The Gaza Strip

[megakiller32]

Israel hasn't given back all the land from 1967 war, in fact Khaled Mashal (Hamas' leader in exile) has been quoted (last year I think) saying that if Israel went back to it's pre-1967 borders it would be a realistic aim [1]. It isn't just Palestinian land that Israel still has from that war either, the Golan Heights is still a big area of disagreement between Israel and Syria.

 

 

 

[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-softens-israel-stance-in-calls-for-palestinian-state-431624.html

 

 

 

The thing is that it's their land. They got ganked by multiple countries, beat them off, and took some of their territory. It's perfectly acceptable for European and Western nations to do this, what's wrong with Israel doing it? By all definitions of the word "fair," that land is theirs to keep. What's the incentive for them to give it back? Absolutely nothing other than veiled promises of peace that will likely not happen.

 

 

 

When Israel gave back some land it was under the terms that the other groups would stop the attacks (I.E Rockets) It didn't happen, so why give back more land?

[magekillr]

Israel hasn't given back all the land from 1967 war, in fact Khaled Mashal (Hamas' leader in exile) has been quoted (last year I think) saying that if Israel went back to it's pre-1967 borders it would be a realistic aim [1]. It isn't just Palestinian land that Israel still has from that war either, the Golan Heights is still a big area of disagreement between Israel and Syria.

 

 

 

[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-softens-israel-stance-in-calls-for-palestinian-state-431624.html

 

 

 

The thing is that it's their land. They got ganked by multiple countries, beat them off, and took some of their territory. It's perfectly acceptable for European and Western nations to do this, what's wrong with Israel doing it? By all definitions of the word "fair," that land is theirs to keep. What's the incentive for them to give it back? Absolutely nothing other than veiled promises of peace that will likely not happen.

 

 

 

The Fourth Geneva Convention? Israel has continued to violate international law (although so has the US), and it always has the US vetoing propositions that could result in peace.

[megakiller32]

Israel hasn't given back all the land from 1967 war, in fact Khaled Mashal (Hamas' leader in exile) has been quoted (last year I think) saying that if Israel went back to it's pre-1967 borders it would be a realistic aim [1]. It isn't just Palestinian land that Israel still has from that war either, the Golan Heights is still a big area of disagreement between Israel and Syria.

 

 

 

[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-softens-israel-stance-in-calls-for-palestinian-state-431624.html

 

 

 

The thing is that it's their land. They got ganked by multiple countries, beat them off, and took some of their territory. It's perfectly acceptable for European and Western nations to do this, what's wrong with Israel doing it? By all definitions of the word "fair," that land is theirs to keep. What's the incentive for them to give it back? Absolutely nothing other than veiled promises of peace that will likely not happen.

 

 

 

The Fourth Geneva Convention? Israel has continued to violate international law (although so has the US), and it always has the US vetoing propositions that could result in peace.

 

Technically they haven't broken it, as they're trying to avoid as much civillian casualties as possible but it's practically impossible. The fact that they are not murdering civillians on purpose makes it void.

 

Also, any member of hamas isn't protected under the geneva convention.

 

 

 

They're protected under the civillian human shields they use :|

[LaserDude333]

Actually the rocket attacks have decreased a bit, 10-20 less a day than it was before.

 

Not that it's much of difference, 30-40 instead of 50-60 each day. :roll:

 

 

 

And the moves are very justified, people in Sderot couldn't leave their homes for the past 8 years, does that seem right to you?

[magekillr]

Israel hasn't given back all the land from 1967 war, in fact Khaled Mashal (Hamas' leader in exile) has been quoted (last year I think) saying that if Israel went back to it's pre-1967 borders it would be a realistic aim [1]. It isn't just Palestinian land that Israel still has from that war either, the Golan Heights is still a big area of disagreement between Israel and Syria.

