Israel Appears To Have Had Enough

[Yamin]

I don't think so man. With Obama coming in and this going on, a lot of conflicts arise. First of all, there is no way the president can focus on our own country (bail out, economic crisis) while this stuff is going on. Secondly, negotiations with Iran cannot be made as long as this is going on. I strongly believe eventually the funding will subside and end. The US needs to take care of itself, and I think people see that.

[judgeposer]

This is just pointless. Eventually Israel will not have the funding to continue, and will have to retreat.

Someone else will eventually just pump more money into Israel to keep the rockets going, it always happens that way with war...

The U.S. will give Isreal pretty much infinite amount of funding.

I don't think so man. With Obama coming in and this going on, a lot of conflicts arise. First of all, there is no way the president can focus on our own country (bail out, economic crisis) while this stuff is going on. Secondly, negotiations with Iran cannot be made as long as this is going on. I strongly believe eventually the funding will subside and end. The US needs to take care of itself, and I think people see that.

To give some context about US aid to Israel, consult this NYT article, which talks about the latest US-Israeli aid arrangement/agreement, which, while cutting economic aid, maintains military aid. Here's a $$ quote:
"The new aid to Israel will average $3 billion a year, an increase of about 25 percent from current figures. It would begin flowing in October 2008, when American economic aid to Israel is scheduled to end; Israel now has a vibrant, growing economy. "Uniquely, officials said, the new deal allows Israel to spend 26.3 percent of the aid on arms from Israel’s domestic defense industry; the rest of the money must be spent on American equipment."

Israel retains its status as the largest recipient of US aid, which in itself seems...well, one-sided, but the amount of aid is far from limitless.

[judgeposer]

I read another interesting take on the current conflict, but this one has to do with the idea of proportionality: http://opiniojuris.org/2009/01/03/dershowi...roportionality/.

This piece is a response to law professor Alan Dershowitz's recent op/ed piece in the WSJ in which he argued that the Israeli response is "perfectly proportionate." This author critiques Dershowitz's claim that proportionality relies on the relative loss of civilian life. The accepted legal definition of proportionality requires consideration of whether the incidental loss of civilian life exceeds the military advantage an attack anticipates.

We're left with the fact that Hamas's rocket attacks, which by their nature are indiscriminate, and thus disproportional, are, in fact, war crimes. We might also be left to conclude that the Israeli response is equally disproportionate - that depends, however, on whether Hamas utilizes civilian posts to launch their rockets, among other considerations (e.g. use of civilians as human shields).

[TheScotsman]

In respect to expecting a proportional response I would have to say that is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I one-for-one response is a recipe for an endless mid-eastern political equivalent of 2 drunk chicks in a barfight. one smacks the other, and it goes on with no end until the bouncer tosses them out. Who is the bouncer? Not the UN, they have been complicit in allowing ham-ass to make attacks. More, what historical background is there for a proportional response? What would the USA do if militants launched missiles into US targets? Hmmm... Now think of those missiles, and ask what we would do if they killed a few thousand US citizens? Would the USA go kill an equal number in some 1st grade "you hit me so I hit you" response? Now think of those missiles as a couple of airplanes. Ya, we responded, and it hasn't happened again. Right or wrong, it was effective, and that is what counts.

War will go on until the combatants decide they have had enough, and don't want to fight anymore. That won't happen until one side has had enough losses they loose the stomach for it all. One side has to clearly loose to end a war, that is simple human nature. Civilians die in war, that is all there is to it. Those same civilians are backing/supporting/voted into power, those same people that are getting them killed.

Ever look at some of those fine staged "pallywood" productions that our news media is trying to sell as fact? The only thing worse than BS propaganda is poorly-produced-BS-propaganda. I would believe hamass' civilian body count only if I counted them myself. There is a long history of inflated/false civilian counts. I know, the thought that the PLO would lie completely confounds the terrorist-sympathizers (ahemm... cough-Gaia-cough) but we have seen enough over the years to know it's happening.

Besides, when they are an non-uniformed "militia" they are all civilians. Take away their green bandana, and their Klash, and who would know the difference.

Talking about US aid to Israel, and not bothering to mention Iran, and Saudi Arabia dumping millions upon millions into hamas is, well, silly.

[judgeposer]

In respect to expecting a proportional response I would have to say that is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I one-for-one response is a recipe for an endless mid-eastern political equivalent of 2 drunk chicks in a barfight. one smacks the other, and it goes on with no end until the bouncer tosses them out. Who is the bouncer? Not the UN, they have been complicit in allowing ham-ass to make attacks. More, what historical background is there for a proportional response? What would the USA do if militants launched missiles into US targets? Hmmm... Now think of those missiles, and ask what we would do if they killed a few thousand US citizens? Would the USA go kill an equal number in some 1st grade "you hit me so I hit you" response? Now think of those missiles as a couple of airplanes. Ya, we responded, and it hasn't happened again. Right or wrong, it was effective, and that is what counts.

