Gaza Terrorists Fire Phosphorus Shells into Israel

[Apocalypse]

Not even slightly true. I'm not even sure how someone could reach that conclusion - I guess this is more of Israel rewriting the laws of war.

I'll quickly demonstrate how completely backwards what you have suggested actually is.

Hamas lob a bomb into a civilian population. But, wait, this area is not civilian anymore because Hamas have fired on it... I'm actually laughing my ass off right now. No offence mate, but the lack of logic behind that claim is mind-boggling.

I too am laughing my ass off right now mate, because of the torn-off logic you have just presented with this bizarre "example" for what I said.
I said, and I quote:

When the government of a territory launches rockets at another country's civilians from a certain area, this area becomes a military area and not a civilian area.

You tried to compare it with "Hamas lobbing a bomb into a civilian population", apparently in another area where it has no authority over such as Israeli land.

The bizarreness exists because in my example (rocket launching) the government of Gaza launches rockets at Israeli civilians from Gazan land.
In your example (lobbing a bomb into civilian population) the government of Gaza attacks the civilian population of a land it has no authority over, such as Israeli land.

Since you engage in such bizarre logic I'm not even going to waste my time on this anymore, I'll be waiting for Hoplite reply.

 

[expandmymind]

Sorry, it seems I misunderstood your meaning. I apologise (this would have been added to my post above if it weren't too late to do so and I tried to alter it just before you replied, for the record ). But what you say still doesn't hold a shred of truth. It is not legitimate to target a civilian population, ever. No matter the reason given. If you can point me to the law that permits this then I'll retract what I have said (it doesn't exist outside of Israel's opinion). It must also be noted that it is illegal to fire from civilian centres also, but the law specifically goes on to state that this is not a valid reason to target these areas.

And we have to keep in mind that the entire occupation is also a violation of international law. No occupation - no resistance. It's really quite simple.

 

[Apocalypse]

Sorry, it seems I misunderstood your meaning. I apologise (this would have been added to my post above if it weren't too late to do so and I tried to alter it just before you replied, for the record ). But what you say still doesn't hold a shred of truth. It is not legitimate to target a civilian population, ever.

Civilian population was not targeted.
The WP shells were used to lighten up the area during the gunfight with the Hamas militants in it, not to target the civilians that live there.

 

[expandmymind]

Civilian population was not targeted.
The WP shells were used to lighten up the area during the gunfight with the Hamas militants in it, not to target the civilians that live there.

This is a lie. Not originally your own, but a lie nonetheless. The Goldstone report along with human rights organisations have exposed this lie extensively.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | UN accuses Israel over phosphorus

 

[Apocalypse]

This is a lie. Not originally your own, but a lie nonetheless. The Goldstone report along with human rights organisations have exposed this lie extensively.

The Goldstone report comes from the UNHRC, a body that was formed for anti-Israeli purposes and has dealt with Israeli-related cases more than it did with all of the other countries combined.
This specific document is filled with lies, not originally your own, but lies nonetheless.

 

[Apocalypse]

I'm still waiting for your reply Hoplite.
You've watched this thread when I've left it about 2 hours ago, please do reply to my comment to you.

 

[expandmymind]

The Goldstone report comes from the UNHRC, a body that was formed for anti-Israeli purposes and has dealt with Israeli-related cases more than it did with all of the other countries combined.
This specific document is filled with lies, not originally your own, but lies nonetheless.

This is unsubstantiated crap.

'formed for anti-Israeli purposes'; 'filled with lies'. What a paranoid view you have. I suppose you're amongst those who believe that the UN is controlled by Muslims?

You just claim things without actually providing anything to back it up? The fact of the matter is that, although it has been claimed many times to be otherwise without any real examples given of why, the Goldstone report is solid.

Blanket denial doesn't work in this case.

 

[Apocalypse]

This is unsubstantiated crap.

'formed for anti-Israeli purposes'; 'filled with lies'. What a paranoid view you have. I suppose you're amongst those who believe that the UN is controlled by Muslims?

