Israel strikes Hard at Hamas In Gaza- Dec/ 27/ 2008

[Shec]

Shec, your argument is almost laughable. You're trying to defend the IDF's clear human rights violations by quoting their code of ethics?? Is this a joke?




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/gaza-israel-war-crimes

Actually it's your source, The Guardian,  a consistently anti-Israel paper, that's the joke.  And again, show me a Hamas code of ethics.

 

[George Wallace]

Bo

I find your use of less than credible sources interesting, but not very supportive of your points.  This is especially true when you ignore the actual documents ( Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
 ) that disprove some of your statements.

 

[tourza]

Tourza,

If you'll flip back to reply #282 you'll find a couple of links I posted which address the militarily defensive rationale for holding the high ground.  On this ground settlements are necessary, in fact consistent with the stockade and tower settlements held by the farmer-soldiers of Nahal of the early 20th century,  While this would apply to Golan the Arabs can have the all rest in their own state.

Shec,

So you are agreeing to the evacuation of all the settlements in the West Bank (and Israel keeps the Golan)? How's that going to go over with the settlers? How's that going to go over with the Syrians?

Regards.

 

[tourza]

Shec,

My apology for the delay in my response.

I believe that the geographic and demographic realities that Israel faces today have conspired together to do to Israel what the PLO, Hamas, Hizballah, et. al. couldn't. It appears that you have lived in Israel, so you'll understand better than most the realities to which I refer. Academics and semantics aside, every occupation eventually comes to an end. It ends either to the benefit or detriment of the occupier or occupied. The Israeli gov't has difficult decisions to make, and every day that passes, every day that the Israeli gov't and its people foolishly believe that it's possible to maintain the status quo, through Merkavas, or settlements, or F16's, or collective punishment, or dead Palestinian children, the balance of power shifts. Ignoring the sabre rattling coming from the Arab camps, I think that the single most difficult issue the Israeli gov't has to confront is settlements.

Shec, what do you think?

Regards.

Shec,

I'd like your opinion on the main body of my post (the white elephant in the room, as it were), sans the settlements issue.

Regards.

 

[Shec]

You yourself said the settlement issue is the "most difficult" so why are you ducking it?    Furthermore, you have ducked any reponse to the Mukawama doctrine.  That is one twin iin the pair of white elephants in the room.  The other is Jerusalem.  And, other than the observation that occupations, like almost everything else in this world , come to an end & the assertion that Israelis' "foolishly" believe in the status quo you have ducked answering the questions posed to you in a substantive way. 

 

[Bo]

George,

I find it interesting that when members on this forum cite less-than-credible sources to support Israel, not one moderator pipes up. Here are some sources that have been used thus far in this thread:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2008/12/29/the-battle-of-gaza-and-the-real-war/

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456505080&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/12/palestinian-girl-loses-family-in.html#linksGatewayPundit

http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/04/rubin-against-holocaust-denial-against.html

http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/09/01/0301.htm


However, when I cite "Jews for Justice in Palestine" (find me a Palestinians-for-justice-in-Israel website lol), whose facts are accurate regarding Israel's breaches of the Geneva conventions (confirmed by Amnesty International, I can quote them to if you like) , I am told that my source is less than credible.

I am also surprised that members find the Guardian to be Anti-Israeli. Yes, it's left-leaning but the information it presents is accurate. Maybe it just seems anti-Israeli since it lists ALL the facts regarding the current conflict and most people find it impossible to accept that Israel could be *gasp* guilty of war crimes.

 

[George Wallace]

George,

I find it interesting that when members on this forum cite less-than-credible sources to support Israel, not one moderator pipes up.

Bo

I am sorry that you would prefer to pass off a Blog site as the actual Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.


That smacks of lazy research at the very least, if not outright fraudulent posting of missinformation as fact.

 

[Greymatters]

However, when I cite "Jews for Justice in Palestine" (find me a Palestinians-for-justice-in-Israel website lol), whose facts are accurate regarding Israel's breaches of the Geneva conventions (confirmed by Amnesty International, I can quote them to if you like) , I am told that my source is less than credible.

There are many orgs out there from whom quoting credible facts would be a good thing - Amnesty International isnt one of them as they are neither consistently impartial nor unbiased...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Ok Wes, how's this source:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1230/1230581467173.html

Hate to butt in, but I guess you missed that word just after the author's name:

OPINION

Is this a credible enough source for you:

....The rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups violate the international humanitarian law prohibition on indiscriminate attacks because they are highly inaccurate and cannot be directed at a specific military target....

or this:

"Firing rockets into civilian areas with the intent to harm and terrorize Israelis has no justification whatsoever, regardless of Israel's actions in Gaza," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "

or do you only believe groups who only attack Israeli actions?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

YES

"Israel's violation of specific provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention

a) Humane treatment

Article 27: 'Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity"


http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/geneva4.htm

Just a minor point but at the top of the webpage you quote from there is this little item:

"Text posted 7th December 2004. Addition to section C posted on 22nd August 2005."

In other words the info on the webpage concerns events that took place four years ago. It does not deal with current events in Gaza!!

