Al-Zahar: Let Hamas fire rockets from West Bank

[Shayah]

Israel's survival is not threatened by Hamas and it certainly wasn't threatened at the time Israel launched the Gaza War.

If Laredo were rocketed for eight straight years, you can bet your bippy that the United States would dish out some hurt.

Iraq had invaded Kuwait and so the use of force was not disproportionate.

I see. So the major electric grids, critical water pumping stations, flood retaining dams, broadcasting antennae, sewerage treatment plants, etc. are all legitimate military targets?

Lol. It's funny as hell how the "standards" change to suit your different agenda.

 

[donsutherland1]

Israel's survival is not threatened by Hamas and it certainly wasn't threatened at the time Israel launched the Gaza War.

If Laredo were rocketed for eight straight years, you can bet your bippy that the United States would dish out some hurt.

Shayah,

You are absolutely correct. Every sovereign state, including Israel (even as some of Israel's critics disagree) has an inherent right of self-defense. That right is not limited to the extremely rare cases where their survival is at risk. Very few military operations carried out in self-defense occurred when a state's actual survival was at risk.

The U.S. war in Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks was not launched because Al Qaeda posed an existential threat to the U.S. Turkey's recent military operations in Iraq were not initiated because the PKK terrorist organization threatened Turkey's survival. Instead, the claim that Hamas did not pose a threat to Israel's survival is merely yet another line of argument to try to further deprive Israel of its legitimate right of self-defense.

In the end, every state whose people is under attack has an inherent right to defend itself. Moreover, its leaders have a basic duty to do what they can within their power to safeguard the lives and wellbeing of the people whom they lead.

 

[Degreez]

Shayah,

You are absolutely correct. Every sovereign state, including Israel (even as some of Israel's critics disagree) has an inherent right of self-defense. That right is not limited to the extremely rare cases where their survival is at risk. Very few military operations carried out in self-defense occurred when a state's actual survival was at risk.

The U.S. war in Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks was not launched because Al Qaeda posed an existential threat to the U.S. Turkey's recent military operations in Iraq were not initiated because the PKK terrorist organization threatened Turkey's survival. Instead, the claim that Hamas did not pose a threat to Israel's survival is merely yet another line of argument to try to further deprive Israel of its legitimate right of self-defense.

In the end, every state whose people is under attack has an inherent right to defend itself. Moreover, its leaders have a basic duty to do what they can within their power to safeguard the lives and wellbeing of the people whom they lead.

What you fail to address, don, is that Israel must abide by international humanitarian law that governs Occupying Powers. Shayah posted a false analogy with the example of Laredo, TX and the United States. The United States does not occupy Mexico.

Another thing you failed to address is proportionality, which is required during any use of force. These are key differences that renders your point completely invalid.

No one has suggested Israel has no right to self-defense, and it is pathetic for you to claim that anyone has proposed that.

 

[mbig]

What you fail to address, don, is that Israel must abide by international humanitarian law that governs Occupying Powers. Shayah posted a false analogy with the example of Laredo, TX and the United States. The United States does not occupy Mexico.

Another thing you failed to address is proportionality, which is required during any use of force. These are key differences that renders your point completely invalid.

No one has suggested Israel has no right to self-defense, and it is pathetic for you to claim that anyone has proposed that.

That's BS.

"International Law" is just what the anti-Israel UN voted last week, month, year, decade.

 

[Demon of Light]

Holy ****ing hell the vast vast vast vast majority of rockets hit the ones that were known to be within range.

Even when they go outside that known range, or at least the range at which they could not have reasonably prepared since knowing, in large numbers there are not large casualties. You keep saying there would hundreds or thousands if this were done in other countries, well it has been done and it hasn't resulted in such casualties. Artillery bombardments, mortar fire, and so forth are all notoriously inaccurate but they do not create the massive casualties you insist they would.

As an Israeli leftist who supported all peace talks, and all land withdrawels by the Israeli goverment I think we gave them a great chance to make a step throwards peace, they chose to continue and bomb our cities.

