Who truly won the battle between Israel and Gaza?

[russ_watters]

And yet you cite examples that are in fact occasions where no one won. Civil wars and WWI/II.

Huh? In the US revolutionary war, the US civil war, and WWI/II, there were clear winners and losers. Perhaps you could explain why you think there were not. We'll pick one: why would you not say that the American colonists won the revolutionary war?

This is just absurd, Dadga.

 

[The Dagda]

Huh? In the US revolutionary war, the US civil war, and WWI/II, there were clear winners and losers. Perhaps you could explain why you think there were not. We'll pick one: why would you not say that the American colonists won the revolutionary war?

This is just absurd, Dadga.

I see you failed to answer my question.

US revolutionary war was won by circumstance, and the French bailing your arse out, and attacking England.

Civil war: no one wins when the two sides are the same people.

Vietnam, well Vietnam hands down, civil war the only loser was the US. Korea: stalemate.

WWI was a stalemate more or less and the Versailles treaty lead directly to WWII. I guess if you put spin on it anyone can win.

 

[russ_watters]

US revolutionary war was won by circumstance, and the French bailing your arse out, and attacking England.

So what!? They still won! You even used the word "won" in that sentence! Yes, it was won!

Civil war: no one wins when the two sides are the same people.

The union army had a goal of keeping the union together. They did. They accomplished their objective: they won.

Vietnam, well Vietnam hands down...

So again, you acknowledge that sometimes (often?) people win in wars!

What the heck are you doing here, Dadga? Your arguments are silly and you are contradicting yourself. Are you just trying to stir up trouble because you don't seem to have a real point.

 

[The Dagda]

So what!? They still won! You even used the word "won" in that sentence! Yes, it was won! The union army had a goal of keeping the union together. They did. They accomplished their objective: they won. So again, you acknowledge that sometimes (often?) people win in wars!

I think you're totally missing the point, for you win is arbitrary and is decided by the supposed victors, who lost far more than they did or would if the war never took place.

What the heck are you doing here, Dadga? Your arguments are silly and you are contradicting yourself. Are you just trying to stir up trouble because you don't seem to have a real point.

Are ad hominems strengthening your case?

 

[angel 42]

Could you rephrase that into a coherent sentence... it sounds like you are saying Israel would still occupy Gaza in the case of a cease fire. There is no reason to assume such a thing: they didn't occupy it before this little war started, so I don't see why they would want to occupy it after.

just have alook at this (Award-winning documentary film on the root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) and you'll know what I'm talking about,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589

and please Evo don't delete this, this ia what the arabs know about this (conflict). if you have another view show it let the arabs see it

 

[tiny-tim]

Reference, please? A quick google search suggests that "is internationally banned" is a misleading, if not outright false statement. (I would be mildly interested in seeing a reference that they use such bombs as well)

…
http://www.france24.com/en/20090111-israel-white-phosphorus-bombs-shells-gaza-human-rights-watch

From your (angel 42's) own reference … france24 quoting leading human rights group Human Rights Watch …

The group said Israel appeared to be using the munitions to make smoke screens to hide military operations — "a permissible use in principle under international humanitarian law".

 

[angel 42]

Your reference proves you wrong:

you are right sorry for that, I forget to tell you that the media doesn't show the same look at
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=284415

42

 

[devil-fire]

4. The fact that Israel has gone to great lengths to warn the civilians about impending attacks shows they are cognizant of the risk of civilian casualties and are endeavoring to avoid them.

I've been wondering where these people are expected to go when they get a phone call that their houses are about to be blown up...

 

[The Dagda]

just have alook at this (Award-winning documentary film on the root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) and you'll know what I'm talking about,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589

and please Evo don't delete this, this ia what the arabs know about this (conflict). if you have another view show it let the arabs see it

That's unbelievable. The fact that it's made by Jews is a testament to the Jewish people and to their belief that this is a war of propaganda that certain US officials would rather not see or even care about.

You can't help but be on the side of both the Israelis and the Palestinians because this is a war caused by colonialism and by the West and UN, and the US.

 

[drizzle]

From your (angel 42's) own reference … france24 quoting leading human rights group Human Rights Watch …

Your reference proves you wrong:

have a look at this
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009110181945232797.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-illegal-white-phosphorus-shells-in-Gaza.html

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/16/64339.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece

“It should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas” that’s the whole point of prohibiting the use of it

 

[Alfi]

Wait -- you're arguing that Israel and Gaza are both incompetent, and thus war is the best solution available to them?

