News Hundreds die in Israel raid on Gaza

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abdelrahman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Israel
Click For Summary
The U.S. government condemned Hamas for breaking a cease-fire and launching rocket attacks on Israel, which responded with significant military strikes resulting in over 200 deaths, primarily among civilians. Israeli officials emphasized the need for a strong response to what they termed terrorist actions by Hamas, while critics pointed out the disproportionate nature of the violence. Discussions highlighted the complexities of the conflict, including accusations of war crimes against Israel and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Some participants drew controversial comparisons to historical atrocities, while others argued that Hamas's actions justified Israel's military response. The ongoing cycle of violence raises questions about the prospects for peace and the future of both Israeli and Palestinian communities.
  • #31
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7801662.stm
But the Egyptian foreign minister has accused Hamas of not allowing injured Palestinians to leave Gaza to seek treatment, even though much-needed medical supplies are waiting at the nearby El-Arish airport.

...

Israel said it initially began easing the blockade, but this was halted when Hamas failed to fulfil what Israel says were agreed conditions, including ending all rocket fire and halting weapons smuggling.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD958NJFO0
Israel said three militants were spotted planting explosives in northern Gaza along the border fence. Soldiers crossed a few yards into Gaza and engaged the Palestinians, who threw grenades. The military said soldiers returned fire, hitting the three. Israeli media said they were killed, the first to die since the truce ended.
Should Israel concede and open the border, would the violence stop? Would Hamas be satisfied? I'm not seeing it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
russ_watters said:
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.

.
Spot the irony :smile:. 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.

C. War and other emergency situations- occupation by a foreign power[3]

1. A police officer shall continue to perform his tasks of protecting persons and property during war and enemy occupation in the interests of the civilian population. For that reason he shall not have the status of "combatant", and the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, shall not apply.

2. The provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, apply to the civilian police.
http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta79/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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
making things up …

Art said:
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.

uhh? :confused:

this (from the http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600049?OpenDocument") is Geneva Convention (IV), Part III Article 43 …
Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section II : Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict
ARTICLE 43
Any protected person who has been interned or placed in assigned residence shall be entitled to have such action reconsidered as soon as possible by an appropriate court or administrative board designated by the Detaining Power for that purpose. If the internment or placing in assigned residence is maintained, the court or administrative board shall periodically, and at least twice yearly, give consideration to his or her case, with a view to the favourable amendment of the initial decision, if circumstances permit.
Unless the protected persons concerned object, the Detaining Power shall, as rapidly as possible, give the Protecting Power the names of any protected persons who have been interned or subjected to assigned residence, or who have been released from internment or assigned residence. The decisions of the courts or boards mentioned in the first paragraph of the present Article shall also, subject to the same conditions, be notified as rapidly as possible to the Protecting Power.


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? :rolleyes:
Art said:
http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta79/ERES690.htm
C. War and other emergency situations- occupation by a foreign power[3] …

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.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
tiny-tim said:
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) …
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.
 
  • #35
Art said:
A major stumbling block in the recognition of Israel by the PLO
The PLO is irrelevant at the moment...
 
  • #36
Art said:
Spot the irony :smile:. 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
plenty of Islamic states …

Art said:
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? :smile:
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.
 
  • #38
tiny-tim said:
uhh? :confused:

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? :rolleyes:


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 :smile:

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

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.
:smile: 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. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39


Art said:
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. :smile:
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.
 
  • #40


tiny-tim said:
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...
 
Last edited:
  • #41


tiny-tim said:
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. :smile:

tiny-tim said:
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. :smile:

tiny-tim said:
Since there are existing Christian and Islamic states, isn't it rather racist to suggest there's something intrinsically wrong with a Jewish state? :smile:
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. :smile:


tiny-tim said:
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 :smile:
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 :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42


Art said:
It mentions law enforcement agencies …

No it doesn't! :smile:

What document are you quoting from? :confused:
They are considered civilian unless they are specifically nominated as part of the military forces by their commanding party. :smile:

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

oh i see … that's Part III, Article 43, of the Protocol I of 1979 :rolleyes: 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)!
Art said:
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. :smile:

erm … oh, Hurkyl :smile: has beaten me to it! :biggrin:
 
  • #43


Hurkyl said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Art said:
Actually the UK is not a Christian state in any legal sense whatsoever. :smile:

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

yes it is! :smile: (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 :smile:

uhh? :confused: How does that contradict what I said …
tiny-tim 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. :frown:
 
  • #45


tiny-tim said:
No it doesn't! :smile:
Still struggling with the reading comprehension I see :smile:

tiny-tim said:
What document are you quoting from? :confused:
Err, try the one I linked to :rolleyes:


tiny-tim said:
oh i see … that's Part III, Article 43, of the Protocol I of 1979 :rolleyes: 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 :smile:

tiny-tim said:
… 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 :smile: has beaten me to it! :biggrin:
Sigh, back to the reading comprehension problem again :smile:
 
  • #46
tiny-tim said:
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.

tiny-tim said:
yes it is! :smile: (for the reasons I've already given)​
What reasons? You have not provided any reasons other than your own woefully ill-informed opinions.
tiny-tim said:
uhh? :confused: 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!

tiny-tim said:
(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. :frown:
Misquoted? :smile: I cut and pasted what she actually said. :smile::smile::smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
Art said:
Misquoted? :smile: I cut and pasted what she actually said. :smile::smile::smile:

No … even after you edited it, you still misquoted her …
Art said:
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. :frown:
 
  • #48
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.
 
  • #49
devil-fire said:
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.
 
  • #50
devil-fire said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
Art said:
...
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
 
  • #52
Art said:
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.
 
  • #53
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #54
Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #55
devil-fire said:
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.
 
  • #56
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.
 
  • #57
drankin said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #58
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 …
devil-fire said:
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. :frown:

Try again! :smile:
 
  • #59
Cyrus said:
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.

:frown:
 
  • #60
Israeli President Shimon Peres said:
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...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
Replies
49
Views
9K
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
14K
  • · Replies 92 ·
4
Replies
92
Views
18K
  • · Replies 126 ·
5
Replies
126
Views
17K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
531
Views
70K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
21K
  • · Replies 123 ·
5
Replies
123
Views
17K
Replies
65
Views
11K