 

 

 

[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-softens-israel-stance-in-calls-for-palestinian-state-431624.html

 

 

 

The thing is that it's their land. They got ganked by multiple countries, beat them off, and took some of their territory. It's perfectly acceptable for European and Western nations to do this, what's wrong with Israel doing it? By all definitions of the word "fair," that land is theirs to keep. What's the incentive for them to give it back? Absolutely nothing other than veiled promises of peace that will likely not happen.

 

 

 

The Fourth Geneva Convention? Israel has continued to violate international law (although so has the US), and it always has the US vetoing propositions that could result in peace.

 

Technically they haven't broken it, as they're trying to avoid as much civillian casualties as possible but it's practically impossible. The fact that they are not murdering civillians on purpose makes it void.

 

Also, any member of hamas isn't protected under the geneva convention.

 

 

 

They're protected under the civillian human shields they use :|

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7609905.stm

[megakiller32]

Israel hasn't given back all the land from 1967 war, in fact Khaled Mashal (Hamas' leader in exile) has been quoted (last year I think) saying that if Israel went back to it's pre-1967 borders it would be a realistic aim [1]. It isn't just Palestinian land that Israel still has from that war either, the Golan Heights is still a big area of disagreement between Israel and Syria.

 

 

 

[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-softens-israel-stance-in-calls-for-palestinian-state-431624.html

 

 

 

The thing is that it's their land. They got ganked by multiple countries, beat them off, and took some of their territory. It's perfectly acceptable for European and Western nations to do this, what's wrong with Israel doing it? By all definitions of the word "fair," that land is theirs to keep. What's the incentive for them to give it back? Absolutely nothing other than veiled promises of peace that will likely not happen.

 

 

 

The Fourth Geneva Convention? Israel has continued to violate international law (although so has the US), and it always has the US vetoing propositions that could result in peace.

 

Technically they haven't broken it, as they're trying to avoid as much civillian casualties as possible but it's practically impossible. The fact that they are not murdering civillians on purpose makes it void.

 

Also, any member of hamas isn't protected under the geneva convention.

 

 

 

They're protected under the civillian human shields they use :|

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7609905.stm

 

The objective of these zones is to provide warning of an attack on a community, providing enough time to respond

 

From that exact source- (Even from the BBC)

 

Once again, it is pretty much impossible to avoid civillian casualties in this kind of space, but the fact that they warn the civillians of an attack and tell them to get prepared is more then Hamas would do -.-

[Ginger_Warrior]

What's the point in a warning if you've nowhere to run?

 

 

 

The territory is split in two with the IDF surrounding on land. No chance of escaping the blockade by land.

 

 

 

There's no operational airport in the Gaza Strip, and even if there was, the IDF have air supremacy.

 

 

 

The Navy have superiority in the sea. No chance of escape that way.

 

 

 

I'm not really seeing much chance of escape here. If Israel cared for citizens escaping the conflict, they'd have persuaded Egypt to open its border, or better yet, not used excessive force on an area smaller than the Isle of Wight.

[LaserDude333]

What's the point in a warning if you've nowhere to run?

 

 

 

The territory is split in two with the IDF surrounding on land. No chance of escaping the blockade by land.

 

 

 

There's no operational airport in the Gaza Strip, and even if there was, the IDF have air supremacy.

 

 

 

The Navy have superiority in the sea. No chance of escape that way.

 

 

 

I'm not really seeing much chance of escape here. If Israel cared for citizens escaping the conflict, they'd have persuaded Egypt to open its border, or better yet, not used excessive force on an area smaller than the Isle of Wight.

 

They're warning them to get out of houses before they bomb them.... No to get out of gaza.

[Ginger_Warrior]

They're warning them to get out of houses before they bomb them.... No to get out of gaza.

 

And go where? I don't believe for one minute every single shell hits a building, and that every piece of rubble lands perpendicular to the building it fell from.

 

 

 

Do you honestly believe Israel has made every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties here?

[kehllz]

They're warning them to get out of houses before they bomb them.... No to get out of gaza.

 

And go where? I don't believe for one minute every single shell hits a building, and that every piece of rubble lands perpendicular to the building it fell from.

 

 

 

Do you honestly believe Israel has made every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties here?