Nope, but the UNHRC is indeed an anti-Israeli organization formed entirely for the sake of making anti-Israeli decisions.
Do note that the majority of its activities have concerned Israeli-involved issues, and considering how many countries exist on our planet it really does sound bizarre and illogical to believe that to be mere coincidence.

You just claim things without actually providing anything to back it up? The fact of the matter is that, although it has been claimed many times to be otherwise without any real examples given of why, the Goldstone report is solid.

Not at all, there's a reason why the majority of the civilized world did not support the report. It's heavily biased and dismissible.

According to human rights groups, the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states, backed by China, Cuba and Russia, who protect each other from criticism.[3] UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson have criticized the council for acting according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. Specifically, Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the council's president Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[4][5][6]

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

 

[expandmymind]

Nope, but the UNHRC is indeed an anti-Israeli organization formed entirely for the sake of making anti-Israeli decisions.
Do note that the majority of its activities have concerned Israeli-involved issues, and considering how many countries exist on our planet it really does sound bizarre and illogical to believe that to be mere coincidence.

Do note that Israel are constantly in need of being reprimanded for their actions, yet it have never ever been punished once since the occupation. Other countries responsible for the same crimes are blockaded and sanctioned to the high hills - Israel, it seems, is rewarded with bucket-loads of military 'aid'. They have never been held responsible and I would imagine this is the reason they are continually targeted (in addition to their actual constant committing of said crimes).

To claim Israel are being victimised is a bit like Al Capone (or a similar figure) claiming he's being victimised because the police can never quite get the conviction. It is even worse here because Israel have their ever vetoing accomplice the US to make sure the Palestinians stay suppressed.

Not at all, there's a reason why the majority of the civilized world did not support the report. It's heavily biased and dismissible.

Majority of the civilised world did not support the report? I'm sorry, but do you just claim these things and hope no one will pick up on them? Again, you have no way of proving this and I don't even think this opinion (that the report is not supported worldwide) exists, widely, outside of Israel itself. This all stems from blanket denial propagated by the IDF, being spoon fed to all those willing to believe anything they're told that fits in with their already long existing preconceptions about this situation. The IDF are quite simply proven liars.



And we also need to remember that Israel are not a country that are committing crimes against their own population (which is often what makes it difficult to target other regimes guilty of such crimes), they are doing this to another country - in full view of the entire planet. Or at least what would and should be another country. In other words, it is an international conflict.

 

[Hoplite]

Incorrect, the use of white phosphorous shells in a civilian area are prohibited.
The definition of an area as a civilian/military area depends on what is done in such area.
When the government of a territory launches rockets at another country's civilians from a certain area, this area becomes a military area and not a civilian area.

People live in the Gaza strip, thus making it a civilian area. Simply because a terrorist group is operating in the area does not automatically make it a military zone and as such deployment of white phosphorous is forbidden by international law as it is still a CIVILIAN zone.

 

[Apocalypse]

People live in the Gaza strip, thus making it a civilian area.

People live in Israel too, that doesn't mean that some areas in Israel are not military areas.
Areas that the government makes use for military purposes are indeed military areas, and was Israel to build a military base inside a civilian building and launch missiles from there into foreign countries I'd be saying the same thing.

Simply because a terrorist group is operating in the area does not automatically make it a military zone and as such deployment of white phosphorous is forbidden by international law as it is still a CIVILIAN zone.

A terrorist group, sure, but also the government of the territory.

I'll reply to expandmymind with the right links and sources tomorrow.

 

[Hoplite]

I'm still waiting for your reply Hoplite.
You've watched this thread when I've left it about 2 hours ago, please do reply to my comment to you.

Wtf? You think I just hang around waiting for you to post? I leave windows up all the time and go do other things. Believe it or not, I DO have a life outside of DP

People live in Israel too, that doesn't mean that some areas in Israel are not military areas.
Areas that the government makes use for military purposes are indeed military areas, and was Israel to build a military base inside a civilian building and launch missiles from there into foreign countries I'd be saying the same thing.

Say what you like, firing white phosphorous rounds into Gaza for any reason is against international law. It's a populated, civilian area and as such is protected.

