Bomb explodes at Jerusalem bus stop; 25 wounded

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

ptif219 has been thread banned.

 

[alexa]

Having the right to do something is not the same as to be right in doing it. Israel may have the right to respond with military force, but that does not mean it is the right thing to do. What I can assure you of is that the people of Gaza, most of whom have absolutely nothing to do with the present state of affairs, live in much greater terror compared to any Israeli.

I think you are entering a nightmare there. Last time I looked I think it was 11 Palestinian civilians have already been killed including several children and 40 wounded in retaliation for these rockets, never mind any belief that there is any further right to kill more innocent. Whether either has a right under International Law, that is where the question is. It is against international law to deliberately kill civilians and non combatants or to not take care not to kill them

The Principle of Distinction, embodied in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977, lays down a hard-and-fast rule: civilians cannot be targeted by armies and, on the contrary, must be protected. Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities…shall in all circumstances be treated humanely….To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: violence to life and person…and outrages upon personal dignity.”

The Principle of Proportionality, embodied in the 1977 Protocols to the Fourth Geneva Conventions (to which neither the US nor Israel is a signatory, but which nevertheless, as customary law, binds them), considers it a war crime to intentionally attack a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. “The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians,” says Protocol I, Article 50 (3), “does not deprive the population of its civilian character.”

The Second Battle of Gaza: Israel

There is no right here.

 

[Tashah]

Last time I looked I think it was 11 Palestinian civilians have already been killed including several children and 40 wounded in retaliation for these rockets, never mind any belief that there is any further right to kill more innocent.

You only don the cloak of righteousness when - Israel - inadvertently kills civilians. Your own military contributes to the deaths of innocent civilians with almost mind numbing regularity, and yet never a single solitary word from you about these incidents, international law, or proportionality.

February 22, 2010 - NATO Airstrike Kills 27 Afghan Civilians

March 21, 2010 - Afghan official: NATO airstrike kills 7 civilians

July 9, 2010 - NATO kills 6 Afghan civilians

September 2, 2010 - NATO air strike kills 10 civilians

October 4, 2010 - NATO Strike Kills 6 Afghan Civilians

March 26, 2011 - France24 - NATO air strike kills Afghan civilians

Selective righteousness is nothing more than a cheap suit cut of hypocrisy.

 

[cpgrad08]

I think you are entering a nightmare there. Last time I looked I think it was 11 Palestinian civilians have already been killed including several children and 40 wounded in retaliation for these rockets, never mind any belief that there is any further right to kill more innocent. Whether either has a right under International Law, that is where the question is. It is against international law to deliberately kill civilians and non combatants or to not take care not to kill them



The Second Battle of Gaza: Israel

There is no right here.

Israel follows the rules of war. There problem is that there enemy hide among civilians populations which is going to cause the deaths of civies and in which people like try to demonize the country while failing to realize the reality Israel faces.

 

[Gardener]

Selective righteousness is nothing more than a cheap suit cut of hypocrisy.

Not only that, but it is designed as an intentionally false moral equivalence between acts that are not equivalent. Just imagine if a person would try to justify the intentional murder of a British child by another Brit by offering up the sophistry that just the other day a driver had an epileptic seizure while driving and ended up killing a kid? "See, it's the same", they would offer by way of justification as they
quoted statistics on traffic accidents that led to death.

I'm just glad that those who are so completely incapable of moral reasoning aren't writing our laws. Since they view outcome rather than intent as all that matters, then you can just imagine the horrific society we would be living in if they ever held sway.

 

[Serenity]

You only don the cloak of righteousness when - Israel - inadvertently kills civilians. Your own military contributes to the deaths of innocent civilians with almost mind numbing regularity, and yet never a single solitary word from you about these incidents, international law, or proportionality.

February 22, 2010 - NATO Airstrike Kills 27 Afghan Civilians

March 21, 2010 - Afghan official: NATO airstrike kills 7 civilians

July 9, 2010 - NATO kills 6 Afghan civilians

September 2, 2010 - NATO air strike kills 10 civilians

October 4, 2010 - NATO Strike Kills 6 Afghan Civilians

March 26, 2011 - France24 - NATO air strike kills Afghan civilians

Selective righteousness is nothing more than a cheap suit cut of hypocrisy.

you could always start another thread about it because what Alexas own military does has nothing to do with this thread.

didn't a new rule get added about going off topic last week? Addendum: Off topic comments and/or thread derailment will not be tolerated and may result in an Infraction, a thread ban, or both. Mod discretion shall prevail.

can we have some consistancy please.