 

 

 

I believe they've done the best the could without compromising the operation. Give them to much time and Hamas also can get out of the way. Yes, there are civilian casualties, but the question is, how many people would have died if Israel hadn't taken the course of action that they did? Yes, we don't know for sure. Maybe Hamas was going to give up the day they bombed them which made them go back on that idea, although highly unlikely. But using the information Israel had at hand, they've done what they could do to prevent civilian casualties while achieveing their goal.

[Ginger_Warrior]

They're warning them to get out of houses before they bomb them.... No to get out of gaza.

 

And go where? I don't believe for one minute every single shell hits a building, and that every piece of rubble lands perpendicular to the building it fell from.

 

 

 

Do you honestly believe Israel has made every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties here?

 

 

 

I believe they've done the best the could without compromising the operation.

 

What on Earth does that mean?

 

 

 

I suppose even Mugabe could turn round and say, "Well, I'm avoiding deaths from cholera as much as possible without compromising my political status".

 

 

 

If Israel is preventing civilian casualties as much as possible, why have they closed Gaza's north-south road between Gaza City and the south? That's clearly stopping civilians from escaping. In fact, I believe there's a rule in Geneva about preventing civilians from escaping a war zone (not that Bush would know about Geneva).

[LaserDude333]

 

If Israel is preventing civilian casualties as much as possible, why have they closed Gaza's north-south road between Gaza City and the south? That's clearly stopping civilians from escaping.

 

Yes. Let's just let the Hamas men peacefully walk out.

[RichieMcD]

 

If Israel is preventing civilian casualties as much as possible, why have they closed Gaza's north-south road between Gaza City and the south? That's clearly stopping civilians from escaping.

 

Yes. Let's just let the Hamas men peacefully walk out.

 

 

 

NO, let's just keep the Palestinian citizens barricaded within a very small area so they can be bombed, a warning does no good within such a small area. It's like the Omagh bombings by the IRA. One will go off on one side, they'll run the other side and bunch. Eventually the other side will be bombed where they're bunched together and they'll most likely be injured or killed.

 

 

 

The Omagh bombings had warnings provided, they ran before the bomb (warnings were provided which were slightly wrong), the bomb then killed 29 people as they bunched within the area around the bomb. Warnings simply aren't enough within such a small area. Ginger will know what I'm talking about most likely.

[kehllz]

 

If Israel is preventing civilian casualties as much as possible, why have they closed Gaza's north-south road between Gaza City and the south? That's clearly stopping civilians from escaping.

 

Yes. Let's just let the Hamas men peacefully walk out.

 

 

 

NO, let's just keep the Palestinian citizens barricaded within a very small area so they can be bombed, a warning does no good within such a small area. It's like the Omagh bombings by the IRA. One will go off on one side, they'll run the other side and bunch. Eventually the other side will be bombed where they're bunched together and they'll most likely be injured or killed.

 

 

 

The Omagh bombings had warnings provided, they ran before the bomb (warnings were provided which were slightly wrong), the bomb then killed 29 people as they bunched within the area around the bomb. Warnings simply aren't enough within such a small area. Ginger will know what I'm talking about most likely.

 

 

 

So that leaves two choices, bomb and kill citizens or don't bomb at all. Israel did what they thought was best and bombed to save their own citizens, which is one of a nation's primary goals; to protect their own citizens. Would it have been better for Israel to just sit there and let Hamas get trigger happy and keep bombing Israel, killing Israeli citizens? Either choice leaves people dead. Or if they sent in their soldiers instead of bombs, their would be gun fights in heavily populated areas, leaving innocents dead as well as Israeli soldiers. There was no way to avoid civilian casualties, but Israel did what it thought would create the best outcome.

[magekillr]

So that leaves two choices, bomb and kill citizens or don't bomb at all

 

 

 

False dichotomy.

 

 

 

Israel did what they thought was best and bombed to save their own citizens

 

 

 

No, they did what's best for re-election. Throughout this entire spectacle I've caught their own leaders lying about what their goal is. Livni, for example, is saying one thing while Regev says something else. It's not surprising to see Livni lie, she's always been a liar and is running for PM.