 

[Vader]

This is unsubstantiated crap.

'formed for anti-Israeli purposes'; 'filled with lies'. What a paranoid view you have. I suppose you're amongst those who believe that the UN is controlled by Muslims?

You just claim things without actually providing anything to back it up? The fact of the matter is that, although it has been claimed many times to be otherwise without any real examples given of why, the Goldstone report is solid.

Blanket denial doesn't work in this case.

I believe the UN is toothless tiger.

 

[Vader]

Say what you like, firing white phosphorous rounds into Gaza for any reason is against international law. It's a populated, civilian area and as such is protected.

Wrong. This is silly liberal drivel. Using willy pete as a light source is common practice in the militaries of several countries. It is NOT illegal unless civilians are SPECIFICALLY TARGETED. Since you have not one single shred of evidence that Israel targeted civlians, you have no case and are therefore defeated.

Hamas was using it as a weapon ... rather than a light source.... so there is a difference.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The "light sources" landing on specific targets was sheer coincidence, we know.

 

[Apocalypse]

Do note that Israel are constantly in need of being reprimanded for their actions

Oh really.
Even if all of the false claims that you try to blame Israel for in campaigns of demonizations were indeed true, even if all of those crimes and deliberate attacks on civilians you attribute to Israel were having any connection to reality at all, Israel would still be a minor human rights violator in comparison to many other countries in the world, especially from the African continent but also from Asia.

That the UNHRC focuses on Israel more than it does on every other country combined pretty much tells the tale about its so called objectivity.

Majority of the civilised world did not support the report? I'm sorry, but do you just claim these things and hope no one will pick up on them? Again, you have no way of proving this and I don't even think this opinion (that the report is not supported worldwide) exists, widely, outside of Israel itself. This all stems from blanket denial propagated by the IDF, being spoon fed to all those willing to believe anything they're told that fits in with their already long existing preconceptions about this situation. The IDF are quite simply proven liars.

Here:

Vote on Report of Fact Mission on Gaza Conflict

The draft resolution on follow-up to the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (document A/64/L.11) was adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 18 against, with 44 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent: Bhutan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to Conduct Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gaza

As you can see, the majority of the Civilized/Western world did not support the vote.
The majority of third-world nations amongst the UN nation members ensures that anti-Israeli decisions will always be accepted.

To quote the famous Abba Eban line;

"If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions".

 

[Apocalypse]

Say what you like, firing white phosphorous rounds into Gaza for any reason is against international law. It's a populated, civilian area and as such is protected.

You've taken to the belief that the entire of the Gaza Strip is a civilian area.
WP shells cannot be used in civilian areas, by the law, not in military areas. WP is indeed allowed to be used in military areas.
A military area is defined by how the government of the territory, in this case Hamas, makes use of it.
Since the Gazan government has decided to make use of the area to launch rockets at Israeli civilians, the territory became a military area.

You may continue to reject the facts, but do remember that this is a debate site and so long as the facts are not on your side your argument will not be sustained and will not hold any water.

 

[expandmymind]

Oh really.
Even if all of the false claims that you try to blame Israel for in campaigns of demonizations were indeed true, even if all of those crimes and deliberate attacks on civilians you attribute to Israel were having any connection to reality at all, Israel would still be a minor human rights violator in comparison to many other countries in the world, especially from the African continent but also from Asia.

There is nothing minor about leveling entire populations and destroying all infrastructure including sewerage.

And let's take a look back to 2006 at Israel's "Dahiya strategy" (strategy of demoralising a people by targeting civilian areas) just so there can be no more denials of Israel's policy.

IDF Northern Command Chief Gadi Eisenkot:
“We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction,”; “This isn’t a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized.” In the event of hostilities Israel needed “to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate,”

Colonel Gabriel Siboni of the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies:
“Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes.” “The next war . . . will lead to the elimination of the Lebanese military, the destruction of the national infrastructure, and intense suffering among the population,”

former chief of the Israeli National Security Council Giora Eiland:
“Serious damage to the Republic of Lebanon, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are consequences that can influence Hezbollah’s behavior more than anything else.”

