• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict [UN: 1,525+ Palestinian dead, mostly civilian; 66 Israeli]

Status
Not open for further replies.
This post is bizarre. There is no minimum number of rockets that can be fired before Israel is justified in trying to prevent further rockets. Who suggested there was? And who said "without casualties"? The question is the relation of civilian casualties to the risk posed by the rockets that Israel is ostensibly trying to stop. In this latest action they are wildly out of proportion.

So how many civilian deaths are in proportion.

You say Israel is justified in preventing it. In order to stop it they need to use at least some amount of force. So the question becomes what is the minimum amount of force needed to defend themselves. There is no proportion. It doesnt work that way. The goal is to stop the rockets.

Now going further, the IDF doesnt just want the rockets stopped, my understanding is that they are now aiming to destroy these tunnels and likely will put off a cease fire until they've achieved that. You can say that's just them still defending themselves or you can say it's not reasonable
 
How thick are you? She lays it out pretty clearly. Gives you studies to look up if you so chose. It took me all of 5 minutes to find reports on the media coverage studies she cites.

The fact that you are asking who the Palestinian voices are speaks directly to te problem. Unless you legitimately feel that there are no willing Palestinian voices that would come in American TV to voice their grievances(which to give you the answer is untrue, democracy now for instance has had numerous Palestinian/Israeli academics and citizens that don't toe the Israeli line giving their varying opinions)

Heck just watch the msnbc piece. Their sole Palestinian reporters have been marginalized and pushed back against. One reporter was temporarily taken off assignment and the other, the lady you are quoting, was treated as an opposition when she expressed her views. In neither piece was Msnbc even mature enough to allow her to make her case without interruption. It's a news station for gods sake. I've seen countless pieces on every network where they allow Israeli spokespeople to make their case with little or no push back but when it comes to the very small minority of Palestinian voices there is relentless puch back and zero attempt to allow them to make there case without interruption.

If you can't even see that then you really show your stripes as being completely one sided and blinded by your bias.

You're missing the point. Netanyahu is the PM of Israel. I'm interested in Palestinian leaders not some guy reporting from the Palestinian perspective. I want to see people who can actually make the call on what the next steps are. Cease fires, peace treaties, path to a two state solution, settlements calling off attacks etc.

As for her appearance on MSNBC she wasn't reporting, she was being dramatic. She was much more composed in the Democracy Now portion.
 
As if it it was obvious already, here's some confirmation, at least.

Jebreal said that in her two years as an MSNBC contributor, she had protested the network’s slanted coverage repeatedly in private conversations with producers. “I told them we have a serious issue here,” she explained. “But everybody’s intimidated by this pressure and if it’s not direct then it becomes self-censorship.”

With her criticism of her employer’s editorial line, she has become the latest casualty of the pro-Israel pressure. “I have been told to my face that I wasn’t invited on to shows because I was Palestinian,” Jebreal remarked. “I didn’t believe it at the time. Now I believe it.”

An NBC producer speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed Jebreal’s account, describing to me a top-down intimidation campaign aimed at presenting an Israeli-centric view of the attack on the Gaza Strip. The NBC producer told me that MSNBC President Phil Griffin and NBC executives are micromanaging coverage of the crisis, closely monitoring contributors’ social media accounts and engaging in a “witch hunt” against anyone who strays from the official line.

“Loyalties are now being openly questioned,” the producer commented.

alternet.org
 
If the idea is purely to prevent rocket attacks Israel can strike the launchers themselves, can't they?

Why shell hospitals and flatten residential buildings that are loosely connected to Hamas in some way? Why the snipers? Why the flechette rounds?

This latest incursion looks very wide ranging in its goals - striking general infrastructure targets and anything even remotely connected to Hamas, and not just the military arm.
 
So how many civilian deaths are in proportion.

You say Israel is justified in preventing it. In order to stop it they need to use at least some amount of force. So the question becomes what is the minimum amount of force needed to defend themselves. There is no proportion. It doesnt work that way. The goal is to stop the rockets.

So in your view would Israel be justified in killing every man, woman and child in Gaza to stop the rockets if that were necessary? The principle of proportionality in war is recognized by every civilized country - which Israel claims to be - your blithe assertions that "it doesn't work that way" notwithstanding.
 
