Israel, it's about time!

[PowerofGlory]

hmm..
do any of you know your history?

last i check there was something called the kingdom of the Israel.

Palestine didnt exist by. soo chronologically and historically. Israel as a Nation is just reinstated and not Installed, since they do have claim to the land disputed. What the UN did was to appease the Palestinians and separated them and Israel. As for Israel they cant care less but retake what was supposedly theirs in the 1st place. Palestinians should be happy about the agreement instead of bombing Israel, which is like giving Israel a perfect reason to try to retake their lost lands. Its like the Russia vs Georgia where Georgia was stupid enough to give Russia a reason to steam roll them and then now Hama like Georgia is playing the "victim" where its their fault at the 1st place in provoking.

here is a nice question for all of you?
have you visited israel's southern cities? if no, go visit and you will be thousands of sharpnel and bomb/rocket parts lined up to remind them what they are up against in the south.

terror sparks terror. Even Hamas knows that. that is why its playing the "victim" so the UN will intervene.

I agree with israel where International Monitor will be installed that way hamas cant say sh*t and they cant launch rockets and play "victim"

for hamas not agree with that, just show hamas will not honor any agreement and try to severe ties.

[Mourhelm]

I think that Palestinian civilians would happily accept if you were going to invite them into your shelters instead of their unprotected homes which could be blown to pieces at any time...

If Hamas wanted it could have put their people away from the rockets and the fighting.

Israel does not aim at civilian targets. Israel issues warnings to the civilian population and even send them humanitarian aid.

First of all, where would the civilians go?

Away from the rockets.

Secondly the civilians aren't on anyone's side, they are civilians, that's the definition...

Of course there are sides. Physically there is the border. Non-physically there is the nationality and citizenship.

Thirdly, do you think that Israel is responsible for civilian deaths if a Palestinian suicide bomber kills an Israeli soldier and a number of civilians? I doubt it, nor do I.

If the suicide bomber explodes in an Israeli military base it is acceptable that civilians will die. Israel is responsible for the civilians within its military bases.

If, on the other hand, the suicide bomber explodes in a bus station and one soldier dies, it is still a civilian target and Israel is not responsible for the civilian deaths.

I did not mean for what I said to be interpreted in the way you do, my opinion is that of the two acts of terrorism that I was comparing Israel's is the worst. I think that is clear when reading the sentence in its context but if I'm wrong about that I apologize for the confusion.

You used the worst instead of worse which lead to the confusion.

I don't see Israel's actions as terrorism. It's no more terrorism than any other war.

The goal is not to terrorize the Palestinian population but to stop Hamas rockets for a long period of time.

The blockade cut off Gaza from the rest of the world, most goods had to be smuggled in and of the necessities there were a bare minimum. Every day I see reports of how there is not enough medicine or fuel or electricity, just this morning I saw an estimate that said that there is only flour for 2 or 3 days more.

First, you didn't answer my question as to where you get your info from.

Second, the fact that there is flour for two more days shows that Gaza was not starved. Israel sends shipments of humanitarian aid into Gaza to prevent, as much as possible, a humanitarian crisis.

The Palestinian population is not the enemy of Israel!

No according to the geneva convention it is not ok to use civilians as shields, but nor is targeting civilians...

I agree. Hamas does both.

Both Israel and Hamas are guilty here. For the record it does not say "if you use civilians as shields it is your fault that they die" as you indicated earlier.

I agree it doesn't say that explicitly in my quote of the Geneva convention, but I'm sure you can find it.

I will take the time to look for it later (I'm kinda busy now and I need to reformat my computer).

This is a quote showing that the killing of civilians is also prohibited:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person(...)
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

This quote is very nice, but if these people take no active part they should get away from the danger zone. Hamas forces its people to stay in the danger zone to serve as a human shield.

If you were at war with a country, do you think that you'd send your sons into harms way so your army could attack without retaliation?

