Gaza

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I was personally very fond of the NYT cartoon, which suggested to people calling for a "proportional response" by Israel that perhaps they should just fire rockets into the Strip.

I find the whole PR situation insane. Were the Palasinians being treated unfairly by Israel in terms of blocading, etc? Quite probably. Does this justify a cease-fire breach and rocket attacks on civilians? Definitely not. Do I feel sorry that Palastinian civilians are being killed? Absolutely. Do I blame Israel for Hamas hiding weapons in schools? Nope.

What precisely did Hamas do to break the cease-fire, and when? If you are going to make such bold claims, then please provide some justification for said claim.

On that note, does anyone have a link to the actual terms of the cease-fire agreement in question? That would help immensely...

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by OROD

That region has a very long and complicated history, but I'm sure you can make a good argument that the Jews ARE that areas native population... since they've been there for some thousands of years

This, of course, was the basis of the argument for creating the modern state of Israel.

It is interesting to note that while this might be true of the West Bank, Gaza is different: according to the Bible (appealed to here because it represents the Israeli position with respect to ownership of the land), Gaza was in the assigned tribal area of Dan. Dan was unable to take the land from the inhabitants (Canaanites) and relocated towards Lebanon (Tel Dan). Judges 18.

While we tend to assume that in an area with the level of war and frequency of foreign conquest that we see in Palestine that it would be nearly impossible for anyone to be left from that population over 3,000-3,500 years, mitochondrial dna studies have demonstrated a surprising level of geostasis with respect to female lineage. (Conquering armies tend to kill the men and rape the women.) It is quite likely that many residents of Gaza can be traced back to before Abraham walked the land.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

This, of course, was the basis of the argument for creating the modern state of Israel.

It is interesting to note that while this might be true of the West Bank, Gaza is different: according to the Bible (appealed to here because it represents the Israeli position with respect to ownership of the land), Gaza was in the assigned tribal area of Dan. Dan was unable to take the land from the inhabitants (Canaanites) and relocated towards Lebanon (Tel Dan). Judges 18.

While we tend to assume that in an area with the level of war and frequency of foreign conquest that we see in Palestine that it would be nearly impossible for anyone to be left from that population over 3,000-3,500 years, mitochondrial dna studies have demonstrated a surprising level of geostasis with respect to female lineage. (Conquering armies tend to kill the men and rape the women.) It is quite likely that many residents of Gaza can be traced back to before Abraham walked the land.

If this is how one decides who goes where, then the US is in trouble.

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

If this is how one decides who goes where, then the US is in trouble.

Agreed. Whether historical possession creates a valid claim is a separate question. Assuming arguendo that the claim of Israel to Palestine is valid based on possession 2,000 years ago (as many people who support Israel would claim), Gaza is still a separate situation.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

I keep saying this and no one seems to respond but- Israel broke the terms of the cease-fire; if not at the same time then before Hamas did.

Everything I seem to find in the news has stated that Hamas broke the cease fire first via rockets. Granted, it's pretty obvious that Israel's policies goaded them into it, but I don't blame Israel for that any more than I blame FDR for Pearl Harbor.

Do you have any figures for the number of innocent Palestinians killed in schools where Hamas were hiding weapons, compared with those just killed in the street or in their homes? Nope. Do you respond to the fact that 40 Palestinians were killed in a school run by the UN? Nope.

It's very callous to say that in conflict, **** happens, but that doesn't make it any less true. I don't believe that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, but making the best guess based on the intelligence available.

Frankly, this is an aspect of modern warfare that I can't quite wrap my head around. Every conflict results in massive suffering and death by civilians. That's the reason why war is bad. However, it's a deliberate targeting of noncombatants that should be viewed as a crime, and these kinds of examples that should be viewed as accidents.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Quite clearly the biggest boost to Iran's regional position it not its relationship with Hezbollah, but the fact that its biggest military rival (Iraq) has been taken out by the US. Not only has it been taken out, but it has been replaced by a fellow Shia dominated Iraq- most of whose clerical and political elite were either previously based in Iran, actually Iranian (e.g. Sistani) or in some way amenable to close relations with Iran.

In fact, its other bitterest foe, the Taliban, has also been taken out by the US. Furthermore, Hezbollah is not a proxy in the sense that it will do anything Iran wants it to do. This is a ridiculous assertion that totally ignores the genuine popularity of Hezbollah amongst the Lebanese (which actually often goes even beyond the Shia community). It's not a struggle that Iran can simply turn on and off at will.

