# Israel, Hamas truce begins

• News
seycyrus
Not quite.

Yes quite. The US and Israeli far outspend in both total magnitude and relative numbers other countries in their efforts to minimize collateral damage.

I think the record shows that in the Iraq war, the smart bombs weren't so smart and many civilians were killed by bombs and missiles that missed the target.

Weapon systems do not always work as intended. INTENT matters.

And of course, there were artillery barrages of civilian areas, ostensibly to get the insurgents amongst the civilians.

No *ostensibly* about it. If Israel intended to kill those civilians, they would be much more efficient about it.

As for collateral damage in the Palestinian areas or in Lebanon.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010415/ai_n14381754

Yes, I am aware that there is collateral damage. What's the purpose of that quote. The US does supply technology, that was not in dispute.

Hamas and Hezbollah have what they have - inexpensive munitions. They do not have the largest economy sending jets, helicopters and guided missiles.

Enough of the apologist propaganda!

Hamas and Hizbollah purchase and utilize their weapon systems with no regard for collateral damage.

Search the web and show me where a Hamas or Hezbollah leader publicly apologizes for the death of an Israeli Jew. You'll be hard pressed.

seycyrus
Hospitals and schools are really good places for the terrorists to shoot and launch attacks on the Israeli army, its totally understandable why they would blow up the infrastructure of Lebanon...terrorists use those. :grumpy:

Certainly the "good old days" or terrorists stockpiling munitions seeking shelter, and launching attacks from hospitals and other civilian centers, and not expecting any reaction are over.

If you launch an attack from a civilian center YOU are responsible for any deaths caused in a response to your attack.

AhmedEzz
Well mate I don't see any reason for destroying bridges,roads and so in Lebanon. Moreover, Israel didn't use the high-precision bombs, it used cluster bombs in CIVILIAN areas.

When the count of unexploded cluster bomblets passed 100,000, the United Nation's undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, Jan Egeland, expressed his disbelief at the scale of the problem.

What's shocking and, I would say to me, completely immoral," he said, "is that 90% of the cluster-bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when we knew there would be a resolution, when we really knew there would be an end of this.

http://www.international.ucla.edu/ar...parentid=56096 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
Art
Enough of the apologist propaganda!

.
You probably don't see the irony in your statement :uhh:

Art
Certainly the "good old days" or terrorists stockpiling munitions seeking shelter, and launching attacks from hospitals and other civilian centers, and not expecting any reaction are over.

If you launch an attack from a civilian center YOU are responsible for any deaths caused in a response to your attack.
So which Israeli city bans IDF members as according to your rules of engagement any city they live in or pass through are valid targets.

Art
Yes quite. The US and Israeli far outspend in both total magnitude and relative numbers other countries in their efforts to minimize collateral damage.
You can't have it both ways. If they spend so much money and effort ensuring only the targets they want to hit are hit then given the huge number of civilian casualties that must mean they are deliberately targeting civilians.

In the past 18 months there have been over 600 Palestinians killed (mainly civilians) and 18 Israelis killed (mainly soldiers) almost makes one wonder which side has the precision weapons.

seycyrus
Well mate I don't see any reason for destroying bridges,roads and so in Lebanon. Moreover, Israel didn't use the high-precision bombs, it used cluster bombs in CIVILIAN areas.

I note that we are continuing to bypass the admission by Nasrallah as to the initiation of the war and continue to focus on an issue that has already been addressed.

Yes, the collateral damage was a mjor screw up. People overreacted. The Israeli populace held their leaders to the fire for this, and condemned the results. People lost their jobs and policies were rethought.

Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Yes quite. The US and Israeli far outspend in both total magnitude and relative numbers other countries in their efforts to minimize collateral damage.

Weapon systems do not always work as intended. INTENT matters.

No *ostensibly* about it. If Israel intended to kill those civilians, they would be much more efficient about it.

