Israel begins ground operations

[Thunder]

Reports are starting to pour in that Israeli newspapers have been getting quite a big number of emails from Palestinians in Gaza pleading the Israeli government to continue with the operation and destroy the Hamas.
Some brave Palestinians have come up on radio talk shows and said that the Hamas are forcing the civilians to act as human shields. Other civilians are forced to become shahids or else their family members will be killed.

I don't believe that for one second and would like to see evidence.

 

[Travis]

Reports are starting to pour in that Israeli newspapers have been getting quite a big number of emails from Palestinians in Gaza pleading the Israeli government to continue with the operation and destroy the Hamas.
Some brave Palestinians have come up on radio talk shows and said that the Hamas are forcing the civilians to act as human shields. Other civilians are forced to become shahids or else their family members will be killed.

I don't believe that for one second and would like to see evidence.

I believe the bolded part. It fits in with an established MO for Islamic Radicals.

 

[yairhol]

I don't believe that for one second and would like to see evidence.

What you believe or don't believe is not important.
I already gave evidence.

 

[gdnp]

Don't you wonder why the Egyptians are closing their border with the Palestinians as well? Probably something that Israel and Egypt know that you refuse to understand.

Is it a shock to you that Egypt favors Fatah over Iran-supported Hamas?

 

[gdnp]

That's a pretty sensible thing for a country to do to a neighbour they are at war with.

Why do you keep ignoring this important point? Israel is at war with Palestine. Palestine is their enemy.

Why on earth should Israel help Palestine?

Seriously. Give me one reason.

What is your definition of "help Palestine?" I don't recall anyone here calling for Israel to supply humanitarian supplies to the Palestinians. Only for them to stop blockading the delivery of humanitarian supplies to the Palestinians.

The complete and utter nonsense is your repeated claim that there's something odd about Israel controlling their own border. There isn't.

Please, gumboot, this straw man is beneath you. The question is not Israel's right to control their border with Gaza. The question is whether Israel has the right to control what goes in (not enough) and what can come out (virtually nothing) of Gaza and simultaneously claim to not be an occupying power, regardless of whether these goods cross their border or not.

As was posted elsewhere (I think in this thread), the only legitimate use of a siege under the laws of war is to force the military capitulation of the enemy. Not to punish the civilian population for electing a government you don't like.

 

[gdnp]

A state at war with a close-to-being a state (Palestine) and Israel loads hundreds of trucks with food, medicine and other supplies for the needy Palestinians who get no support from their own government.

Yes, why has Hamas not been shipping food, fuel, and medicine into Gaza? Or better yet, starting their own farms, building their own pharmaceutical factories, and drilling their own oil wells and building their own refineries? Why indeed?

 

[Thunder]

What you believe or don't believe is not important.
I already gave evidence.

you have? where?

 

[gumboot]

Please, gumboot, this straw man is beneath you. The question is not Israel's right to control their border with Gaza. The question is whether Israel has the right to control what goes in (not enough) and what can come out (virtually nothing) of Gaza and simultaneously claim to not be an occupying power, regardless of whether these goods cross their border or not.

"Controlling your border" and "controlling what crosses your border" are exactly the same thing. To suggest that controlling what crosses your own border constitutes "occupying" a state is essentially claiming that every single country in the world that borders another country is occupying that country.

I honestly cannot see why you find this so hard to grasp. Does the USA control what leaves the USA into Canada, and what leaves Canada into the USA? Yes.

Does that means the USA is occupying Canada? Absurd.

So, again, the question no one wants to answer:

"Why is it that Israel does not have a right to control their border with an enemy?"

As was posted elsewhere (I think in this thread), the only legitimate use of a siege under the laws of war is to force the military capitulation of the enemy. Not to punish the civilian population for electing a government you don't like.

I'd love you to cite that law. There's only two ways, in international law, that a blockade can be illegal:

1) If the blockade is a "paper blockade" that is not actually acted on, as established in the Congress of Paris, 1856
2) If the blockade is declared illegal by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter

Given that neither of these has happened, the Israeli blockade of Gaza cannot be considered illegal.

(By the way, your use of the term "siege" is incorrect.

 

[Stout]

"

Why is it that Israel does not have a right to control their border with an enemy?"

They do...It's the marine blockade that prevents anything form entering and leaving Gaza that I'm curious about. Seems that there's more to it than Israel simply wanting to control their own borders.

 

[gdnp]

"Controlling your border" and "controlling what crosses your border" are exactly the same thing. To suggest that controlling what crosses your own border constitutes "occupying" a state is essentially claiming that every single country in the world that borders another country is occupying that country.

I honestly cannot see why you find this so hard to grasp. Does the USA control what leaves the USA into Canada, and what leaves Canada into the USA? Yes.