If they have chosen war as their solution , then yes! They ( the leaders ) are incompetent.

 

[Evo]

If they have chosen war as their solution , then yes! They ( the leaders ) are incompetent.

I agree, Hamas is incompetant. They are the ones that have chosen war by attacking Israel. Israel is completely blameless in this.

It's rather unbelievable to me that anyone here can point the finger of blame at anything but Hamas. Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves. Hamas is attacking Israel. Israel is not attacking Gaza, they are trying to stop the attacks on them. There is no argument on this fact. The more that Palestinians whine about this, the more they alienate the rest of the world to the Palestinians.

Seriously, the pictures only condemn Hamas for what they are doing to the Palestinians. Keep posting if your goal is to gain more support for Israel, because that is what you are doing.

 

[Hurkyl]

Israel has the most highly technological weapons which are provided by the U.S. they could target who ever they are aiming to kill without sending a solder there!,

With perfect targetting information, top of the line weapons can only get within 13 meters away about half the time. In the real world, you usually don't even have perfect targetting information.

And of course, like any other bomb, it's going to damage everything around it, not just the intended target.

The weapons you're imagining are the work of science fiction fantasy, not reality.

And even if such weapons were possible, that does not mean they are a good way (or even a feasible way) to wage a war.

like they did when they assassinates Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/mar/23/guardianobituaries.israel

What was the point of that link? I can't find anything relating to your comment about weapons.

search history!

A search of history yields a lot of obvious reasons for force, such as "they shot a rocket at us".

 

[turbo]

I agree, Hamas is incompetant. They are the ones that have chosen war by attacking Israel. Israel is completely blameless in this.

It's rather unbelievable to me that anyone here can point the finger of blame at anything but Hamas. Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves. Hamas is attacking Israel. Israel is not attacking Gaza, they are trying to stop the attacks on them. There is no argument on this fact. The more that Palestinians whine about this, the more they alienate the rest of the world to the Palestinians.

Sorry, Evo, but I have to disagree. Israel is the occupying force in Gaza, and their blockade of the borders is an international crime, according to humanitarian law. There are 1.5M people living in that narrow strip of land, and when food, medicine, and fuel are cut off, people suffer. There is little that Hamas could do against the overwhelming superiority of the US-supplied Israeli army, so home-made rockets were about all they could pull off.

Terrorism is defined as violence against civilian populations to achieve political ends. Neither side has clean hands in this regards, but it is clear that Israel has inflicted severe collective punishment against the Gazans for its own ends, and is the offender here. It is not helpful to draw time-lines and say "See, X obviously was the offender" or something similar when grievances go back some 60 years. I hope our next administration refuses to turn its back on such asymmetrical exchanges, or there will be no peace in the ME.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is little that Hamas could do against the overwhelming superiority of the US-supplied Israeli army, so home-made rockets were about all they could pull off.

So what? That doesn't obviate them of the responsibility of choosing civilian areas to be the battleground.

 

[turbo]

So what? That doesn't obviate them of the responsibility of choosing civilian areas to be the battleground.

There is not a single part of that little strip of land that is not a "civilian area". Gaza is a very densely populated little area. It does not look good for Israel that they have attacked UN-sanctioned schools and UN offices in Gaza, either. Israel has very accurate munitions and high-res intelligence images, so the "oops" excuse won't play out very well.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is not a single part of that little strip of land that is not a "civilian area".

(1) That's easy to claim. Do you have proof?
(2) Even if accurate, it is obviously not a defense, because there are parts of that little strip of land that are not schools or hospitals or whatever.
(3) Even if such parts don't exist, there exist parts of land that are not Gaza.

 

[turbo]

Do you want to spar over minutia? Do you want to disagree that after the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas as their government, the Israelis and the US refused to acknowledge them because they weren't the "preferred" outcome? The US has a great track-record of promoting "democracy" as long as the elections come out as intended by the money-men running our government.

Israel has occupied Gaza and the West Bank for a long time, and has blockaded Gaza extensively and has funded settlements in the West Bank, which are both violations of International Law. It's time that some balance is brought to US policy in the region. Israel exists not because the Israelis have managed to forge some cooperation with neighbors, but because US taxpayers have been bled to make it the most heavily armed (per capita) country on Earth.