 

[Gardener]

it shows how some Palestinians support terrorism. the problem here is you are suggesting ALL Palestinians want jews dead. perhaps you should read what i said. i never tried to blow it off, i said it was terrible.

unlike you who had no comment to make regarding Israelis who cheered when hundreds of innocent people were killed in operation cast lead.

a very large majority of Palestinians supported the Mercaz HaRav mass murder of Jewish boys. 84% of respondants supported the terrorism.

Mercaz HaRav massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who is ultimately playing too fast and loose with the truth, though -- the person who inflates the 84% to include all, or the one who is so supportive of those who do support terrorism that they pretend there are very few?

 

[Tashah]

you could always start another thread about it because what Alexas own military does has nothing to do with this thread.

didn't a new rule get added about going off topic last week? Addendum: Off topic comments and/or thread derailment will not be tolerated and may result in an Infraction, a thread ban, or both. Mod discretion shall prevail.

can we have some consistancy please.

If you wish to be a moderator, put an app in. Otherwise, address any questions/concerns via PM.

 

[Serenity]

a very large majority of Palestinians supported the Mercaz HaRav mass murder of Jewish boys. 84% of respondants supported the terrorism.?

disgusting, and i of course condemn any act of terrorism which targets innocent civillians/non combatants.

so using your logic, during operation cast lead, despite pictures from Gaza depicting massive destruction and a large number of wounded and killed, including women and children, 82 percent of the public believe that Israel has not "gone too far" with the military force it is exercising against Hamas.

Poll shows most Israelis back IDF action in Gaza - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

so 82% were quite happy for women and children to be killed right? where's your condemnation of that?

the difference between you and i is i would say thats crap. you on the otherhand demonize a whole population of peoples any chance you get.

 

[alexa]

You only don the cloak of righteousness when - Israel - inadvertently kills civilians. Your own military contributes to the deaths of innocent civilians with almost mind numbing regularity, and yet never a single solitary word from you about these incidents, international law, or proportionality.

February 22, 2010 - NATO Airstrike Kills 27 Afghan Civilians

March 21, 2010 - Afghan official: NATO airstrike kills 7 civilians

July 9, 2010 - NATO kills 6 Afghan civilians

September 2, 2010 - NATO air strike kills 10 civilians

October 4, 2010 - NATO Strike Kills 6 Afghan Civilians

March 26, 2011 - France24 - NATO air strike kills Afghan civilians

Selective righteousness is nothing more than a cheap suit cut of hypocrisy.

That is not true Tashah and you should know it.

 

[alexa]

Israel follows the rules of war. There problem is that there enemy hide among civilians populations which is going to cause the deaths of civies and in which people like try to demonize the country while failing to realize the reality Israel faces.

I don't think Israel abides by the rules of International Law. Rather she hopes to create new rules which eventually other countries will accept which will allow them not to go by current international Law. I gave you the parts of International Law that she does not go by. See the link I provided. It gives you all the nuts and bolts.

 

[Gardener]

disgusting, and i of course condemn any act of terrorism which targets innocent civillians/non combatants.

so using your logic, during operation cast lead, despite pictures from Gaza depicting massive destruction and a large number of wounded and killed, including women and children, 82 percent of the public believe that Israel has not "gone too far" with the military force it is exercising against Hamas.

Poll shows most Israelis back IDF action in Gaza - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

so 82% were quite happy for women and children to be killed right? where's your condemnation of that?

the difference between you and i is i would say thats crap. you on the otherhand demonize a whole population of peoples any chance you get.

No, the difference between you and I is that I do not parrot the rationalizations of those who want people to believe their intentional murder of Jews based upon ethnicity is the same thing as the accidental deaths resulting from attempts to combat such terrorism. I engage in moral reasoning instead of the repetition of memes devised by the terrorists in order to fool westerners into rationalizing their actions.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Serenity and Gardener - let's stop the tit for tat and get back on topic.

 

[alexa]

You only don the cloak of righteousness when - Israel - inadvertently kills civilians. Your own military contributes to the deaths of innocent civilians with almost mind numbing regularity, and yet never a single solitary word from you about these incidents, international law, or proportionality.

February 22, 2010 - NATO Airstrike Kills 27 Afghan Civilians

March 21, 2010 - Afghan official: NATO airstrike kills 7 civilians

July 9, 2010 - NATO kills 6 Afghan civilians

September 2, 2010 - NATO air strike kills 10 civilians

October 4, 2010 - NATO Strike Kills 6 Afghan Civilians

March 26, 2011 - France24 - NATO air strike kills Afghan civilians

Selective righteousness is nothing more than a cheap suit cut of hypocrisy.

