Israel, it's about time!

[WolfDGrey]

the disruption of transport, deliberate perpetuation of states of poverty and deprvation of the essential s for sustinence of life.

Again, what exactly are you talking about?

Well, she probably talks about shelling the smuggling tunnels dug by the kids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9IL86T6Nc8

Interesting that Egypt, a muslim country, keeps the borders with the Gaza strip closed.
Why? Because Israel threathened to abandon it's "responsabilities" to supply Gaza "with electricity, water and medication and turning that responsability over to Cairo" (Al-Arabia TV 2008ian25).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdIy3XuWP6M

So in fact Palestinians are "our muslim brothers", but just until Israel takes care of them, as we don't want anything to do except when we can have some benefits over the propaganda.

[stoffi]

We can go on throwing out these numbers for weeks on end but you still have not answered my question Stoffi.....?????

Why has not the Palestinians demanded thier land back from Jordan?

The West Bank was owned by Jordan, now it is not. They got it back.

Day by day, Israel steals more and more land.
TheMistressOfBaal answers it well. Jordan treats palestinians far, far better than ISrael, and Jordan does not steal palestinian land every day that goes by.


And you have STILL not given me a source for your propaganda. Please don't throw out propaganda unless you can back it up with a valid source.

As I've shown, Irgun and Levi WERE terror groups and were known as a terror groups back then, and still is.
Well, unless you think blowing up hotels and busses are okay. And you don't think that's okay, do you? If you think it's okay, don't ever claim Hamas has done any kind of terror whatsoever.

And as shown, Israel was built on these terror groups, and they glorify these terrorists as national heroes. Why do they praise bus bombings one day, then condemn bus bombings the other day when the wrong race does it?

Explain that, please.

[Mourhelm]

I don't agree with that, as I see it it is clear that article 28 is supposed to be an exception from the rule. More like "we will still attack your airbase even if you bring a civilian there" rather than "I heard that someone saw a rocket in/near that orphanage, where are my bombers?".

So I'll ask you the same question I asked Nemo: If Israel would have shot it's artillery fire from a civilian location, would you say it is protected?

If I would put a sign over a weapon depot, saying it's a temple, and bring civilians to pray there, would it be any less a weapon depot?

Did you read that Post article I linked you to? The one where "Israeli Military Officials" are quoted saying something to the effect that facilities with loose links to Hamas were chosen as targets not because it would have any military impact but because it would have a psychological impact?

I mean seriously, a bunch of newly graduated police officers? A university?

I'll assume it was really an Israeli military official. Attacking the heads of the organization may get it into a state of disarray and may bring the conflict to an end sooner.

Many independent individuals of aid organizations have reported that this is being done, I think there were some reference to that in the links I posted earlier. Times claimed it had evidence of many people that had been exposed to the substance.

Well, where is the evidence, why don't they present it at court? It could bring the current action to an end if they prove that Israel does use illegal weaponry.

I am not aware of any information that makes the attacks I talk about allowed, if I were I wouldn't be bringing this up. About intent, indifference to the risk of misses or mistakes is a form of intent as well. I think there are far too many targets that should not have been hit for them all to be mistakes.

There are few misses. If there were many, the less accurate weapons would not be used.

Surely I can not be legitimizing anything when I keep repeating that it is illegal...

You say it's illegal, but on the same breath say that Israel should not attack targets that have human shields in them.

You make it legitimate to use an illegal action to prevent retaliation on the terms that the first illegal action will lead to another illegal action.

International law doesn't agree with you. It states that protected persons can't make a military operation immune to attacks.

I'm not sure what video you're referring to, I've been without Internet for a while but I tried to read up in the thread. I can't recall any other video than that one about international law. I agree though, I don't think that it should be in Israel's interest either, but civilians are dying nonetheless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht2B9KaDAEw

There is no denying civilians die. It does not mean Israel aims to kill civilians.

The point was that the Palestinian weapons are much inferior to the Israeli ones, which explains the big difference in casualties. War ships, airplanes, artillery and tanks in addition to the standard stick.

I'll ask a question I asked before: "If someone comes to stab you and you only have a gun, would you just let him kill you or use your gun to protect yourself?"

They attack us with a knife knowing we have a gun. They are not naive - they know we will use our gun. They just count on people like you to cry "war crime".

I read last week (Times) that those rockets that were the reason for this catastrophe killed 20 people in 8 years.

What's your point? Are you saying that because they kill few people they should be allowed to terrorize us?

Would you be willing to be afraid every day for eight years?

