Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[burningpet]

The question thus remains wherether it's justified bombing civilian areas with rebel fighters in them, especially when you know that said bombardement will cause more damage than those militants would ever do.

If they are being told to evacuate, yes, its justified. if the army knows for sure they are still present (civilians), no its not justified.

And those "militants" cause far more damage than israel ever had. the israeli formula is VERY simple. live and let live.

[MonkeyHead]

Firing munitions at, or near, UN sites offering humanitarian services, regardless of if Hamas attacks or members were coming from there or nearby, does not sound like "live or let live" to me. If anything, such acts are going to actively aid Hamas by making Israel seem like the big bully-boy Hamas want Israel to look like.

By the logic of "its OK if we warn them", then Hamas would be just as justified in launching rockets at Israel, if they warned people to move just before they did in order to justify their use of force using exactly the same justification as Israel, similar as to how the IRA operated. Not that I think it would be, though.

[Wolfhunter107]

http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/206455

This reporter is saying she is just outside Shifa hospital. those are rocket launches that come from within the vicinity of the hospital.

And israel doesn't need to say Hamas fighters were in it, the UN pretty much acknowledged its facilities are being used by terrorists.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/israel-revolt/senior-un-official-admits-hamas-using-their-gaza-facilites-launch-rockets

TruthRevolt is most definitely NOT a credible source. All it has is Israeli propaganda.

[burningpet]

http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/206455

This reporter is saying she is just outside Shifa hospital. those are rocket launches that come from within the vicinity of the hospital.

And israel doesn't need to say Hamas fighters were in it, the UN pretty much acknowledged its facilities are being used by terrorists.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/israel-revolt/senior-un-official-admits-hamas-using-their-gaza-facilites-launch-rockets

TruthRevolt is most definitely NOT a credible source. All it has is Israeli propaganda.

So you are suggesting this video is fabricated?

[alway]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Casualties.2C_Fatalities_and_rockets_fired
Israel killed more Palestinians in the past month through their indiscriminate killings than have been killed combined by Hamas rockets in the sum total of history; 60 times over.

The question thus remains wherether it's justified bombing civilian areas with rebel fighters in them, especially when you know that said bombardement will cause more damage than those militants would ever do.

If they are being told to evacuate, yes, its justified. if the army knows for sure they are still present (civilians), no its not justified.

And those "militants" cause far more damage than israel ever had. the israeli formula is VERY simple. live and let live.

So this is complete and utter bullshit. It's war crimes, plain and simple. State sponsored terrorism.

[Owlbread]

I quite like the expression "state violence", I've heard that used a few times in relation to the Israeli attacks on Gaza.

[burningpet]

And those "militants" cause far more damage than israel ever had.

[Citation needed]

Since israel operate on a live and let live formula, and since hamas use human shields and hides within civilians structures, hamas is the main responsible for gazan civilians deaths.
(Btw, i hope people realize something about a lot of the civilian houses that are being bombed. what you need to understand, is that hamas not always force civilians to give them a room to act as tunnel entrance or serve as rocket stash, it sometimes actually pay the house owner to do so. while its sad the civilians are forced to accept such deals out of poorness hamas inflict on them, it still completely change the status of the civilians. since they are being willingly paid by hamas to stash rockets, its as if they are terrorists hiding rockets themselves)

Firing munitions at, or near, UN sites offering humanitarian services, regardless of if Hamas attacks or members were coming from there or nearby, does not sound like "live or let live" to me. If anything, such acts are going to actively aid Hamas by making Israel seem like the big bully-boy Hamas want Israel to look like.

By the logic of "its OK if we warn them", then Hamas would be just as justified in launching rockets at Israel, if they warned people to move just before they did in order to justify their use of force using exactly the same justification as Israel, similar as to how the IRA operated. Not that I think it would be, though.

But, if they didn't fire or operate from within those buildings, those buildings probably wouldn't have been attacked or if hamas stopped firing rockets altogether, there wouldn't be shelling by israel. Classic live and let live.

