-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Hamas Wants Civilian Casualties
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
You should avoid making personal attacks.
Gumboot and I have noted that it just wouldn't work like that. If you review the thread you might find others. Gumboot is much more knowledgable about military matters than I. You might like to ask Darth Rotor's opinion if you think Gumboot and I are wrong.
Your suggestion wouldn't work, irrespective of which side is right or wrong.
Last edited:
IDB87
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,022
This is true.
Does this mean the IDF went into Gaza and removed the ones who were already there?
IDB87
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,022
What factors do you believe would contribute to civilian casualties being at a bare minimum, or even zero, while (since you vaule human life) keeping IDF casualties at a bare minimum, or even zero?
IDB87
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,022
Yep, I saw that it was Parky. My apologies.
Well, if Hamas was operating immeditaley outside the school, could they not retreat into the school, and fight from there, if the IDF deployed ground forces to the area?
Last edited:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
It just seems to me that both sides are playing from a very familiar script.
An Arab group (Hamas. Hezbollah, the PLO, whoever it is this year) launches a minor* attack into Israel. The IDF threatens for a while, and then responds with a massive retaliation. IDF casualties are light. Civilian casualties are heavy.
This script has been repeated numerous times since 1973 (the last "real" war in the region). Both sides have played their parts predictably every time. Since that is the case, it stands to reason that both sides are getting something out of their behavior. Either side could change the script.
The problem is that neither side wants to, or at least is not willing to give up what it would have to give up in order to end the conflict. The real problem here is that the majority of Arabs want a nation at the Western end of the Mediterranean Sea that is dominated by Arabs. The majority of Jews, on the other hand, want a nation at the Western end of the Mediterranean Sea that is dominated by Jews. The two goals are irreconcilable.
Perhaps, at some point, a "two state solution" will be acceptable to a majority on both sides. Right now, it isn't. It seems that enough people on both sides are rather picky about exactly which parcels of land are to be included in "their" state.
* Of course, "minor" is a rather subjective term. If it's your family that is hit by the rocket fire, there's nothing minor about it.
An Arab group (Hamas. Hezbollah, the PLO, whoever it is this year) launches a minor* attack into Israel. The IDF threatens for a while, and then responds with a massive retaliation. IDF casualties are light. Civilian casualties are heavy.
This script has been repeated numerous times since 1973 (the last "real" war in the region). Both sides have played their parts predictably every time. Since that is the case, it stands to reason that both sides are getting something out of their behavior. Either side could change the script.
The problem is that neither side wants to, or at least is not willing to give up what it would have to give up in order to end the conflict. The real problem here is that the majority of Arabs want a nation at the Western end of the Mediterranean Sea that is dominated by Arabs. The majority of Jews, on the other hand, want a nation at the Western end of the Mediterranean Sea that is dominated by Jews. The two goals are irreconcilable.
Perhaps, at some point, a "two state solution" will be acceptable to a majority on both sides. Right now, it isn't. It seems that enough people on both sides are rather picky about exactly which parcels of land are to be included in "their" state.
* Of course, "minor" is a rather subjective term. If it's your family that is hit by the rocket fire, there's nothing minor about it.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I think that at times there has been an acceptable solution to a majority on both sides, but the extremists on both sides have been able to ensure that didn't happen.
There was a time when palestinians were able to work quite easily in Israel, and Israel needed the workers. Everyone benefited, and the Palestinians were getting wealthier. I think some feared an even worse solution, the 'one state' solution could happen.
Last edited:
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I totally disagree with your conclusion here. You're ignoring numerous efforts by Israel to change the script, which likewise failed. Israel has tried an enormous variety of approaches over the last 30 or so years and none have worked. If you look at both this latest offensive, and the 2006 war, they came only at the end of an exhaustive string of violations by the enemy, after a long string of failed peaceful efforts by Israel. Say what you want, but Israel clearly are trying. The problem is everyone just expects them to blindly and meekly follow the peaceful path regardless of what the other side is doing. Often even their non-violent and passive efforts are rejected by the international community as too violent (such as building a wall to protect their territory).
I've been posting here for nearly two years, and not once have I seen a critic of Israel offer a practical solution to the problem.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I have provided ample substance.