I'm sure that if these 20 people were members of your family you wouldn't dismiss them so easily.

We waited for eight years before resorting to a full scale attack. We even tried the peaceful solution of removing all Israeli citizens from the Gaza strip. It didn't stop the attacks.

At a 2.5 kills per year it'd mean that in order to catch up with the civilians Israel has killed in 3 weeks Hamas would have to send rockets for 200 years...

You sound like stoffi again, saying that Hamas should catch up with the kills instead of catching up with the lives. Israel protects its civilians. If Hamas did that too, there would be a lot fewer casualties at the Palestinian side.

If Hamas was really smart, it would try to make peace with Israel and not fight it nor terrorize it.

Speaking of civilian deaths, is it any surprise that extremist organizations like Hamas get the support of people when Israeli military is dealing out death to all people alike? I don't see how this attack could have any long-term benefits from Israeli perspective, disregarding the increased political support for hawkish groups like hamas and the likely increase in their recruitment base this attack eliminates any chance of some kind of peaceful resolution in the foreseeable future.

You should read the previous posts again. Hamas's charter say explicitly that the only solution is jihad.

This military action reduces the threat of Hamas by reducing the amount of weapons available to them, the amount of trained soldiers they have and shows the Palestinians that there is a limit to how much we can stand (eight years is a lot more than any other country would take).

You assume Hamas will have more support from its people, but that's not certain. The people in Gaza are not stupid. They know who uses them as human shields, who hides weapons under their mosques, hospitals and schools.

[Mourhelm]

Your question is a red herring Allanons, but just once, I'll bite.

Jordan has not engaged in a systematic policy of killing palestinian civilians in sizable numbers for decades.

You have it the other way around... The Palestinians have not engaged in a systematic policy of killing Jordanians in sizeable numbers for decades.

Allanons asks why?

[AFKain]

So I'll ask you the same question I asked Nemo: If Israel would have shot it's artillery fire from a civilian location, would you say it is protected?

A civilian location is always protected except in very extreme cases.

If I would put a sign over a weapon depot, saying it's a temple, and bring civilians to pray there, would it be any less a weapon depot?

It is a weapon depot. If you put weapons in a temple where civilians go to pray it is still a temple.

I'll assume it was really an Israeli military official. Attacking the heads of the organization may get it into a state of disarray and may bring the conflict to an end sooner.

This is not about the heads of Hamas it is about Palestinian facilities that have no military value. So you're claiming that the reporter that wrote the Times piece is lying about the quote?

Well, where is the evidence, why don't they present it at court? It could bring the current action to an end if they prove that Israel does use illegal weaponry.

At what court? And how would a newspaper be able to present a case there?

There are few misses. If there were many, the less accurate weapons would not be used.

In Israeli media the misses might be few but I read about attacks every day that I really hope are misses and not intended targets.

You say it's illegal, but on the same breath say that Israel should not attack targets that have human shields in them.

You make it legitimate to use an illegal action to prevent retaliation on the terms that the first illegal action will lead to another illegal action.

International law doesn't agree with you. It states that protected persons can't make a military operation immune to attacks.

"Human shields" are still civilians. I thought we had already agreed that it is wrong to kill civilians... If the newly started Palestinian movement "Whateva" bombed a house where there lived 50% Israeli civilians and 50% conscripts killing all of them you would say they are terrorists. Which of course is true. Israel does the same thing basically.

Ever heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make one right"? International law states that 1. Civilians must not be killed and 2. sites cannot be made immune by the presence of a protected person. See how those articles work together? The primary rule is that civilians must not be hurt the second rule is an exception from the primary rule (the second rule doesn't even mention the killing of civilians it just says that the presence of a protected person doesn't give immunity to the site itself). This in no way removes Israel's responsibility not to kill civilians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht2B9KaDAEw

There is no denying civilians die. It does not mean Israel aims to kill civilians.

Of course not, but when Israel kills as many of those that it aims to kill as of the innocent bystanders it shows that Israel is doing something wrong. In the comments to that video they say it is a year old... Anyway, I have no way to identify what kind of building it is much less where it is located.

I'll ask a question I asked before: "If someone comes to stab you and you only have a gun, would you just let him kill you or use your gun to protect yourself?"

They attack us with a knife knowing we have a gun. They are not naive - they know we will use our gun. They just count on people like you to cry "war crime".

The analogy is a bit flawed since it indicates that the difference in strength would be the same as that between a gun and a knife (doesn't have to be that big depending on the circumstances) and because it indicates that the Israeli arsenal is limited to one weapon.