Furthermore, it was Israel's ill conceived invasion that strengthened Lebanon's political position in Lebanon.



With respect, the hope that you are fervently wrong increasingly appears quite a realistic one. Power battles exist within any two competing national movements- I see no reason for this obvious fact to obscure important ideological differences between them.



Except when they offer terms of ceasefire which are ignored by Israel.

Listen, I'm not arguing that Hamas is not an extreme organisation which has a committed terrorist component. The point is that they have been elected by a majority of Gazans who, as much as you want to believe it, do not want continous conflict with Israel or to unleash a non stop conveyor belt of suicide bombers on Israeli civilians. Why don't you ask yourself why this is?

Perhaps it's also interesting to note that when Israel perceived Fatah as the gravest threat it tacitly encouraged Hamas (in the early 1980s). Now the opposite exists.



You have a very broad notion of the word 'targetted'. You don't seem to want to qualify the word 'not blameless either'- rather drop it in without actually drawing any parameters for apportioning that blame.

There seems to be an almost unchallenged assumption in the US media that the suffering of the Palestinians is entirely their own fault.



Then why did Israeli start the bombing, coincidently close to a change of admin in the US and an election in Israel, when Hamas offered to reinstate a ceasefire that had previously ended 99% of the rocket attacks?

More importantly, would the Israelis halt illegal settlements, end the blockade and establish more equatable distribution of natural resources if the bombing ended? Again, they failed to when a ceasefire ended 99% of these attacks.



Largely because they could not longer occupy them effectively. In Gaza, the Jewish settlers numbered only 8,000 in 2005 compared with 1.4 million local residents. Yet the settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and the lion's share of the scarce water resources.

You are absolutely right to note that all 8000 were removed. You singularly fail to mention that in 2006 12,000 more settlers had moved into the West Bank. It was simply a tactical adjustment by Israel.

Of course, Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air.

The IRA were created and became popular because of the manifest descrimination of catholics in Ireland and a history of British colonial acquisitions and 'settlers'. The Brits responded with more disrimination, suspending the rule of law and more atrocities- the IRA became more popular. The IRA targetted civilians and their mandate was committed to the destruction of the British state in Ireland. Naive East coast Americans were happy to channel funds to them.

How was the crisis ended, or at least defused? The UK government apparently compromised its so called democratic credentials and engaged with terrorists and disbanded descriminatory institutions.

There is no military solution Israel can pursue.

You seem very critical of Israel, but I see no critique by you of the Palestinians.

Hamas was not elected by the people of Gaza. Hamas won some elections for some gov't posts as part of the larger Palestinian elections. Hamas then used violence against their fellow Palestinians to claim full control of Gaza.

Hamas has done little to live up to any cease fire agreements. They unilaterally ended it, and launched as many rockets as they could to provoke the situation just as rockets are now being launched from Lebanon. The clear fact of the matter is that if no rockets were being fired at the Israelis there would not be a single Israeli soldier in Gaza.

Fatah has not truly shown themselves to be any more productive than Hamas in that they always maintained their own military wing even as they supposedly negotiated with Israel. If Israel is expected to give up the settlements then what are the Palestinians willing to give in return? Will they give up Jerusalem? No. Will they even give up the right of return? No. Exactly what compromise will the Palestinians agree to? None

If Egypt won't open their border to Gaza then why expect Israel to do it?

If, as you say, Israel cannot find a solution using force then the same can be said of the Palestinians.

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Everything I seem to find in the news has stated that Hamas broke the cease fire first via rockets. Granted, it's pretty obvious that Israel's policies goaded them into it, but I don't blame Israel for that any more than I blame FDR for Pearl Harbor.

Found this for you:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350

Originally Posted by article

MIDEAST: Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December
WASHINGTON, Jan 9 (IPS) - Contrary to Israel's argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal.
The proposal to renew the ceasefire was presented by a high-level Hamas delegation to Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman at a meeting in Cairo Dec. 14. The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told Suleiman that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza.

<snip>

The readiness of Hamas to return to the ceasefire conditionally in mid-December was confirmed by Dr. Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and senior adviser to the Carter Centre, who met with Khaled Meshal, chairman of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus on Dec. 14, along with former President Jimmy Carter. Pastor told IPS that Meshal indicated Hamas was willing to go back to the ceasefire that had been in effect up to early November "if there was a sign that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza".