[mrsmarty1]

This is disgusting. Israel is closing all the hospitals, and limiting ambulance support in Gaza.

[magekillr]

 

 

 

Great video, especially about that pathetic human shield argument...

[l0l0lpur32]

 

 

 

Great video, especially about that pathetic human shield argument...

 

Just admit already that you support Hamas in their goal to wipe Israel off the map.

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

Great video, especially about that pathetic human shield argument...

 

Just admit already that you support Hamas in their goal to wipe Israel off the map.

 

 

 

Stop trying to bait people.

 

 

 

edit - and if that isn't deliberate flame bait then you're just a bit thick.

[magekillr]

 

 

 

Great video, especially about that pathetic human shield argument...

 

Just admit already that you support Hamas in their goal to wipe Israel off the map.

 

 

 

Just admit that you support any actions that Israel deems necessary because "Hamas started it".

 

 

 

My friend wrote a piece that expresses exactly how I feel, so here it is. Stop making accusations about me when you have such a narrow minded view of the topic. No, that's not hypocritical because I understand the situation, and even if Hamas might have provoked the attacks, that does not give Israel the right to go bombing every which way seeking to end terrorism when it's going to shoot them in the foot in the years to come.

 

 

 

In the past week and a half, the major world news story has been Isreali's attacks against Hamas in Gaza, first through airstrikes and now with a ground assault. This group has its share of Israel supporters, pragamatists, and Palestine supporters. In using these labels, I don't mean to imply that support of Isreal precludes support of a Palestinian state, or that support of Palestine precludes the acknowledgement of Isreal's right to exist. Rather, I mean that the group is split on the nature of Isreal's response to Hamas rockets into Isreali territory, whether the response is acceptable, and whether it is proportionate. For the record, I do think Isreal has the right to defend itself, but that the response has been vastly disproportionate and wrong. But that's not what I'm going to focus on.

 

 

 

The reality is that Isreal and Hamas both need each other, and both contribute to the suffering of Palestinians. In Isreal, with elections looming, there is an idiotic charade taking place between the two major candidates, Netanyahu and Livni, over whom is the more hawkish war mongerer. Isreal is currently taking military action against a territory it illegally occupied before a psuedo-pullout in 2005, while still having tons of control over basic materials and goods being sent into Gaza. Isreal is guilty of continuing illegal settlements in the West Bank, and generally guilty of human rights violations and crimes against humanity. The Isreali hawks love the current conflict, and for all of their facades, don't care one bit about any Palestinian civilian that dies.

 

 

 

Hamas, for all of the controversy over some Isrealis dying in rocket attacks, does not terrorize the Isrealis as much as it terrorizes Palestinians. It launches rockets from areas in Gaza that are packed with civilians, hoping to use the Israeli response and subsequent civilian deaths as emotional currency to win the votes of the poor and uneducated Palestinians, who suffer lives of misery that Hamas works to compound. For the same reason, Hamas cowardly hides weapons inside mosques, hoping to use the Isreali response as evidence of a "Zionist war against Islam." Hamas is not relevant unless there is conflict, and it is being attacked. It needs an Isreali military response to stay relevant and tug on the emotions of Palestinians, to pretend to be the defenders of Palestinian Muslims, who feel they have no other choice but to keep electing the people who compound their suffering.

 

 

 

A Hamas-Isreal conflict benefits Hamas in its elections, and it benefits Isrealis in their elections. Isreal and Hamas, partners in Palestinian suffering, truly need each other. As usual, the Palestinian people lose.

[megakiller32]

No wonder you like that article, summing it up, the line which says

 

The Isreali hawks love the current conflict, and for all of their facades, don't care one bit about any Palestinian civilian that dies.

 

 

 

That, is [cabbage]. As we've said before, Israel are avoiding Civillian casualties as much as possible, but it's impossible in a space like Gaza, but more to the point, would Hamas in thier mindset avoid civillian casualties if they had the firepower?