Will you let your people die because the enemy uses children as human shields?

About your clip there, all this barrister does is answer whether Hamas has any claim against Israel according to international law. It is not about whether Israel's actions are legal.

That's the point. They have no claims because what Israel is doing is legal self defense.

Also, 34 secs into the clip there's an obvious cut, right after the question "surely this isn't proportional?" then 1 minute in there's a pretty strange answer to the question asked ("targeting areas where you know civilians will die is against international law?"), I can't say if that's been manipulated though since they change cameras at that point. However at 1.08 it is again clearly visible that the clip has been edited. I don't think that the clip has any value whatsoever to your claim about international law.

I told you it's not the full interview and that I'd like a link to the full interview.

I would like to see the entire interview if you can link me to it.

[Mourhelm]

hmm..
do any of you know your history?

last i check there was something called the kingdom of the Israel.

That's not history - that's a biblical story. While it's probably true that there was the kingdom of Israel, it's so far in the past that it's irrelevant.

Same goes to the idea of removing Israel from the map because the UN split the territory. It was done and there's no real solution to undo it.

Palestine didnt exist by.

The story of David and Goliath is also biblical and shows that the Palestinians were here then, but not all over the place (Israel was built on Canaan).

soo chronologically and historically. Israel as a Nation is just reinstated and not Installed, since they do have claim to the land disputed.

These claims are biblical and if you go by that, god promised us much much more.

What the UN did was to appease the Palestinians and separated them and Israel. As for Israel they cant care less but retake what was supposedly theirs in the 1st place. Palestinians should be happy about the agreement instead of bombing Israel, which is like giving Israel a perfect reason to try to retake their lost lands. Its like the Russia vs Georgia where Georgia was stupid enough to give Russia a reason to steam roll them and then now Hama like Georgia is playing the "victim" where its their fault at the 1st place in provoking.

Israel doesn't try to reconquer Gaza after removing all the Israeli citizens from there. Only our religious extremist want to take it all back. They cause more harm than they do good.

What the UN gave us is enough. There's no need to conquer more territory.

here is a nice question for all of you?
have you visited israel's southern cities? if no, go visit and you will be thousands of sharpnel and bomb/rocket parts lined up to remind them what they are up against in the south.

I got to enjoy the "nice" feeling of Hizbulla rockets from Lebanon (on our last war). One of these missiles hit a house in my neighborhood, about 200 meters from my house.

terror sparks terror. Even Hamas knows that. that is why its playing the "victim" so the UN will intervene.

I agree with israel where International Monitor will be installed that way hamas cant say sh*t and they cant launch rockets and play "victim"

for hamas not agree with that, just show hamas will not honor any agreement and try to severe ties.

It might work, but there is a genaral agreement among us in this thread that the UN is practically useless.

[Nemo]

PowerofGlory, let's give the Romans [aka Italians] most of Europe and all of the Mediterranean. Or maybe give the Greeks Alexanders Empire? Or maybe give the Mongols half the world?

If, on the other hand, the suicide bomber explodes in a bus station and one soldier dies, it is still a civilian target and Israel is not responsible for the civilian deaths.

What if the soldier has a gun on him? Is it still a civilian target?

[Mourhelm]

What if the soldier has a gun on him? Is it still a civilian target?

Of course it's still a civilian target.

If a terrorist comes to bomb your house and a soldier comes to help you, will you consider your house a military target?

I will only consider a bus station (or house) as a military target if it has a military purpose (like storing rockets).

[AFKain]

If Hamas wanted it could have put their people away from the rockets and the fighting.

No Hamas should put their rockets away from the people, there is a huge difference. People stay at their homes since they have nowhere to go. Even if they are aware of there being rockets in their vicinity they have nowhere to go... They can't simply go "away" since they don't have anywhere to seek shelter.

Israel does not aim at civilian targets. Israel issues warnings to the civilian population and even send them humanitarian aid.