I suspect we agree on much about this current conflict, but I am still confused about why you believe "proportional" responses are stupid? - or really, "expecting a proportional response," which I don't know what that means.

The idea of proportionality in war is rooted in Just War Theory, and we can find the priciple of proportionality contained throughout various compilations of military doctrine, including our own US Army's Field Manual. Its perhaps most modern, commonly accepted incarnation we find in the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (See Art. 51). We've seen this concept in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Cato, Seneca, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, among other figures of antiquity. I guess my point is simply that the idea of proportionality in war, or military operations, isn't new - it's as old as war itself, or perhaps as young as when we first started thinking about how to conduct wars.

[inino]

Talking about US aid to Israel, and not bothering to mention Iran, and Saudi Arabia dumping millions upon millions into hamas is, well, silly.

Millions upon millions in not the same as billions upon billions. and also isreal has the advantage of a U.S. trained army. Hamas has rocks and poorly made missiles. I agree with you about casualties of war will not be the same on both sides, but when you kill 5 times as many you can stop.

[Yamin]

Well looks like Israel decided to bomb another school...... whether you're jewish or not, defending the Israeli's on this one is just inhumane. That just sickens me.

[Bulldog_916]

In respect to expecting a proportional response I would have to say that is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I one-for-one response is a recipe for an endless mid-eastern political equivalent of 2 drunk chicks in a barfight. one smacks the other, and it goes on with no end until the bouncer tosses them out. Who is the bouncer? Not the UN, they have been complicit in allowing ham-ass to make attacks. More, what historical background is there for a proportional response? What would the USA do if militants launched missiles into US targets? Hmmm... Now think of those missiles, and ask what we would do if they killed a few thousand US citizens? Would the USA go kill an equal number in some 1st grade "you hit me so I hit you" response? Now think of those missiles as a couple of airplanes. Ya, we responded, and it hasn't happened again. Right or wrong, it was effective, and that is what counts.

War will go on until the combatants decide they have had enough, and don't want to fight anymore. That won't happen until one side has had enough losses they loose the stomach for it all. One side has to clearly loose to end a war, that is simple human nature. Civilians die in war, that is all there is to it. Those same civilians are backing/supporting/voted into power, those same people that are getting them killed.

Ever look at some of those fine staged "pallywood" productions that our news media is trying to sell as fact? The only thing worse than BS propaganda is poorly-produced-BS-propaganda. I would believe hamass' civilian body count only if I counted them myself. There is a long history of inflated/false civilian counts. I know, the thought that the PLO would lie completely confounds the terrorist-sympathizers (ahemm... cough-Gaia-cough) but we have seen enough over the years to know it's happening.

Besides, when they are an non-uniformed "militia" they are all civilians. Take away their green bandana, and their Klash, and who would know the difference.

Talking about US aid to Israel, and not bothering to mention Iran, and Saudi Arabia dumping millions upon millions into hamas is, well, silly.

Proportional response is perfectly acceptable in this conflict. If the Palestinians end up firing a rocket that kills 2 civilians and injures 17, that doesnt warrant a response that kills 20 civilians and injures several dozen.

This war will constantly make more Hamas members as operations go on and more civilians are killed. When you kill a family or a group of civilians, you piss off their remaining family and fuel the very hatred that makes more terrorists. Israel may think that it's finally ending this war with a big operation, but really, it's just making more of the very people who want to kill them.

I was watching CNN as the rockets and the bombs dropped and in the aftermath. They and the others I listened to were CONSTANTLY impugning the credibility of Palestinian death estimates as those estimates came in. They said "take these numbers with a grain of salt until impartial parties give the final casualty counts."

[r1v3th3ad]

its like Bush's silly war on terror...making more people hate the mongering country

[judgeposer]

Proportional response is perfectly acceptable in this conflict. If the Palestinians end up firing a rocket that kills 2 civilians and injures 17, that doesnt warrant a response that kills 20 civilians and injures several dozen.

This war will constantly make more Hamas members as operations go on and more civilians are killed. When you kill a family or a group of civilians, you piss off their remaining family and fuel the very hatred that makes more terrorists. Israel may think that it's finally ending this war with a big operation, but really, it's just making more of the very people who want to kill them.

I was watching CNN as the rockets and the bombs dropped and in the aftermath. They and the others I listened to were CONSTANTLY impugning the credibility of Palestinian death estimates as those estimates came in. They said "take these numbers with a grain of salt until impartial parties give the final casualty counts."

Proportional responses, or the idea of proportionality in war, does not have to do with comparing the numbers dead on either side from an attack to that attack's response. In other words, proportionality does not mean assessing that since more Palestinians have been killed or injured than Israelis since the start of this campaign, and including those dead Israelis victim to Hamas rocket attacks, does not mean Israel conducted a disproportionate attack.

The Geneva Conventions, and thus lawyers focused on International Law, determine proportionality by comparing the number of civilians killed by a specific attack, relative to the military advantage gained in that attack. So, in the context of the present conflict, we determine proportionality of an Israeli attack by comparing the number of Palestinian civilians killed, relative to the military advantage gained. Likewise, we determine proportionality of a Hamas attack by comparing the number of Israeli civilians killed, relative to the military advantage gained.