Ayman Mohyeldin said:
It's civilians like Al Hallaq who are paying the price of the fight. Israel carries out punitive airstrikes against Hamas militants with deadly consequences for the very same residents it evacuated from other neighborhoods. More than 70 percent of all of those killed are civilians according to the United Nations.

Nowhere is safe.
.
 
If the idea is purely to prevent rocket attacks Israel can strike the launchers themselves, can't they?

Why shell hospitals and flatten residential buildings that are loosely connected to Hamas in some way? Why the snipers? Why the flechette rounds?

This latest incursion looks very wide ranging in its goals - striking general infrastructure targets and anything even remotely connected to Hamas, and not just the military arm.

So,
- the ground invasion in gaza aim is to blow up underground tunnels that reach from there to inside israels territory. Hamas is defending them with forces.
- rockets launchers are set near hospitals, homes schools etc, besides that israel is blowing up hamass governemnt buildings and weapon storages.
- many bombings are related to preparing an area for infantry movement, for example, they progress, realise in front of them is a building that hamas are shooting them from - air strike it.
 
You're missing the point. Netanyahu is the PM of Israel. I'm interested in Palestinian leaders not some guy reporting from the Palestinian perspective. I want to see people who can actually make the call on what the next steps are. Cease fires, peace treaties, path to a two state solution, settlements calling off attacks etc.

As for her appearance on MSNBC she wasn't reporting, she was being dramatic. She was much more composed in the Democracy Now portion.

Will Netenyahu call upon Israelis to end this once and for all and go back to 1967 borders so it can call out Hamas if it fails to abide by the promise to lay down their arms at that juncture?
 
Sometimes resistance is better served by being at the negotiating table rather than lobbying rockets. Hamas puts a dent into that line reasoning.
The rockets lobbed at the Tel Aviv airport are the only thing that has irked Israel over the last couple of years. That rocket has worked a lot better than peacefully negotiotating and hoping Israel would give in on at least one demand.
 
Don't know if this has been posted yet but IDF has apparently falsified information to justify bombing of the Al-Wafa hospital.

Com_el-Wafa.jpg


More pics and info in the link

http://palsolidarity.org/2014/07/israeli-military-falsifies-photograph-to-justify-bombing-el-wafa-hospital/

The article also says:
According to the Gazan Ministry of Health, seven out of 13 hospitals, including el-Wafa, have been severely damaged. Al Atatra Medical Clinic and 12 ambulances have been completely destroyed, seven other clinics have been damaged, 12 medical staff members have been injured, and three have been killed
 
You're missing the point. Netanyahu is the PM of Israel. I'm interested in Palestinian leaders not some guy reporting from the Palestinian perspective. I want to see people who can actually make the call on what the next steps are. Cease fires, peace treaties, path to a two state solution, settlements calling off attacks etc.

As for her appearance on MSNBC she wasn't reporting, she was being dramatic. She was much more composed in the Democracy Now portion.

And you seem to miss the point entirely. You may want to hear from authorities in the Palestinian government but the fact of the matter is the media isn't giving airtime to almost anyone that isn't supporting the Israeli governments narrative. Be it Palestinian authorities or scholars or citizens or advocates, no one with a d different viewpoint about the conflict is being given much airtime or respect with regards to their viewpoint.

I think my analogy to the run up to the Iraq war is apt. The overwhelming majority of voices that are given airtime and freedom to express their views in American media are of a singular mind about this conflict and any dissent to that viewpoint is marginalized and given intense push back.

And you know what. If I was experiencing that sort of treatment I think I would be pretty hot too. Not once, in either interview, was she able to voice her opinion without constant rude push back and agitation from the host. As if the host is carrying water for the other side. There is asking tough questions in the interview process and then there is what happened on MSNBC; Fox News style talking over the guest and drowning out their responses with interruptions and turning the interview from something that resembles a respectable question and answer using proper civil discourse into a farce.
 
That was probably the most disgusting piece of journalism and Israeli side worshipping I have ever seen on TV between Wolf Blitzer, Mayor of Jeruselum and Mayor Bloomberg.

Every one in the world should see it when it comes out as if trying to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Israel is the only side to trust and everyone else is a terrorist. Doubting your own national agency over Israel and putting a hilarious spin where that defense actually plays in hamas hands essentially saying Hamas Rockets are not be feared we are ok here.
 