You talk a lot about this humanitarian aid, I am curious of how much of it there is and who it reaches. I read earlier today that Israel isn't even letting replacement surgeons from the Red Cross into Gaza (they've been waiting to be let in since before the ground forces entered Gaza).

Edit: hitting enemy troops knowing that civilians will be killed as well is not much different from targeting civilians directly.

Of course there are sides. Physically there is the border. Non-physically there is the nationality and citizenship.

You did read the Geneva quote I posted right? Let me refresh your memory... "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

You cannot say that civilians of a certain nationality are any more worthy of protection than others... Civilians are civilians, they are not part of this conflict and the killing of them is an Israeli war crime.

If the suicide bomber explodes in an Israeli military base it is acceptable that civilians will die. Israel is responsible for the civilians within its military bases.

If, on the other hand, the suicide bomber explodes in a bus station and one soldier dies, it is still a civilian target and Israel is not responsible for the civilian deaths.

I am sure that most people would not be so outraged if civilians were killed in closed military facilities in which only Hamas soldiers are living and over which Hamas has full control, such are legitimate targets in my opinion. What Israel is doing is bombing bus stations where a Hamas soldier has a few rockets.

You used the worst instead of worse which lead to the confusion.

I don't see Israel's actions as terrorism. It's no more terrorism than any other war.

The goal is not to terrorize the Palestinian population but to stop Hamas rockets for a long period of time.

I used worse because it was a comparison of two acts and one of them was the worst action... It does not matter what goal the Israeli military claims it has, what matters is the effects of this military operation and that is pure terror.

First, you didn't answer my question as to where you get your info from.

Second, the fact that there is flour for two more days shows that Gaza was not starved. Israel sends shipments of humanitarian aid into Gaza to prevent, as much as possible, a humanitarian crisis.

I get my information from a Swedish newspaper called Dagens Nyheter, The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Times. Where do you get yours by the way?

I used starved in the sense that the people in gaza were being deprived of a great deal of resources and goods. That all of gaza would run out of flour this quickly even with rationing shows how little there was available in the first place.

This quote is very nice, but if these people take no active part they should get away from the danger zone. Hamas forces its people to stay in the danger zone to serve as a human shield.

This is interesting, first you say that people should just leave (again without consideration for the fact that your military forces civilians to leave their homes and all their possessions, trading their previous lives for a future with a very uncertain life expectancy in a literal war zone... but I think I covered that earlier) and then you say that they can't leave because Hamas doesn't let them? Anyway, all of Gaza is a danger zone, and the borders are closed.

If you were at war with a country, do you think that you'd send your sons into harms way so your army could attack without retaliation?

Will you let your people die because the enemy uses children as human shields?

I don't really see how sending troops into "harms way" would prevent retaliation, I think you'll have to rephrase that.
Anyway if I were at war and if I had the authority to decide such things I would very carefully weigh the consequences of all attacks that my military forces took part in. I would also consider the military threat of the enemy compared to the civilian damage and casualties that the retaliatory strikes could result in. I would not allow attacks that risk killing as many civilians as enemies when the enemy's military threat does not require that. In this case there is clearly no great threat.
Anyway I would probably also want to use more precise methods than bombing enemies and civilians alike.

That's the point. They have no claims because what Israel is doing is legal self defense.

That is a very invalid point. Hamas doesn't have any claim, the civilians which are killed, wounded and driven from their homes do however.

I agree it doesn't say that explicitly in my quote of the Geneva convention, but I'm sure you can find it.

I told you it's not the full interview and that I'd like a link to the full interview.

You want me to find your arguments for you? I feel pretty sure that there is nothing to that effect stated in the Geneva convention, if you feel otherwise I encourage you to find it.

[stoffi]

This is from a norwegian newspaper: (this is a norwegian doctor reporting from a hospital in Gaza)

"Totalt har sykehuset tatt imot 132 skadede i dag, hvorav 55 prosent er kvinner og barn. I tillegg har det kommet inn over 40 døde, hvorav 60 prosent er kvinner og barn."