Does that means the USA is occupying Canada? Absurd.

So, again, the question no one wants to answer:

"Why is it that Israel does not have a right to control their border with an enemy?"

Does Canada control what enters the US through California? No. thus Canada is not the occupying power for the US, even though they control their side of the US-Canadian border.

Now look at a map of Gaza. You will note that there is a Mediterranean coastline of roughly 30 km in length.

Since the time that Israel pulled their settlers and troops out of Gaza, they have maintained control over everything shipped in and out across the Gaza coastline. This is not Gaza's border with Israel: this is Gaza's border with international waters. Akin to the California coast. Yet if an international relief agency were to attempt to ship supplies into Gaza by sea, they would be stopped by Israeli warships. Not only now during the all-out war, but since the day Israel pulled out their troops. They have never, not once, relinquished control over the Gaza coastline, which (I repeat) is not a border with Israeli territory.

One last time (before I give up). Israel's control of their land border with the Gaza strip does not make them the occupying power. Israel's control of the Gaza coastline and airspace, which they have never relinquished, does.

 

[gumboot]

"

They do...It's the marine blockade that prevents anything form entering and leaving Gaza that I'm curious about. Seems that there's more to it than Israel simply wanting to control their own borders.

Well Israel has been at war with Palestine since 2000, let's not forget. Which, incidentally, is when Israel shut down the West Bank-Gaza corridor and the Gaza Airport.

 

[gumboot]

One last time (before I give up). Israel's control of their land border with the Gaza strip does not make them the occupying power. Israel's control of the Gaza coastline and airspace, which they have never relinquished, does.

The airspace and coastline is a separate issue, and I would consider it a military blockade, which given Israel has been at war with Palestine since 2000 (the beginning of the ongoing 2nd Intifada), I consider to be perfectly acceptable.

Irrespective of this, you are wrong. A blockade does not amount to an occupation. An occupation is a very specific legal military term.

 

[Stout]

Yet Israel withdrew their "occupation" of Palestine in 2005.

I'm just trying to get some sort of handle of what life as an "average" Palestinian is/was actually like. I mean, I've been in a few third world countries so people living in poverty is nothing new to me and I'm curious just as to how much life in Palestine "sucks" compared to a country like, say, Honduras.

Seems to me that the Palestinians "smartest" move would be to cast their lot with the Israelis and basically suck it up when it comes to separatist politics like "we want our own country" in favour of quality of life.

From what meager information I've been able to glean from the internet, ( eg. 70% of Palestinians have TV and radio in their households, 20% have home PCs ) I'm led to believe that maybe Palestine isn't the humanitarian "hell hole" that *some* people would have me believe.

Then there's the idea of the people of Palestine being used as pawns by extremist factions, like Hamas. Or are they an extremist faction by choice? Things I've been reading tell me that Israel assassinated all the moderates in Palestine and they ( The Israelis) have grand designs on keeping the Palestinians at each other's throats until they, presumably" kill each other off.

I have no issue with Israel doing what they're doing right now in Palestine, I think their methods of operation are designed to minimise civilian casualties ( otherwise they'd just carpet bomb the place ) but I'm wondering, as the ultra left is trying to convince me, if the people of Palestine really do have a "case" against the Israelis

 

[gumboot]

I'm just trying to get some sort of handle of what life as an "average" Palestinian is/was actually like. I mean, I've been in a few third world countries so people living in poverty is nothing new to me and I'm curious just as to how much life in Palestine "sucks" compared to a country like, say, Honduras.

I imagine it sucks, but the degree of suck probably varies over time. Right now it sucks big time.

Seems to me that the Palestinians "smartest" move would be to cast their lot with the Israelis and basically suck it up when it comes to separatist politics like "we want our own country" in favour of quality of life.

I agree. If nothing else, Israel has demonstrated an ability to run a functioning society, which Palestine has not. Actually, I find Israel's success pretty impressive. Israel has something many of us forget - that is a substantial minority who could potentially cause major problems. 1 in 5 Israelis is an Arab. They don't seem to be causing any major problems for Israel, and I haven't seen much evidence of violent oppression by the Jewish majority. To go from blind hatred to peaceful co-existence in 60 years is pretty damn impressive. Consider the track record of the United States with its black population, which is only about half the percentage of Arab Israelis.

From what meager information I've been able to glean from the internet, ( eg. 70% of Palestinians have TV and radio in their households, 20% have home PCs ) I'm led to believe that maybe Palestine isn't the humanitarian "hell hole" that *some* people would have me believe.

To be fair, it's possible that it was once not a hell hole, but now is. The ICRC was reporting a family who starved to death, or something. I get the impression the situation there has deteriorated dramatically since the beginning of the 2nd Intifada.