<snip>

The interest of Hamas in a ceasefire agreement that would actually open the border crossings was acknowledged at a Dec. 21 Israeli cabinet meeting -- five days before the beginning of the Israeli military offensive -- by Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel's internal security agency, Shin Bet. "Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce," Diskin was quoted by Y-net News agency as saying.

Israel's rejection of the Hamas December proposal reflected its preference for maintaining Israel's primary leverage over Hamas and the Palestinian population of Gaza -- its ability to choke off food and goods required for the viability of its economy -- even at the cost of continued Palestinian rocket attacks.
The ceasefire agreement that went into effect Jun. 19, 2008 required that Israel lift the virtual siege of Gaza which Israel had imposed after the June 2007 Hamas takeover. Although the terms of the agreement were not made public at the time, they were included in a report published this week by the International Crisis Group (ICG), which obtained a copy of the understanding last June.

In addition to a halt in all military actions by both sides, the agreement called on Israel to increase the level of goods entering Gaza by 30 percent over the pre-lull period within 72 hours and to open all border crossings and "allow the transfer of all goods that were banned and restricted to go into Gaza" within 13 days after the beginning of the ceasefire.

Nevertheless, Israeli officials freely acknowledged in interviews with ICG last June that they had no intention of opening the border crossings fully, even though they anticipated that this would be the source of serious conflict with Hamas.
<snip>
Despite Israel's refusal to end the siege, Hamas brought rocket and mortar fire from Gaza to a virtual halt last summer and fall, as revealed by a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) in Tel Aviv last month. ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Centre (IICC), an NGO which is close to the Israeli intelligence community.

<snip>
The report recalls that Hamas "tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement" on other Palestinian groups, taking "a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement," including short-term detention and confiscating their weapons. It even found that Hamas had sought support in Gazan public opinion for its policy of maintaining the ceasefire.

On Nov. 4 -- just when the ceasefire was most effective -- the IDF carried out an attack against a house in Gaza in which six members of Hamas's military wing were killed, including two commanders, and several more were wounded. The IDF explanation for the operation was that it had received intelligence that a tunnel was being dug near the Israeli security fence for the purpose of abducing Israeli soldiers.

Hamas officials asserted, however, that the tunnel was being dug for defensive purposes, not to capture IDF personnel, according to Pastor, and one IDF official confirmed that fact to him.

After that Israeli attack, the ceasefire completely fell apart, as Hamas began openly firing rockets into Israel, the IDF continued to carry out military operations inside Gaza, and the border crossings were "closed most of the time", according to the ITIC account.

<snip>

This would seem to indicate Hamas' readiness to extend the ceasefire...

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Frankly, this is an aspect of modern warfare that I can't quite wrap my head around. Every conflict results in massive suffering and death by civilians. That's the reason why war is bad. However, it's a deliberate targeting of noncombatants that should be viewed as a crime, and these kinds of examples that should be viewed as accidents.

Collateral damage is one thing... Freely accepting civilian casualties to get to your target (say, by using cluster and phosphorous munitions in densely populated areas) is something else entirely...
And then there is worst thing a military force can do, deliberately targetting civilians...

Such as bombing the UNRWA school providing shelter to a number of civilians (40 dead, justification: there were a few militants hiding in the crowd of hundreds...). Or shelling a house where the IDF had told civilians to take cover...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-attacks.html

Originally Posted by article

At least 30 people died when three artillery shells exploded in the yard of a school run by the United Nations where hundreds of Palestinians were taking cover.

Around 60 members of an extended family from the town of Zeitoun near Gaza City were also feared dead after Israeli shells struck the house in which they had been advised to take refuge.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

If Israel is expected to give up the settlements then what are the Palestinians willing to give in return? Will they give up Jerusalem? No. Will they even give up the right of return? No. Exactly what compromise will the Palestinians agree to? None

That is probably not entirely true. The right of return is probably nonnegotiable in theory - as a practical outcome it probably is. Bear in mind it can mean different things; a right to return to historic homes vs a right to return to a palestinian state.

The bigger problem is that it is an impossibility for any palestinian entity to give the 100% security guarantee that Israel would require before agreeing to a two state solution.

Even assuming you can manage the security issues then all you are left with is the biggest problem - water rights.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Frankly, this is an aspect of modern warfare that I can't quite wrap my head around. Every conflict results in massive suffering and death by civilians. That's the reason why war is bad. However, it's a deliberate targeting of noncombatants that should be viewed as a crime, and these kinds of examples that should be viewed as accidents.

