Nothing new, this has been the claim all along - that they're hiding amongst civilians. But the counter-argument provided was that the IDF took the utmost precision in avoiding civilians, graciously providing warning leaflets before bombardment, and that it is somehow a simple exercise in merely moving to another area to avoid the violence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm So tell me. Where are innocent Gazans to go then? Clearly nowhere - that has been the point since a few pages back. If you are implying that Gazan children are fair game collateral damage, then we can agree to disagree.
[rquoter] Two residents of the area who spoke by telephone said they saw a small group of militants firing mortar rounds from a street near the school, where 350 people had gathered to get away from the shelling. They spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. [/rquoter] source Well, you can either tell the people who are shooting a mortar to go somewhere else, or you can get up and go somewhere else when you start to hear mortar rounds being launched. Alternately, you if you have a whole lot of spare time, you can explain to the mortar team that by setting up the mortar next to a school, they are putting everybody's life in danger. I know in Iraq, in some instances the US has automated counterbattery fire. A device determines where the rounds came from and shots are fired back at the source location blindly. That is considered sound military doctrine. If these guys hadn't been shooting mortars there, it wouldn't have been a target. The party responsible for making this area a legitimate military target for counterbattery fire are the Hamas militants. I agree that it is absolutely horrible and unacceptable. The Hamas militant criminals should face war crimes trials for violating the laws of war and disregarding the lives of their own civilians, just as the Wehrmacht faced war crimes trials for (among other things) using human shields during WWII. [rquoter] In March 2008, a Hamas parliamentarian spoke of a "death-seeking" culture that uses women, children and the elderly as human shields against Israeli military attacks. "The enemies of God do not know that the Palestinian people have developed methods of death and death-seeking," Fathi Hammad said in a speech televised on Hamas' Al-Aqsa television station. "For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children," Hammad said. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life,'" he said. [/rquoter] source Totally criminal and immoral.
I think you are misunderstanding my stance because I haven't been too clear, but I agree with you in regards to Hamas. That's inexcusable. My point in this thread has been in regards to the innocent Gazans - the claims that the IDF has meticulously avoided civilian casualties, and that it is somehow easy to avoid the violence. These are the claims I am contesting. If your stance is a simple X --> Y, Hamas is firing Rockets from amongst civilians, thus Israel is doing anything at all costs to stop this, and anything is fair game, then I understand, and I agree to disagree. I however find it extremely insincere to claim that civilians under siege, without electricity in one of the most densely populated ghettos in the world can easily shift their location and that the Israeli military is somehow a bastion of humanitarianism in their benevolence. It's obviously not realistic for them to 'tell the people shooting the mortars to go somewhere else'. From a moral standpoint, I would expect a regional superpower to exercise a bit more restraint, especially in light of the accepted fact that their course of action achieves no practical solution.
Sadly Israel's unjust treatment of the Palestinians increases anti-semitism. It is one of the problems with the Israeli neo-cons insisting that Zionism equals Israel's policies equals Jewishness. It is sad to see the worthwhile and needed goal of reducing anti-semitism held hostage to Israel acquiring a few more square miles of the West Bank. There is no rationale or moral reason for Israel not to take a chance on returning to the pre 1967 borders. The whole world including the Arab world has offered them recognition and peace. Even Hamas, bowing to 72% support has offered and indefinite truce if there is a return to the 1967 borders. Even some Israeli intelligence folks have said that the pre 1967 borders are perhaps more defensible. Nothing would undercut the radicals in Hamas more than such a move. If it didn't work out (there will never be 100% certainty) Israel could always do what they are doing now. A return to the 1967 borders would if anything enhance Israel's power including its overwhelming military power. There is nothing to lose if they try, except the possibility that if the peace holds they will be giving away choice parts of the West Bank, which is basically the goal to which peace and even the anti-semtism cause is sacrificed to.
for the record, last night listening to al jazeera english, it had a hamas spokesman on who completely denied that this was taking place currently in gaza. not to say it isn't. it may be. but if hamas is quoted in proving this, i think its equally fair to also consider other statements.