Yes, I am aware that there is collateral damage. What's the purpose of that quote. The US does supply technology, that was not in dispute.

Enough of the apologist propaganda!

Hamas and Hizbollah purchase and utilize their weapon systems with no regard for collateral damage.

Search the web and show me where a Hamas or Hezbollah leader publicly apologizes for the death of an Israeli Jew. You'll be hard pressed.
Not propaganda, but a successful refutation with facts of one's assertions, which btw are not supported by any evidence.

I'm opposed to and I condemn the violence of both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

seycyrus
So which Israeli city bans IDF members as according to your rules of engagement any city they live in or pass through are valid targets.

I'm sorry. Could you please rephrase that?

seycyrus
You can't have it both ways. If they spend so much money and effort ensuring only the targets they want to hit are hit then given the huge number of civilian casualties that must mean they are deliberately targeting civilians.

OR it could be that in the real world, systems don't always work as intended.

INTENT is the key word. To pretend that intent does not matter, is to backslide into a realm of fantasy.

In the past 18 months there have been over 600 Palestinians killed (mainly civilians) and 18 Israelis killed (mainly soldiers) almost makes one wonder which side has the precision weapons.

Well, we already know which side is shooting from behind the skirts of nearby civilians. The amazing thing is, that these peopel have managed to convince others that if their civilian shields get hurt, it is the other guys fault.

seycyrus
Not propaganda, but a successful refutation with facts of one's assertions, which btw are not supported by any evidence.

I'm opposed to and I condemn the violence of both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

There was no successful refutation. Not of any claim that I made at least.

I never claimed that the US didn't supply weapons OR that innocent Palestinians weren't being killed.

Notice I can use the phrase "innocent Palastinian".

Not supported by any evidence? Look at the targets of the rocket barrages. Look at Nasrallah's staement. Paraphrased...."...we fired rockets at the nearby city as a distraction..."

Note *nearby city*, NOT *the 798th artillery unit stationed wherever*. NOT *the 2100 infantry patrol*

The CITY.

Every single work are review I've attended highlights programs to minimize collateral damage.
Look at the nonlethal weapons programs being developed. Hint: Hezbollah and Hamas aint attending those conferences.

AhmedEzz
I would like to see a strong reference for such claims - and please try to find a credible one.

seycyrus
I would like to see a strong reference for such claims - and please try to find a credible one.

Which claims? I've made several posts.

Useless bickering about who was wrong when, doesn't help anyone. There have been mistakes and bad choices on all sides. Neither side is "innocent", that's not the point.

If you ask me, the United States supports Israel because for a few reasons.. One, they like us, most of the ME doesn't. That's not a secret. Two, our friendship benefits both sides, they get some of our weapons, and we get some excellent intelligence. Seriously, the rest of the Middle East supports Hamas and Hezbollah.

The point is that we need to be able to move past these issues, reconcile our differences and focus on the forward progress of man. This is like two brothers fighting.. One brother can always blame the other brother for punching him first.

Last edited:
AhmedEzz
Seriously, the rest of the Middle East supports Hamas and Hezbollah

This is not true mate. The only countries in the Middle East that supports Hamas and/or Hezbollah is Syria and Iran. Even in Lebanon there's anti-Hezbollah movement. To further prove my point, Hezbollah took over Beirut weeks ago and they used their weapons against Lebanese people, so don't tell me Lebanon supports Hezbollah.

As for Hamas, it has no support except from Syria and Iran. Egypt for one despises the movement, it resembles the forbidden terrorist group of Muslim brotherhood in Egypt.

..The only countries in the Middle East that supports Hamas and/or Hezbollah is Syria and Iran..
..As for Hamas, it has no support except from Syria and Iran.
Maybe publicly.. but I'm sure over the years Saudi Arabia and Iraq {before we invaded} help them behind the scenes.. No one in the middle east like Israel, and of course they will support whatever entity is raging a war against them.