If things like this happened to me or my family, I don't think my grief or anger would be any different based on the motivation of those inflicting the damage. I don't have any answers, just sorrow for everyone hurt by the conflict.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Well my Oxford English Dictionary desribes it has "a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender."

It has a technical meaning. Your dictionary definition is what a hoplologist would call an investment, eg a "wait them out" operation. However, in both cases the aim is identical: to get control of the place invested. Israel is not seeking that, as far as I can tell. It is willing to leave the Palestinians in Gaza alone, so long as they leave it alone.

So, with your insistence on precision of language, perhaps 'retaliation' is a better phrase than self-defence?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Oh and incidently, Israel was supposed to open the borders and end the siege/blockade as part of the ceasefire both sides signed up to and which most people here insist only Hamas broke.

Only Hamas DID break it. Once that was done the cease fire no longer existed to be observed...

Despite Israel not opening the border, Hamas still effectively ended rocket attacks.

You see, here is where your position falls apart. "Effectively"? So what, Israel is supposed to suffer a FEW attacks, so long as there aren't too many?

Elsewhere you say that Hamas stopped "99%" of the rocket attacks. Why would anyone, even you, consider that to suffice? If I shoot 100 bullets at you today and only one tomorrow, that is still not OK. It only takes one.

But this is Hamas' modus operandi: To cut back a little and claim that that ought to be good enough. Sorry, fellows, but no. Stop means stop, not ease off a bit, and not even almost stop...

After the ceasefire collapsed, Hamas, on 14 December, once again offered to go back to this ceasefire if the Gaza crossings were opened.

Yes, that is their game. They play it over and over again.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

How about we engage with some of the points made today by the former UK ambassador to the United Nations and Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock

Why not?

1) Hamas is not a proxy of Iran

Sure it is. The word does not necessarily have to mean a wholly-owned subsidiary without any latitude or discretion or its own aims or rogue elements. The Viet Cong had its own agenda, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a Chinese proxy. The Sandinistas had their own agendas, but that doesn't mean they were not a US proxy.

Hamas is two! two! two tastes in one!

2) Hamas is not trying to set up a Taliban-style government in Gaza

Agreed, but only, I suspect, because it has not yet the leisure to do so. Once it has no other enemy to fight, where do you think it will turn its attentions? Or do you think that it will mildly dissolve itself?

3) Hamas’ unwillingness to accept the existence of Israel was about rhetoric and not about reality

Neither I, nor you, nor Mr. Greenstock know what is in the hearts of the Hamas leadership. On the evidence, though, it would seem that any talk of cease-fires and truces, much less peace, is the real empty rhetoric, and the violence---the one constant from them---the reality...

4) Israel continues to inflame the situation in the region by constructing illegal settlements[

A misbegotten strategy, to be sure. But then, tearing them down has had zero palliative effect, so I'm not sure this is the irritant it is claimed to be. More of a convenient pretext, IMO.

5) Israeli domestic politics were also driving the crisis

Of course.

Do you think that the rocketings maybe egged that process on just a bit?

6) Fatah and Islamic Jihad have also been firing rockets

Well, THAT makes it all better! :

But---weren't you just trying to point out the differences between the Palestinian factions? Doesn't sound like much of a difference to me...

3. A misleading point about their fighters not wearing uniforms- I believe they mostly do.

Yeah...except that according to the reports I've been reading these are as likely to be Israeli uniforms as their own.

I have also been reading reports about squads in civilian clothes. Which makes sense, if you are trying to blend into the civilian population. ( The fact that it is understandabldoes not make it admirable or even acceptable, of course. )

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by keith

That is probably not entirely true. The right of return is probably nonnegotiable in theory - as a practical outcome it probably is. Bear in mind it can mean different things; a right to return to historic homes vs a right to return to a palestinian state.

The bigger problem is that it is an impossibility for any palestinian entity to give the 100% security guarantee that Israel would require before agreeing to a two state solution.

Even assuming you can manage the security issues then all you are left with is the biggest problem - water rights.

Whether practical or not the right of return is on the table and a major sticking point. If it's just rhetoric then take it off the table and negotiate honestly.

It's also been suggested that Hamas' desire for the destruction of Israel is just rhetoric and so shouldn't be an issue. Well, if it doesn't matter why doesn't Hamas remove it from their language, and make everyone happy?