Then there's the idea of the people of Palestine being used as pawns by extremist factions, like Hamas. Or are they an extremist faction by choice?

I think it's a bit of both. We have to remember that Palestine has always been ruled by extremist factions, and these factions controlled the schools. If children are being raised from infants in Palestine to hate Israel, to hate Jews, and to celebrate in Jihad, can you consider their inevitable support of extremists as voluntary? The Palestinians are victims of 60 years of brain washing, and their behaviour, given this, is unsurprising. In all seriousness what is desperately needed is for Palestine to be opened up, taken over by the International Community for several decades, and Islamic Fundamentalism brutally stamped out. Something akin to the De-nazification of Germany is needed. A whole generation of Germans were raised on Nazi ideology, but they were successfully weaned off their hate after the war. The same can happen here, but only if Palestine is given over to control of someone other than the hate-mongers.

I have no issue with Israel doing what they're doing right now in Palestine, I think their methods of operation are designed to minimise civilian casualties ( otherwise they'd just carpet bomb the place ) but I'm wondering, as the ultra left is trying to convince me, if the people of Palestine really do have a "case" against the Israelis

I think it's quite sad that there's this inherent notion of sides. The absolute victims of this mess are indeed the Palestinians. I have no doubt of this. There's no way Israel's suffering compares. But the mistake is to assume that Israel is at fault. It's Palestine that is at fault. The leaders, over 60 years, have destroyed their own people in their efforts to push through a murderous agenda.

There are currently about 80,000 troops deployed on UN missions around the world, with that figure set to rise to over 95,000 once the full UN force is deployed to Darfur. I see no reason why Palestine should not be put under UN control.

 

[a_unique_person]

There are currently about 80,000 troops deployed on UN missions around the world, with that figure set to rise to over 95,000 once the full UN force is deployed to Darfur. I see no reason why Palestine should not be put under UN control.

Abbas is calling for UN observers to be brought in, and has done so before. It is Israel that doesn't want them.

 

[gumboot]

Abbas is calling for UN observers to be brought in, and has done so before. It is Israel that doesn't want them.

I don't blame them. UN observers are worse than useless. They need peacekeepers with robust ROE.

 

[Thunder]

Abbas is calling for UN observers to be brought in, and has done so before. It is Israel that doesn't want them.

Don't you realize that ALL UN observers are Nazi-sympathizing anti-Semites??

=)

 

[gumboot]

Don't you realize that ALL UN observers are Nazi-sympathizing anti-Semites??

=)

During the 2006 Lebanon War UN observers publicly issued reports on current Israeli troop movements while failing to provide any information about Hizbollah troop movements, in blatant violation of the UN's impartiality and neutrality. I cannot blame Israel for wanting nothing to do with them. UNMOs are a joke, and anyone who thinks deploying UNMOs is a serious effort for resolution by the international community is deluded.

 

[a_unique_person]

During the 2006 Lebanon War UN observers publicly issued reports on current Israeli troop movements while failing to provide any information about Hizbollah troop movements, in blatant violation of the UN's impartiality and neutrality. I cannot blame Israel for wanting nothing to do with them. UNMOs are a joke, and anyone who thinks deploying UNMOs is a serious effort for resolution by the international community is deluded.

On July 25, there were 14 recorded events of artillery shelling of the UN OP, in so doing, approximately at 19:15 a 155-mm shell directly hit the wall of the OP shelter but the wall proved to be strong enough, and the UNMOs had a chance to advise the Naqura HQ on the fire. However, at 19:30 an aerial bomb pierced the shelter roof and exploded inside. All UNMOs were killed instantly, and the OP was smashed.

Taking into account the types of bombs used by the Israeli combat aircraft, their damage radius, intensity of bombardments as well as the fact that the aerial bombs always have deviation of up to 1000 meters if dropped from about 5 kilometers, we may come to a conclusion that the bombardment of the UN OP location was intentional.

Some joke.

http://www.peacekeeper.ru/en/index.php?mid=2186

 

[gumboot]

Some joke.

http://www.peacekeeper.ru/en/index.php?mid=2186

And yet the actual peacekeepers on the ground at the time claim that Hizbollah were operating in the area on a regular basis. The joke is that the UN kept their UNMOs there after the war had started.

Email sent by the Canadian peacekeeper who was killed in the strike:

What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.

CTV

Commenting on the implication of those words, a retired Canadian general:

Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.

"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

The Ottawa Citizen

This is confirmed by Squadron Leader Andrew Greig, a New Zealander, who was supposed to be at the post at the time of the air strike, but could not get there due to the intensity of fire between Hizbollah and the IDF at the time.