 

The answer would be no, primarily because they want "Wipe the zionist entity from the face of the earth"

[magekillr]

No wonder you like that article, summing it up, the line which says

 

The Isreali hawks love the current conflict, and for all of their facades, don't care one bit about any Palestinian civilian that dies.

 

 

 

That, is [cabbage]. As we've said before, Israel are avoiding Civillian casualties as much as possible, but it's impossible in a space like Gaza, but more to the point, would Hamas in thier mindset avoid civillian casualties if they had the firepower?

 

The answer would be no, primarily because they want "Wipe the zionist entity from the face of the earth"

 

 

 

No they're not. If an area is that densely populated, you do NOT air-raid them. It's true mate, neither government cares for their own citizens and wants to use the situation for political power. Look at the poll numbers...

 

 

 

You know what's worse than Hamas gaining political power from this?

 

 

 

A number of writers have noted the possibility of Hamas being politically strengthened by Israels bombing of Gaza, just as Hezbollah were strengthened by Israels 2006 bombing of Lebanon. This would obviously be a bad outcome, but its important to understand that it would not be the worst. A much worse outcome would be that the bombings weaken Hamas while strengthening Salafist elements in Gaza, who consider Hamas a bunch of timid, half-stepping sellouts.

[Sly_Wizard]

False dichotomy.

 

 

 

No. It really isn't. A country's government is only responsible to the people it represents. That's it. If Hamas wasn't to fire rockets into Israel and the people of Gaza won't stop them, then the government is fully entitled to protect its citizens by removing the threat to their national security.

 

 

 

What country do you live in, per chance?

 

 

 

No, they did what's best for re-election. Throughout this entire spectacle I've caught their own leaders lying about what their goal is. Livni, for example, is saying one thing while Regev says something else. It's not surprising to see Livni lie, she's always been a liar and is running for PM.

 

 

 

Ummm... No, but thanks for playing.

 

 

 

And, just so you know, Israel is WARNING people before they bomb them. So this whole "They're targeting civilians" garbage is just that-- Garbage.

[1_man_army]

They're warning them to leave but where are they supposed to go to? Israel is blockading Gaza so civilians can't leave and they are bombing the whole of Gaza so it's not like there is any safe ground.

[magekillr]

No. It really isn't. A country's government is only responsible to the people it represents. That's it. If Hamas wasn't to fire rockets into Israel and the people of Gaza won't stop them, then the government is fully entitled to protect its citizens by removing the threat to their national security.

 

 

 

This is what people like you do not seem to [bleep]ing understand! Killing any and all Hamas militias will not end their power, and they'll only be replaced by a more radical group! When the dust settles, what do you think all of these teenagers seeing their brothers and sisters that were amputated/killed/marred by shrapnel are going to think? "Oh, we had this coming because Hamas fired rockets...damn." No, that's not what they're thinking. These people are uneducated, starved, and fed propaganda that Israel is bombing their Mosques because they're warring against Islam. The first thing they're going to think is, "How do we get even with these Israeli bastards for destroying my city and people?" They will then join or actively support any of the various terrorist organizations. What don't you understand?

 

 

 

It's a false dichotomy because they don't have to choose "bomb or don't bomb", there are a variety of things that they can do.

 

 

 

I live in the United States, regrettably.

 

 

 

 

Ummm... No, but thanks for playing.

 

 

 

No? No what? No that Livni isn't lying? I can give you quotes of their stories conflicting, sir.

 

 

 

And, just so you know, Israel is WARNING people before they bomb them. So this whole "They're targeting civilians" garbage is just that-- Garbage.

 

 

 

They're inadvertently targeting civilians by air-raiding them, knowing full well how densely populated the area is; it's what, 11,000 some people per square mile?

 

 

 

That makes idea of the IAF dropping leaflets telling civilians to flee their homes... absurd.

 

 

 

"Warning: Flee your homes, for we will be constructing air strikes. Good luck getting out though, LOL."