What he is saying, is that the hospital has recieved 132 injured ppl today, and 55% of them are women and children. In addition, they have recieved 40 dead, where 60% are women and children.

"- Jeg har ikke sett en eneste soldat i dag. De skadede og døde er sivile, noe som tyder på at det er boligområder som er blitt bombet.
"

He says he has not seen a single soldier come into the hospital injured/dead today. The injured and the dead are civilians only, which means residential areas have been bombed.



Is this not terror?

[stoffi]

hmm..
do any of you know your history?

last i check there was something called the kingdom of the Israel.

Palestine didnt exist by. soo chronologically and historically. Israel as a Nation is just reinstated and not Installed, since they do have claim to the land disputed. What the UN did was to appease the Palestinians and separated them and Israel. As for Israel they cant care less but retake what was supposedly theirs in the 1st place. Palestinians should be happy about the agreement instead of bombing Israel, which is like giving Israel a perfect reason to try to retake their lost lands. Its like the Russia vs Georgia where Georgia was stupid enough to give Russia a reason to steam roll them and then now Hama like Georgia is playing the "victim" where its their fault at the 1st place in provoking.

here is a nice question for all of you?
have you visited israel's southern cities? if no, go visit and you will be thousands of sharpnel and bomb/rocket parts lined up to remind them what they are up against in the south.

terror sparks terror. Even Hamas knows that. that is why its playing the "victim" so the UN will intervene.

I agree with israel where International Monitor will be installed that way hamas cant say sh*t and they cant launch rockets and play "victim"

for hamas not agree with that, just show hamas will not honor any agreement and try to severe ties.

Okay... According to this logic, USA must surrender all its land to the indians. And since most europeans today came from the east, we ought to kick out ppl in the east and take the lands for ourselves.
While we are at it, we should kill ourselves and let the dinosaurs take over because they owned the land long ago.

The Israelites INVADED palestine thousands of years ago, and drove off its original residents. Later, the jews were driven off themselves.

It's now thousands of years since the jews had kingdoms in the region, the one that lasted the longest was Judea.

How that gives the jews a claim to palestine, is beyond my understanding. Give Rome back Europe then, give the mongols back the world, give the greeks back their empire, give germany back to France, give india +++++ back to England.
This logic is flawed.

However, we can't undo what the UN did. The jews are there to stay now, but they are extremely greedy and grab more every day. That we can stop.
Israel is a terrorist, apartheid nation, sadly.

[stoffi]

Of course it's still a civilian target.

If a terrorist comes to bomb your house and a soldier comes to help you, will you consider your house a military target?

I will only consider a bus station (or house) as a military target if it has a military purpose (like storing rockets).

Then why does Israel bomb houses where normal ppl live? Why does Israel bomb universities? Police stations? Market places?
Israel can do it, but not Hamas? That logic is flawed. I'd say no one has the right to inflict terror on others like Israel does, and Hamas.

Take a look at the casualties, wake up for christs sake.

[stoffi]

And I must repeat myself, Hamas was NOT the ones who broke any cf. Israel broke it. November 4th for example, they attacked and killed many Hamas members in Gaza.
This was done to provoke Hamas into fighting back.

So please don't say Hamas broke the cf, Israel did and hamas waited till the cf was over before they responded. Hamas did everything right, but Israel has made sure few ppl know this.

[stoffi]

I might add that this war has been planned for 6 months, and was not unleashed because of Hamas firing rockets.
An office was established many months ago in Israel, to plan this offensive. Then november 4th, Israel kills a bunch of Hamas ppl ,breaking the CF. Israel knows this will make Hamas respond, but Hamas waits till the cf is over, and then retaliates.