My first post addressed a point of issue in this incident that thus far almost everyone (including yourself) as quietly stepped around - namely the UN's failure to prevent exploitation of their positions by Hamas.
I followed this with a sample of similar failures by UN in the past, establish a track record of failure by the UN.
My next post came much later in the thread, where I tried to clear up some misconceptions being thrown about that were not helping the discussion. These included:
1. A lack of understanding of the nature of the strike - that being an immediate tactical response to a direct attack, not a strategically planned strike.
(This is important because the laws of armed conflict give much greater lenience to immediate tactical response than they do strategic strikes).
I then clarified the information we currently had, which included independent confirmation that militants had been firing from the proximity of the UN position, and that the IDF fire was returned against the militants' position.
I finished by pointing out the legality of the actions of each faction, as established by the International Laws of Armed Conflict. These are not up for dispute, or open to emotional appeal. They are clearly established laws that anyone can read for themselves if they wish.
After this I followed up with a brief comment on the problem with UN action being the nature of their ROE's. This was followed by a brief explanation on my sources.
I then clarified a misrepresentation of my position that you offered up. Soon after this you responded to my earlier post with irrelevant ranting and nothing of substance, quickly degenerating the conversation.
Care to address any of the substance in any of my posts? Or will you just call me names again?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I think you are naive.
Olmert recently stated, the dream of "eretz Israel" is dead. Not back when Oslo was signed, but only last year. Wasn't that dream supposed to be over with Oslo? http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery10072008.html
Sharon blocked Peace talks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3720176.stm
Gaza was to be placed in formaldehyde, that is, no resolution of the Palestinian issue, Gaza was to be frozen in the state it was in after the withdrawal of the settlers.
Settlements were subsidised in violation of Israel's own laws.
None of these acts indicate to me a real committment to peace, but of toughing it out. It is only now that Olmert has finally stated that toughing it out isn't going to work. Such an attitude only vindicates the hardline stance taken in response.
Here is a list of minor attacks by Palestinians in just a 2 year period:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/06/19/bombings-glance.htm
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
There is no practical solution to the problem, and it isn't hard to see why.
If you look at the region known as...what shall we call it? It's that chunk of land which is labelled on the maps today as Israel + Palestinian National Authority. (Unless you use the maps drawn by parties in the conflict, in which case it is labelled either "Palestine" or "Israel", but not both.) Most of the people there are in one of two broad classes of ethnic groups, which we'll call Jews and Arabs.
If my quick glance at wikipedia is correct, there are somewhat more Jews than Arabs, but not a lot more.
This is a change from years past, when there were more Arabs than Jews in that part of the world.
A naive solution to the problem would be for Israel to annex all the territory that makes up the PNA, and declare everyone who lives there citizens of Israel, and insist that all citizens have equal rights.
For some reason, that seems to be unacceptable. Oh...well then. Carry on. The current war should be over in a week or so. The next one should start this summer, or maybe they'll take a year off.
It would only take 5 years before the government would be controlled by Palestinians. That would be the end of Israel. Israel will never accept that situation.
Last edited:
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Unfortunately the article only reinforces my argument that Israel has made efforts toward peace. I'll note some pieces you have ignored:
You're also ignoring, importantly, the lead up to these events.
At the July 2000 Camp David Summit there was a serious opportunity for an end to the Palestine/Israel conflict for good. Ehud Barak's offer was the most serious offer either state had made for peace ever. Arafat rejected it out of hand, and didn't give a counter offer, dragging the talks on into 2001. Immediately after this the Second Intifada broke out, and it was the renewed violence and lack of progress by Palestine (cancelled elections, etc) which motivated the Israelis to vote for a more hard-line leader - Sharon.
It's worth considering this point, because it's an important one. In mid 2000 Israel made the most serious and generous offer towards peace ever made by any faction since the conflict began. Palestine responded to this with the worst violence in thirty years.
The lesson to Israel? Don't seek peace.