Israel do indeed target civilian areas with the objective of inflicting the 'suffering of hundreds of thousands of people'. In fact, it has become their main objective since they realised that you can't actually beat a resistance while there is still a need for resistance.

This is blatant violation of international law.

That the UNHRC focuses on Israel more than it does on every other country combined pretty much tells the tale about its so called objectivity.

By trying to minimise Israel's actions, you actually do your side of the debate no favours. Here's an example: Man is at court for murder. When on the stand he declares "why are you picking on me?! There are mass murderers out there committing way worse crimes". According to you, what should happen is that this man should be let off with his crimes. It's madness.

This becomes even more ridiculous when we realise Israel are carrying out these acts against another, defenceless population.

And yet again, we know that this false claim of being the 'victim' is blatantly untrue, when we consider that other countries found guilty of similar crimes are punished - Israel has, since it's birth, ignored all reprimands (except one to the best of my knowledge). And you claim victim? Read my Al Capone analogy above as it seems it went right over your head. The closest Israel has come to punishment is when they occupied Gaza the first time (56-57 I believe). When the US president threatened sanctions unless Israel withdrew from the occupied Gaza - they obeyed. (This is how simple it would be to solve the current occupation).

And just on the note of President Eisenhower because I feel this statement of his really is just as applicable to the current occupation as it was that one. He asked rhetorically regarding Israel's first occupation of Gaza if, 'a nation which attacks and occupies a foreign territory in the face of the United Nations disapproval should be allowed to impose conditions for it's withdrawal?' Right before he kicked them out. All we hear these days are conditions for Israel's withdrawal when what we should do is force them out. Quite simply.

By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to Conduct Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gaza

As you can see, the majority of the Civilized/Western world did not support the vote.
The majority of third-world nations amongst the UN nation members ensures that anti-Israeli decisions will always be accepted.

To quote the famous Abba Eban line;

"If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions".

You are obviously not aware of this but you have just proven my point. That is quite clearly a majority in favour of the report.

Yes, very good - Ebas. What he says basically has no worth. It's the old victim card being played again. Never mind the fact that not a single resolution has ever resulted in any form of punishment for Israel's crimes. No, no... Israel are the victims.

See, this completely selective thinking is the only way that the Israeli side of the debate can actually be fought, so it doesn't surprise me that so many adopt this form of debate while defending the Israel and her actions.

 

[Apocalypse]

By trying to minimise Israel's actions, you actually do your side of the debate no favours. Here's an example: Man is at court for murder. When on the stand he declares "why are you picking on me?! There are mass murderers out there committing way worse crimes". According to you, what should happen is that this man should be let off with his crimes. It's madness.

This is not a "debate", a debate would center on facts, while your arguments center in a fictional world.
The UNHRC does indeed focus on Israel more than it does on all of the other nations in the world combined - what does it mean?
It means that the UNHRC holds an heavy bias against Israel, and it was criticized as such by many factors in the Western World as I've proven above - ranting about it being some "victim attitude" does not change the facts.

You are obviously not aware of this but you have just proven my point. That is quite clearly a majority in favour of the report.

Yes, very good - Ebas. What he says basically has no worth. It's the old victim card being played again. Never mind the fact that not a single resolution has ever resulted in any form of punishment for Israel's crimes. No, no... Israel are the victims.

See, this completely selective thinking is the only way that the Israeli side of the debate can actually be fought, so it doesn't surprise me that so many adopt this form of debate while defending the Israel and her actions.

Hah, but you were claiming that my statement that the majority of the Western world has not supported the decision was baseless, I've just proven your claim to be a lie and my statement to be true.
As I was saying the majority of the Western world has not supported the goldstone document due to its bias.
That the document was approved by the UN anyway is only due to the fact that it is predominated by third world nations.

 

[expandmymind]

This is not a "debate", a debate would center on facts, while your arguments center in a fictional world.
The UNHRC does indeed focus on Israel more than it does on all of the other nations in the world combined - what does it mean?
It means that the UNHRC holds an heavy bias against Israel, and it was criticized as such by many factors in the Western World as I've proven above - ranting about it being some "victim attitude" does not change the facts.