All press members have been locked out of Gaza for many months already, to make sure no one can report about the massacres that are happening today. Israel even bombed all telecommunication yesterday, to make sure the two norwegian doctors could not appear on Larry King in USA. They have now found other ways to report what Israel is doing, and have been interviewed in CNN, BBC, etc today.


So as you see, this war was planned for months and Israel provoked Hamas into sending rockets.

800-900 children are now injured/dead. 5 Israelis are dead. If this is not terror, then what is?
800/900 children is not a figure taken from thin air, but is taken from what a norwegian doctor in Gaza just said live on norwegian tv.

[Mourhelm]

No Hamas should put their rockets away from the people, there is a huge difference.

Good point, I stand corrected. However, since Hamas already put the rockets in houses, it should at the very least take the population to shelters or areas less likely to be hit (places without weapon depots).

People stay at their homes since they have nowhere to go. Even if they are aware of there being rockets in their vicinity they have nowhere to go... They can't simply go "away" since they don't have anywhere to seek shelter.

I disagree. Not every house has rockets in it. Another possible location they can go to is their hospital.

You talk a lot about this humanitarian aid, I am curious of how much of it there is and who it reaches. I read earlier today that Israel isn't even letting replacement surgeons from the Red Cross into Gaza (they've been waiting to be let in since before the ground forces entered Gaza).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...ryof9Modw5q9Gg

That's one example.

Edit: hitting enemy troops knowing that civilians will be killed as well is not much different from targeting civilians directly.

It is very different. Hamas knows that it's the target. It should protect its civilians and not use them as human shields.

Also, when Israel knows for sure that there will be many civilian casualties, it doesn't attack.

You did read the Geneva quote I posted right? Let me refresh your memory... "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

You cannot say that civilians of a certain nationality are any more worthy of protection than others... Civilians are civilians, they are not part of this conflict and the killing of them is an Israeli war crime.

I didn't say that Palestinian civilians are less worthy of protection. I said that the responsibility for protecting them is on the other side - Hamas's side.

If these civilians were behind our soldiers they would protect them to the best of their ability and would not use them as human shields.

If the intent was to kill them, I would agree that it is a war crime. As I said before, if Israel wanted to kill them, it could do so in a few hours and with a lot less losses.

I am sure that most people would not be so outraged if civilians were killed in closed military facilities in which only Hamas soldiers are living and over which Hamas has full control, such are legitimate targets in my opinion. What Israel is doing is bombing bus stations where a Hamas soldier has a few rockets.

If the bus station has a military purpose (launching rockets) it is a military target.

Everywhere that Hamas situates its rockets and weaponry is a military facility.

If Israel would fire it's artillery from a city, would you call that a civilian target as well? Will you condone Hamas for targeting it?

I used worse because it was a comparison of two acts and one of them was the worst action...

Worse = more bad than something.
Worst = more bad than anything.

It does not matter what goal the Israeli military claims it has, what matters is the effects of this military operation and that is pure terror.

There is no more terror in this action than in any other war.

I get my information from a Swedish newspaper called Dagens Nyheter, The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Times. Where do you get yours by the way?

Israeli and foreign media (in English). When I quote things here I try to refrain from using Israeli sources.

Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSUSoPrICqQ

I used starved in the sense that the people in gaza were being deprived of a great deal of resources and goods. That all of gaza would run out of flour this quickly even with rationing shows how little there was available in the first place.

If Hamas didn't use all its money to buy weaponry the Palestinians wouldn't have to rely on humanitarian aid.

This is interesting, first you say that people should just leave (again without consideration for the fact that your military forces civilians to leave their homes and all their possessions, trading their previous lives for a future with a very uncertain life expectancy in a literal war zone... but I think I covered that earlier)

If the Palestinians wouldn't allow Hamas to store rockets in their homes they wouldn't need to go anywhere.

If I used my house to store lots of bombs in my basement I would know that there is a risk that I'll lose my house, my possessions and my life (because my house just became a legitimate military target). The Palestinians knows that too.

and then you say that they can't leave because Hamas doesn't let them?