Furthermore it is flawed since it does not reflect the different proportions of the actions of both sides. What you have described is a struggle between two persons where the outcome is the death of one of them. The real situation is a struggle between a para-military terror organization and a state's military forces. I don't object to the killing of Hamas soldiers, I object to the killing of the civilian bystanders, and of that Israel is doing the big part.

What's your point? Are you saying that because they kill few people they should be allowed to terrorize us?

Not at all, I'm showing that Israel's response is disproportionate. The amount of civilians that Israel kills is much greater than what is caused by the acts of terror which you claim are the reasons for the response. The terror inflicted by Israel is far greater.

Would you be willing to be afraid every day for eight years?

I would be rather secure in the knowledge that I am far more likely to be killed in a car crash or something similar.

I'm sure that if these 20 people were members of your family you wouldn't dismiss them so easily.

Right back at you, just this time it happens recently departed 500 new family members.

You sound like stoffi again, saying that Hamas should catch up with the kills instead of catching up with the lives. Israel protects its civilians. If Hamas did that too, there would be a lot fewer casualties at the Palestinian side.

I don't mean that, I meant that Israel has done far more killing.

If Hamas was really smart, it would try to make peace with Israel and not fight it nor terrorize it.

Hamas was ready to sign a cease fire yesterday...

You assume Hamas will have more support from its people, but that's not certain. The people in Gaza are not stupid. They know who uses them as human shields, who hides weapons under their mosques, hospitals and schools.

This might not be reported in Israel but from what I'm hearing there is increasing support for Hamas in the West Bank and around the Arabic nations. I think it would be foolish to expect the situation to be different in gaza.

[Lightzy]

weird how you apply moral laws only on one side of your toast.
It's not ok for israel to kill hamas militants using human shields but it's ok for hamas to aim for israeli civilians?


There's no such thing as 'disproportionate' response.
The 'proportionate' response would have been to fire missiles only at civilian targets and not aim specifically for hamas at all, no? that would be the mirror response.
What Israel is doing is the responsible thing of breaking a terrorist organization.

Here are some vids for you to be going with:

Hamas in their own voice, their agenda and perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0fjP9zfRsA


A little palestinian girl who's been hit by an israeli attack knows very well why there's a war, who started it and who is responsible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLIdxF-GHWw



The wonderful work hamas has been doing with children ---
Remember, this did not exist before hamas, and is just one more example of how a iran/syria 'axis of evil' terrorist organization operates when it has nothing good intented for the actual people around it, using them most cynically as tools.
How evil can you get, when you take a child and teach him to shoot, then when he gets shot back, cry that israel has killed a child? how evil?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LaAv...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-c6...eature=related



And now just for a quick nightcap, all this glory and rulership that radical islam wants, how will it affect YOU?
How has Israel affected YOU?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saeky9I5T9c

[AFKain]

weird how you apply moral laws only on one side of your toast.
It's not ok for israel to kill hamas militants using human shields but it's ok for hamas to aim for israeli civilians?

Weird how your mind seems to conjure up stuff that isn't there. I encourage you to find one post where I say that it is OK for hamas to kill Israeli civilians. On this topic I have always stated that killing civilians is wrong, no matter who does it.

There's no such thing as 'disproportionate' response.
The 'proportionate' response would have been to fire missiles only at civilian targets and not aim specifically for hamas at all, no? that would be the mirror response.
What Israel is doing is the responsible thing of breaking a terrorist organization.

I will begin by assuming that you have some sort of sense of proportions despite your initial statements. Let us say that Israel wanted to save the lives of their 10 soldiers or whatever it is and instead of this military action chose to nuke Gaza. Could you agree that this response would be disproportionate? (if so apply the reasons why the nuke is disproportionate to the current situation and you see that "molten lead" is also disproportionate, if not I doubt I can convince you of anything).

Responding with the same kind of attacks as Hamas uses would actually in a way be better since you'd kill far less civilians, but it is terrorism and of course it is wrong. For any kind of credibility the response needs to be directed at the culprits and not civilians. A proportionate response would be something that does not kill 200 times the civilians that the rockets that are the reason for the war do. Doesn't it bother you that Israel's military is responsible for so much more terror than the internationally recognized terror group?

Movies: Yes Hamas is bad. I don't support Hamas. What's the point?
Will get back to you on the last one when I have more time, assuming it is of any relevance other than being a bit funny.