I disagree, completely. Many of these acts indicate a serious desire for peace from Israelis. The withdrawal, which you oddly cite as a way to avoid peace (odd way to phrase the forced ending of an illegal occupation that the international community has been demanding for years) was caused by the IDF itself refusing to conduct operations in the area - a clear act towards peace by the IDF, in defiance of their own leaders. If it had the added benefit of enabling the government to avoid negotiating with someone who had no interest in peace, I cannot blame them.
I'm a firm believer in giving people a chance. I believe no one is perfect, no path or goal is ever achieved easily, and that backslides and errors are sure to occur.
As long as I, generally, see a group moving in the right direction, I'll give them support. I don't expect perfection - there will always be moments of hesitation or moments when they slide backwards. But if the general trend is forwards, they have my support.
I see that from Israel. Their relationship with the other people of the region has shifted dramatically since their formation. They have strong long-lasting peace settlements with Jordan and Egypt - two nations that have previously fought bitter wars with them. They have tried a variety of methods toward achieving peace, and consistently return to the negotiating table against organisations that honestly have no right to demand anything of Israel.
I see a real commitment to peace. I see a real commitment by Israel to take the small chunk of land given to them and to make it better.
Then I look at those entities that continue to clash with Israel. I see little or no effort on their part towards peace. I see no effort to settle anything. I see no good will, no indication of compromise. I see no restraint. I see no effort even to improve their own lot, or to form alliance and peace with others of their own faction.
In 1948, when the two states were formed, they were comparable, with the distinction that Palestine had the better land, and the more established state (many Jews being recent immigrants). While Israel was virtually alone and unsupported, Palestine had (theoretically) the support of some of the wealthiest nations in the world.
Palestine was well positioned to make itself into a successful and prosperous state. Why didn't they? Why is it that Israel, the underdog, was successful, and Palestine, who had all the advantages, remains a wasteland to this day?
Why is it that Israel now enjoys relations with two historically bitter rivals, while Palestine cannot even maintain relations amongst its own people?
The answer is simple. Israel wants peace. Palestine does not.
Who is this Israel person you keep speaking of?
There are certainly many Israeli citizens that want peace. There are even some Israeli leaders who want peace. On was named Rabin. He was killed by an Israeli citizen that did not want peace, at least not on Rabin's terms.
Israelis want a lot of things. They want peace, but they don't want to give up any of Jerusalem, and they don't want to give the Palestinians born in Israel and their descendants the right of return.
They want free Palestinian elections, but they don't want to deal with Hamas when they get elected.
They want to abdicate responsibility for the civilians in Gaza because they are no longer the occupying power, but they want to maintain control of the borders, controlling virtually everything in and out and leaving Gaza a large prison camp.
There are many people on both sides who want peace. There are many fewer who are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve peace. and unfortunately there are plenty of fanatics on both sides willing to scuttle the attempts of the peacemakers.
It's easier to knock something down than to build something.
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,089
In theory I should rise above the benchmark set by the Israel apologists here. But then personal attacks seem to be the currency used by many here so might as well deal in something that slots into the forum monetary system
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
No. Hamas ought to refrain from setting up a firing position in and around a school full of kids. For the IDF, it is not smart tactics to offer your armed and firing opponent a free base from which to fire where you won't shoot at him, but it may at some times be smart politics. Depends.
Tim, your knee jerk is showing.
DR
Last edited:
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,089
On what basis? Nothing. It's easy to see that a form of personal combat is more selective than simply sitting behind the armor of a tank and firing artillery rounds that blow up anything in the vicinity.
Foot soldiers taking on foot soldiers will of course produce some stray rounds that may hit unwanted targets, but you can hardly compare that to a tank shell.
Gumboot is a fraud. These kind of posters are so transparent. They enter a thread with an air of authority and pretense of being an 'expert'. They work on the hope that no one will challenge them. And once shown to be full of nonsense they spew personal attacks.
Gumboot said he came here to educate us yet his nonsense proclaiming tank shells are not as indiscriminatory as aimed bullets just shows his arguments are useless.
Of course if civilian casualties aren't something to worry about then using tank artillery to crack a nut is the easiest option.
but doe those ofus who do put the care of innocent civilians first then it's not the way forward.
We can see that the safety of Palestinian civilians is not cared about by Israel or a few people on this forum.