Israel is doing their best to prevent civilian casualties. This is the best they can do.
It should be easy for the UN to see how many things are wrong with Israel and it's attacks. It's time show them that a sad and cruel past don't give you a freepass to bring a sad and cruel present upon others.

Using Fletchette shells in residential areas no way is preventing civilian casualties. Bombing hospitals, is in no way preventing civilian causalities. Naval shelling is in no way preventing civilian casualities.
 
You're missing the point. Netanyahu is the PM of Israel. I'm interested in Palestinian leaders not some guy reporting from the Palestinian perspective. I want to see people who can actually make the call on what the next steps are. Cease fires, peace treaties, path to a two state solution, settlements calling off attacks etc.

As for her appearance on MSNBC she wasn't reporting, she was being dramatic. She was much more composed in the Democracy Now portion.

No, I think you're missing the point. So if they can't get the leader of Hamas to come on TV, might as well not even attempt to show or explain the Palestinian side of the conflict? Sounds like some absolutely shitty journalism to me. The leader of Hamas is not the soul voice in the world capable of explaining the context leading to this conflict. Saying "Bu-but, the leaders of Hamas won't even come on our show! It's not like we didn't try!" is not an excuse to shut out any voices sympathetic to the Palestinians and allow pro-Israeli commentators to go largely unchallenged for the entire report.
 
That was probably the most disgusting piece of journalism and Israeli side worshipping I have ever seen on TV between Wolf Blitzer, Mayor of Jeruselum and Mayor Bloomberg.

Every one in the world should see it when it comes out as if trying to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Israel is the only side to trust and everyone else is a terrorist. Doubting your own national agency over Israel and putting a hilarious spin where that defense actually plays in hamas hands essentially saying Hamas Rockets are not be feared we are ok here.
Wolf Blitzer used to work for AIPAC.
 
So,
- the ground invasion in gaza aim is to blow up underground tunnels that reach from there to inside israels territory. Hamas is defending them with forces.
- rockets launchers are set near hospitals, homes schools etc, besides that israel is blowing up hamass governemnt buildings and weapon storages.
- many bombings are related to preparing an area for infantry movement, for example, they progress, realise in front of them is a building that hamas are shooting them from - air strike it.
You could describe that as very wide ranging in its goals - striking general infrastructure targets and anything even remotely connected to Hamas, and not just the military arm.

Using methods guaranteed to lead to mass civilian casualties, as we're seeing, day in and day out.

What is the real limit of scope to this operation? Rocket launchers, tunnels, weapons stores and any Hamas affiliated persons and structures, military and political arms, as well as general infrastructure targets look to be fair game. All within a dense urban environment.

What does success look like?
 
That was probably the most disgusting piece of journalism and Israeli side worshipping I have ever seen on TV between Wolf Blitzer, Mayor of Jeruselum and Mayor Bloomberg.

Every one in the world should see it when it comes out as if trying to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Israel is the only side to trust and everyone else is a terrorist. Doubting your own national agency over Israel and putting a hilarious spin where that defense actually plays in hamas hands essentially saying Hamas Rockets are not be feared we are ok here.

This just popped up. I don't know if it's the full interview as I'm at work and can't actually watch it

Bloomberg: FAA should follow Tel Aviv's example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT-_dElYcSA
 
Mayor of Jeruselum and Bloomberg: Israel is as safe as NY and USA
Wolf Blitzer: I feel safe here


Doesn't this negate the threat of Hamas Rockets? so when Bloomberg and the Mayor of Jeruselum are asked why is Israel attacking Gaza, the response will be we are under siege by Hamas?
 
You could describe that as very wide ranging in its goals - striking general infrastructure targets and anything even remotely connected to Hamas, and not just the military arm.

Using methods guaranteed to lead to mass civilian casualties, as we're seeing, day in and day out.

What is the real limit of scope to this operation? Rocket launchers, tunnels, weapons stores and any Hamas affiliated persons and structures, military and political arms, as well as general infrastructure targets look to be fair game. All within a dense urban environment.

What does success look like?

What would you do?
 
What would you do?
Strike the rocket launchers. Release footage showing that each missile strike was aimed at a rocket launching platform. Collapse and/or flood the tunnels that lead into Israel.

Leave direct strikes of infrastructure and Hamas affiliated buildings completely out of it. Don't use indiscriminate weapons like flechette rounds in residential environments.