 

[Bo]

George,

I will try my best to cite better sources regarding this matter. The fact that others cite blogs is no reason for me to be lazy and do the same.

Grey Matters,

Amnesty International is a non-governmental organization that is funded solely by fees and donations. Amnesty also won the Nobel prize in 1977. Their job is "to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated."

http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/about-amnesty-international

I don't see how they are biased except towards those that have incurred human rights violations. Maybe you could fill me in?


milnews,

Human Rights Watch is a credible source and I don't deny that firing rockets indiscriminately at Israel is a war crime.

However, the point of my post was to show that Israel was the first to break the ceasefire. That's all. You'll see that almost every western media outlet omitted that fact. Surprisingly CNN recently started questioning who really started the fight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4

 

[1feral1]

Bo,

I am still patiently awaiting a response to my post WRT the right winged Palestinian who claims Israel started this current war. I was polite in responding to your post, and I would appreciate a similar response.

Fair enough?

Wes

 

[Shec]

Shec,

So you are agreeing to the evacuation of all the settlements in the West Bank (and Israel keeps the Golan)? How's that going to go over with the settlers? How's that going to go over with the Syrians?

Regards.

Tourza, my turn to apologize, I missed the above-quoted post and saw only the subsequent one.  

Military strategy dictates that those settlements on the high ground of the described ridge line be retained.  As for any others Israel has stated time and time again it is willing to trade land for peace and demonstrated that when they pulled out of Gaza a couple of years back notwithstanding the objections of the settlers there who were evicted & relocated.  As Israel did the in rest of Sinai so that  peace with Egypt could be realized.

Syria used Golan to shell Israel in the years leading up to the 6 Day War. Furthermore in '73 they would have most certainly broke through had they retained Golan after '67.  I relate this to demonstrate the strategic imperative of holding high ground.  As far as how that  will go over with the Syrians,  I'm sure you're better positioned to get a read on that than I am.  I'm sure too that you know that Syrians are the most vicious of all the Arab enemies  Point of fact: any foreign-born IDF troop who fell into, or falls into,  Syrian hands was or is neither heard of nor seen again.

 

[twistedcables]

I can't believe that we now justify killing over 400 women and children by the IDF.  Seriously folks - just call a spade a spade.  If a criminal broke into a school and shot at police - would the police be justified in killing the children in it to get him?  IF you started a fight - and the opponent beat you up - your
wife, kids, your dog --- would that be justified too?

Seriously folks - how many Israeli's have been killed or injured by those cheeseball rockets of Hamas? TWENTY at most?  Now you compare that to THOUSANDS injured, and easily 400 women and children killed and you STILL can't even say that is disproportionate?

God save us from this attitude of letting innocents just die! Amen

 

[Bo]

Sure Wes,

Here's the man's statement:

Israel then broke the truce on Nov. 4, raiding the Gaza Strip and killing a Palestinian. Hamas retaliated with rocket fire; Israel then killed five more Palestinians. In the following days, Hamas continued rocket fire -- yet still no Israelis died. Israel cannot claim self-defense against this escalation, because it was provoked by Israel's own violation.

These are the facts. He's not lying. Check the link I provided on the previous page. Even CNN confirmed that Israel is in question for breaking the ceasefire.

Now, as for the man's beliefs regarding Right Of Return, well that's another debate that will hijack this thread.

Also, the site you provided (Discover The Networks, A Guide to The Political Left) is clearly a right-winged, conservative website. The founder and current-editor-in-chief is David Horowitz, a Jewish-American conservative writer and activist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center

 

[George Wallace]

:

Bo      Bo      Bo

I can't believe that you just posted this:

Sure Wes,

Here's the man's statement:

These are the facts. He's not lying. Check the link I provided on the previous page. Even CNN confirmed that Israel is in question for breaking the ceasefire.

Now, as for the man's beliefs regarding Right Of Return, well that's another debate that will hijack this thread.

Also, the site you provided (Discover The Networks, A Guide to The Political Left) is clearly a right-winged, conservative website. The founder and current-editor-in-chief is David Horowitz, a Jewish-American conservative writer and activist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center

You are using Wikipedia as a SOURCE to back up your statements?

Credibility man; credibility.

Did you check the history of that page?  Who made those statements?  What is their affiliation?  What legitimate sources did they list?

 

[1feral1]

Twistedcables,

Any genuine civillian death is regretable. Innocent people die in EVERY war (children, women, the edlerly etc), sad, very sad, but a fact. However, not all civillians are innocent though. Just because you are wearing Levi's does not make you a non-combatant.

As a professional soldier amoung other professionals on this site, you will find none which say otherwise. Do not insult us. We are not a bunch of blood thirsty heathans as you seem to present us to be. Shame on you for making such a stupid assumption.

Now, define civillian? The bad guys these days don't wear uniforms, but carry wpns and eqpt. Take those away and what do you have? I am talking about military aged males, say 16-55, adn some maybe a bit younger. Females too have been know to be fighters for their cause, or aid in support roles. These cowardly 'fighter's have been known to deliberatly shield themselves with families and in built up areas where people live, using their homes as strong points and fortifiations for storing ordnance and other essential kit for fighting. Such is life, thats how these cowards do business all across the entire region.