Funny, because during the truce Hamas did not fire a rocket and even pushed others to stop firing rockets successfully for a time, but then Israel had to kill some people.

As an Israeli I care for the suffering of Israelies first and if Palestinians bomb Sderot I think that our goverment should do anything it can to stop it with minimum casualties both on our side and the Palestinian side, if 10 children is the minimum price for the safty of 100000s of people who live in constant fear and trauma and could easily end up dead just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, than it is unfortunate but acceptable.

I get caring for Israelis first and I would not oppose military action, but it is the nature and scope of that actions that repulses me.

And only militants on their way to an attack on IDF outposts died on Israel's attack.

If you are referring to the tunnel there is no indication whatsoever they were using it or had any intention of using it imminently. Certainly a tunnel under a fence that borders a hostile force would be a useful preparation for war with that hostile force.

And again I asked for an example of a country who does a better job when fighting in urban area and you do not supply answears.

I think you need to explain what you think Israel does more because if it was what I mentioned it really isn't.

My itchy finger had many armed Palestinians on its 105mm gun sight and yet didn't shoot or didn't get clearance to shoot due to collateral damage. If Israel had an itchy finger she wouldn't wait 8 years to try and take care of Hamas's rocket fires, and it still didn't take care of it completely.

Israel didn't wait eight years, Gaza was under occupation until 2005 as I recall and there have been frequent airstrikes and ground operations since then.

If Laredo were rocketed for eight straight years, you can bet your bippy that the United States would dish out some hurt.

The U.S. would respond, but not in the manner Israel did.

I see. So the major electric grids, critical water pumping stations, flood retaining dams, broadcasting antennae, sewerage treatment plants, etc. are all legitimate military targets?

I said the force was not disproportionate. We are talking about the Gaza War where not a single Israeli had died in the months before. You look at what Israel did in the 2006 Lebanon War, when Hezbollah was the primary target and it is incredible. Heaven only knows what would have happened if Lebanon had been the target.

 

[joergan]

Israel's survival is not threatened by Hamas and it certainly wasn't threatened at the time Israel launched the Gaza War.

Congratulations, this is THE stupidest sentence I've read on this forum, well done.

Iraq had invaded Kuwait and so the use of force was not disproportionate.

How's that? By the left's idiotic "logic", 40 or so countries attacked iraq, so how would that not be disproportionate?

They have a much more normal life than the Palestinians this much I can guarantee.

Where the F do you come up with these incredibly stupid comments? Are you mentally ill? What city on earth exists with people firing rockets into it? As if that is something to be tolerated somehow, like snowstorms...

This forum DESPERATELY needs better posters who can defend their positions better. The arab siders here are an embarrassment.

 

[joergan]

What you fail to address, don, is that Israel must abide by international humanitarian law that governs Occupying Powers. Shayah posted a false analogy with the example of Laredo, TX and the United States. The United States does not occupy Mexico.

Nor does israel occupy gaza. The gazan arabs did elect their own "duly elected government of hamas," correct?

 

[Degreez]

Nor does israel occupy gaza. The gazan arabs did elect their own "duly elected government of hamas," correct?

Everyone, but Israel, maintains that Gaza is still currently occupied:

Gaza Strip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea

Document - Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories: The conflict in Gaza: A briefing on applicable law, investigations and accountability | Amnesty International
Human Rights Council Special Session on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, July 6, 2006 | Human Rights Watch
Is Gaza 'occupied' territory? - CNN.com

 

[Shayah]

Everyone, but Israel, maintains that Gaza is still currently occupied:

If one adhere's to a strict interpretation (i.e. international organizations), then Gaza is occupied by Israel and Egypt as both nations control respective ingress/egress. In practical terms however, Gaza is isolated rather than militarily occupied.