This is backseat warmaking, definitely, and I am no expert, but I think its plain to see that Israel's current strategy isn't the only possible one, and that it involves far more than preventing rocket attacks or disabling tunnels. Not to mention that these hostilities didn't have to occur at all.

But they have, and it looks like the goal is to level anything Hamas related and inflict enough collective punishment to scare the population away from supporting them in the future. That widening of scope shows a distinct lack of concern for the civilian population, and the collective punishment shows an utter disdain for the same.
 
I normally have sympathy for Israel but for the life of me I can't feel anything but disgust with whats happening at the moment. The amount of innocent civilians being killed is an absolute disgrace.

The only lasting solution to this is for both parties to be locked in a room and only let out once they have agreed on how to move forward. Mass killing innocent people is only going to make more hate come towards Israels way from all corners of the world.

Nelson Mandela literally once did exactly that. He put Arafat and weizman in a room together. No real resolution occurred
 
Strike the rocket launchers. Release footage showing that each missile strike was aimed at a rocket launching platform. Collapse and/or flood the tunnels that lead into Israel.

Leave direct strikes of infrastructure and Hamas affiliated buildings completely out of it. Don't use indiscriminate weapons like flechette rounds in residential environments.

This is backseat warmaking, definitely, and I am no expert, but I think its plain to see that Israel's current strategy isn't the only possible one, and that it involves far more than preventing rocket attacks or disabling tunnels. Not to mention that these hostilities didn't have to occur at all.

But they have, and it looks like the goal is to level anything Hamas related and inflict enough collective punishment to scare the population away from supporting them in the future. That widening of scope shows a distinct lack of concern for the civilian population, and the collective punishment shows an utter disdain for the same.

- There is footage showing missile strikes, not all are published but many are. Take into mind the platforms are not just some stand, they are within conclaves in ground or buildings, cant be 'sniped'.

- To collapse the tunnels IDF needs to go into the neighbourhoods and do exactly what they are doing now, the entrances are there. The fights are so intense that the military has to heavily bomb the area so soldiers don't get slaughtered by home advantaged fighters jumping around via underground passages flaking them. Also note the tunnels into israel reach to 2km long, so fully collapsing them is a big operation, and needs to be done carefully, so far they have found over 20, one apparently leads right near a dining room of a communal village in israel.

- Regarding flechettes, there needs to be context to this, if the army decided it should use it, it is allowed, you call it brutal, they call it effective for scenario x or y.

- you say there must be a better strategy, i dont think there is any good example of anyone dealing with such combat better, or that anyone was forced to deal with such a hostile area. The army calls hours before invading an area, shoots small warning missiles at targets etc this is a big tactical disadvantage to them there is 0 surprise element for the IDF, putting them in more of a disadvantage, so to say there is no concern is not fair, as i see it this is just a majorly shitty situation, but its not at all surprising when a civilian area is also a damn military compound.
 
- There is footage showing missile strikes, not all are published but many are. Take into mind the platforms are not just some stand, they are within conclaves in ground or buildings, cant be 'sniped'.

- To collapse the tunnels IDF needs to go into the neighbourhoods and do exactly what they are doing now, the entrances are there. The fights are so intense that the military has to heavily bomb the area so soldiers don't get slaughtered by home advantaged fighters jumping around via underground passages flaking them. Also note the tunnels into israel reach to 2km long, so fully collapsing them is a big operation, and needs to be done carefully, so far they have found over 20, one apparently leads right near a dining room of a communal village in israel.

- Regarding flechettes, there needs to be context to this, if the army decided it should use it, it is allowed, you call it brutal, they call it effective for scenario x or y.

- you say there must be a better strategy, i dont think there is any good example of anyone dealing with such combat better, or that anyone was forced to deal with such a hostile area. The army calls hours before invading an area, shoots small warning missiles at targets etc this is a big tactical disadvantage to them there is 0 surprise element for the IDF, putting them in more of a disadvantage, so to say there is no concern is not fair, as i see it this is just a majorly shitty situation, but its not at all surprising when a civilian area is also a damn military compound.

It is effective to maximize civilian casualties. They did effectively kill those 4 preteen boys t the beach, but the army said they were human shields so its all good.
 