 

[Phrak]

What does Hamas have to gain in missiling Isreal?

I might google Hamas Weapons Money Iran Holy War if I wanted to know.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you want to spar over minutia?

I don't want discuss red herrings. And as such, I don't bother with the rest of your post, since it doesn't even resemble being related to my comment that you're responding to.

 

[kyleb]

I agree, Hamas is incompetant. They are the ones that have chosen war by attacking Israel. Israel is completely blameless in this.

Hamas's attacks on Israel certainly aren't doing any good, but you have your cause and effect reversed here. Palestinians never asked to have their homeland colonized out from under them, yet Israel has insisted on doing it regardless and since long before there was any Hamas. There are now nearly half a million Israeli settlers all across Palestinian territory, while millions of Palestinians are kept under strict Israeli military control as Israeli civilian colonizers effectively wipe Palestine off the map. Here is a fairly current map of this process, with all the blue area and roads under Israeli control and Israeli authorised limited Palestinian autonomy in brown:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

Did you watch the documentary The Dagda posted? It is made by Israelis who are trying to end the this conquest over what little is left of Palestine:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589

There are is a lot of propaganda and out-right lies perpetuated to blame the victim and praise the aggressor, but this is simply a war of conquest over Palestine.

And of course, like any other bomb, it's going to damage everything around it, not just the intended target.

Sure, and it you drop one on a crowded residential area to kill one man who is at home with his family, you'll wind up killing and maiming many innocent bystanders as well.

Here is an interview with a Palestinian astrophysicist who working at Virginia Tech with NASA, and who's son was fatally wounded when his families house in Gaza was bombed:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/16/palestinian_father_in_us_recounts_how

 

[turbo]

What does Hamas have to gain in missiling Isreal?

I might google Hamas Weapons Money Iran Holy War if I wanted to know.

It's pretty much the only leverage that desperate Palestinians have in convincing the Israeli government to engage them. Aside from spurring internal Israeli pressure to encourage engagement, there is little that Hamas can do to get any recognition or low-level inter-governmental conversations. Israel and the US intend to isolate Hamas and starve them out. It might work, but in the meantime, thousands of Palestinians die and suffer of wounds that might never be properly be addressed due to lack of food, medicine, etc.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sure, and it you drop one on a crowded residential area to kill one man who is at home with his family, you'll wind up killing and maiming many innocent bystanders as well.

That was the point. We are not living in a sci-fi fantasy where weapons kill exactly the intended target and nobody else -- thus, the following argument is ridiculously stupid:
1. Israel is bombing with collateral damage
2. Israel has weapons that could kill exactly the intended target and nobody else
3. Therefore, Israel must be campaigning to wipe out all Palestinians.

Here is an interview with a Palestinian astrophysicist who working at Virginia Tech with NASA, and who's son was fatally wounded when his families house in Gaza was bombed:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/16/palestinian_father_in_us_recounts_how

*gasp* Collateral damage happens? This changes my entire outlook on the war!

Oh wait a minute... I already knew that collateral damage happens! What was the point of this?

 

[Hurkyl]

It's time that some balance is brought to US policy in the region. Israel exists not because the Israelis have managed to forge some cooperation with neighbors, but because US taxpayers have been bled to make it the most heavily armed (per capita) country on Earth.

So what do you propose? Stop funding Israel, and instead send American soldiers into stop the rocket attacks, and whatever other stunts its neighbors decide to pull? Any reasonable proposal is going to have to include either:
(1) Giving enough aid to Israel to let them deal with rocket attacks on their own
(2) Other countries using their own military forces to deal with rocket attacks
So... are you proposing we send American troops into stop the rocket attacks?

 

[Phrak]

I agree, Hamas is incompetant. They are the ones that have chosen war by attacking Israel. Israel is completely blameless in this.

I wouldn't call Hamas or it's members incompetent without first knowing their intent, which, more often as not boils down to power and enrichment of it's members at the greater expense of others. The embargo acts against these basic motivators.

Surely it's not a military win, they have in mind, but something else. They have an embargo they should wish to end in order to obtain a weapons supply. If they can't do this, they will loose the support of their international allies to another political party. They are also fighting a propaganda war.