And actually, yes, if hamas had warned buildings or even specific areas minutes and hours before it fired onto them, it would have been considered "Ok" by international laws. since it doesn't that is considered an international crime against humanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjzS27ylCZ8

This has been said by the palestinian envoy to the UN.

" Israel warn palestines before they attack, we don't warn anyone before we shoot rockets or attack (my supplementing - through other means such as ground operations), which makes their (israel) attacks perfectly legal. so people should know what they are talking about before responding emotionally.'

Justification is a totally different question, however, and israel's justification is self defence. hamas justification is an aspiration to set up an islamic caliphate over all of palestine (That means Israeli parts as well) and kill every jewish in it, so it got a "slight" problem in that department.

Damn, i don't know how i got dragged to this again.. i'll see myself out.

[MonkeyHead]

IMHO Isreal will have more to gain by showing some kind of restraint than it will by using what could be seen to be excessive force. By the very nature of an asymmetric war, raw fire-power alone is not going to lead to anything resembling a sustainable victory.

The headline grabbing school/clinic hits are UN installations. I am pretty certain that UN run buildings would be willing to work with Israel, and are not going to willingly house, help or assist militants. Is it a case of shoot first rather than communicate with the UN buildings? Were these UN buildings treated exactly the same as any other "suspected terrorist" home?

[alway]

War crimes are war crimes, regardless of who perpetrates them and for what reasons. War crimes are still war crimes, even if you have had war crimes perpetrated against you. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians does not allow you to indiscriminately bomb civilians. And note there I don't say "your civilians" or "their civilians." Civilians don't give a single solitary fuck about whose side you're on, so long as you're not bombing them. They may 'support' one side or the other, monetarily, politically, or whatever, but they are, fundamentally, noncombatants. The civilian side is the side who should, ultimately, be supported by both combatant sides. If this is not the case, it is nothing less than a slaughter of the innocent, and very much a war crime.

[Frumple]

I will say, it is pretty interesting to be seeing what IDF/Israeli propaganda is saying to convince its soldiers to blow up unaffiliated civilian infrastructure and its populous to support the current atrocities, more or less straight from the horse's mouth. Kinda' sad, considering the situation, but interesting. I mean, we more or less knew how hamas and co. were convincing its militants and support structure to do what they do, but this is hearing from the other side.

But yeah, as the aside Israel lost the claim to "live and let live" somewhere around the point they started doing the whole west bank settlement thing. Probably earlier, really, but that's definitely another confirmation that any words the country states about wanting peace and whatnot are completely hollow

[Dutchling]

What is this settlement stuff, anyways? Can someone summarise it?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Leafsnail]

Israelis demolish Palestinian homes in Palestinian territory and build their own on top of them.  The IDF then protects them from attempts by Palestinians to reclaim their land.  It's pure ethnic cleansing and even the biggest pro-Israel shills have no arguments as to why it's justified.

e: I should point out this happens in the West Bank, not Gaza.  The Palestinians who have been trying to negotiate peacefully with Israel are rewarded by having their homes demolished and their land stolen.

[Dutchling]

Hamas is Gaza, so no, this doesn't justify them at all

[Leafsnail]

It demonstrates the futility of peaceful negotiations with the current Israeli government, though.

[GreatJustice]

The Israelis would love to demolish Palestinian homes in Gaza too, but unfortunately the area is too crowded for them to get away with it without angry Hamas members shooting at the bulldozers.

Also, I've never really understood the logic of "They're shooting rockets from a hospital/school (that are hilariously ineffective at doing any serious damage, by the way), so obviously if we give a warning we're totally in the clear to demolish the entire area with carpet bombing!". Not to mention the fact that Gaza is basically a gigantic crowded ghetto, so you'd be hard pressed to find an area for Hamas to fire rockets from that isn't full of civilians.