Tashah I confess I was somewhat shocked at your personal attack originally, particularly as you have been in a long thread when I was strongly arguing against the civilian deaths and lack of care over such in Afghanistan. I will now try and answer your attempt to use these to justify Israel not going by International Law with regard to the protection of civilians and proportionality.

You will notice that the article I gave a link to

The Second Battle of Gaza: Israel says that Kasher says that the more often States follow Israel's lead by not adhering to International Law in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the more hope there will be that International Law will change to allow countries to have no worries re care of civilians and proportionality.

Won't happen there are too many civilians in the world and International Law is to protect them.

What I said in post 52 stands http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...lem-bus-stop-25-wounded-6.html#post1059373018. Your accusations were a person attack to deflect from that and have no grounds.

 

[gunner]

You only don the cloak of righteousness when - Israel - inadvertently kills civilians. Your own military contributes to the deaths of innocent civilians with almost mind numbing regularity, and yet never a single solitary word from you about these incidents, international law, or proportionality.

February 22, 2010 - NATO Airstrike Kills 27 Afghan Civilians

March 21, 2010 - Afghan official: NATO airstrike kills 7 civilians

July 9, 2010 - NATO kills 6 Afghan civilians

September 2, 2010 - NATO air strike kills 10 civilians

October 4, 2010 - NATO Strike Kills 6 Afghan Civilians

March 26, 2011 - France24 - NATO air strike kills Afghan civilians

Selective righteousness is nothing more than a cheap suit cut of hypocrisy.

Firstly, i wasn't aware the UK was responsible for so much of NATOs mistakes? Or is Alexa representative of the whole of NATOs actions. Second, knowing Alexas stance I'm pretty convinced she would condemn all such attacks with equal rigour.

Tashah what you fail to factor in is Israels unequalled knowledge of Gaza's infrastructure in relation to its topography. Its pretty much a given considering the interconnectedness of the situation on the ground the chances of open warfare are non existent. What this may mean to some, means something completely different to Israel [for a multitude of reasons]. It stems from Israels 'rules of engagement' allowing their Military far more freedom and ability to act with almost impunity. During Israels last incursion the Military pretty much enjoyed the most unconstrained orders including the targeting of civilian assets.

Paul

Edited to add my post was wrote without having read Alexa.

 

[Degreez]

You only don the cloak of righteousness when - Israel - inadvertently kills civilians. Your own military contributes to the deaths of innocent civilians with almost mind numbing regularity, and yet never a single solitary word from you about these incidents, international law, or proportionality.

February 22, 2010 - NATO Airstrike Kills 27 Afghan Civilians

March 21, 2010 - Afghan official: NATO airstrike kills 7 civilians

July 9, 2010 - NATO kills 6 Afghan civilians

September 2, 2010 - NATO air strike kills 10 civilians

October 4, 2010 - NATO Strike Kills 6 Afghan Civilians

March 26, 2011 - France24 - NATO air strike kills Afghan civilians

Selective righteousness is nothing more than a cheap suit cut of hypocrisy.

Great deflection!

I guess if the UK does it, then it is appropriate and acceptable for Israel to use disproportionate force that results in excessive civilian damage (life and property). Is that really what you are insinuating?

In case you are incapable of realizing such a simple concept, the title of this thread is 'Bomb explodes at Jerusalem bus stop; 25 wounded'. The title of this thread is not 'alexa's posting history'. It's curious how a moderator can believe an argument from silence and the obvious ad hominem attack are things that should be posted during Martial Law in this section.

 

[Mika-El]

Firstly, i wasn't aware the UK was responsible for so much of NATOs mistakes? Or is Alexa representative of the whole of NATOs actions. Second, knowing Alexas stance I'm pretty convinced she would condemn all such attacks with equal rigour.

Tashah what you fail to factor in is Israels unequalled knowledge of Gaza's infrastructure in relation to its topography. Its pretty much a given considering the interconnectedness of the situation on the ground the chances of open warfare are non existent. What this may mean to some, means something completely different to Israel [for a multitude of reasons]. It stems from Israels 'rules of engagement' allowing their Military far more freedom and ability to act with almost impunity. During Israels last incursion the Military pretty much enjoyed the most unconstrained orders including the targeting of civilian assets.

Paul

Edited to add my post was wrote without having read Alexa.

Do you have any data or information to back up this opinion? See my problem is I have read ad infinitum opinions like yours that said the IDF was allowed to act without restraint but what I know personally from being told by people who lived in Gaza is that Hamas did fire from apartments, schools, hospitals, use ambulances and UN buildings. What I also know is IDF soldiers were injured and some have died using restraint. I personally disagreed and continue to disagree with anyone not just Israel but Russia, the U.S. and others who use white phosphorous weapons which I knew were used in Gaza and is one source of criticism.

However what I also know is the Goldstone report was repudiated when it was gone through word for word and much of what it reported turned out to be false or without basis and I again ask people if they are going to make sweeping statements that they know the IDF acted excessively and did so deliberately to stop couching their unbased subjective opinion without any evidence, otherwise with due respect its just more name calling.

Anyone can come on this forum and say the IDF acted excessively. That is what people do play arm chair security expert. But I never see a basis for the conclusion.

What I do know is this and I say it directly to your comments. You clearly do not understand the Gaza to infer that because he IDF has knowledge of the ground in Gaza it could avoid killing civilians but chose not to. That was your allegation. You provided no proof but you threw it out as if it was a fact.

I know you don't know Gaza because I could have all the knowledge I want of where buildings or apartments or schools or buildings are in Gaza and it doesn't prevent Hamas from using them as sites to attack placing civilians in harms way. You would know that if you were in Gaza and you would know Hamas deliberately engages in terror from civilian sites as opposed to open fields or sites away from civilians. It does so deliberately so they get injured and can be used in p.r. optics.

You suggest Israel could avoid killing civilians so finish what you started. Explain how a soldier when being shot at from a Hamas terrorist hiding in an apartment avoids killing civilians in the heat of the moment. Do explain. Or are you suggesting because Hamas uses civilians as cover, Israel should never defend itself and just die? You can't have it both ways.

Now explain. Provide examples of how the IDF ignored the topography and deliberately killed civilians when it did to have to or are you another self propessed military security expert sitting in a basement wacking away on your computer.

The theatre of conflict is far different then when you try pass it off as. Far different. You don't get just how crowded the ground is and how Hamas will use it deliberately to place civilians in harms way. You don't get the IDF who have died or who have been injured trying to avoid injury to civilians. You don't get the soldiers tried internally and disciplined. What you get is what you think is reality from selective pieces you read that ignore Hamas' role and deliberate decision to place civilians in harms way.

we've all been over this debate a million times. Everyone agrees except a few extremists on this board thatno one wants civilians killed-no one. People like me who support Israel's right to exist and the IDF and I admit I have a personal connection to people in the IDF and so am bias-but people like me and Israelis and supporters of Israel no we don't want the IDF if it can help it killing civilians.

Its easier said then done though when dealing with terrorists who use their own people as deliberate fodder. Its easy to criticize Israel as to what it shouldn't do but why is it experts like you never suggest what the IDF SHOULD DO. What tactics would you suggest then? Finish the sentence. Anyone can say what not to do, what should they do then? Just let Israelis die a do nothing?

I have said and I will say again, I am against the use of white phosophorous weapons. I think they are a horrible weapon and currently many nations including Israel, Russia, the U.S., have used them. So many ordinances and missiles have them even some shot by Hamas and Hezbollah. Those weapons I would like to see outlawed. I also commend that the IDF did an internal review after the last conflict in Gaza and did try certain soldiers and did change certain tactics.

I have criticized the air war in Lebanon like many Israeli generals and citizens. There are also going to be instances of soldiers losing it in the heat of battle. That is a fact.

I am not hear to condone unecessary violence or abuse. Not at all. But I am here to say to you be more responsible when levelling accusations that you provide no basis for.

 

[Demon of Light]

Not only that, but it is designed as an intentionally false moral equivalence between acts that are not equivalent. Just imagine if a person would try to justify the intentional murder of a British child by another Brit by offering up the sophistry that just the other day a driver had an epileptic seizure while driving and ended up killing a kid?

No Gardener, it is most like doing it because a driver tries to run over one person, but runs over another instead. Only, not even that begins to effectively describe it.

a very large majority of Palestinians supported the Mercaz HaRav mass murder of Jewish boys. 84% of respondants supported the terrorism.

Mercaz HaRav massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who is ultimately playing too fast and loose with the truth, though -- the person who inflates the 84% to include all, or the one who is so supportive of those who do support terrorism that they pretend there are very few?

Again you label any act of murder by an Arab against Jews terrorism. Do you have any reason at all to believe it was an act of terrorism and not just your typical school shooting?

 

[gunner]

Do you have any data or information to back up this opinion? See my problem is I have read ad infinitum opinions like yours that said the IDF was allowed to act without restraint but what I know personally from being told by people who lived in Gaza is that Hamas did fire from apartments, schools, hospitals, use ambulances and UN buildings. What I also know is IDF soldiers were injured and some have died using restraint. I personally disagreed and continue to disagree with anyone not just Israel but Russia, the U.S. and others who use white phosphorous weapons which I knew were used in Gaza and is one source of criticism.

However what I also know is the Goldstone report was repudiated when it was gone through word for word and much of what it reported turned out to be false or without basis and I again ask people if they are going to make sweeping statements that they know the IDF acted excessively and did so deliberately to stop couching their unbased subjective opinion without any evidence, otherwise with due respect its just more name calling.

Anyone can come on this forum and say the IDF acted excessively. That is what people do play arm chair security expert. But I never see a basis for the conclusion.

What I do know is this and I say it directly to your comments. You clearly do not understand the Gaza to infer that because he IDF has knowledge of the ground in Gaza it could avoid killing civilians but chose not to. That was your allegation. You provided no proof but you threw it out as if it was a fact.

I know you don't know Gaza because I could have all the knowledge I want of where buildings or apartments or schools or buildings are in Gaza and it doesn't prevent Hamas from using them as sites to attack placing civilians in harms way. You would know that if you were in Gaza and you would know Hamas deliberately engages in terror from civilian sites as opposed to open fields or sites away from civilians. It does so deliberately so they get injured and can be used in p.r. optics.

You suggest Israel could avoid killing civilians so finish what you started. Explain how a soldier when being shot at from a Hamas terrorist hiding in an apartment avoids killing civilians in the heat of the moment. Do explain. Or are you suggesting because Hamas uses civilians as cover, Israel should never defend itself and just die? You can't have it both ways.

Now explain. Provide examples of how the IDF ignored the topography and deliberately killed civilians when it did to have to or are you another self propessed military security expert sitting in a basement wacking away on your computer.

The theatre of conflict is far different then when you try pass it off as. Far different. You don't get just how crowded the ground is and how Hamas will use it deliberately to place civilians in harms way. You don't get the IDF who have died or who have been injured trying to avoid injury to civilians. You don't get the soldiers tried internally and disciplined. What you get is what you think is reality from selective pieces you read that ignore Hamas' role and deliberate decision to place civilians in harms way.

we've all been over this debate a million times. Everyone agrees except a few extremists on this board thatno one wants civilians killed-no one. People like me who support Israel's right to exist and the IDF and I admit I have a personal connection to people in the IDF and so am bias-but people like me and Israelis and supporters of Israel no we don't want the IDF if it can help it killing civilians.

Its easier said then done though when dealing with terrorists who use their own people as deliberate fodder. Its easy to criticize Israel as to what it shouldn't do but why is it experts like you never suggest what the IDF SHOULD DO. What tactics would you suggest then? Finish the sentence. Anyone can say what not to do, what should they do then? Just let Israelis die a do nothing?

I have said and I will say again, I am against the use of white phosophorous weapons. I think they are a horrible weapon and currently many nations including Israel, Russia, the U.S., have used them. So many ordinances and missiles have them even some shot by Hamas and Hezbollah. Those weapons I would like to see outlawed. I also commend that the IDF did an internal review after the last conflict in Gaza and did try certain soldiers and did change certain tactics.

I have criticized the air war in Lebanon like many Israeli generals and citizens. There are also going to be instances of soldiers losing it in the heat of battle. That is a fact.

I am not hear to condone unecessary violence or abuse. Not at all. But I am here to say to you be more responsible when levelling accusations that you provide no basis for.

I feel adequately informed as the next person to pass comment on threads of this nature so please refrain from the 'arm chair' accusations.
After serving tours in Bosnia-NI-Desert storm 91 i am reasonably familiar with situations where force may be necessary. Your accusation here of me using a subjective line is quite correct. The main element of your reply explicitly suggests Israel has a 'right' to engage enemy combatants in all but every occasion. If the IDF knowingly target a person in a civilian theatre [referring back to my position on Gaza's topography/infrastructure] then by default, the IDF knowingly accept the high probability of civilian casualties. This is very hard to justify.
Your assertion that 'Hamas hide behind civilians' is probably the case. But, the crux of the matter with the IDF being in possession of this knowledge only makes them more culpable for the resulting civilian casualty figures. Other posters offering similarities with incidents in Afghanistan etc proves very little, other than 'incidents happen in Afghanistan.
This brings to the fore the 'suspect' nature of Israeli forces rules of engagement during operation cast lead.

lessons learned,

"For the first time, the IDF has produced a document defining rules of engagement for the military during combat in areas of civilian population".