Meanwhile, in France

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html

France's Jews Flee As Rioters Burn Paris Shops, Attack Synagogue

France's politicians and community leaders have criticised the "intolerable" violence against Paris' Jewish community, after a pro-Palestinian rally led to the vandalizing and looting of Jewish businesses and the burning of cars.

It is the third time in a week where pro-Palestinian activists have clashed with the city's Jewish residents. On Sunday, locals reported chats of "Gas the Jews" and "Kill the Jews", as rioters attacked businesses in the Sarcelles district, known as "little Jerusalem".

Manuel Valls, France's prime minister said: “What happened in Sarcelles is intolerable. An attack on a synagogue and on a kosher shop is simply anti-Semitism. Nothing in France can justify this violence.”

I know the pro-Palestinian activists have had France occupy their land and ...
 
So in your view would Israel be justified in killing every man, woman and child in Gaza to stop the rockets if that were necessary? The principle of proportionality in war is recognized by every civilized country - which Israel claims to be - your blithe assertions that "it doesn't work that way" notwithstanding.

Was there an answer in here? I don't know the proper proportion, so I'm asking you what you think it is. You said Israel has a right to defend itself by stopping the rockets, but also it needs to be proportional. How many civilian deaths are ok and if you reach your number and the rockets havent stopped, then what.
 
It is effective to maximize civilian casualties. They did effectively kill those 4 preteen boys t the beach, but the army said they were human shields so its all good.
The boys were bombed by a plane as they ran away from a crate that was bombed on that beach, as in 2 incidents, and the military estimated it was a wrong identification, no one said anything about human shield, and absolutely nothing to do with flechettes.
Not defending the pilot here by any means, but dont bullshit random claims.
Nothing to add about flechettes vs civilians more then i said before.
 
No, I think you're missing the point. So if they can't get the leader of Hamas to come on TV, might as well not even attempt to show or explain the Palestinian side of the conflict? Sounds like some absolutely shitty journalism to me. The leader of Hamas is not the soul voice in the world capable of explaining the context leading to this conflict. Saying "Bu-but, the leaders of Hamas won't even come on our show! It's not like we didn't try!" is not an excuse to shut out any voices sympathetic to the Palestinians and allow pro-Israeli commentators to go largely unchallenged for the entire report.

Well I think the point is if Netanyahu talks, everyone is going to air that. Joe Blow in Palestine is fine for general reporting. An equivalent Hamas leader would get the same air time as Netanyahu. Assuming he wasn't blown up during the interview.

But of course Hamas has trouble with that, being a terrorist organization and all. So it's a bit awkward.
 
Mayor of Jeruselum and Bloomberg: Israel is as safe as NY and USA
Wolf Blitzer: I feel safe here


Doesn't this negate the threat of Hamas Rockets? so when Bloomberg and the Mayor of Jeruselum are asked why is Israel attacking Gaza, the response will be we are under siege by Hamas?

Israel PR needs to get its story straight. Is the country facing an aerial blitz or is not?
 
The terror aside, I have to say it's amazing how much we can do in modern times to show off the propaganda bullshit. So much knowledge. Just think how much we would know about this without globalization and the internet... or how we would even care.
 
well shit. We knew they were liars, but has the IDF been caught red handed?
Com_el-Wafa.jpg
It׳s funny how you get mislead by a lie over a lie.
Lets assume idf lied, the photo is of a place bombed days back and the photo was posted days back, wafa hospital was bombed today, so how could it use the photo to excuse it?
Seems idf tagged the place in photo wrongly, but again, its an error of nametagging, not operational lies...
You get fed shit and gulp it down, no critical thinking.
 
Are you expecting people here to defend this? Because unlike zionist supporters and their "israel is only defending themselves" mantra I seriously doubt acts like these will receive anything but condemnation from all here.

Go ahead and condemn it then? But no, I was just pointing out that France had to have riot police out to stop car burnings and stores being sacked. I think that's pretty common in France, the anti semitism and car burnings anyway.
 
The terror aside, I have to say it's amazing how much we can do in modern times to show off the propaganda bullshit. So much knowledge. Just think how much we would know about this without globalization and the internet... or how we would even care.

It's a double edged blade, it always has been. Easily susceptible to well coordinated propaganda/exploitation which in turn requires an immense level of effort and cooperation amongst people to help the truth rise above that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom