Cheesecakebobby
Banned
Right, Israel planned to resettle Gaza after pulling out but noble Hamas thwarted their sinister plans. Ok
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Breaking: Israel launches Operation Protective Edge against Hamas in Gaza
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure exactly what's the point you're trying to argue, but historically, you are wrong.
Both about Israel and about German citizens.
Educate yourself.
Gemüsepizza;120098956 said:
I think some of you need to read more on international law regarding civilian casualties. If a military is allowing (not trying to evac) civilians that are near their site, they are responsible for their deaths, not their opponent.
The law is made to give some leeway to combatants because civilian casualties are inevitable in battle. Israel can be seen as justified even if they knew these civilians were there so long as the target is "worth" the civilian casualties or the risk of such. This is subject to major interpretation.
No this is not terrorism... Again many of you need to look up what defines "terrorism" and stop making it out as if air strikes are terrorism.
1st world nations (even Israel and U.S) usually do their very best to avoid civilian casualties, but it is inevitable. No nation should be forced to put at unnecessary risk many troops simply for morale reasons.
It is a rocket because it is self propelled though it is unguided. Mortars are rounds that are fire into the air at appropriate trajectory. It does not maintain flight in any way.
RustyNails
Member
Way to dismiss my entire post as bbu both sides. Its laughable to presume mainstream media coverage is biased against Israel when I documented a proof in my post proving otherwise, at least for BBC. BBC is pretty well known for its pro Israel propoganda. A quick google search will return a list of cases. CNN and Fox News are lot worse. Fox especially. My mind shatters every time someone says that they are either equally biased or anti Israel, as I grew up watching both US and non US media covering the conflict. Have you seen the documentary Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land? Forget it. There is no point in watching it.
If you believe in this, you are insane. It is not gonna happen. Who the fuck would dismantle Israel? Do you think that Israel would take it without doing nothing?
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
I don't watch US news, I know it is shit in general. The BBC has been criticised, with plenty of supposed evidence to support each criticism, by both sides. And it is only an investigation in Anti-Israel bias that has ever been launched. These are facts. Say what you want about shitty American networks, but the BBC can't get a break from either side and I'm the one of us two who isn't ignoring that both sides have presented cases against it. The coverage I've seen this week has been very neutral.
MisterFalcon
Member
Israel should invite the people who dismiss the Hamas rockets as crude and ineffectual and have them stand next to a Fajr-5 or Qassam-2 being detonated. The distance they can decide themselves. They have lots of them from the ship they intercepted and I'd like to see if George Galloway will stand 10 feet from 'harmless fireworks' going off.
Are you sure you read any of the international protocols regarding war crimes?
They don't assign responsibility for deaths, it is not how they are written, at all. They list prohibited behaviors, it is very much possible to have an incident where civilians die and both sides are guilty of war crimes.
Using human shields is a war crime, as is indiscriminately attacking densely populated areas (yes, even in the case when there is a military force operating in that area).
And the Geneva convention specifically state that using human shields does change the responsibility of the attacking side to try and avoid civilian casualties.
The question of whether or not Israel took the necessary precaution is an important one (and was the goal of the UN fact finding mission) and I think the answer is not as clear cut as either side want to make it - Israel generally try to avoid civilian casualties, but it doesn't always do a good enough job at it. How much of it falls under war crimes is difficult to say, the Geneva convention is pretty vague, it talks about "feasible precautions" and "expected incidental loss of civilian life", but your reading of it as though "human shield = your fault" is flat-out wrong.
Lovely Salsa
Banned
What did Poland do?
anonymous_abc
Member
I'm just glad that I don't have to, but only blaming the other side seems to be cutting some corners.
Find a solution to the problem rather than keep repeating what is clearly not working.
In the end, the blame game doesn't matter. There is just one simple fact, you're being shot at with rockets. What do you do?
anonymous_abc
Member
'Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.'
It's not about the blame game, it's about understanding the context of the conflict.
Sure, if your goal is to make Israel look good and just it make sense to star the second the fuse is lit on a rocket, but if you want to understand the situation and how it can be solved, you need to have a slightly wider perspective.
p.s.
I'll answer your question with a question - you're being held without basic human rights for half a century by a vastly superior military force, what do you do?
Kadayi
Banned
Figure out why they're shooting rockets at you and find a resolution.
*pulls up chair*
I'll add to that: -
You're the elected leader of a leading superpower that actively talks a lot about democracy and equal rights, yet historically your country has been supporting a small nation that regularly abuses human rights, subjugates it's neighbours and is gradually taking over their land as a result of religious beliefs. How do you sleep at night knowing your hypocrisy in perpetuating this activity?