"The IDF realized following the Gaza offensive that due to the Strip's size, civilians have fewer places to run to".

"The discourse in the IDF following the Goldstone report also led to extending international law studies and rules of engagement in advanced officers' courses and in the chief of staff's decision to appoint military legal advisers in combat divisions".

IDF outlines rules of engagement in populated areas - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

As can be seen above IDF must have had a torrid time during operation cast lead considering what has retrospectively been highlighted over the 'rules of engagement'. Militarily i can fully empathise with the 'boots on the ground' but this in NO way condones irresponsible weapon choices [as you rightly point out WP]. Further, the above article pretty much infers and adds further substance to my assertion that the Israeli forces enjoyed very little constraint from above.

battle statistics, although contentious, are all the more alarming considering what was known prior to the incursion.

Gaza War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul

 

[uthman7c]

I feel adequately informed

Colonel Richard Kemp, the decorated war hero who commanded British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, knows best when he praises the IDF as the most professional, moral military in the world...

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare. Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population. Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights. The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo

 

[CJ 2.0]

A single rocket fired from Gaza crashed in the desert. Israel's response was to bomb a Hamas base (despite the fact there is no indication Hamas was even responsible) and kill two of its people. Most countries would consider that excessive. All around the world leaders are willing to overlook a few dead soldiers and even a few dead civilians for the sake of peace. However, Israel apparently even has a problem overlooking a pothole in the desert.

I'm sorry, can you please back that up.

Please give us an example of a sovereign nation accepting direct fire on its sovereign territory without feeling the need to respond.

And how exacly is it "in the name of peace" to not respond to an openly genocidal enemy that has stated repeatedly its goal is the complete destruction of Israel?

There is so much delusion in the kinds of statements represented above that it really is difficult to have any sort of intelligable conversation about policy. It is soo far detached from reality as it actually exists as to boggle the mind.

 

[CJ 2.0]

disgusting, and i of course condemn any act of terrorism which targets innocent civillians/non combatants.

so using your logic, during operation cast lead, despite pictures from Gaza depicting massive destruction and a large number of wounded and killed, including women and children, 82 percent of the public believe that Israel has not "gone too far" with the military force it is exercising against Hamas.

Poll shows most Israelis back IDF action in Gaza - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

so 82% were quite happy for women and children to be killed right? where's your condemnation of that?

the difference between you and i is i would say thats crap. you on the otherhand demonize a whole population of peoples any chance you get.

You really can't see the difference between people celebrating the purposeful mass murder of civilians and people supporting a military offensive against an enemy (in order to deal with that enemy's purposeful attacks on your civilian population) that is likely to result in civilian casulaties, can you?

How is that possible?

 

[CJ 2.0]

No Gardener, it is most like doing it because a driver tries to run over one person, but runs over another instead. Only, not even that begins to effectively describe it.

The crux of it - any and all efforts that could be taken by Israel to actively protect its citizenry from terrist violence is illigitimate - equivalent to try to run over "one person" rather than the other person that gets hit.

Right?

 

[Demon of Light]

I'm sorry, can you please back that up.

Please give us an example of a sovereign nation accepting direct fire on its sovereign territory without feeling the need to respond.

How many examples would you like? Of course, feeling the need to respond is different from responding so perhaps you should rephrase that request since I am only taking about taking action rather than wanting to take action.

And how exacly is it "in the name of peace" to not respond to an openly genocidal enemy that has stated repeatedly its goal is the complete destruction of Israel?

Hamas has no genocidal aspirations.

The crux of it - any and all efforts that could be taken by Israel to actively protect its citizenry from terrist violence is illigitimate - equivalent to try to run over "one person" rather than the other person that gets hit.

Right?

I did not say it is illegitimate to respond to an attack. That does not mean you should and it doesn't excuse Israel from the fact it is ultimately responsible for all the violence directed against it. When you come to another people's land, make it your land against their will by flooding it with your people, lock them out of your society, and abuse them it is only natural for there to be retaliation.

 

[uthman7c]

Hamas has no genocidal aspirations.

The Hamas Constitution explicitly calls for genocide of Jews.

Now, you know