[stoffi]

Why does Israel embrace terror groups like Irgun and Levi?
Why does Israel bomb 4 hospitals, market places, UN buildings/schools filled with refugees who tried to NOT be "human shields"?
And why did they bomb the food/medicine stores of Gaza?

I thought bombing cafe's and busses were wrong(Irgun/Levi did this), and I thought Israel wasn't supposed to bomb civilian/humanitarian targets... But yet they do it...


Those questions still stand unanswered. All are questions pro-Israel people don't wanna see at all, because they are hard to explain.
But I ask them anyways.

Why?

[Lightzy]

Israel has no terror groups like irgun and levi.
Those were back in the british mandate years and as once said "everyone except jesus christ was born in sin", including nations. If you want you can go back to the norman conquest of the british islands and say it was wrong, but that's just how it was.
All terrorism and intent targetting of civilians is wrong. Israelis did have terrorist organizations, but they don't now.
Now it has a lot of leftist organizations, human rights advocates, etc.

Where are the leftists or peace seekers of the palestinians?

I'll tell you where, they're all in the west bank.

Why are they not in gaza?
Because iranian hamas threw them off of roofs and executed them publically.



And what of lebanon? where are the peace loving clear headed people of lebanon?
Well, they're in the north of lebanon, because iranian hezbollah EVICTED lebanese rule in southern lebannon and controls the area through military means.
That happened quickly after syria was forced to stop militarily occupying the WHOLE of lebannon and making it a proxy state.


With such barbarians are you even surprised of the 'human shield' concept (which was thought up and 'mainstreamified' by a radical hamas operative which israel has recently eliminated) ?
Is it not surprising that gaza lives in complete and utter poverty and yet yasser arafat became a multi billionaire, or that hamas has money to spend on thousands and thousands of rockets, explosives, guns and ammunition? Could they have built gaza and modernized it in the last years?
Yes, they most definitely could have, but people still stuck in the mindset of legalized slavery (most muslim countries), no vote for women and covering them up with towels, and throwing their political opposition off of rooftops and publically executing them are simply NOT GOOD NEIGHBOURS.



That's why hamas has to be destroyed and removed, and that's only from the palestinian side, not even considering israeli security.
Israel can't always rely on UN law... the entire 'arab nation' broke UN law time and time again right when israel came to be (by UN decision) by attacking and waging in war.



AFKAIN:

Enough bull**** for a moment, you can discuss proportionism all day but if you steal money you're not only forced by law to give the money back, but also pay extra or go to jail.
Proportionism is not about end result, it's about intention.
And israels response is clearly disproportional, since hamas is targetting civilians while israel is targetting militants, who put weapons in peoples houses and shoot rockets from schools.

Guerilla warfare is considered illegal by the world court for this reason exacly, but hamas could not care less.

With this in mind, namely that your enemy has nothing but contempt for world law, proportionism, or any other big concepts you would readily apply to israel, what would you do if for 8 years rockets rained on your house?

[AFKain]

Enough bull**** for a moment, you can discuss proportionism all day but if you steal money you're not only forced by law to give the money back, but also pay extra or go to jail.
Proportionism is not about end result, it's about intention.
And israels response is clearly disproportional, since hamas is targetting civilians while israel is targetting militants, who put weapons in peoples houses and shoot rockets from schools.

You got it very correct there. If YOU steal money YOU are going to pay back the money and go to jail. Not your neighbor, not your neighbor's cat and not some kid on the other side of town. In that second part I disagree with you though, proportionality has a lot to do with the end result. But anyway, indifference for the end result is a form of intention. If Israel did all these attacks without knowing that civilians would be killed and if these civilians were not considered "acceptable losses" the attacks would have ended a long time ago.

Planning to kill 5 people but not being able to kill anyone is a lesser crime than planning to kill 1 and instead killing 2.

Guerilla warfare is considered illegal by the world court for this reason exacly, but hamas could not care less.

With this in mind, namely that your enemy has nothing but contempt for world law, proportionism, or any other big concepts you would readily apply to israel, what would you do if for 8 years rockets rained on your house?

By doing these kinds of attacks on civilians Israel shows a contempt similar to Hamas's. I fail to see why two acts of terror are better than one.

[Mourhelm]

A civilian location is always protected except in very extreme cases.

When you have tons of rockets under a mosque/school/house it is an extreme case.

It is a weapon depot. If you put weapons in a temple where civilians go to pray it is still a temple.

So what you're saying is that the name of the place is what counts, not the essence.

If a building has a military purpose (like a weapon depot) it is a military installation.