I can think of only two possible motives:
1) to break the Egyptian embargo through influencing Egyptian public opinion
2) to obtain UN sanctions against Israel to end the Israeli blockage

Hamas don't have a lot of cards to play in either, or any other endeavor, but to fire missiles over the boarder, then cry foul when Palestinian civilians get killed in the backlash. They have plenty of shills, worldwide, to help spread the word as you can obviously see. But sacrificing civilians has always been a crowd pleaser to the Palestinians in this asymmetrical warfare, garnering wide international sympathy and armfuls of UN sactions against Israel, so it shouldn’t be underrated.

 

[Phrak]

Here's a tidbit supporting theory 2.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/israel-halts-gaza-assault"

"The killing continued in the hours before the meeting, with the United Nations refugee agency for Palestinians calling for a war crimes investigation after Israeli forces killed two children when they shelled a school being used as a refugee centre in northern Gaza."

 

[turbo]

So what do you propose? Stop funding Israel, and instead send American soldiers into stop the rocket attacks, and whatever other stunts its neighbors decide to pull? Any reasonable proposal is going to have to include either:
(1) Giving enough aid to Israel to let them deal with rocket attacks on their own
(2) Other countries using their own military forces to deal with rocket attacks
So... are you proposing we send American troops into stop the rocket attacks?

Enough with the breathless extrapolations. Israel has some methods to deal with Hamas, though it has shown that any method that involves truce and negotiation is politically a non-starter with their right wing. It is high time that US taxpayer money be withheld until such time that Israel can demonstrate a willingness to co-exist with the "neighbors" that it forcibly evicted from their property 60 years ago, instead of continuing to steal more and more territory in the name of "self-defense".

 

[Phrak]

Here's a very telling article.

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-37507520090117"

"TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran accused Israel of using white-phosphorus munitions in Gaza and called for an investigation in a letter to an international watchdog agency made available to media on Saturday."

There's an accompanying photograph of an aerial phosphorus bomb. Who was grinding the film? Has Iran sent a propaganda arm to Gaza? Do they have a resident propaganda crew? How did this photograph arrive at Reuters' Tehran office?

Another paragraph:

""It is becoming increasingly alarming that the Zionist regime's troops are employing prohibited weapons with impunity against the population of Gaza ... such as white phosphorus," Mottaki wrote to OPCW Director-General Rogelio Pfirter."
...
"Israel has refused comment on the munitions..."

Some boneheaded decision-maker in Israel screwed the pooch giving the green light on this. It makes no never-mind if international law is against this or not. This is a propaganda screw-up of major proportions. What kind of war did this guy think was being fought?

 

[Phrak]

There are is a lot of propaganda and out-right lies perpetuated to blame the victim and praise the aggressor,...

You're tellin' me.

but this is simply a war of conquest over Palestine.

It’s tragic, isn't it? I don't see any other option that Israel has. If someone came killing on me and mine year after year trying to wipe us out, what other options would I have, if I have the capability, than to wipe them out? What would you recommend that Hamas should do to end this Israelis attitude?

I have a really weird idea. What if Hamas stopped trying to kill Israelis. Do you thing that might help alieve the Israeli fears?

I know it's really stupid, because Hamas doesn't want to stop killing Israelis. It empowers them. But just in case they find God or something, what do you think?

 

[kyleb]

That was the point. We are not living in a sci-fi fantasy where weapons kill exactly the intended target and nobody else -- thus, the following argument is ridiculously stupid:
1. Israel is bombing with collateral damage
2. Israel has weapons that could kill exactly the intended target and nobody else
3. Therefore, Israel must be campaigning to wipe out all Palestinians.

I wasn't attempting to suggest anything of the sort. I was simply referring to the callous disregard for human life displayed by Israel's tactics.

*gasp* Collateral damage happens? This changes my entire outlook on the war!

Oh wait a minute... I already knew that collateral damage happens! What was the point of this?

My point is simply that such "collateral damage" has traumatic effects on people, including people who are working to help us.

So what do you propose? Stop funding Israel, and instead send American soldiers into stop the rocket attacks, and whatever other stunts its neighbors decide to pull?

American soldiers aren't going to stop the rockets anymore than Israeli ones have. I suggest we persuade Israel into accepting Palestinians rights under international law, though funding cuts, and though economic sanctions if that is what it takes, much the same way apartheid was ended in South Africa. That is what the vast majority of the nations of the world have been voting for in the UN General Assembly for decades now, but US veto power has been exploited prevent any binding resolutions. That is what the Arab peace plan proposes as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.stm

Yet Israel, with the US holding it's hand, has continued to thumb their noses at any such peace, and kept expanding their colonization over what little of Palestine is left.