We can call a particular attack excessive, or disproportionate, when "[a]n 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." (Art. 51(5)
First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions).

Edited January 7, 2009 by judgeposer

[judgeposer]

Proportional response is perfectly acceptable in this conflict. If the Palestinians end up firing a rocket that kills 2 civilians and injures 17, that doesnt warrant a response that kills 20 civilians and injures several dozen.

This war will constantly make more Hamas members as operations go on and more civilians are killed. When you kill a family or a group of civilians, you piss off their remaining family and fuel the very hatred that makes more terrorists. Israel may think that it's finally ending this war with a big operation, but really, it's just making more of the very people who want to kill them.

I was watching CNN as the rockets and the bombs dropped and in the aftermath. They and the others I listened to were CONSTANTLY impugning the credibility of Palestinian death estimates as those estimates came in. They said "take these numbers with a grain of salt until impartial parties give the final casualty counts."

Proportional responses, or the idea of proportionality in war, does not have to do with comparing the numbers dead on either side from an attack to that attack's response. In other words, proportionality does not mean assessing that since more Palestinians have been killed or injured than Israelis since the start of this campaign, and including those dead Israelis victim to Hamas rocket attacks, does not mean Israel conducted a disproportionate attack.

The Geneva Conventions, and thus lawyers focused on International Law, determine proportionality by comparing the number of civilians killed by a specific attack, relative to the military advantage gained in that attack. So, in the context of the present conflict, we determine proportionality of an Israeli attack by comparing the number of Palestinian civilians killed, relative to the military advantage gained. Likewise, we determine proportionality of a Hamas attack by comparing the number of Israeli civilians killed, relative to the military advantage gained.

We can call a particular attack excessive, or disproportionate, when "[a]n 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." (Art. 51(5)
First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions).

What I should've added to my previous post was that using the accepted international legal definition of proportionality, we can assess every Hamas rocket attack as disproportional because none have had as its aim military advantage/targets - in that every Hamas rocket attack has been so far directed indiscriminately at civilian Israelis. We can say this because of the fact that the rocket attacks have targeted, but perhaps simply because of the missiles' imprecision given their primitiveness, Israeli cities, home to Israeli civilians. International law necessitates that whatever attacks a country or entity employs be on their own merits proportional.

Perhaps frustrating our ability to assess this conflict is the guiding rule that two wrongs do not make a right, especially in law, and specifically in international law. So, we cannot excuse Israeil excess because of its experiencing attacks on its civilians, nor can we excuse Hamas's disproportionate attacks on Israeli civilian centers because of Israeli dominance or excess. As one legal commentator put it, "[t]hat is why Hamas's direct attacks on Israeli civilians are war crimes, and that is why disproportionate attacks on Palestinian combatants are war crimes."

I think there's enough blame that each side in this conflict shoulders in the objective legal sense. Edited January 7, 2009 by judgeposer

[TheScotsman]

In respect to expecting a proportional response I would have to say that is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I one-for-one response is a recipe for an endless mid-eastern political equivalent of 2 drunk chicks in a barfight. one smacks the other, and it goes on with no end until the bouncer tosses them out. Who is the bouncer? Not the UN, they have been complicit in allowing ham-ass to make attacks. More, what historical background is there for a proportional response? What would the USA do if militants launched missiles into US targets? Hmmm... Now think of those missiles, and ask what we would do if they killed a few thousand US citizens? Would the USA go kill an equal number in some 1st grade "you hit me so I hit you" response? Now think of those missiles as a couple of airplanes. Ya, we responded, and it hasn't happened again. Right or wrong, it was effective, and that is what counts.

I suspect we agree on much about this current conflict, but I am still confused about why you believe "proportional" responses are stupid? - or really, "expecting a proportional response," which I don't know what that means.

The idea of proportionality in war is rooted in Just War Theory, and we can find the priciple of proportionality contained throughout various compilations of military doctrine, including our own US Army's Field Manual. Its perhaps most modern, commonly accepted incarnation we find in the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (See Art. 51). We've seen this concept in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Cato, Seneca, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, among other figures of antiquity. I guess my point is simply that the idea of proportionality in war, or military operations, isn't new - it's as old as war itself, or perhaps as young as when we first started thinking about how to conduct wars.

War is just not a proportional event.
The whole idea of proportionality in conflict is feel-good concept, and far from a real actuality. Proportional responses do nothing more than prolong the conflict. To quote Sun Tzu's "Art of War" A far better text for ending a conflict than Plato, or any other of an endless string of scollars who never saw a real conflict from the lines of battle. To look to non combatants for military resolutions is like going to the deaf & blind school for driving lessons.