Secondly, those rockets are NOT cheeseball rockets ( I have said this before, so before you make your political statement, how about having the courtesy to read previous poats). They are HE rockets, and up to over 3 metres long and 122mm in diameter, some longer and over 230mm in diameter. They inflict the most horrendous wounds on people, and kill more than mame. They pack quite a punch, and more than a HE artillery rd.

I endured many of these during my tour. Seen there results literally in the front of my face, LITERALLY, so be careful what you talk about.

So, stop the attitude! It is uncalled for, dn does nothing for your own credibility.


------------------------------

Bo, that is still a pi$$ weak source, and is valueless, as no matter what, that author's view is tainted, in his world the sky is purple and always will be, and the Jew is the enemy as far as he is concerned. Nothing will change his mind.

However, thanks for responding.

Regards,

OWDU

EDITed for spelling and clarity

 

[Bo]

George, I just used wikipedia to describe a website that Wes used. There's not much else out there. CNN and BBC don't exactly report on blogs like the one that Wes provided. I understand your point though.

 

[George Wallace]

I can't believe that we now justify killing over 400 women and children by the IDF.  Seriously folks - just call a spade a spade.  If a criminal broke into a school and shot at police - would the police be justified in killing the children in it to get him?  IF you started a fight - and the opponent beat you up - your
wife, kids, your dog --- would that be justified too?

Seriously folks - how many Israeli's have been killed or injured by those cheeseball rockets of Hamas? TWENTY at most?  Now you compare that to THOUSANDS injured, and easily 400 women and children killed and you STILL can't even say that is disproportionate?

I wouldn't say that we are justifying "killing over 400 women and children by the IDF".  I would think that we are trying not to be biased towards one side over the other.  In a war, if one side has poor marksmen and don't kill as many of their enemy, who have very good marksmen and kill many times more of them; we do not call it unjustified.  Your spade being a spade is too overly simplistic and not rationally looking at the situation.    

I really don't care when this all started or by whom the first stone was thrown.  I saw the Israelis, in good faith pull out of Gaza.  I saw them evict all the Israeli Settlers.  I saw the Palestinians go at each others throats, rather than create a peaceful society with their own Police Force that the Israeli Government allowed to be formed.  I saw Palestinians throw rocks, detonate bombs, fire rockets, and use UN Ambulances as APCs.  (See Reply # 152.)  Do I think the Israelis may have justification to cross the border?  Yes, I do think they have justification.

I also think that just because one side is better at aiming its weapons, there is no cause for concern.  There is, however, cause for concern when you see Palestinians breeding their children to be suicide bombers and martyrs, or using them as "Cover".

 

[Bo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

Probably one of the best articles I've read to date regarding the current situation in Gaza. The author is Avi Shlaim, an Oxford professor who is of Israeli descent and served in the IDF. I hope everyone can agree that he is a credible source.

Here are some excerpts:

In August 2005 a Likud government headed by Ariel Sharon staged a unilateral Israeli pullout from Gaza, withdrawing all 8,000 settlers and destroying the houses and farms they had left behind. Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement, conducted an effective campaign to drive the Israelis out of Gaza. The withdrawal was a humiliation for the Israeli Defence Forces. To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace.

The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of Greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. Withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank. It was a unilateral Israeli move undertaken in what was seen, mistakenly in my view, as an Israeli national interest. Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land.

Israel's settlers were withdrawn but Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air. Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison. From this point on, the Israeli air force enjoyed unrestricted freedom to drop bombs, to make sonic booms by flying low and breaking the sound barrier, and to terrorise the hapless inhabitants of this prison.

Israel likes to portray itself as an island of democracy in a sea of authoritarianism. Yet Israel has never in its entire history done anything to promote democracy on the Arab side and has done a great deal to undermine it. Israel has a long history of secret collaboration with reactionary Arab regimes to suppress Palestinian nationalism. Despite all the handicaps, the Palestinian people succeeded in building the only genuine democracy in the Arab world with the possible exception of Lebanon. In January 2006, free and fair elections for the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority brought to power a Hamas-led government. Israel, however, refused to recognise the democratically elected government, claiming that Hamas is purely and simply a terrorist organisation.

America and the EU shamelessly joined Israel in ostracising and demonising the Hamas government and in trying to bring it down by withholding tax revenues and foreign aid. A surreal situation thus developed with a significant part of the international community imposing economic sanctions not against the occupier but against the occupied, not against the oppressor but against the oppressed.

As so often in the tragic history of Palestine, the victims were blamed for their own misfortunes. Israel's propaganda machine persistently purveyed the notion that the Palestinians are terrorists, that they reject coexistence with the Jewish state, that their nationalism is little more than antisemitism, that Hamas is just a bunch of religious fanatics and that Islam is incompatible with democracy. But the simple truth is that the Palestinian people are a normal people with normal aspirations. They are no better but they are no worse than any other national group. What they aspire to, above all, is a piece of land to call their own on which to live in freedom and dignity.