This is not about the heads of Hamas it is about Palestinian facilities that have no military value.

The fact that you don't recognize the military value of a target, does not mean it doesn't have a military value.

So you're claiming that the reporter that wrote the Times piece is lying about the quote?

I said I assume he's telling the truth. But if he doesn't even say who is his source, how can we be sure it is anyone qualified to say such a thing?

At what court? And how would a newspaper be able to present a case there?

There is an international court and there is the supreme court in Israel.

They can also show their evidence over TV and not just claim they have evidence.

"Human shields" are still civilians. I thought we had already agreed that it is wrong to kill civilians... If the newly started Palestinian movement "Whateva" bombed a house where there lived 50% Israeli civilians and 50% conscripts killing all of them you would say they are terrorists.

I doubt you'll find a house with 50% conscripts for the sole reason that conscripts live in military bases. When they go home on vacation they are not in active duty.

Assuming "Whatever" organization found intelligence that there is such a house and aimed at the conscripts because of their military value, they wouldn't be called terrorists (as long as they won't claim later that they targeted the civilians - like they often do).

Ever heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make one right"? International law states that 1. Civilians must not be killed and 2. sites cannot be made immune by the presence of a protected person. See how those articles work together? The primary rule is that civilians must not be hurt the second rule is an exception from the primary rule (the second rule doesn't even mention the killing of civilians it just says that the presence of a protected person doesn't give immunity to the site itself). This in no way removes Israel's responsibility not to kill civilians.

International law states that the responsibility for the civilians at the location is on the operating side. So when Hamas fires from within civilian population and disregards international law it does not make it immune to attacks.

Civilians who die because Israel legally returns fire are Hamas's responsibility. Why don't you tell them they are the war criminals because they disregard international law, putting their people at risk.

You should be telling them to stop firing (at least from within civilian population) because they cause civilian casualties.

Of course not, but when Israel kills as many of those that it aims to kill as of the innocent bystanders it shows that Israel is doing something wrong.

If you think you can do a better job at disabling Hamas, you are to share your plan and take action.

You might also want to check first hand what Hamas is doing wrong.

In the comments to that video they say it is a year old... Anyway, I have no way to identify what kind of building it is much less where it is located.

I never said it was a recent video (I didn't even post that video at the first place). I just showed it to you to prove that Hamas fired from a school at least once before.

The analogy is a bit flawed since it indicates that the difference in strength would be the same as that between a gun and a knife (doesn't have to be that big depending on the circumstances) and because it indicates that the Israeli arsenal is limited to one weapon.

I don't get your point.

Hamas knows what Israel has to retaliate with. They use their arsenal and we use ours. It is legitimate.

Furthermore it is flawed since it does not reflect the different proportions of the actions of both sides. What you have described is a struggle between two persons where the outcome is the death of one of them. The real situation is a struggle between a para-military terror organization and a state's military forces. I don't object to the killing of Hamas soldiers, I object to the killing of the civilian bystanders, and of that Israel is doing the big part.

Israel tries to minimize the civilian casualties. Hamas tries to maximize them to get people like you to say it is illegal but legitimate to use human shields.

Not at all, I'm showing that Israel's response is disproportionate. The amount of civilians that Israel kills is much greater than what is caused by the acts of terror which you claim are the reasons for the response. The terror inflicted by Israel is far greater.

proportionality in the Law of War has nothing to do with the relative number of casualties on the two sides.

According to Article 51 of Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions

5(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

This means that If the target has high military value it can be attacked even if it seems there will be some civilian casualties in doing so. What has to be proportional is the military value of the target versus the risk to civilians.

There is no requirement that Israel place the lives of its own citizens in danger to protect the lives of Palestinian civilians.

Destroying missiles before they can be fired at Israeli civilians and potentially kill many of them justifies the risk to Palestinian civilian, who should be removed from the area by Hamas anyways.

When it comes to less valuable targets, Israel uses ground forces in order to minimize the civilian casualties.

I would be rather secure in the knowledge that I am far more likely to be killed in a car crash or something similar.

Do you feel terrorized when you get into a car?

I don't. The reason is that when I get into the car I'm aware of the risk and take it willingly.

When you get attacked by rockets, you don't take the risk willingly and you can't anticipate it.

Also, the reason that there are few casualties is that Israel takes action to protect its civilians. If it didn't take any action, the number of rockets being fired would have been higher and the chance of getting hit by one would have increased.

Right back at you, just this time it happens recently departed 500 new family members.