I would like to see any actions on the part of the Palestinians to actually change the dynamic. The Palestinians want concession after concession and are unwilling to offer anything in return, not a realistic attempt to end the rocket firing and suicide bombings, and not even the recognition of the right of Israel to exist!

Personally, I am amazed at the restraint shown by the Israelis.

[Purple Fencer]

The only Palestinian leader who gave any real hope of peace was, ironically, Arafat....he's the only one I can think of who had any degree of influence who actually changed his mind not only worked with Israel, he recognized it's right to exist. (Abbas has been even more marginalized by Hamas than Arafat was near the end)

Between him and Rabin there was at least a real chance...it was the political infighting amongs the Palestinians and Rabin's assasination by one of his OWN people (Hmmmm...a Jew commiting a terrorist act on another Jew....) that killed the process.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

I have tried hard to keep my side of the discussion civil, free of personal attacks or the flippant language that is prevalent in these discussions. If you cannot be bothered to afford me the same curtesy, then all I have left to say to you is good day.

Please show where I personally attacked you and I will apologize for it.

.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It has a technical meaning. Your dictionary definition is what a hoplologist would call an investment, eg a "wait them out" operation.

This is semantic waffle.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It has a technical meaning. Your dictionary definition is what a hoplologist would call an investment, eg a "wait them out" operation. However, in both cases the aim is identical: to get control of the place invested. Israel is not seeking that, as far as I can tell. It is willing to leave the Palestinians in Gaza alone, so long as they leave it alone.

Much as I admire your inclusion of the word 'hoplogist' in any post, it does seem, as Gav points out, a bit waffley. The final sentence is totally unqualified and, in my opinion, based upon your own assumptions.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps- but what I was driving at is that you first post was very clear that a military solution did not exist. It seems bizarre now that you try and justify Israeli's strategic aims.

Only Hamas DID break it.

Just because you say so?

You see, here is where your position falls apart. "Effectively"? So what, Israel is supposed to suffer a FEW attacks, so long as there aren't too many?

Elsewhere you say that Hamas stopped "99%" of the rocket attacks. Why would anyone, even you, consider that to suffice? If I shoot 100 bullets at you today and only one tomorrow, that is still not OK. It only takes one.

If Israel allowed 99% of aid into Gaza, withdrew 99% of its illegal settlements, released 99% of the Palestinians held without charge, ended 99% of its assassinations and incursions then the world would say of Israel 'blessed are the peacemakers'.

There would almost certainly be a lasting peace.

However, if a group possibly beyond even the control of Hamas, threw one rocket into a field, Israel would theoretically have the right to slaughter over a thousand Palestinians? Even when you point out that it will not make Israelis any safer?

The IRA failed to hand in all its weapons, end its illegal rackets in N Ireland, even continued to kill and maim- Britain still released cop killers from jail and withdrew the army. Republican extremists then unleashed the worst atrocity of the conflict (Omagh)- did the British army destroy Londonderry or end the peace process? Yet the British people are now safer from republican terrorism than at any time. Northern Ireland is transformed.

Did even the US expect any concessions from Sunni awakening groups in Anbar- in exchage for their alliance?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Damn, I was really hoping for a Bush quote there!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0qDuG0ZYD5I

Why not?

Sure it is. The word does not necessarily have to mean a wholly-owned subsidiary without any latitude or discretion or its own aims or rogue elements.

So the nature or strategic relevance of the relationship is unimportant?
This is basically another one of your rhetorical vanities.

Agreed, but only, I suspect, because it has not yet the leisure to do so. Once it has no other enemy to fight, where do you think it will turn its attentions? Or do you think that it will mildly dissolve itself?

Basically, you don't know.

Neither I, nor you, nor Mr. Greenstock know what is in the hearts of the Hamas leadership.

Didn't stop you from making sweeping statements on their modus operandi and tactical intentions re the peace process.

On the evidence, though, it would seem that any talk of cease-fires and truces, much less peace, is the real empty rhetoric, and the violence---the one constant from them---the reality...

Violence is the sad reality of the situation, it just isn't sustainable to charterise it as a never ending cycle of Palestinian infractions and reluctant Israeli self defense. Israel's rhetoric and action in support of a lasting peace has been no less empty.

For example, when they withdraw settlers from gaza in the name of 'peace', they simply ship them (and more) into the West Bank.

