Jump to content

School Flattened by IDF


Matt

Recommended Posts

i see no one said anything about when russia invaded Georgia last year did they ?2,000 dead and 30,000 homeless

 

No I didn't but that didn't stop it from being any less wrong. I didn't say anything about this one until it was brought up and people argued a point I didn't believe was right. Perhaps I should start saying something everytime some humanitarian problem arises but then again I simply don't have the time and you'd all be bored with my rants about Zimbabewe. I with Johnny on this one, Israel have been wronged in the past but just because that has happened doesn't give them carte blanche to do it in reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A point you seem to have missed are the concessions that previous Israeli governments have made to the Palestinians (before Hamas took control). Bob will confirm or correct me on this but didn't they pull out of large areas of the "Occupied Homelands" to the dismay of the the hardline Jewish residents before handing back these areas.

 

I would admit it was nice of Israel to do that but why did they have to, was it because they invaded the place years ago or was it because it gave the Palestinians the same rights as the Israelis. I'm sure many Rhodesians felt the UK shouldn't have pulled out of that country but it didn't stop it from being the right thing to do at the time. Doing so doesn't give the UK the right to invade the same country to get rid of its leader now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know why Al-Quaieda attacked on 9/11, 7/7 etc...doesn't make it right, does it?

The reason there was such an outcry against these atrocities (and that's what they were) was because of the indescriminate nature in which they were carried out. They took no consideration for any human life. How, then, can it be considered acceptable for Isreal to blindly hurl bombs into the strip?

 

Only three hours ago I visited ground zero. I had tears in my eyes. I felt physically sick at the immense feeling of loss. Americans justifyably feel horror at these events. However they go home and watch Fox News as it's pundits all but cheer the images of equally innocent lives being lost.

 

Now the counter argument I expect is these people were not killing innocents nor were they near people doing so. Well in Al-Quiaidas (sorry for the spelling) view they were. They were part of the United States which kills hundreds, thousands, of innocent people in miliary action. Same but different, no?

 

In the end it's a matter of perspective. Thankfully we are in a position where if we disagree we debate and don't shoot, due to our religious freedoms. If the Arabs and Jews knew just how little they stood to lose by living side by side the world would be a wonderful place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would admit it was nice of Israel to do that but why did they have to, was it because they invaded the place years ago or was it because it gave the Palestinians the same rights as the Israelis. I'm sure many Rhodesians felt the UK shouldn't have pulled out of that country but it didn't stop it from being the right thing to do at the time. Doing so doesn't give the UK the right to invade the same country to get rid of its leader now.

 

The point I was trying to make (admittedly not very well) was that a moderate Israeli government made attempts/gestures towards peace. Hamas, who are not recognised by the Palestinian President/US/EEC have a stated aim of removing Israel off the map are deliberately firing rockets into Israel knowing full well that a hardline Israel will attack. Hamas, IMO, do not care about the people whose house/school they fire rockets from.

 

The point you made about pulling out being the right thing to do brings to mind a question. How far back do you want to go? Is it living memory? Or do we trawl through history books to determine who lived where first and therefore start shuffling boundaries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make (admittedly not very well) was that a moderate Israeli government made attempts/gestures towards peace. Hamas, who are not recognised by the Palestinian President/US/EEC have a stated aim of removing Israel off the map are deliberately firing rockets into Israel knowing full well that a hardline Israel will attack. Hamas, IMO, do not care about the people whose house/school they fire rockets from.

 

The point you made about pulling out being the right thing to do brings to mind a question. How far back do you want to go? Is it living memory? Or do we trawl through history books to determine who lived where first and therefore start shuffling boundaries?

Mike - the Israelis pulled settlements out from Gaza, which is a desolate arid refugee camp. It says much for the fanaticism of their extremist settlers that anyone would want to live there anyway. They have continued to build settlements in the West Bank, which has far better resources and is strategically valuable to them, every one of which is a barrier to any future peace, and continued to use walls supposedly built for security to make it impossible for the people whose country it is to reach their own land, then declaring them absentee landlords and stealing their land.

 

How far you go back is a fair point - personally I find it quite bizarre that in the 20th century any consideration was given to Western support for a state created explicitly on religious lines, but it's there now and is a fact that isn't going to go away. What I am convinced about is that Israel can't be taken seriously in claiming that they want to make peace along a two state solution whilst they continue to cut the only viable part of the other state into a patchwork quilt which they then feel obliged and entitled to maintain, "security," over with their army.

 

I'm not so deluded as to think that their neighbours are going to start liking them - of course they aren't. Israel is going to be attacked for years, decades to come. So are people in Gaza, the West Bank, no doubt the Lebanese. I think their best bet is to stop creating very genuine and fair reasons for the next generations to hate them as much as their parents do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike - the Israelis pulled settlements out from Gaza, which is a desolate arid refugee camp. It says much for the fanaticism of their extremist settlers that anyone would want to live there anyway. They have continued to build settlements in the West Bank, which has far better resources and is strategically valuable to them, every one of which is a barrier to any future peace, and continued to use walls supposedly built for security to make it impossible for the people whose country it is to reach their own land, then declaring them absentee landlords and stealing their land.

 

How far you go back is a fair point - personally I find it quite bizarre that in the 20th century any consideration was given to Western support for a state created explicitly on religious lines, but it's there now and is a fact that isn't going to go away. What I am convinced about is that Israel can't be taken seriously in claiming that they want to make peace along a two state solution whilst they continue to cut the only viable part of the other state into a patchwork quilt which they then feel obliged and entitled to maintain, "security," over with their army.

 

I'm not so deluded as to think that their neighbours are going to start liking them - of course they aren't. Israel is going to be attacked for years, decades to come. So are people in Gaza, the West Bank, no doubt the Lebanese. I think their best bet is to stop creating very genuine and fair reasons for the next generations to hate them as much as their parents do.

 

Good points!!! I think support should be given to Egypt who are, arguably, the only realistic intermediaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points!!! I think support should be given to Egypt who are, arguably, the only realistic intermediaries.

egypt was offererd the gaza strip back in 1967 by the israeli goverment , but they turned it down knowing it would be trouble for them , how right they were

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to cut up your post...

 

When Hamas stop firing, Israel will NOT stop firing they will wipe out Hamas.

 

I think they will, but it's a hypothetical situation and we can't know until it happens, if it does.

 

It may have started as a war of self-defence (and that's debatable- judging by the numbers of people that have been killed by these rockets in the time Hamas has been firing them into Israel)

 

So just because Israel's killing machine is stronger and more effective, should they wait until more Israelis are killed before killing Palestinians?

 

but it is NOT a war of self-defence now Israel are the aggressors and are getting away with it. Hamas are going to be the ones acting in self-defense if anything.

 

So when does a war of self-defence become an aggressive war? Attempting to cripple Hamas is still the goal, and as they are doing so to protect their citizens, it's still a war of self-defence.

 

If it was the other way round the US (and the UK) would be condemming the action and leaping to the defence of poor little Israel.

 

Agree on US, disagree on UK.

 

Israel has weapons of mass destruction, but you don't hear Bush bleating on about it or invading the country to stop them being used, because it was the Yanks that gave them the stuff.

 

This has nothing to do with it.

 

Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and it is impossible to find areas where the 'terrorists' aren't near a school, a hospital etc. because there isn't room.

 

That, quite simply, is untrue.

 

Last time I checked it was good practice to keep the police seperate from the army and the police should have nothing to do with the 'terrorists' so why should it matter where the police station is,

 

Because the police are run by Hamas. Plus Hamas don't actually have an army.

 

Plus correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Hamas elected Democratically, and I know they have links with terrorists but so did Sinn Fein and loads of other political groups (most terrorist groups have a political arm or link). You can't suddenly decide to kill a whole bunch of people because you don't link their government whom they elected because they're a group with terror links otherwise half of Belfast would be rubble.

 

Hamas are the aggressors! Just because they are elected democratically doesn't mean they can fire rockets at Israeli targets.

 

Destroying a school, killing innocent children just to kill a handful (at most) 'terrorists' strikes me as pretty cowardly.

 

Agreed.

 

I know the terrorists shouldn't have hid there but where else were they going to hide Israel has virtually flattened their entire country and they are at war.

 

Sorry mate, if I was trying to evade being killed, knowing full well that those after me would have no qualms bombing where I was, the last place I'd go was a place with innocent children. They were trying to use their people as human shields and cost them their lives.

 

Personally I think this has a lot to do with who is coming into power in 14 days in USA and the Isrealis reckon that Obama will stop giving them as much leeway as Bush because he doesn't have to and they have decided to strike now whilst they can get away with it (from US point of view).

 

The timing is, but the reason for the operation is not.

Edited by jsslatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

egypt was offererd the gaza strip back in 1967 by the israeli goverment , but they turned it down knowing it would be trouble for them , how right they were

I don't mean to make this personal Bob, but that's absurd. How many third world countries who'd just been kicked :censored:less in a war would accept the offer of taking on a barely habitable desert full of hundreds of thousands of refugees? Israel didn't offer them the opportunity to move back to their homes where them and their ancestors had lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

egypt was offererd the gaza strip back in 1967 by the israeli goverment , but they turned it down knowing it would be trouble for them , how right they were

 

Not quite sure what your point is!

 

I simply stated that Egypt was the obvious choice to arbiter a peace plan NOT take over the region, as they are on speak terms with all affected parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

egypt was offererd the gaza strip back in 1967 by the israeli goverment , but they turned it down knowing it would be trouble for them , how right they were

I don't mean to aim this at you specifically Bob. But why is it deemed that palastinians need to be 'owned' or 'ruled' or 'controlled'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason there was such an outcry against these atrocities (and that's what they were) was because of the indescriminate nature in which they were carried out. They took no consideration for any human life. How, then, can it be considered acceptable for Isreal to blindly hurl bombs into the strip?

 

Only three hours ago I visited ground zero. I had tears in my eyes. I felt physically sick at the immense feeling of loss. Americans justifyably feel horror at these events. However they go home and watch Fox News as it's pundits all but cheer the images of equally innocent lives being lost.

 

Now the counter argument I expect is these people were not killing innocents nor were they near people doing so. Well in Al-Quiaidas (sorry for the spelling) view they were. They were part of the United States which kills hundreds, thousands, of innocent people in miliary action. Same but different, no?

 

In the end it's a matter of perspective. Thankfully we are in a position where if we disagree we debate and don't shoot, due to our religious freedoms. If the Arabs and Jews knew just how little they stood to lose by living side by side the world would be a wonderful place.

 

I wasn't saying the current situation and 9/11 were equal, I was just addressing Rummy's comment to Bob.

 

Agree on the point in bold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't see the moral equivalence you are making - or rather, it seems to me that you aren't actually trying to make one? You rely on pragmatism to justify Israel's policy but expect moral considerations to apply to the Arab side. In effect, we are to take Israel's policies as a given and the Arabs response to that is the only morally relevant factor. If you leave aside this fundamentally untenable position I put it to you that the Israeli children who are hurt by those rockets are every bit as much the unfortunate victims of the consequences of their of their parents' actions as are the Palestinian children hurt by Israeli rockets and shells. I will revise my statement above to state that I don't think it is Israeli policy to seek to kill children, but it is every bit as certain to be the outcome of the long-standing policy of using often brutal military force against a civilian population, and I firmly believe that many people in Israeli politics (and society) who would much prefer to continue this way than give up their expansionist policies.

 

When you say that you know what most people in the world would do, surely you ignore the countless examples of people taking sometimes extreme risks to fight oppression or for their beliefs, be they right or wrong. What population has ever consented to perpetual subordination?

 

The Israelis killed by rockets are only living in Sderot, for example, and trying to lead their lives peacefully. They are not attacking anyone. Hamas on the other hand shoot rockets from their flats and their homes, and make their children's homes direct targets.

 

An independent Palestinian state is impossible without peace...which is impossible without Hamas laying down their weapons. When they lay down their weapons, Israel will lay down hers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know why Hamas, who definitely started this, fired that first rocket? They must have known what the Israeli reaction would be from experience and it achieved nothing for them. I know they have no regard for human life and their intention is to kill as many Israelis as possible, but do they never think about the consequences or do they have no regard for the lives of their own people either. Israel has every right to defend it's people, but they need to find a better solution than this, before other Arab countries get involved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree on the point in bold.

Let's hope that they can find a way. It's equally true that they have equally as much to fear from each other as they do. I think it was someone from recent Middle Eastern history who pointed out that you don't make peace with your friends, I suspect it will only be the nutters on either side who can carry this one off as well. Think McGuiness being best buddies with Paisley, De Gaulle losing Algeria when nobody else could, the Duke of Wellington emancipating Catholics, Nixon pulling out of Vietnam. It will take people with hardcore credentials from either side to settle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Israelis killed by rockets are only living in Sderot, for example, and trying to lead their lives peacefully. They are not attacking anyone. Hamas on the other hand shoot rockets from their flats and their homes, and make their children's homes direct targets.

 

An independent Palestinian state is impossible without peace...which is impossible without Hamas laying down their weapons. When they lay down their weapons, Israel will lay down hers.

Sorry, but again, you aren't using fair standards. You compare the Israelis who were killed in Sderot in their homes or shelters with the people who were firing the rockets in Gaza, as if every Gazan was firing a rocket and nobody in Sderot ever gave any support for the policies that have torn the region apart for so long. Israelis fire rockets which land on innocent people. Gazans try and lead peaceful lives. Some of both of the above do neither of the above. If you are going to say that every Arab is to blame for everything Hamas does, I will say that every Israeli is to blame for everything Israel does, and we will both be as wrong as each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to cut up your post...

 

When Hamas stop firing, Israel will NOT stop firing they will wipe out Hamas.

 

I think they will, but it's a hypothetical situation and we can't know until it happens, if it does.

 

It may have started as a war of self-defence (and that's debatable- judging by the numbers of people that have been killed by these rockets in the time Hamas has been firing them into Israel)

 

So just because Israel's killing machine is stronger and more effective, should they wait until more Israelis are killed before killing Palestinians?

 

but it is NOT a war of self-defence now Israel are the aggressors and are getting away with it. Hamas are going to be the ones acting in self-defense if anything.

 

So when does a war of self-defence become an aggressive war? Attempting to cripple Hamas is still the goal, and as they are doing so to protect their citizens, it's still a war of self-defence.

 

If it was the other way round the US (and the UK) would be condemming the action and leaping to the defence of poor little Israel.

 

Agree on US, disagree on UK.

 

Israel has weapons of mass destruction, but you don't hear Bush bleating on about it or invading the country to stop them being used, because it was the Yanks that gave them the stuff.

 

This has nothing to do with it.

 

Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and it is impossible to find areas where the 'terrorists' aren't near a school, a hospital etc. because there isn't room.

 

That, quite simply, is untrue.

 

Last time I checked it was good practice to keep the police seperate from the army and the police should have nothing to do with the 'terrorists' so why should it matter where the police station is,

 

Because the police are run by Hamas. Plus Hamas don't actually have an army.

 

Plus correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Hamas elected Democratically, and I know they have links with terrorists but so did Sinn Fein and loads of other political groups (most terrorist groups have a political arm or link). You can't suddenly decide to kill a whole bunch of people because you don't link their government whom they elected because they're a group with terror links otherwise half of Belfast would be rubble.

 

Hamas are the aggressors! Just because they are elected democratically doesn't mean they can fire rockets at Israeli targets.

 

Destroying a school, killing innocent children just to kill a handful (at most) 'terrorists' strikes me as pretty cowardly.

 

Agreed.

 

I know the terrorists shouldn't have hid there but where else were they going to hide Israel has virtually flattened their entire country and they are at war.

 

Sorry mate, if I was trying to evade being killed, knowing full well that those after me would have no qualms bombing where I was, the last place I'd go was a place with innocent children. They were trying to use their people as human shields and cost them their lives.

 

Personally I think this has a lot to do with who is coming into power in 14 days in USA and the Isrealis reckon that Obama will stop giving them as much leeway as Bush because he doesn't have to and they have decided to strike now whilst they can get away with it (from US point of view).

 

The timing is, but the reason for the operation is not.

 

If someone was to attack me with a butter knife and I shot them that would not be self-defense as I would not be using reasonable force, something the Israelis aren't doing. It became an aggressive war the moment Israel entered Gaza. The mass destruction thing is to point out the hypocrisy of certain governments, as Israel can have them and know that if they really wanted to destroy somewhere they could use them but Iraq can't that's like saying because we like one person they can keep guns but because we don't like someone else they can only have knives. I think the whole world wants peace in the middle east but with the Yanks giving the Israelis far superior weapons and invading somewhere on the premise they have similar then that is never going to happen. Hamas may have started the conflict but that doesn't make them the aggressors now, Israel is like a spoilt child whining when things aren't going their way but when they are bullying the other nations they act like its them that has the moral high ground. How many people were killed by the rockets fired before Israel did something as I have heard it was only 7, which I will admit is 7 too many but that doesn't give Israel the excuse to start a war which is going to end up killing a 100 times that (and that's just the innocent victims). Hamas being elected means Israel aren't going to war with them they are going to war with Palestine, it would be like saying Labour are going to war not UK. It matters as well because Israel are trying to wipe out Hamas but they shouldn't be doing so as that would be like the UK trying to wipe out whoever the ruling party in Ireland is. Plus I also heard that it was Israel who gave Hamas their start in life because they wanted rid of Arafat but now they realise that wasn't such a good idea they want to rectify their mistake. As to hiding in a school, the first place I'd go is a building with a basement if that happens to be a school then I would try and get the kids out (but hang on the streets are being bombed so the kids can't leave) and I don't want to hide elsewhere because the other buildings don't provide as much cover and I might not make it (as the streets are being bombed). Human shields is just a convienient way for the Israelis to explain why they bombed a school without any warning. The people in there might have been able to go elsewhere but the Israelis didn't have to bomb it without warning either.

 

EDIT: I had heard it was 7 people killed by rockets but apparently it was 18 but that is since 2001. Not exactly justifing killing 30 people (mainly children) at a school

Edited by rudemedic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to chop it up again mate...

 

If someone was to attack me with a butter knife and I shot them that would not be self-defense as I would not be using reasonable force, something the Israelis aren't doing.

That's a ridiculous analogy, on the basis that Israel is killing those who are attacking them, but only because they are trying, and succeeding, to kill Israeli civilians. If someone attacked you with a carving knife and you shot them, then that would be self-defence.

 

It became an aggressive war the moment Israel entered Gaza.

 

So it's self-defence from the air but not from the ground? It would be self-defence if they carpet bombed Gaza City, but aggression if they go in on the ground and try to take out specific targets?

 

How many people were killed by the rockets fired before Israel did something as I have heard it was only 7, which I will admit is 7 too many but that doesn't give Israel the excuse to start a war which is going to end up killing a 100 times that (and that's just the innocent victims).

 

It's more than that, about 30 I think. I agree the results are disproportionate and the civilian loss is appalling. Unfortunately, Israel feels she needs to defend her citizens.

 

Hamas being elected means Israel aren't going to war with them they are going to war with Palestine, it would be like saying Labour are going to war not UK.

 

Palestine is not a recognised sovereign state, and is only not at war with the West Bank. As such Israel is at war with Hamas. Not to mention that since Hamas won the elections, they have had a war with the other major party, Fatah...and driven them out of Gaza after victory.

 

As to hiding in a school, the first place I'd go is a building with a basement if that happens to be a school then I would try and get the kids out (but hang on the streets are being bombed so the kids can't leave) and I don't want to hide elsewhere because the other buildings don't provide as much cover and I might not make it (as the streets are being bombed).

 

Really? Why would you put all their lives in jeopardy in order to try and save your own?

 

Human shields is just a convienient way for the Israelis to explain why they bombed a school without any warning.

 

Hamas have used the term themselves.

 

The people in there might have been able to go elsewhere but the Israelis didn't have to bomb it without warning either.

 

The thing is, that if they warned they were going to bomb it, then the terrorists would also get away, so what's the point of my operation. So Israel's hand is pretty much forced. And herein lies my point, that Hamas try to use their children as shields and care little of the consequences. They have no interest in protecting their people...protecting their children...they're just disposable instruments in their struggle against the Israelis. When Hamas lay down their weapons, or choose to fight `way from the towns where their families live, then civilian life will no longer be lost (or at least dramatically reduced).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone was to attack me with a butter knife and I shot them that would not be self-defense as I would not be using reasonable force, something the Israelis aren't doing. It became an aggressive war the moment Israel entered Gaza. The mass destruction thing is to point out the hypocrisy of certain governments, as Israel can have them and know that if they really wanted to destroy somewhere they could use them but Iraq can't that's like saying because we like one person they can keep guns but because we don't like someone else they can only have knives. I think the whole world wants peace in the middle east but with the Yanks giving the Israelis far superior weapons and invading somewhere on the premise they have similar then that is never going to happen. Hamas may have started the conflict but that doesn't make them the aggressors now, Israel is like a spoilt child whining when things aren't going their way but when they are bullying the other nations they act like its them that has the moral high ground. How many people were killed by the rockets fired before Israel did something as I have heard it was only 7, which I will admit is 7 too many but that doesn't give Israel the excuse to start a war which is going to end up killing a 100 times that (and that's just the innocent victims). Hamas being elected means Israel aren't going to war with them they are going to war with Palestine, it would be like saying Labour are going to war not UK. It matters as well because Israel are trying to wipe out Hamas but they shouldn't be doing so as that would be like the UK trying to wipe out whoever the ruling party in Ireland is. Plus I also heard that it was Israel who gave Hamas their start in life because they wanted rid of Arafat but now they realise that wasn't such a good idea they want to rectify their mistake. As to hiding in a school, the first place I'd go is a building with a basement if that happens to be a school then I would try and get the kids out (but hang on the streets are being bombed so the kids can't leave) and I don't want to hide elsewhere because the other buildings don't provide as much cover and I might not make it (as the streets are being bombed). Human shields is just a convienient way for the Israelis to explain why they bombed a school without any warning. The people in there might have been able to go elsewhere but the Israelis didn't have to bomb it without warning either.

 

EDIT: I had heard it was 7 people killed by rockets but apparently it was 18 but that is since 2001. Not exactly justifing killing 30 people (mainly children) at a school

 

Reasonable force is defined as the minimum force required to achieve a safe outcome for the defendant.......or that's what it states on the jsp385. If a gun is what it takes then that is reasonable force. The butter knife is still potentially a deadly weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasonable force is defined as the minimum force required to achieve a safe outcome for the defendant.......or that's what it states on the jsp385. If a gun is what it takes then that is reasonable force. The butter knife is still potentially a deadly weapon.

RoE are a CoC responsibility, and theatre specific. I doubt Hamas has such structure and this is where the confusion is, but the IDF must operate with such - like the white card with our lads. Our boys are seeing action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are under a lot of pressure due to the contstaints of their RoE's. Things like the CIMIC engagement were a legal minefield so to speak.

 

IDF cannot justify firing into a school, the potential for collateral damage far outweighs the possibility of taking a target down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to chop it up again mate...

 

If someone was to attack me with a butter knife and I shot them that would not be self-defense as I would not be using reasonable force, something the Israelis aren't doing.

That's a ridiculous analogy, on the basis that Israel is killing those who are attacking them, but only because they are trying, and succeeding, to kill Israeli civilians. If someone attacked you with a carving knife and you shot them, then that would be self-defence.

 

It became an aggressive war the moment Israel entered Gaza.

 

So it's self-defence from the air but not from the ground? It would be self-defence if they carpet bombed Gaza City, but aggression if they go in on the ground and try to take out specific targets?

 

How many people were killed by the rockets fired before Israel did something as I have heard it was only 7, which I will admit is 7 too many but that doesn't give Israel the excuse to start a war which is going to end up killing a 100 times that (and that's just the innocent victims).

 

It's more than that, about 30 I think. I agree the results are disproportionate and the civilian loss is appalling. Unfortunately, Israel feels she needs to defend her citizens.

 

Hamas being elected means Israel aren't going to war with them they are going to war with Palestine, it would be like saying Labour are going to war not UK.

 

Palestine is not a recognised sovereign state, and is only not at war with the West Bank. As such Israel is at war with Hamas. Not to mention that since Hamas won the elections, they have had a war with the other major party, Fatah...and driven them out of Gaza after victory.

 

As to hiding in a school, the first place I'd go is a building with a basement if that happens to be a school then I would try and get the kids out (but hang on the streets are being bombed so the kids can't leave) and I don't want to hide elsewhere because the other buildings don't provide as much cover and I might not make it (as the streets are being bombed).

 

Really? Why would you put all their lives in jeopardy in order to try and save your own?

 

Human shields is just a convienient way for the Israelis to explain why they bombed a school without any warning.

 

Hamas have used the term themselves.

 

The people in there might have been able to go elsewhere but the Israelis didn't have to bomb it without warning either.

 

The thing is, that if they warned they were going to bomb it, then the terrorists would also get away, so what's the point of my operation. So Israel's hand is pretty much forced. And herein lies my point, that Hamas try to use their children as shields and care little of the consequences. They have no interest in protecting their people...protecting their children...they're just disposable instruments in their struggle against the Israelis. When Hamas lay down their weapons, or choose to fight `way from the towns where their families live, then civilian life will no longer be lost (or at least dramatically reduced).

 

I used an analogy about reasonable force because some response from Israel was reasonable (after all they are trying to protect their citizens) but the response they have given is beyond reasonable and is causing more harm than is necessary. Carpet bombing would also be aggressive (and not self-defense) but I could be persuaded that smart bombing specific targets with known Hamas links (and limiting civilian casualties) could be self-defense (its intersting that Israel has a very lax definition of who isn't a civilian). Who doesn't recognise Palestine, I'm fairly certain the UN does, a lot of the world does, but strangely because Israel doesn't recognise them, (for their own selfish reasons) it is not a recognised state, that is :censored:. The 'terrorists' may not have seen it as themselves putting the kids in danger (after all who expects Israel to bomb a school) and the saving of your own life is perhaps the most basic instinct (survival of the fittest and all that) and in times of stress humans revert to the basic insticts which are remnants from before we had fire. The point I was trying to make was that the terrorists could have been using the school for legitimate tactical reasons and the fact it was a school didn't factor (i.e. they would have used that building if it was an office, cinema whatever) and they were not trying to use the children as human shields, but obviously since someone said that's why they were using the school then that's the case. The only people who know why they were in that school are now answering to someone else and we will never know I was merely pointing out that people have assumed one thing but it may not be the case. Hamas using the term in another context is slightly irrelevant. Plus are you telling me that Israel has the technology to bomb a specific target but can't let those people who are obviously children leave that target first. Israel could have allowed the children trapped inside the school to leave before bombing it but decided not to, the Hamas people won't have escaped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me is that Israel and Palestine are seen as equals when they are clearly not, some Palestinian hot-head fires a rocket into Israel and Israel use the full force of a developed nation in retaliation justifying it as being attacked by Palestine. We all know what happens next, we are so used to this nonsense that we blank it out on the news, 30 arabs die, a couple of Israelis die which ever goon is in charge of Israel this hour says that Palestians are murderous pigdogs, the current Palestian towelhead says they are being oppressed and denied access to their lands and medical supplies then some celebrity bends one into someone else and we all move on for a few months till it is a quiet newsday and someone farts in the wrong direction near the red sea and it all kicks off again.

 

There is wrong and right on both sides and they can go on killing themselves from here on to eternity, stupidity is defined as repeating your actions and expecting different results. By oppressing the Palestians; Israel is guaranteeing a steady stream of young people who do not see any worthwhile future and are willing to give their lives in the name of the struggle. By maintaining to poke Israel with a big stick the Palestinians are guaranteeing that the Israelis will defend themselves and retaliate with even greater force, how long will it be until the greatest irony of mankind and the Israelis use poison gas?

 

Apart from the arms companies, some gangsters and a few vested in interests on both sides this conflict serves no one, no one is winning and we are no nearer an end, the Palestinians are not going to just wake up one morning and say "You know what David, we've had enough, you were right all along, lets get that chicken soup on" In the same way the Israelis are not going to turn down their claim on the land as it says it is theirs in some ancient text promised to them by some imaginary friend several hundred years ago.

 

It will be interesting to see how it plays out with a US president that isn't reliant on the Israeli lobby to get re-elected or get his policies through congress. Capitol hill is queuing up to chow down long on hard on Obama in the hope that his mystique rubs off on them and they get sprinkled with his magic juice to help them get re-elected. It would be a fairly easy quick-win for an Obama presidency to sort out this conflict especially in these fiscally difficult times, would distract from the fact that Change isn't going to come as loose change is all the US treasury has left after the bail-outs. Doesn't cost much to get Arab and Isreali representatives aroung a table in somewhere nice like Paris and thrash out a deal, possibly shoot some hoops with them too, quick photo call, secure place in history before getting back in time for series 5 of Lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus are you telling me that Israel has the technology to bomb a specific target but can't let those people who are obviously children leave that target first. Israel could have allowed the children trapped inside the school to leave before bombing it but decided not to, the Hamas people won't have escaped.

 

I don't think thats how guerilla warfare works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(rudemedic @ Jan 7 2009, 09:12 AM Plus are you telling me that Israel has the technology to bomb a specific target but can't let those people who are obviously children leave that target first. Israel could have allowed the children trapped inside the school to leave before bombing it but decided not to, the Hamas people won't have escaped.
the thing is that the hamas use the kids as sheilds and keep them near the rocket launchers knowing the idf will attack them
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...