One thing that should be kept in mind that the Jewish Israelis have imprisoned many non violent Palestinian activists throughout the years. I remember reading a number of years ago how the potential Ghandi of Palestine, who was extremely threatening to the Jewish Israelis, was deported. Potentially a non-violent movement could liberate the Palestinians, but there would be incredbile resistance. The Palestinians would have to have a willingness to die for the cause as there would be mass beatings, imprisonments and inevitably some killings. Realistically the only way such a movement would win would be if it was in conjunction with a boycott of Israel such as was done by the similar regime in South Africa. Does anyone know how the international boycott of Israel is developing. I know there was some progress on some campuses--possibly before 9/11 confused things. The way things are going this will be the only thing that will bring Israel around. At this point it is so understandably easy to manipulate the Israeli population with fear. Just see how easy it was for Bush-Cheney to manipulate Americans and 9/11 was nothing compared to the Holocaust.
So where is the outrage of thacabbage, glynch, insane man, eckostylez and all these people when Lil says he wants Israel to be nuked? None of you said anything against it. Do you agree with him?
Ok. Fair enough. Two minor points. I would draw a minor distinction. My understanding is that notifications were being made in conjunction with the preplanned airstrikes at things like rocket making and production facilities, or the residences and offices of Hamas military leaders. This situation is somewhat different in that they are shooting back at someone who is shooting at them right this instant. This is a fine distinction to be sure. I will absolutely agree that they have shot at people without notifying them beforehand. I don't think anybody claimed that they have never done so, but I can understand if that wasn't clear. I agree would absolutely agree that they aren't doing "anything at all costs". That is in no way an accurate portrayal. I think they are doing more to minimize civilian casualties than I can think of in any other armed conflict in recent memory with maybe one exception (the NATO bombing of in Serbia which was specifically limited to bridges and power stations and the like, but even then targets like the Chinese Embassy got hit). Definately better than the USA in Iraq or Afghanistan. Definitely better than Russia in Chechnya or Georgia, or Georgia in Ossetia. Better than Ethiopia in Somalia. I find that to be significant. If you don't, I understand. It is still a war, no doubt. Absolutely innocent people still die and that sucks. But I don't think there will ever be a war where one side places minimizing casualties above even the lives of their own soldiers. If that is the standard to which you are holding things, you will always be disappointed.
Of course not. That is so stupid. At the minimum Lil should apologize for getting irrationally upset over Israelis treatment of the Palestinians and the current invasion. The remark was so stupid I actually wondered if he was a nutty Zionist plant attempting to discredit those who don't support current Israeli leadership. (Note not all Zionists are nutty extremists, but those who insist on undergoing all this for another few miles of the West Bank are IMHO misguided and doing Jews and the rest of the world no service). So now back to some real discussion.
No. Am I expected to respond to every post in this thread now? My 'outrage' is directed to the excess of force by the Israel military. Why? Because that's the topic of this thread.
Seems that most of Israel's supporters on here can only respond by screaming anti-semitism. It's funny when a black person claims racism people are quick to to say he or she is playing the race card. I guess Jews and supporters of Israel get a pass when it comes to this sort of stuff even though Jews in Israel are guilty of some of the worst racism against Arabs and Muslims. They also get a pass when it comes to occupation and are allowed to do what they want with impunity and little consequences against the population of those under their occupation, but somehow they wanna claim that they're the victims. What a sweet deal!
What he said: [rquoter]If and when Pakistan/Iran/Libya/Saudi Arabia finally nukes Israel off the face of the earth, the world will remember what happened here today, and precious few will feel sorrow, regret, or pity. What goes around, comes around.[/rquoter] He's saying most people around the world won't feel pity for Israel in that circumstance. Not quite the same as him saying it would be a good thing. There's definitely a lot of anger and resentment towards Israel's actions throughout the world, a lot of it justified in my view. But I don't think any sane person would consider it a good thing if Israel got nuked. Perhaps Lil was exaggerating to make a point. Maybe he can clarify.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KntmpoRXFX4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KntmpoRXFX4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Which statement? The one you claimed he made, or the one he actually made? You claimed he said it would be a good thing if Israel got nuked. I explicitly said no sane person would think that. So clearly that is not what I'm defending. Nor am I defending the statement that the world at large would not feel pity for Israel if it got nuked (which is what Lil said). The only way you might get that from my post is if you think I believed the world at large is insane. I do not. So you tell me. What exactly am I defending?
Dunno, do you agree with Truman's choice of dropping atomic bombs to win a war against Japan that was already won? I do agree with what Lil meant though. If Israel does get nuked, who can think that it was not expected? They took the land of Palestine from the Arabs through the gun of Britain and are now forcing one of the most densely populated ghettos in the world to live in harsher, war-torn land.
Wow, way to misrepresent what somebody said. All he was saying is that Israel might reap what they sow.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It led us into war. We used the atom bomb to win that war and stop greater bloodshed. Moron.