 

[Degreez]

If one adhere's to a strict interpretation (i.e. international organizations), then Gaza is occupied by Israel and Egypt as both nations control respective ingress/egress. In practical terms however, Gaza is isolated rather than militarily occupied.

1. It is not a strict interpretation.
2. Egypt does not control what goes in and out of Gaza. Egypt does not control what can or cannot fly over Gaza's airspace. Egypt does not control Gaza's territorial waters. You know who does? Israel. Making them the Occupying Power of the Gaza Strip.
3. In practical terms, Gaza is military occupied by Israel.

 

[Shayah]

1. It is not a strict interpretation.
2. Egypt does not control what goes in and out of Gaza. Egypt does not control what can or cannot fly over Gaza's airspace. Egypt does not control Gaza's territorial waters. You know who does? Israel. Making them the Occupying Power of the Gaza Strip.
3. In practical terms, Gaza is military occupied by Israel.

Egypt also has a barrier fence and does indeed control who and what enters Gaza along the respective border. This is precisely why Hamas devotes to much time and energy to tunneling under the Egyptian border.

Rafah Crossing separating Egypt and Gaza...

 

[donsutherland1]

What you fail to address, don, is that Israel must abide by international humanitarian law that governs Occupying Powers. Shayah posted a false analogy with the example of Laredo, TX and the United States. The United States does not occupy Mexico.

Another thing you failed to address is proportionality, which is required during any use of force. These are key differences that renders your point completely invalid.

No one has suggested Israel has no right to self-defense, and it is pathetic for you to claim that anyone has proposed that.

Several quick things:

1. Shayah did not argue that Israel should be exempt from its obligations under international law. Every state, the U.S., Israel, UK, etc., has a responsibility to adhere to the Laws of War, etc.

2. Adherence to international law does not mean that one cannot make errors, etc. Errors can occur e.g., a shell could go astray, etc.

3. Proportionality refers strictly to the military's duty to refrain from attacking a military objective if civilian casualties from pursuing that military objective are expected to be excessive relative to the military advantage anticipated. Hence, if a terrorist is holed-up in a building and military planners, in good faith, expect let's say that the terrorist's family would perish if a missile were fired, the attack would be ok. If, however, military planners anticipate scores of civilian casualties would result, then the attack should be avoided. If, however, military planners anticipated only the terrorist's family would be harmed, but unknown to them, the terrorist had engaged in human shielding, and the attack claimed dozens of civilian lives, the fault would lie with the terrorist. The military planners had acted in good faith and had not expected civilian casualties to be excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage.

4. I used the language "further deprive" not "completely bar" Israel from acting in legitimate self-defense. In the message to which Shayah and I had responded, the author had conditioned self-defense as requiring that the survival of Israel be at stake in writing, "Israel's survival is not threatened by Hamas and it certainly wasn't threatened at the time Israel launched the Gaza War." Self-defense is not legitimate only when a state's survival is at stake. Attempting to restrict Israel to such terms is unreasonable and it is inconsistent with the norms and principles of international law.

 

[ido_]

Funny, because during the truce Hamas did not fire a rocket and even pushed others to stop firing rockets successfully for a time, but then Israel had to kill some people. I get caring for Israelis first and I would not oppose military action, but it is the nature and scope of that actions that repulses me. If you are referring to the tunnel there is no indication whatsoever they were using it or had any intention of using it imminently. Certainly a tunnel under a fence that borders a hostile force would be a useful preparation for war with that hostile force.

Wasn't fired by Hamas? Ha! Gilad Shalit wasn't hijacked by Hamas either, it was all sorts of minor terrorists groups who took the responsibility for the attack and the abduction, yet Hamas takes the "glory" and negotiates for his release, Hamas hides behind the other terrorist groups saying it can't control them, if it wanted to Hamas would take care of them just like it took care of any other group that disobeyed its rulings. Rockets have been fired from Gaza to Sderot only a month after the "truce" came into place the truce ended at that moment, it doesn't matter who did the shooting, its all the same for us.