Facism
Member
In the end, the blame game doesn't matter. There is just one simple fact, your land is being stolen, your people displaced, your civilians suffering air strikes/attacks by soldiers from a superior military in peace-time. What do you do?
Would you say the same thing if it was America shooting rockets at Canada, Germany shooting rockets at Austria, Pakistan shooting rockets at India?
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
And this is why arguing with you lot is futile.
This is the stupid, unreasonable, one-sided and insulting posts I've ever read.
This.
What do you do when your land is stolen? What do you do when your children (minors) are taken prisoners?
Edit: Beaten by a far better post!
deathkiller
Member
Worry about traffic if that is more likely to kill people.
PD: I am not against Israel bombing rocket launching pads or killing who launch them.
Key word being indiscriminate... Civilians being in an area don't immediately make a target immune from military action. This as I said is subject to interpretation based on the scenario. You are going to have to link me to where the Geneva Convention shifts responsibility towards an opponent that is having human shield tactics used against them. Because I am pretty sure I only ever see those doing such things get condemned rather than those that actually attacked regardless.
As far as I read it does hold responsibility, but of course many get away with it due to U.N and ICC not having teeth (most times) to actually pin that responsibility on the unlawful country/person.
Don't see where the Geneva Convention isn't stating this for me to be "flat-out wrong". For example, I can use a civilian as a shield and when that civilian dies due to that, I can go scot free? Surely you know most 1st world nations will try their soldiers for such a thing?
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
You keep giving your oppressors reasons to oppresse you duh.
Want to form a legitimate government the world can recognise? Nope vote in terrorists.
Want to open up borders for free trade and economic freedom? Nope buy more guns and send suicide bombers onto Israel.
Want to teach your kids about tolerance and right and wrong so that they can grow up good? Nope teach them to hate Jews and respond with violence.
Want to protest your conditions and treatment which already has massive support? Nope, make rockets and fire them indiscriminately into civilian areas.
But yeah no fuck Israel for trying to protect itself.
Kadayi
Banned
What's the motivation? People don't act without a reason. No ones buying the 'they're all crazy' argument these days. Still way to avoid answering the questions aimed at you.
You lot? Whose 'you lot' exactly?
What's unreasonable about seeking to understand why someone may be aggressive towards you exactly? Just because you might not like the answer, doesn't mean they might not have cause. But still feel free to be insulted, there's no charge.
If all you give someone is the whip, is it any surprise that they resent you?
curlyfriski
Banned
Depends. Are we colonizing Canada?
Oh boy, I would love to see you just a day as a palestinian. We'll see how you're supposed to attain those things you've posted.
Seeing your post on Muslims in the other thread, I'm sure that you must be impartial.
Funny... nations aren't people. Hypocrisy doesn't matter except for political games. Nations are going to do what they can to not affect their interest negatively first.
While some people don't see it, there is a reason we still support Israel.
Well one thing is for sure, I won't start shooting rockets at them, it won't benefit me in any way. How about trying to elect better leaders? Unfortunately a lot of hardliners get into politics in these situations.
In my opinion it would do better for Palestinian's cause if they kept from being violent, even when they are being wronged. There are many things they can do to better themselves while gaining more sympathy than shooting rockets into Israel.
No one is going to answer your question... lol
If I am honest, at some point I would retaliate. Because I have the advantage.
The reason why I don't answer to those questions is that the motivation doesn't matter. There is no motivation that makes this okay from the perspective of a sovereign state.
If you are Israel, or any other sovereign state for that matter (which the Palestinian territories are not), and you are attacked with rockets, there is no scenario where this should happen: "Um, what was your motivation again?" "Revenge for the stolen land!" "Okay, if it's revenge for stolen land, we'll let it slip."
Kadayi
Banned
The reason being?
It's not about whether it's OK, it's about how did you end up in this position and what can actively be done to bring about a lasting solution.
Curious as to why the bolded part is somehow relevant exactly? Or is it simply a coverall for it being OK to fire artillery into non sovereign nations? Because forget that they're people, they're not a nation so it's A-OK yes?
Treat the symptom and not the disease.
Shooting rockets at a sovereign state is an act of war. It must be treated as such.
curlyfriski
Banned
Totally untrue. Under Abbas, there have been no major outbreaks of violence directed at Israel from the West Bank. This is primarily because the Palestinian Authority themselves crack down on militant activity and collaborates with the Israelis to prevent unrest. The result of this is no progress in the peace talks and no abatement in the construction of settlements.