I wouldn't call Hamas or it's members incompetent without first knowing their intent, which, more often as not boils down to power and enrichment of it's members at the greater expense of others.

Well that was a wild stab in the dark. If you bother to look into it, Fatah is the corrupt money and power people, who allowed themselves to be paid goons in Israel's ongoing colonization. Here, from the horse's mouth:

...
Ultimately, the Palestinians are a people struggling for freedom from occupation and the establishment of an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees to their villages from which they were expelled. Whatever the cost, the continuation of Israel's massacres will neither break our will nor our aspiration for freedom and independence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ismail-haniyeh-my-message-to-the-west-ndash-israel-must-stop-the-slaughter-1366726.html

Granted, their rockets are only doing harm, but not shooting rockets during the truce didn't help anything either, so they went back to where they were. I highly doubt they expected such an overwhelming response from Israel though, or expected Egypt to open the boarder. Egypt doesn't want to get drawn into a war with Israel, so they can't rightly take in masses of Palestinians as long as some might turn around to attack Israel though Egypt.

They have plenty of shills, worldwide, to help spread the word as you can obviously see.

I see a lot more shills for Israel's conquest over what little is left of Palestine. Why do you defned it with your gueswork about Hamas?

 

[Phrak]

It's pretty much the only leverage that desperate Palestinians have in convincing the Israeli government to engage them.

Right. They succeeded in engaging Israel in more war.

Aside from spurring internal Israeli pressure to encourage engagement, there is little that Hamas can do to get any recognition or low-level inter-governmental conversations.

What kind of conversation do you think Hamas wants and doesn't have? Hey. I have an idea. What if the Hamas membership decided to go away and let some party that isn't h*ll bent on distroying Israel, but will sues for peace take over. The Hamas membership can go back to selling street food, happy in their altruistic decission. This would serve to motivate the 'conversation' you have in mind. But this wouldn't be in self interest of the Hamas membership, would it. What do you think?

Israel and the US intend to isolate Hamas and starve them out...

Israel intends to stop weapons stockpiling.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's wrong on several levels:

1. There is no such thing as a white phosphorus "bomb".
2. There are white phosphorus shells, which are used for the smoke generated to obscure troop movement.

Not only naive, but false. Did you just make this up?

White Phosphorus (WP) is a chemical element used in conventional ammunition used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes, as well as for it’s anti-personnel (AP) capabilities.

What is White Phosphorus? Primarily used in bombs, artillery shells, and mortar shells, grenades,flares tracers, etc.

...H2OHighly Hygroscopic –will impact a person
Inhaled –will destroy lung tissue resulting in agonizing death
Contact with clothing – will burn through to skin unless treated immediately
Contact with skin – will burn down to the bone if not treated immediatelyProcessing

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007global_demil/SessionIIA/1410Garner.pdf

 

[kyleb]

What kind of conversation do you think Hamas wants and doesn't have?

There is no reason to guess, a little research will answer your question.

Put simply, Israel has never shown interest in any conversation that doesn't leave Palestinians in a permanent state of subjugation to Israel. That is something the vast majority Palestinians don't have any interest in agreeing to, Hamas or otherwise, yet Israel has been insistent on nothing less since long before Hamas existed.

Again, check into Israel's "Generous Offer" at Camp David II for yourself, and you'll see what I'm saying is true. However, you'll have to look past the fudged percentage figures Israel claims, and actually understand the details of the "peace offer" to see the reality it.

 

[Phrak]

There is no reason to guess, a little research will answer your question.

Put simply, Israel has never shown interest in any conversation that doesn't leave Palestinians in a permanent state of subjugation to Israel. That is something the vast majority Palestinians don't have any interest in agreeing to, Hamas or otherwise, yet Israel has been insistent on nothing less since long before Hamas existed.

Again, check into Israel's "Generous Offer" at Camp David II for yourself, and you'll see what I'm saying is true. However, you'll have to look past the fudged percentage figures Israel claims, and actually understand the details of the "peace offer" to see the reality it.

Fair enough. I'll do so when my wonderful 400 bytes per second download rate offers me the time to do so. See you tomorrow--maybe.

 

[Art]

Several people here have dismissed the disparity between civilian deaths of Israeli civilians and of Palestinian civilians as irrelevant. These people are obviously ignorant of the international rules and laws which cover the principles of Jus Ad Bellum, Jus In Bello and Jus post bellum collectively known as Just War.