I think you need to explain what you think Israel does more because if it was what I mentioned it really isn't.

I already gave you an example from a personal experiance. add to that the flyers, add phone calls, add supplying your enemy with aid during a war, add using ground troops where air force might be in use, add really strict rules of engagment, I asked for an example of a country that you believe does better, I don't see you come up with an answear and try to divert the conversation again.

Israel didn't wait eight years, Gaza was under occupation until 2005 as I recall and there have been frequent airstrikes and ground operations since then.

The fact that we occupied Gaza until 05 doesn't mean we didn't have to take care of this problem when it started just like we did in the west bank in "Shield wall" and cut this problem from its root. What you call "frequent airstrikes" I call impotanse of the Israeli goverment those airstrikes on open areas where the rockets were fired from after the rockets were fired are just to say "we react" to the Israeli public, I think that Cast Lead itself missed the point, Israel should have conquered all of Gaza and then help the PA build up its force just like it does in the West Bank today, both international and the fear of casualties prevented it from the goverment at the time - a mistake in my opinion.

 

[Demon of Light]

Congratulations, this is THE stupidest sentence I've read on this forum, well done.

Has Hamas recently tested a nuclear weapon without me seeing it in the news? Did they recently get chemical or biological weapons? Have they acquired anything more advanced than unguided rockets?

How's that? By the left's idiotic "logic", 40 or so countries attacked iraq, so how would that not be disproportionate?

The number of countries involved is quite irrelevant.

What city on earth exists with people firing rockets into it?

Firing rockets specifically is not something I would now. However, if you want to know about cities were people are frequently shot and killed or otherwise see their lives threatened on a daily basis I can give you quite a long list.

As if that is something to be tolerated somehow, like snowstorms...

One should hardly belittle the very real dangers of bad weather.

Wasn't fired by Hamas? Ha! Gilad Shalit wasn't hijacked by Hamas either, it was all sorts of minor terrorists groups who took the responsibility for the attack and the abduction, yet Hamas takes the "glory" and negotiates for his release, Hamas hides behind the other terrorist groups saying it can't control them, if it wanted to Hamas would take care of them just like it took care of any other group that disobeyed its rulings. Rockets have been fired from Gaza to Sderot only a month after the "truce" came into place the truce ended at that moment, it doesn't matter who did the shooting, its all the same for us.

Funny, because Hamas did in fact get those groups to stop.

I already gave you an example from a personal experiance.

You made a vague reference to events in your history. I recall something I heard from a U.S. soldier years ago that would be of a similar nature, indeed it wasn't even a matter of avoiding collateral damage.

add to that the flyers, add phone calls, add supplying your enemy with aid during a war, add using ground troops where air force might be in use, add really strict rules of engagment, I asked for an example of a country that you believe does better, I don't see you come up with an answear and try to divert the conversation again.

The phone calls are like the flyers and I already explained why that in essence makes Israel worse. I also noted other things that directly impeded the effectiveness of those methods. Allowing aid in during war is hardly unique either. I actually don't feel I need to mention a specific country, considering I already made it clear that Israel is on the lower end of the scale when it comes to being humanitarian.

The fact that we occupied Gaza until 05 doesn't mean we didn't have to take care of this problem when it started just like we did in the west bank in "Shield wall" and cut this problem from its root. What you call "frequent airstrikes" I call impotanse of the Israeli goverment those airstrikes on open areas where the rockets were fired from after the rockets were fired are just to say "we react" to the Israeli public, I think that Cast Lead itself missed the point, Israel should have conquered all of Gaza and then help the PA build up its force just like it does in the West Bank today, both international and the fear of casualties prevented it from the goverment at the time - a mistake in my opinion.

If you're going to base ruthlessness on effectiveness than the U.S. is one of the least ruthless countries out there.

 

[ido_]

Funny, because Hamas did in fact get those groups to stop.

No it did not, Israel was bombed on monthly basis during the whole "truce" period. The meaning of "cease fire" is not to fire at all, if the aim of a "cease fire" was to reduce the amount of fire it wouldn't be called a "cease fire".
Its enough to fire one bullet to break the truce, Palestinians were the first to fire that bullet or mortar shell in this case.

The phone calls are like the flyers and I already explained why that in essence makes Israel worse. I also noted other things that directly impeded the effectiveness of those methods. Allowing aid in during war is hardly unique either. I actually don't feel I need to mention a specific country, considering I already made it clear that Israel is on the lower end of the scale when it comes to being humanitarian.

I gave you more examples than just the phone calls and flyers, you chose to focus on one. I also asked for an example of a country you believe does a better job - you failed to comply with this request.

If you're going to base ruthlessness on effectiveness than the U.S. is one of the least ruthless countries out there.

good for them, I don't see how it explains that Israel didn't wait 8 years to take care of the rocket attacks problem.

 

[Demon of Light]

No it did not, Israel was bombed on monthly basis during the whole "truce" period. The meaning of "cease fire" is not to fire at all, if the aim of a "cease fire" was to reduce the amount of fire it wouldn't be called a "cease fire".
Its enough to fire one bullet to break the truce, Palestinians were the first to fire that bullet or mortar shell in this case.

Do you realize how often any given truce is violated? It's absurd to expect no violations. Israel reached an agreement with Hamas and Hamas did cease fire, it even got other groups that were not party to the agreements to cease fire.

I gave you more examples than just the phone calls and flyers, you chose to focus on one.

I actually didn't focus on just that and the stuff about rules of engagement and ground troops is vague and completely useless.

I also asked for an example of a country you believe does a better job - you failed to comply with this request.

I don't think I have to name a specific one. I am sure you can correctly guess several of them, especially since we have already talked about several countries.

good for them, I don't see how it explains that Israel didn't wait 8 years to take care of the rocket attacks problem.

They still haven't taken care of it, are you suggesting therefore that they haven't tried? Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank for years and never eliminated the militant threat anywhere.

 

[Shayah]

I don't think I have to name a specific one. I am sure you can correctly guess several of them, especially since we have already talked about several countries.

I also would like to see your "squeaky-clean" list. Make sure they are nations that are directly and actively involved in warfare/hostilities.

 

[ido_]

Do you realize how often any given truce is violated? It's absurd to expect no violations. Israel reached an agreement with Hamas and Hamas did cease fire, it even got other groups that were not party to the agreements to cease fire.

I actually didn't focus on just that and the stuff about rules of engagement and ground troops is vague and completely useless.

I don't think I have to name a specific one. I am sure you can correctly guess several of them, especially since we have already talked about several countries.

You just spin everything around, you do not give any examples to support your cases yet expect to be given examples to counterdict your cases, when you are given such you do not comment to the point and dismiss them with a vaguly remark that they are "vague and useless", you sir are full of :bs

They still haven't taken care of it, are you suggesting therefore that they haven't tried? Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank for years and never eliminated the militant threat anywhere.

Cast lead was the first real effort, the reason it didn't succed is the international pressure that was put on the Israeli goverment to end it. Indeed theres a need in a Cast Lead 2 and this time the strip should be taken completly from the ground, draw out all the militants just like Shield Wall did.

 

[alexa]

Cast lead was the first real effort, the reason it didn't succed is the international pressure that was put on the Israeli goverment to end it. Indeed theres a need in a Cast Lead 2 and this time the strip should be taken completly from the ground, draw out all the militants just like Shield Wall did.

Are you suggesting the elimination of the whole population of Gaza?

 

[Apocalypse]

Cast lead was the first real effort, the reason it didn't succed is the international pressure that was put on the Israeli goverment to end it. Indeed theres a need in a Cast Lead 2 and this time the strip should be taken completly from the ground, draw out all the militants just like Shield Wall did.

I tend to disagree, Cast Lead was an actual success.
Its main target was not to remove Hamas, but to, and I quote, "create a new, safer reality for the citizens living in Southern Israel".
And so it did, the amount of rockets launched at Southern Israel after the operation was tending to zero, it was a major success.

Besides that I also do not think it's the time yet for a second cast lead, not until Hamas starts the massive launching of rockets again.
We also have quite a lot of time until Hanukkah.

 

[ido_]

Are you suggesting the elimination of the whole population of Gaza?

How did you manage to understand that from what I've said? Did Shield Wall eliminated the population of the West Bank?

 

[ido_]

I tend to disagree, Cast Lead was an actual success.
Its main target was not to remove Hamas, but to, and I quote, "create a new, safer reality for the citizens living in Southern Israel".
And so it did, the amount of rockets launched at Southern Israel after the operation was tending to zero, it was a major success.

Besides that I also do not think it's the time yet for a second cast lead, not until Hamas starts the massive launching of rockets again.
We also have quite a lot of time until Hanukkah.

Its obvious that there will be no support in our public for a major operation as long as the media will not put the people of Sderot in the headlines again. The war on the Gaza strip border never ceased, its just not reported in the front pages.
If we are talking in terms of security and Israeli interests, we should launch an offensive when the next mortar shell is launched, but indeed we cannot launch such an operation today because of our international status.

 

[Shayah]

Cast lead was the first real effort, the reason it didn't succed is the international pressure that was put on the Israeli goverment to end it.

In addition, there was some pressure coming from Washington D.C. to wind things down before the new US president was inaugurated. The new administration didn't want Cast Lead stealing any headlines away from Mr. Obama. Thus, the IDF began to withdraw on January 17. Obama was inaugurated on January 20.

 

[joergan]

Everyone, but Israel, maintains that Gaza is still currently occupied:

Gaza Strip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the NEXT sentence in your link:

"Israel states that Gaza is no longer occupied, inasmuch as Israel does not exercise effective control or authority over any land or institutions in the Gaza Strip.[19][20] Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel Tzipi Livni stated in January, 2008: “Israel got out of Gaza. It dismantled its settlements there. No Israeli soldiers were left there after the disengagement.”[21]"

Not one israeli is inside Gaza, sorry charlie - there is no occupation.

 

[Demon of Light]

You just spin everything around, you do not give any examples to support your cases yet expect to be given examples to counterdict your cases, when you are given such you do not comment to the point and dismiss them with a vaguly remark that they are "vague and useless", you sir are full of :bs

The issue is you just said the "rules of engagement" without clarifying what they are or why they are better than those of other countries. I looked and found this, though it is from a few years ago: YouTube - Documentary: "Lethal Ambiguity" - Rules of Engagement in the IDF.

Honestly, you are the one making the bolder claim. You are saying Israel is better than the rest of the world so I would say without question the burden is on you to prove why Israel is so much better than everyone else. Please prove why all us lesser lifeforms as so inferior to your greatness

Cast lead was the first real effort, the reason it didn't succed is the international pressure that was put on the Israeli goverment to end it.

The first "real effort" well aren't you a peach? I am not sure what the real point of this is actually, because you can point to countless countries that do not go to the most extreme measure first in order to neutralize a threat.

And the NEXT sentence in your link:

"Israel states that Gaza is no longer occupied, inasmuch as Israel does not exercise effective control or authority over any land or institutions in the Gaza Strip.[19][20] Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel Tzipi Livni stated in January, 2008: “Israel got out of Gaza. It dismantled its settlements there. No Israeli soldiers were left there after the disengagement.”[21]"

Not one israeli is inside Gaza, sorry charlie - there is no occupation.

Israel controls Gaza's waters, Israel controls Gaza's airspace, Israel controls nearly every land border and those it doesn't are controlled by powers who impose similar controls at Israel's behest. Israel controls most essential services to Gaza. Personally, I am not sure if this should be called occupation, though the control of Gaza's airspace and territorial waters is compelling.