the democratically elected leaders of the Palestinians, just because Israel labels them all as terrorists does not make it so.

Israel's PR machine is first rate but ultimately actions speak a lot louder than words and it is not very hard to see the discord between what Israel says to assuage international opinion and what it actually does on the ground. That is of course for those who actually want to see.

 

[Art]

No, Richard Falk is not 'the UN'. He was appointed by the misnamed UN Human Rights Council, which includes Arab states Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Indonesia, and other human rights luminaries such as China, Cuba. The UN HRC has passed 60% of its resolutions on Israel and none on, say, Zimbabwe or Saudia Arabia. Its an abomination.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2301643.htm

You should obtain your information from the primary source rather than right wing commentators.

The figures you quote are simply wrong and the UN HCR has produced reports on 191 countries which if you read you will find are indeed critical of both Saudi Arabia and China. Members (who were elected to the council) are subject to suspension if their countries do not work to adhere to human rights legislation.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/Pages/HumanRightsintheWorld.aspx

 

[Cyrus]

not indiscriminate? how sure are you on this one?

If you ask me, I wouldn't know either. But let just say, ok, given Israel is a democratic free society with high morals, it is perhaps difficult to imagine Israel would try to kill the innocents just to prove a point or two.. mmm... ok, so then it must be Hamas' fault to hide in civilian areas.

Yes, it is Hamas' fault for hiding in civilian areas. (I think its even illegal to do so)

Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea whether the Hamas govt is democratic and just. All I really know is that our govt label them as some "terrorist organisations". So, they must be the bad guys by default and everything they do are wrong.

I am not sure whether this is good logic but that will do for the moment when there is a lack of information.

They were democratically elected. "Just" - I doubt it. I don't know why you bring up what our government labeles them as. This point holds no water.

this may sound silly, but lasting peace might actually be possible when there are no Palestinians, Arabs or muslims left in the region. Alternatively, if all Israelis and Jews suddenly disappear, it might also be a solution, don't you think?

I fail to see the point of your last sentence unless your implying some sort of anti-semitic remarks.

Even if I do not question the intention of Israeli self-defence actions, it does LOOK BAD when 300+ ppl are killed. And there is no doubt that ppl will start asking question about genocide et al.

This is a propaganda war more than anything.

Genocide? Again, you're points don't hold any water. To consider it Genocide shows a lack of understanding of the word Genocide.