Under international law, failure to show the requirements of Jus Ad Bellum has been met prior to the beginning of a war leaves the leaders of the military adventure open to prosecution for war crimes.

The 6th requirement of Jus Ad Bellum deals specifically with the issue of proportionality. This is defined in the Stanford Encyclopaedia as

6. Proportionality. A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties. Only if the benefits are proportional to, or “worth”, the costs may the war action proceed. (The universal must be stressed, since often in war states only tally their own expected benefits and costs, radically discounting those accruing to the enemy and to any innocent third parties.)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ Note the emphasis on the Universiality element. The good of your own citizens has to be weighed against the likely harm to your enemy's citizens resulting from a proposed war. The high civilian death toll in Gaza including over 400 children raises the question was this requirement fulfilled? In law a state's right of self defence is the same as an individual's. For example if a person slaps you you cannot pull out a gun and shoot him and you certainly cannot slaughter his wife, kids and neighbours. i.e. Your response must be proportionate.

Once the war has begun; Jus in Bello; further rules come into play.

In relation to the current conflict these include,

1) Obey all international laws on weapons prohibition. Under the Nuremberg Principle this applies whether or not a warring party has itself signed up to any international treaty banning or limiting the use of a particular weapon. In the case of white phosphorous, although not banned outright, there are international laws governing the circumstances and environment under which it can be used. There is prima facie evidence Israel may be in breach of those rules for allegedly using this weapon in densely populated civilian areas.

2. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity. Soldiers are only allowed to use their (non-banned) weapons against those 'engaged in harm'. To deliberately target non-combatants is a war crime. Given the accusations from credible UN sources of targeting of ambulances, UN schools, the university, hospitals and even the media tower it would seem Israel certainly has a case to answer in this regard.

3) Proportionality. Again actions taken must be proportional to the military goal sought.

4) No reprisals. A reprisal is when country A violates jus in bello in war with country B. Country B then retaliates with its own violation of jus in bello, seeking to chasten A into obeying the rules.

And so arguing Hamas broke the rules of war and so therefore Israel can too is not a valid excuse under international law.

Finally there are rules regarding Jus post bellum which are, or may become, pertinent here,

1. Proportionality and Publicity. The peace settlement should be measured and reasonable, as well as publicly proclaimed. To make a settlement serve as an instrument of revenge is to make a volatile bed one may be forced to sleep in later. In general, this rules out insistence on unconditional surrender.

2. Rights Vindication. The settlement should secure those basic rights whose violation triggered the justified war. The relevant rights include human rights to life and liberty and community entitlements to territory and sovereignty. This is the main substantive goal of any decent settlement, ensuring that the war will actually have an improving affect. Respect for rights, after all, is a foundation of civilization, whether national or international. Vindicating rights, not vindictive revenge, is the order of the day.

3. Discrimination. Distinction needs to be made between the leaders, the soldiers, and the civilians in the defeated country one is negotiating with. Civilians are entitled to reasonable immunity from punitive post-war measures. This rules out sweeping socio-economic sanctions as part of post-war punishment.

4. Punishment #1. When the defeated country has been a blatant, rights-violating aggressor, proportionate punishment must be meted out. The leaders of the regime, in particular, should face fair and public international trials for war crimes.

5. Punishment #2. Soldiers also commit war crimes. Justice after war requires that such soldiers, from all sides to the conflict, likewise be held accountable to investigation and possible trial.

6. Compensation. Financial restitution may be mandated, subject to both proportionality and discrimination. A post-war poll tax on civilians is generally impermissible, and there needs to be enough resources left so that the defeated country can begin its own reconstruction. To beggar thy neighbor is to pick future fights.

7. Rehabilitation. The post-war environment provides a promising opportunity to reform decrepit institutions in an aggressor regime. Such reforms are permissible but they must be proportional to the degree of depravity in the regime. They may involve: demilitarization and disarmament; police and judicial re-training; human rights education; and even deep structural transformation towards a minimally just society governed by a legitimate regime. This is, obviously, the most controversial aspect of jus post bellum.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/

Specifically the continued imposition of the Israeli blockade of Gaza may be considered in violation of rule 3 which is enshrined in international law as the ban on collective punishment.

Ultimately the winner of this conflict may be settled in the courts.