But anyway. Hamas says it has presented a “detailed vision” on implementation of a cease-fire, which Egypt will now relay to Israel. Hamas’ conditions include guarantees that Israel will lift the blockade on Gaza, but significantly Hamas is prepared to accept European and Turkish monitors of Gaza border “along with the Palestinian Authority’s security forces and those of the government in Gaza”.

Hamas sources say that if Israel accepts the Egyptian proposals, “We will be ready to start (the ceasefire) immediately.”

I'm not sure this is the irritant it is claimed to be. More of a convenient pretext, IMO.

I think that your analysis requires this to be so, the reality is really unimportant (nor are you in a position to disern it). Any palliative effects were probably outweighed by the concurrent enforcing of much harsher living conditions as Israel strengthened the blockade/siege. Gazans were not stupid- they realised that Israel were acting tactically.

But anyway, what if I set up a caravan in your back yard, took over the best soil in your garden and diverted the majority of your electric and gas supply? I then sat waving at you eating steak as you munched on porridge. If I then moved into your neighbours backyard, because he had a nicer view- would I expect you to be grateful?

Well, THAT makes it all better! :

But---weren't you just trying to point out the differences between the Palestinian factions? Doesn't sound like much of a difference to me...

The point I was making is threefold. Firstly, the Palestinian leadership doesn't control all the rocket teams. Secondly, Israel army is not bombing Ramallah in the name of reluctant self defence. Thirdly, that Israel is actually engaging (actively supporting) a group whose factions are still apparently hitting it. This seems to contradict many of your points, re what is acceptable to Israel, in justifying the attacks.

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by OROD

Please show where I personally attacked you and I will apologize for it.

.

Perhaps I phrased that statement incorrectly, and for that I apologize. You have not attacked me directly.

I did, however, take offense at the language of your posts (the wholly unnecessary comments of 'Could it be...' and 'You were saying what now'). That is what I meant by flippant language. As I said, I have tried to keep my posts free of this typoe of inflammatory language, as it serves no purpose other than to sow additional discord and poison the athmosphere. It is difficult not to take such language personally, especially when directed at a specific person.


On another note, IDF forces bombarded yet another UN compound (this time UN headquarters), a hospital, and media outlets...
Full story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/...l_palestinians

Although the Israeli Defense Minister claims those were mistakes, in this day and age of GPS, precision munitions, and advance battlefield communications, it is difficult to believe that such events are truly accidents.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

On another note, IDF forces bombarded yet another UN compound (this time UN headquarters), a hospital, and media outlets...
Full story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/...l_palestinians

Although the Israeli Defense Minister claims those were mistakes, in this day and age of GPS, precision munitions, and advance battlefield communications, it is difficult to believe that such events are truly accidents.

Troops die from friendly fire errors in every conflict; would you suggest that they weren't really mistakes either, and ascribe speculative ulterior motives there as well?

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a decidedly cynical and disingenuous argument.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a decidedly cynical and disingenuous argument.

When it comes to Israel/Palestine, I don't think I've seen any other kind of argument.

I do need to read more about it, though...

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Troops die from friendly fire errors in every conflict; would you suggest that they weren't really mistakes either, and ascribe speculative ulterior motives there as well?

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a decidedly cynical and disingenuous argument.

Never said it was entirely intentional.

I'm not even talking about friendly fire incidents either... (But on that note, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging , so it certainly could happen).

I was talking about the 3 incidents of the IDF firing on the UN.
1 - The UN school incident, 40+ dead, justification: someone saw a militant try to hide in the crowd...
2 - Firing on UN aid vehicles, killing 2 UN workers. These vehicles and their route were registered with the IDF.
3 - The shelling of the UN headquarters in Gaza. No word yet on Palestinian casualties, 3 UN workers injured, hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid supplies destroyed.

Maybe I am a bit cynical on this... One such incident I can attribute as accidental. But 3 in a relatively short period? The vehicles were clearly marked as UN and Red Cross, their route was registered and coordinated with the IDF... UN installations and their locations are likewise known to the IDF...

Pure accident I just don't buy. The training and equipment of the IDF are just too sophisticated for that. (Especially since I know of only 1 freindly fire incident so far...)
In my opinion (!!!!!!) negligence and carelessness are far more likely culprits. I just don't thnk the IDF is doing enough to try to minimize civilian casualties...

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

I just don't thnk the IDF is doing enough to try to minimize civilian casualties...

And Hamas HAS????