AhmedEzz
Not all war is supported as you think. It was not of Lebanon's interest to go to war with Israel. It is not of Palestinian people's interest to be at war with Israel. Egyptians for one are working really hard to bring (fair) peaceful resolution to the region.

WarPhalange
Not all war is supported as you think. It was not of Lebanon's interest to go to war with Israel. It is not of Palestinian people's interest to be at war with Israel. Egyptians for one are working really hard to bring (fair) peaceful resolution to the region.

I never said everybody likes war. I don't know why you'd think that. I said there are people who gain money and power from conflict. Whether it be terrorists, people who play the victim card, or straight up weapons manufacturers.

seycyrus
If we gave billions of dollars to any country in the ME I'm sure they'd like us, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/world/middleeast/17israel.html

If the other ME countries were better allies, I'm sure they would get more money!

That being said, a couple of paragraphs into that link, it talks about the aid to Israel being part of a plan to give 20 billion in aid to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

If we gave billions of dollars to any country in the ME I'm sure they'd like us, too...
Did you read the rest of my statement? I don't think they are friends because we give them money, its the other way around.. if anything its probably payments for the intel they give us... its a mutually beneficial relationship.

Not all war is supported as you think...
I never said it was in any countries interest to go to war. I said that the middle east countries {generally speaking} support the Palestinian point of view.

WarPhalange
If the other ME countries were better allies, I'm sure they would get more money!

Did you read the rest of my statement? I don't think they are friends because we give them money, its the other way around.. if anything its probably payments for the intel they give us... its a mutually beneficial relationship.

Come on people, I KNOW you can do logic. It just takes some effort. Here, let me help:

Israel started up in May 1948 officially. In 1949 (I'm assuming FY49, so that's in October) we start giving them aid.

There is no time for them to give us intel and why would other ME countries be friendly when we've been screwing them over for oil at that time?

If we gave billions of dollars to any country in the ME I'm sure they'd like us, too.

The United States has been giving roughly as much aid to Egypt as Israel gets for decades now, and the PA has largely been bankrolled by American funds. Saudi Arabia has had their security and economy provided essentially for free by the United States since the 1930's. Jordan is also a big, longtime recipient of US aid.

Israel started up in May 1948 officially. In 1949 (I'm assuming FY49, so that's in October) we start giving them aid.

The aid they received in the 1950's and most of the 1960's was small potatos, and mostly consisted of loans. Israel's main patron in the early decades was France, who wanted to use them as a vanguard for recolonizing the eastern Mediterranean (witness the consequent Suez Canal crisis, in which the United States shut down a joint Anglo/Franco/Israeli assault on Egypt). It was not until after the Six-Day War that American patronage of Israel took on its present outlines.

Last edited by a moderator:
AhmedEzz
As of 2005, direct U.S. economic and military assistance to Israel amounted to nearly 154 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-United_States_relations

U.S. Aid to Egypt Totals $28 Billion in Three Decades http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/features/egypt/ [Broken] That is 154 billion$ vs. 28 billion $... how is that "roughly" equal? Last edited by a moderator: quadraphonics I said the amounts of money given per year were roughly equal, not that the total non-military assistance to Egypt equals the total amount of money (including military assistance) given to Israel. So, you either need to take the military aid out of the Israel column, or include military aid in the Egypt column, and you also need to look at it on an annual basis. Up until last year, both Israel and Egypt were receiving roughly$2 Billion a year in total aid (military + nonmilitary). Last year, it was decided to up Israel to \$3 Billion in military aid, and cancel the non-military aid. Also note that Egypt has only been getting aid since about 1975, whereas Israel has been getting aid since 1950 (although not substantial aid until 1967). From about 1975 until last year, Egypt and Israel were getting roughly equal amounts of aid each year (and Jordan and the PA weren't getting left out either).

Note that American military aid to Egypt accounts for well over half of Egypt's military budget, whereas military aid to Israel accounts for less than 1/3 of their budget.