Hah, but you were claiming that my statement that the majority of the Western world has not supported the decision was baseless, I've just proven your claim to be a lie and my statement to be true.
As I was saying the majority of the Western world has not supported the goldstone document due to its bias.
That the document was approved by the UN anyway is only due to the fact that it is predominated by third world nations.

1. I shouldn't even really bother replying to your non-reply.

2. Your conclusion that the UNHRC is biased is not supported by evidence and all you are doing is just repeating the same empty rhetoric. I have given solid reason as to why Israel has been targeted and you have breezed past them because they don't fit in with your debate.

3. Fiction? I provided facts and factual reason to back up what I claim, not to mention important quotes.

4. You and you alone, it seems, get to decide what a civilised country is (civilised, not western as you claim). But fair enough. The vast majority of the world support the document. And aren't we all about democracy?

5. If you're only going to address selective parts of my posts then I don't see much point in carrying on this debate. Good day.

 

[Apocalypse]

1. I shouldn't even really bother replying to your non-reply.

2. Your conclusion that the UNHRC is biased is not supported by evidence and all you are doing is just repeating the same empty rhetoric. I have given solid reason as to why Israel has been targeted and you have breezed past them because they don't fit in with your debate.

3. Fiction? I provided facts and factual reason to back up what I claim, not to mention important quotes.

4. You and you alone, it seems, get to decide what a civilised country is (civilised, not western as you claim). But fair enough. The vast majority of the world support the document. And aren't we all about democracy?

5. If you're only going to address selective parts of my posts then I don't see much point in carrying on this debate. Good day.

Every connection between your words and the facts is completely coincidental,
I have done more than enough to prove each and every of my claim, while you've done nothing to base but a shard of yours.

The civilized world, as I said, was in its majority not supportive of the biased Goldstone document. How did I prove it? By referring to the facts themselves from the UN website about which nation has voted what.

The UNHRC, as I said, is indeed an anti-Israeli council.
How did I prove this? By referring to the position of the Western world on them and by referring to the statistical fact that they have made more decisions on Israeli-related issues than they have on every other nation upon earth, combined.

Since you show neither interest nor intention to play by the facts, since you promote fictions and fairy-tales, and since the above was clear right when you've claimed that the izz-Adin al Qassam brigades are not the military wing of Hamas - and have denied a based and established fact - I see no reason to even show but the slightest of respect to your claims or attribute any shard of rationality to them.

Good day to you too.

 

[Hoplite]

WP shells cannot be used in civilian areas, by the law, not in military areas. WP is indeed allowed to be used in military areas.

Ok, except white phosphorous was NOT only used in non-civilian areas.

Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza civilian areas | Amnesty International

Israel accused of using white phosphorus in Gaza | Reuters

 

[Apocalypse]

Ok, except white phosphorous was NOT only used in non-civilian areas.

It's like I've never said anything.
When Hamas militas make a use of a building to throw rockets at Israeli civilians then by all means this is a military area, not a civilian area.
Hamas is the government.

 

[Hoplite]

It's like I've never said anything.
When Hamas militas make a use of a building to throw rockets at Israeli civilians then by all means this is a military area, not a civilian area.
Hamas is the government.

Hamas is not a RECOGNIZED government and is almost internationally recognized as a terrorist group.

Because Hamas is not a recognized government, a state of war cannot exist between Israel and Hamas.

It's like if I gathered a group of people to revolt in the US and we decided to base in LA. Just because we're in LA and we call ourselves the government in LA does not give the US government the right to firebomb the city because it's now a "military" zone.

 

[alexa]

It's like I've never said anything.
When Hamas militas make a use of a building to throw rockets at Israeli civilians then by all means this is a military area, not a civilian area.
Hamas is the government.

The pictures hoplite produced are shocking, really shocking. I guess the difference between you and Goldstein is what is considered a civilian area. I cannot believe it. For a rocket that rarely kills you would expose all civilians to this. Just genuinely shocked at our inhumanity towards each other.