I don't dismiss the death of the Palestinian civilians. I'm just saying that Israel's action is justifiable and legal.

Any past illegal action made by Israeli forces ended up at court and the responsible punished.

I think that Hamas is responsible for the Palestinian casualties. The Palestinians are victims of Hamas who doesn't care about anything but jihad and the destruction of Israel.

I don't mean that, I meant that Israel has done far more killing.

When a weapon depot explodes and the human shield dies of secondary explosions, who is the one to blame?

I'm not saying that Israel didn't cause Palestinian casualties. I'm just saying that the high casualty count is because Hamas sacrifices its own people to try and get targets immune and to get sympathy from the world for the high death count.

Hamas was ready to sign a cease fire yesterday...

First, I was talking about in general, not about the current action. If Hamas wanted peace it wouldn't have put the destruction of Israel in its charter.

Second, do you know the exact terms of the cease fire?

This might not be reported in Israel but from what I'm hearing there is increasing support for Hamas in the West Bank and around the Arabic nations. I think it would be foolish to expect the situation to be different in gaza.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoi0TGyx_uA

As I said, nothing is certain.

I think the Palestinians get support - which is good. It will help them rebuild.

I don't think Hamas gets as much support as you hear.

Extremist know to do a lot of noise. It does not make them the majority.

[stoffi]

Mourhelm, you say there were rockets in the schools that were bombed? That is simply not correct. There were refugees in those schools, civilians, not rockets, not hamas members.

So how on earth can you defend bombing UN schools, hospitals, food storages, market places, etc?
And even if there was a rocket in a school with hundreds of children, YOU DON'T ****ING BOMB THE SCHOOL when it's filled with children.
I really dont understand how you can defend bombing schools, inventing reasons for why Israel did it, trying to defend it. I see you talk about Israeli schools all the time, why is it okay to bomb palestinian schools and not Israeli schools?

Also, you say Hamas is responsible for these casualties. Hamas does not bomb Gaza, Hamas do not force Israel to bomb schools and homes, Israel CHOSE this out of free will and they are the ones doing it.
On the other hand, Hamas tries to bomb Israel which they are responsible for. But they are certainly not responsible for Israel's actions in Gaza, no one forced Israel to commit this horrific act of terror against the palestinian people.

I might also add that Israel has kidnapped most of the democratically elected representatives in Gaza. This is a war crime.
The last time an Israeli kidnapped someone, a war started. Hamas have many good reasons to fight back and retaliate.

[Mourhelm]

In that second part I disagree with you though, proportionality has a lot to do with the end result.

Too bad international law doesn't agree with you. The military value of a target determines the proportionality.

But anyway, indifference for the end result is a form of intention.

Israel is not indifferent. If it was, it would just destroy the entire Gaza strip over night and be done with it.

If Israel did all these attacks without knowing that civilians would be killed and if these civilians were not considered "acceptable losses" the attacks would have ended a long time ago.

Acceptable losses are determined by international law. The higher the military value of a target the more it is acceptable to hit it, despite the risk to civilians. Remember you can't guarantee 0 civilian casualties in a war.

By doing these kinds of attacks on civilians Israel shows a contempt similar to Hamas's. I fail to see why two acts of terror are better than one.

Israel doesn't attack civilians. It attacks Hamas. Civilians regrettably die in the process because Hamas ignores international laws and keeps them around as human shields.

[stoffi]

Israel doesn't attack civilians. It attacks Hamas. Civilians regrettably die in the process because Hamas ignores international laws and keeps them around as human shields.

But that's a lie. The UN says it's a lie, Red Cross says it's a lie. And as I've shown, Israel targets non-Hamas targets on purpose, and Israel was created by targetting civilians.(Irgun, Levi, Haganah, ++)

You try to elude my difficult questions, they won't go away. You act as Israelis usually do, avoid the tough questions.
Wouldn't it be time to stand up and take it like a man?

Why do you target civilians? Saying you don't, is simply not an answer because as we've seen, you do target civilians.
NONE of the UN buildings or the 4 hospitals contained Hamas members, which makes it impossible to claim you fired at Hamas.


Did you know that Israel currently holds the world record in breaking international laws and un conventions?

[stoffi]

Israel is not indifferent. If it was, it would just destroy the entire Gaza strip over night and be done with it.

Lucky palestinians....

Quick death is the easy way, slowly tortured like now is the worst.

Why are you such an extremist? I can see both Israel AND Hamas doing something they shouldn't. I condemn both for doing what they are doing.
Why do you deny the obvious? Are you a fanatic?