I meant that some of those that want to leave danger zones are forced to stay and act as human shields for Hamas.

Anyway, all of Gaza is a danger zone, and the borders are closed.

Again, Not every house has rockets in it.

I don't really see how sending troops into "harms way" would prevent retaliation, I think you'll have to rephrase that.

I didn't said soldiers, I said children ("your son"). If you could use your child as a human shield for your army, would you do it?

Anyway if I were at war and if I had the authority to decide such things I would very carefully weigh the consequences of all attacks that my military forces took part in. I would also consider the military threat of the enemy compared to the civilian damage and casualties that the retaliatory strikes could result in. I would not allow attacks that risk killing as many civilians as enemies when the enemy's military threat does not require that.

I would do the same.

In this case there is clearly no great threat.

Try living in terror for eight years and then talk to me again. You have a problem with threat assessment.

Anyway I would probably also want to use more precise methods than bombing enemies and civilians alike.

At what cost? If I told you that you can kill a civilian and a terrorist without losses or kill just the terrorist and lose 100 of your friends, what will you choose?

If I told you that you can kill a civilian and a terrorist without losses or kill just the terrorist and lose ten of your friends, what will you choose?

Israel considers the cost and effect. In the recent war against Hezbollah Israel used infantry instead of air-strikes to reduce the risk of civilian casualties. We had a lot more losses in soldiers in these cases, but the price in civilian deaths (in Lebanon) was too high to just bomb the place.

If we didn't want to use more precise methods we wouldn't bother with a ground attack. We would have just bombed Gaza all over. It is much safer for our soldiers.

That is a very invalid point. Hamas doesn't have any claim, the civilians which are killed, wounded and driven from their homes do however.

You hear what you want to hear. The question was about the legality of Israeli actions. These actions are legal self defense.

You want me to find your arguments for you? I feel pretty sure that there is nothing to that effect stated in the Geneva convention, if you feel otherwise I encourage you to find it.

Miss quoting me is silly...

I will take the time to look for it later (I'm kinda busy now and I need to reformat my computer).

[allonons]

You people who quote others about the women and children please give me a break,I want identification ...lets see how many of these women and children are the family of the hamas terrorist....While thier husbands and fathers go hide in tunnels and bunkers they leave thier families home to die and pay the price for thier agressions.

It's sad but true,I wonder if the little virgins who die get 72 little virgins to play with in hamas heaven?


These people are filthy animals and the only thing to do with a dirty filthy rabid animal is to kill it and burn it's diseaed ridden carcass!

[allonons]

And stoffi, get off the crack pipe bro your starting to halucinate!

[Nemo]

If the bus station has a military purpose (launching rockets) it is a military target.

Everywhere that Hamas situates its rockets and weaponry is a military facility.

If Israel would fire it's artillery from a city, would you call that a civilian target as well? Will you condone Hamas for targeting it?

Since the soldier at the bus station has a military purpose [firing bullets], then the soldier is a military target. So Israel is responsible for any civilian deaths that may happen when the soldier gets hit. Or that's what we get if we follow your logic.

Israel and it's oh-so-mighty military has the power to go in to the city, find the artillery and destroy it. Hamas does not have the power to go into Israel and do diddly-squat. And what's more important? The safety of your soldiers [who swore to protect their country and the purpose of their existence is to take care of such problems] or the safety of your civilians?

But of course, the question that inevitably pops up in the mind is this: are the lives of a few hundred Palestinian civilians more important than the lives of your own soldiers? And the answer to that, makes all the difference in the world.

EDIT:
allonons, when you quote all that about Israeli civilians dying, let's see how many of them have relatives in the Israeli Army. While they're off bombing the palestinians, their families are at home dying and paying the price for their aggression.

The argument can go both ways. And both ways are stupid. No law says you are to punish the child for his father's crimes.