"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged war." - Sun Tzu, Art of War
Under the conservation of forces. Any JAG would tell you the field manual's recomendation of proportional response is more about the logic behind risking forces to inflict overkill being wasteful to your own men and material. It has jack to do with a humanitarian rationing, except to outlaw taking civilians and lining them against a wall when one shoots at a soldier. I think the term "proportional response" is completely misunderstood. the public is taking it to mean there is some arbitrary ratio of the enemy you can kill. That is absurd, and a surefire recipe for never-ending civil war. Hell, if you want some tit-for-tat rules, why not just fight all wars using an adoption of the Marquess of Queensberry rules! It would be just as silly.

Let's look at a proportional response war, for the sake of discussion we can call it... Viet Nam. Stunning success there! Gaia will go on about an illegal action, but that asside, a prime example of all three traps involved in modern combat. First of a "limited war", second a war run by non-combatants, and lastly a war in which decisions became a matter of public opinion rather than military necissity. (Unfortunately, that is exactly what Iraq has become, and Assganistan is becoming)

In WW2 about 4K US civilians were killed in Europe, the incendiary bombing of Dresden alone killed from 30,000 to 70,000 civilians. Not proportional. Pearl harbor cost <2400> US lives, with 68 civilian casualties. Nagasaki cost <100,000> civilian lives. Again, not proportional. 322 US deaths from the Spanish-American war, the Spanish losses are almost untrackable, but combat losses around 6K-9K are generaly accepted. (actual losses well over 50,000, but most lost to disease)

There is really no sorting out losses from WW1, but that was a fine example of a proportional war. With both sides dug in, smacking away at eachother using similar units, tactics and weapons it was a mire that did little more than grind an entire generation, 17,500,000+ souls into the ground. It ended only when the axis powers ran out of young men, and money to equip then. It was a completely proportional war.

In Gaza the population density is so high there is going to be collateral damage, that is just a fact. Israel could put an end to the rockets with a couple of M109 or 8" batterys, and a TCq-37 counterbattery radar. Steel would be on target before the rockets even hit the apogee, but the collateral damage would be high. To their credit, Israel has not employed such, rather choosing to risk both their civilian, and military lives to save Palestinian civilians. Is that not "proportional"? Which is better for all involved, 100 civilian losses in a few days of combat, or 50 losses a year for the next decade? It needs to end, and the quicker the better for all civilians involved. But, just watch, we will get some useless "peace package" that, in the end, hamass will break, only to repeat the whole debacle again, with more people getting shot-up. It's like a bad version of "groundhog day".

"just war"... man, don't get me started.... That is like jumbo shrimp, military intelligence, hot-water heater...

[srawas89]

Ok first of all I condemn violence on both sides. But what I really want to get across is the fact that it seems like violence is the only way out for the Palestinians. Yes there was a cease fire but Israel has been hurting the Palestinian population through other matters. During the cease fire they did not allow necessary supplies to enter Gaza such as food, water, gas. Many died because of this and that is the reason why the border to Egypt got torn to shreds by the Palestinians, they only wanted food and water to survive. I would like all that are reading this thread to read this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/0...srael-palestine I think that it helps break down the situation and shows what truly has been going on. Yes I am for the Palestinians and for the land that has been wrongfully taken from them since 1967 to be returned back to them. I am however not against the Israeli people just the actions taken by their government and I am against the horrific bombings that are taking place right now.

[judgeposer]

Ok first of all I condemn violence on both sides. But what I really want to get across is the fact that it seems like violence is the only way out for the Palestinians. Yes there was a cease fire but Israel has been hurting the Palestinian population through other matters. During the cease fire they did not allow necessary supplies to enter Gaza such as food, water, gas. Many died because of this and that is the reason why the border to Egypt got torn to shreds by the Palestinians, they only wanted food and water to survive. I would like all that are reading this thread to read this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/0...srael-palestine I think that it helps break down the situation and shows what truly has been going on. Yes I am for the Palestinians and for the land that has been wrongfully taken from them since 1967 to be returned back to them. I am however not against the Israeli people just the actions taken by their government and I am against the horrific bombings that are taking place right now.

Thanks for the link.

I had a discussion with friends who pay particular attention to the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict last night. Some voiced your opinion, that violence may be Palestine's -and the Palestinians' - only real option. Others, including myself, thought that, even if true, this pursuit just endangers any hope at future peace and stability, which might even include formal recognition.

Now, I must admit that while I am interested and do keep abreast of the current conflict, I do not know well the history and previous diplomatic initiatives having to do with the larger issue. I do have, however, knowledge of the international law surrounding war, conflict, etc. - it's actually something I've been schooled in, so hopefully it pays off in my ability to assess a situation, such as the current conflict, with some accuracy.

I believe that however much lip service the international community pays the Palestinian people, in the form of state-level diplomatic pronouncements condemning Israel, or similar admonitions from UN bodies, in as far as international law is concerned, the Palestinian cause will remain endangered unless either Hamas loses power and respectability among the Palestinian people, or their offensives continue to target Isrealis indisciminately. More simply, I see two ways the Palestinian cause can gain real, and un-ignorable credability: Hamas ceases its offensive use of indisciminate rocket attacks, which are war crimes, or Hamas loses its power and credability with the Palestinian people, replacing it with more moderate, restrained political forces among the Palestinians, such as Fatah/PLO.

Again, without adding greater context, but limiting my analysis to this CURRENT conflict, Israel is responding to those indiscriminate rocket attacks in the same way any other country would: targeting known bases of Hamas operation, albeit nestled within the densely urban area of Gaza, amid civilians. My heart goes out to ALL civilians who've fallen victim, really! I just think though that if those indiscriminate rocket attacks ceased, Israel would lose all legitimacy were they to continue their campaign.

[srawas89]

O i agree that the indiscriminate attacks are hurting the Palestinians. However if the rocket attacks stopped Israel I have an extremely strong feeling that they will still go into Gaza and try to take out Hamas. Whether or not this would happen and Israel would be successful it would most probably give rise to another extremist group with the notion that no matter what they do Israel will always be looking for an excuse to cause stability in the region. Granted this is not what I believe but I do think that Israel likes to use brute force more than they would like to use diplomacy.

Look at the situation that happened in Lebanon in 2006. Hezbollah went into Israel and captured 2 soldiers. To my knowledge there was no attacks from Hezbollah on Israel for a while before this incident. From this incident came about a month long bombing campaign that set back Lebanon many many years in its outstanding progress as a country. Now I understand that Israel needed to respond however they destroyed most of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon which was definitely not called for. Had they only limited their attacks to places were they were absolutely sure Hezbollah fired rockets and were storing weapons I would not be so angry at Israel for what they did.

Getting back to the current crisis in Gaza. I understand that Israel needs to hurt Hamas and keep them from firing rockets into Israel. But this conflict has me worried the most out of all that has happened in the past 10 years. Israel attacks Hamas where civilians are dense and that is somewhat understandable (though I condemn it) however after the bombings they don't allow the humanitarian aid workers into those areas to help the civilians who were there when the bombing occurred. What also worries me is the fact that Israel although allowing a 3 hour window for humanitarian aid (which by the way is def. not long enough although it is better than nothing) has fired upon the UN, and other aid workers despite their cooperation and have literally forced them to stop their work because they are afraid for their own lives. The fact that this has occurred makes me think that the Israeli government is not just trying to destroy Hamas but Palestine altogether. This horrific thought has crossed my mind before and there has been evidence of such goals if you look at the whole history between the 2 countries the subtle signs are there. I however do not want to believe it but the recent actions by the Israeli army regarding the aid workers makes me think that the Israeli government really wants the Palestinians to be wiped out. Edited January 9, 2009 by srawas89

[TizaNabi]

Herald Tribune: "The Israeli Air Force on Saturday launched a massive attack on Hamas targets throughout Gaza in retaliation for the recent heavy rocket fire from the area, hitting mostly security headquarters, training compounds and weapons storage facilities, the Israeli military and witnesses said...no Israelis were killed or seriously injured in these recent attacks.

Though Israel had been threatening to end its policy of restraint that saw only limited strikes against rocket launchers and squads in recent days, the timing of the raid came as a surprise to Gazans. It came in mid-morning, when official buildings and security compounds were filled with personnel and children were at school, and not, as many had anticipated, at night."

So this body count of exactly 0 is what "incredibly restrained" Israel which led it to retaliate for by attacking city and market centers in the middle of the day, killing over 250 officials, women, and children and wounding over 700 more for? Lets not even get started on the actual facts and figures of Israel's wondrously saintly "restraint":

• 123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000
• 1,062 Israelis and at least 4,876 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000
• 8,341 Israelis and 33,034 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000
• 1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel
• Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.
• During Fiscal Year 2007, the U.S. gave more than $6.8 million per day to Israel and $0.3 million per day to the Palestinians.

According to the New York Times, Israel gave no indication to civilians on the ground that it was preparing to launch a noon, daytime murderous assault on civilian population centers. According to the AP, many of the victims were women and children on their way to school. and even if Israel had given some sort of warning, so what? Does that give Israel the right to launch indiscriminate bombing raids over sovereign Palestinian territory? Does that give Israel the right to kill and injure of hundreds of innocent civilians without any disregard for human life? Does that give Israel the right to hold an entire people and region hostage? What Israel did today was throw the entire peace process down the drain. israel does not want peace.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesD/orders1.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/melwak/f/iman_poem_files/e1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/melwak/f/FLASTEN25.jpg
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/03UicJm1i75t6/610x.jpg
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_fGce0OaNn8w/R_I0cb4G...ians_jrl115.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_oMSFX5-1evI/RtWnzrbQ...9q-Z8/death.jpg
http://www.machlink.com/~ampal/wael1.jpg

Simple, but then you yourself only like black and white answers as you have had the misfourtune probably of being born after 1970. We in Israel have less dead over the last 7 years of Palestinian rockets bombing us, simply because our leaders care more for us for the basest reason lets say that if not they will not get re-elected. We build at a large cost in every street corner and every house a bomb shelter. I remember sitting in them when Sadaam Hussein bombed us in YOUR war of which we were not participants. I was in south Gaza in 1973 my 2nd year in the infantry while they were sending terrorists from Fatah Yassir Arafat's non religous group and they killed in planted bombs many of our city center's people. Again I was in central Gaza in reserves when they erupted again in the 1990s. Well, we made peace wit Yassir Arafat and hissuccsesser Abu Mazen Secular, and he is anti-Chamas. They threw him out of Gaza and put a price on his head. Did I say that according to the peace agreement we gave thousands of guns to the Palestinian authority who ended up getting captured,many killed and they are only in the West Bank which is so much BIGGER than Gaza living peacefully and do you hear about us attacking them? I'm sorry, I don't feel that I have the moral right to talk about YOUR city's sewage system, counci; or if your state is pro or anti-abortion.I and my friends a half hour drive from me are being bombed 7 years and we were pissed off at our weak response.Can you go to bed at night for 7 years knowing you might be bombed? And why do the chamas shoot rockets mainly at 7:45AM all these years? Its when the kiddies go to school.
And why do they for 7 years bomb only civilian targets, yet they hide behind their own people as targets? They rarely if ever elect their leaders. Do you think that Chamas will allow another election ? Its anti-Islamic to return power to a secular or non-Islamic power. What would happen if you wer Hispanic and a certain group such as whites, blacks or greys with poka dots were killing your people and stating that they want to wipe you off the map?
We are a member of the U.N. Chamas is not a state. The Palestinian Authority is a state in the making and we have been having face to face talks with them almost daily, our Prime Minister driving 10 minutes into Ramallah or their President driving to Jerusalem. We are a country the size of New Jersey. Much is desert.Do you know how many joint programs for science, medicine and trade we and Palestinians have? Do you know that we have been accepting into our hospitals hundreds of sick non-wounded Arabs? Do you know that Palestinians have given us body parts for transplants and we gave the. Our law says that the donors give to the next on the waiting list, and if he is Arab, well fine.Why don't we have this problem in the larger by far and more populated Palestinian West Bank where I reside? Because people who like to hate find an address and a fanatic group to join.
Did you ever hear on your one sided CNN or NBC that in 1948 which was 6o years afo mate, the U.N. gave a mandate recognizing a 2 part State of Palestine? Where the majority of people were Arab, it was their's and where Jews were majority, it was ours. The 2 state solution which for years the Arabs want since 1967 was the PLAN voted by a mojority of the U.N. members. Of course 21 Arab states refused to recognize a 2 state solution and from as far from Irag by way of Jordan came tanks , all 22 countries and many more millions of Moslems all over the world donated guns, money etc.1948, lets wipe Israel off the map. If they had wiped out many of us, yes half of us are refugees NOT from Europe and the Nazis as you think, but ran from the Arab countries they were born in.Today the majorityof Israelis have grandparents born in Libya,Egypt,Yemen,Ethiopia,Sudan,Morrocco mainly, Tunisia,Algeria,Greece granchildren of refugees from ARAB countries who killed many and kicked the rest out, thank G-D.
Get a life, but better get your facts right.Look in depth.we are not angels. We are not monsters and neither are the Arabs monsters. We had a ceace fire for 6 months with Chamas before this war started and Egypt told them to renew it or eat bombs. We warned them to renew the cease fire, but since the war in Lebanon 3 years ago they think us weak and falling apart. The question is how did we manage not to kill more innocent civilians! Ask, because if we wanted to, we'd have done what Russia did this year, kick ass quick and leave. You probably don't even KNOW that they did that in Georgia a much larger country than Gaza?Or about the genocide of Iraq against Shai Moslems, and against gassing Kurdistan? Gas is cheaper, quicker and people forget, no blood. Why if we were monsters didn't we do that? And why have they been bombing us daily from Gaza in the areas we gave back without being asked for ...peace 7 years.
We should have done this 2 years ago. I have a nephew there and a son going in.
I blame the Arabs for turning nice Jewish boys into soldiers 60 years now for no reason but they hate us.

[clibinarius]

Ok..so the Palistinians HAD their own country.but they sided with the wrong team in 48 and lost it. Thats how land wars go, you back the wrong side, you lose your land.

And yet neither Germany nor Japan lost any land (that they didn't conquer during the war). Further the Israelis didn't even exist, let alone defeat Palestine- can you think of a historical precedent where land was carved out of a country to be given to someone that didn't fight?

The Palestinians were forced from their homes, schools, jobs and hospitals not because they allied with the losers of a war, but because of an appeasement policy reactive from the Holocaust.

This is all regardless though, the discussion is not about whether Israel has the right to exist, it's about whether they have the right to commit genocide.

Factually INCREDIBLY inaccurate. The Japanese lost islands, and Korea, which they had long before the war. Taiwan was Japanese, too. Germany lost their entire Eastern province. Its almost as if you haven't seen a map from 1931. On top of that, Palestine didn't exist. That's NOT me saying that "The Palestinians don't exist"-its me noting that no nation named Palestine EVER existed with the identity claimed today. Palestine is originally the British part of Syria (as Transjordan). Then Jordan was taken off of it. If you want to blame Palestinian lack of independence on people, consider: The British, the Turks, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and a whole bunch of other people. As far as committing genocide, I'm not supporting the way Palestinians at all are treated. But you're absolutely full of it. Why? Simple. Palestinian numbers have increased dramatically since 1948. They've increased also since the second and first intefadas. If Israel's goal was to commit genocide, they're doing a horrible job (as cynical as that sounds). So excuse me if I factually don't see your points.

How about the Arab countries that got the Palistinians into this situation helping out? But no, they don't want them either as long as they act as they do. Where are the surrounding Arab neighbors who shout loud and long about the poor palistinians? Are they letting them into their countries? NO. The Egyptians let them accross the boarder only because they tored down the gates. And sealed it back up as fast as they could without shooting people. Now don't get me wrong, I know a number of Palistinians here in the US and we all have a fine time hanging out. But ask yourself, why havent their "friends" let them settle in their countries? Why have they been left to rot by their Arab neighbors. Open the boarders, let them in, and then see what you get.

Because they are not nuclear powers, and both Israel and the United States are. Nuclear diplomacy 101: if you've got the bombs, you call the shots.

Actually, Egypt's nuclear status is the same as Israel's; neither confirm or deny. Even so, Egypt occupied Gaza in 1948, and did not allow Palestinians into their country. They didn't grant them citizenship. Israel absorbed nearly every Jew in the Arab world into its country. It doesn't demand a right of return, though the property lost is estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars. Furthermore, more Jews were booted out of their homelands than Palestinians (this doesn't make oppression of the Palestinians right, mind you). These Sephardim might have been living in their countries for hundreds of years. The non-Sephardic Jews in the Middle East might have been there (like in Iraq) for THOUSANDS of years. They were all settled in Israel, which including the occupied territories, is the size of New Jersey, yet much more dense! There's vast amounts of space in the Arab world, some of it HIGHLY fertile land. If there's an Arab identity that means anything-why not settle them in Libya, where the land has been neglected since the destruction of Carthage by the Arabs against the Byzantines and the moving of the trade to Spain and Egypt?

I'd assume you're not familiar with the whole thing in history, since your view that over 600,000 km^2 of Germany isn't really Germany but Poland because they didn't lose territory in the war.

Now this isn't me endorsing kicking Palestinians off their lands. This is me pointing out hypocrisy of your arguments. I'm opposed to what's going on in Gaza morally, but I understand it, and furthermore, I'm more opposed to people who don't understand what's going on spreading virulent anti-Israeli propaganda, ignoring facts. I digress...

Before you start screamign that the Israelies should be doign soemthing for their enemies,

Who is screaming? Who is saying that the Israelis should be bringing muffin and fruit baskets to Palestinian homes (and by homes, I of course mean piles of rubble).

The only thing I've said is that the individual Palestinian militants should stop firing RPGs, and the Israeli government should repudiate their Final Solution policy while they still can.

Yes, because we see evidence of extermination camps. In the holocaust, tens of thousands were dying DAILY, and that's not counting the civilians at the front. The reality is that a few hundred a week is NOTHING compared to the holocaust. Now, this is highly cynical of me to say a few hundred is nothing. I'm simply putting it in perspective. There's no systematic extermination. There might be definite intimidation and avoidable collateral damage, but you're blowing it out your ass when you say this is the holocaust. Look at any demographic study anywhere: If Israel's trying to commit genocide, they're clearly doing a horrible job.

Hell, the Palestinians themselves can't even get along, they have been killign each other faster than anyone else has.

I don't think this is supported by the facts, especially since Gaza civilians have been dying far, far, far more rapidly from malnutrition and dehydration that anyone in the Middle East is from bullets and bombs. That tends to happen when a country cuts off water and food for entire populations to make a political point.

First, how many Palestinians dead are combatants and human shields? How many have died from malnutrition? I haven't seen statistics. I understand that some are certainly malnourished, which is a problem. But you're accusing Israel of genocide and presenting no facts. Now, it could be that militant numbers are exagerated as are reports of human shields (and I'm being generous by saying that, since I don't believe it. Then again, when people lie about Jenin, it is very difficult to believe Palestinian reports...). That said, you have NO statistics, whatsoever. All my information could be easily verified by LOOKING AT A FUCKING MAP, OR READING ABOUT THE EXODUSES, OR READING THE NEWS. And we don't know how many Palestinian deaths Hamas is guilty of in this round yet, and we might never know that. But that doesn't matter, because even if people are hostages to a stupid policy of a bunch of religious fanatics, you seem to blame Israel anyway. If you really cared about human life, what's wrong with surrender? Israel HAS the capability of destroying Gaza. It seems that armed struggle is really useless. What's wrong with the Palestinians giving up their arms publically? You honestly believe that abandoning some shitty rocket launchers will cause Israel to commit genocide? I think it'd rob Israel of their pretext and if Israel didn't settle for peace then, they'd be turned into the new South Africa. Of course, you think the Palestinians have a right to have weapons-even if it means that the whole Arab population of Gaza is held hostage to all armed parties. Brilliant. You actually DON'T care about innocent people, you care about some people's pride.

This is what happens when you lose a war.

Easy to say for anyone living in a country which has never fought in a war where it had something to lose, like you or I.

Once again, you have no clue about your own history. Go talk to someone from Quebec. Hell, you guys almost ceased to exist as a country in 1812. Anyway, about those Quebecois-oh wait, I forget, they probably annoy you.

[clibinarius]

I see you did post statistics, but even so, I will then fall on this point.

Aside from the obvious bias of your presented statistics, how many Palestinians can a Qassam feed if the money was used correctly? And furthermore, how much aid would get through for each Qassam surrendered instead of fired?

I'm not even talking about withholding aid via Israel. If there were fewer Qassams, more people would give money to alieviate money in Gaza if it was being spent correctly-hell, if it fed starving children, I might give some. The fact Qassams exist are MY pretext to not give money, NOT counting the amount of money embezzled by Fatah in the past. I don't want my charity buying Qassams instead of feeding people. And if Libya wants to land their aid ships into Palestine, set up a diplomatic channel. Don't complain when a country you're officially at war with refuses to let you into their harbors. Libya could negotiate peace with Israel to deliver aid to the Palestinians. Why don't they?

Oh right. They don't have any moral obligations. Only Israel does. A lot more pressure could be applied to Israel that people like you gaia want if all these countries got off of their high horses and normalized relations with Israel. Even more could if the Palestinians disarmed. But once again, you think the Palestinians have a right to do what they're doing. Well, maybe they do. But defense of that right, is it worth seeing your children grow up to be not as tall as they should be? Is it worth seeing more corruption? Is it worth the checkpoints inevitable from it? Those are the consequences of armed struggle, even if those are in the right as you suggest (ie: Palestinians). Is that right? Probably not. But if people were really concerned about protecting their nation, they'd be more concerned with getting their nation food than the "Zionist Entity". If Hamas recognized Israel, the west would be practically forced to unfreeze bank accounts which could feed a lot of people. But you can fall back and say "Well, I don't like Hamas!" Oh well. If you don't like Hamas, you should sit out the conflict and stop calling Israel committers of the Final Solution, since Hamas is causing your so-called "Genocide" just as actively, if not more actively by misappropriating funds and bankrupting the Gaza economy far more than Israel has through direct occupation, than Israel has.

But I don't see you protesting Hamas's policy of ethnic clensing or by this point what is probably an occupation of Gaza; besides, the Nazis were elected. Do you say they were the rightful leaders of ALL Germans? Cause...you know...that's what the Nazis claimed. And that's one point of view on Appeasement back then not being so bad. After all, if the Austrians want to be Germans, they're just expressing their own national aspirations! And, if those Germans they want to be are Nazis...wait, Austria was a victim of the Nazis, too! (Does anyone believe someone saying that? Look, its the Freedom Party to save the day on that question!) And Hitler and Eichmann weren't Austrians, either.

What about you, does Harper represent you despite getting elected? Edited January 14, 2009 by clibinarius

[Giant Ninja Robot]

^ pretty intense and studied argument but, uh, dude got permabanned.

Interesting read though, I wish I had the wearwithall to study all this more.

[momatik]

The article posted above, in the first paragraph, forgot to mention
that Hamas never stopped the rockets into Israel. Ever.

Edit :- The BBC is horribly one-sided. Shockingly so I'm sorry to say.

I'm desperately trying to rack my brains to the border town where the rockets have never stopped hitting Israel land.

^Source?

Despite the intense blockade against Gazan civilians, the cease-fire held until November 4, 2008.

BBC news, Just now, BBC1 News at 18:00 even admitted that :-
"The 6 month cease-fire saw the rocket attacks from Hamas drop....but not completely stop"

Cheers,

JD

Actually recently Israel has admitted that Hamas had not fired 1 single rocket into Israel during the cease fire.

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6e-elrgYL0

[Johnny_D]

Your serious right? Youtube as a bloody reference. I won't ever bother with it.

And the above is utter horseshit.

Cheers,

JD

[momatik]

Relax man, it's a video of the official spokesperson of Israel Merk Regev agreeing that Hamas had not fired a single rocket into Israel.

There are plenty of news sources, but I figured a video would be more credible considering you actually see him agreeing. Edited January 18, 2009 by momatik

[newjacksm]

This thread sucks

[Johnny_D]

This thread sucks

So why post in it then?

[Johnny_D]

Relax man, it's a video of the official spokesperson of Israel Merk Regev agreeing that Hamas had not fired a single rocket into Israel.

There are plenty of news sources, but I figured a video would be more credible considering you actually see him agreeing.

Sorry, My post did look like I was being pissy didn't it. My unreserved apologies for that.

As far as I can tell the rockets have continued throughout and long before this latest spat. That was all I was trying to say.

Must not post before breakfast.

JD