Jesus dozens have been killed already. There was a story on Irish news here that a group of people stood on the roof of a building to wave and try and stop the airstrikes because there was women and children there and the israeli airforce bombed it anyway. A two state solution is impossible until Israel stops Its policies of economic strangulqation and disproportionate force and give the palestinians at least part of their country back. After the Israeli withdrawal in 2005 Israel destroyed any kind of commercial trade for the palestinians and held back taxes and custom duties. When people are starving and have no medicine and are being stripped of their land it is entirely understandable that they turn to violence. Not condone but understand.Hoipefully this won't escalate even further but its looking bad.
I don't disagree, but the incentive for being willing to have peace and negotiate has seen the West Bank shrink so I'm not surprised that Gaza doesn't see the benefit of not shooting rockets.
Kadayi
Banned
A few years back some IRA guys shot some UK soldiers and a Polish Taxi Driver near the Northern Ireland border, yet the neither the UK or Polish Governments decided to carpet bomb Cork in retaliation. If they had though, you'd say that was justified though yes?
Read what I said, human shield is always a war crime, but its usage doesn't change your responsibility before attacking an area with civilian population.
You want to see the receipts?
Fine.
Article 51 (which cover the illegality of human shields) plainly state -
Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict
from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians,
including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in
Article 57.
from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians,
including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in
Article 57.
Article 57 covers the precautions you must take before attacking, and your obligations are the same whether or not your enemy is using human shields.
Here, I'll paste it for you (but fuck if I'm fixing the numbering) -
Article 57 — Precautions in attack
1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare thecivilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this
Protocol to attack them; ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects; iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
b) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.
3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining asimilar military advantage,the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.
4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to theconflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects.
5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks againstthe civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.
1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare thecivilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this
Protocol to attack them; ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects; iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
b) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.
3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining asimilar military advantage,the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.
4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to theconflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects.
5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks againstthe civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.
p.s.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to educate you on the subject, but maybe you can stop pretending you ever read one page of any Geneva convention protocol?
You seem to think their goal is to decide who get to blame about each death.
They don't, not at all, this is not how they're written.
I don't even blame you, that shit be long and rather boring, but don't come here and try to lecture people about their knowledge of international law.
The Palestinians sat quietly for 20 years and got shit and all.
I don't like the Hamas and I don't think they're taking the best course of action in advancing the Palestinian cause, but the fact remains that everything the Palestinian ever achieved they got through the use of force.
IRA is not a publicly elected government. It is a group of terrorists. Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza.
CyclopsRock
Member
The distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist is a bit... weird. I mean, one's about goals, and the other about methods. You can simultaneously be a freedom fighter and a terrorist, or one, or the other, or neither.
KillerMan91
Member
But Israel is indectly itself causing those rockets to be shot by bulldozing palestinians to the sea. Desperate times lead to desperate things. Treating the symptom would reduce a lot more the rocket launching than carpet bombing Gaza that only gives them short break.
MisterFalcon
Member
The central policy goal of Hamas is a Palestinian state from the river to the sea to replace Israel in its entirety. That is the root cause of the rocket fire that can only be removed by removing Israel. Hamas of course supports any kind of deal where Israel retreats to the 1967 borders as an important step towards achieving their end goal.
Okay, so why don't we look at the underlying issues of "bulldozing palestinians to the sea". From my understanding, this also should be a symptom and not the cause.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
His observation is accurate. Your original comment is indeed explaining why Israel is taking this particular action, but this is a purely reactionary thing. They hit me, I have to hit back. Politically this is probably true - as in, if they don't do "something" their political credibility will evaporate because they're being soft on terrorism or whatever. However this is not an isolated incident, and Israel has been down this road before. They have bombed, shelled and sent soldiers directly into Palestine. This time won't be any different - short term success, long term the status quo doesn't change. Violence breeds more violence, the cycle continues, Palestine continues to get gobbled up by more illegal settlements, people continue to die on both sides (well, one side a lot more than the other).
The solution to this isn't to go in and smash the place up again. It's to figure out why this keeps happening, and taking steps to resolve the issue. It's a symptom of the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the attacks will not stop until that conflict stops.
Elaborate. What is the disease causing this symptom? The PLO is willing to work with Israel. Why can't they have peace?
Kadayi
Banned
Hold up a minute ago you said they weren't a sovereign nation. Now you're recognising them as such? What gives? They either are or they aren't Gustav. Get your head in order sunshine.
curlyfriski
Banned
It's a symptom of Zionism, and the desire to continue the ethnic cleansing of the region among influential parts of the Israeli public.
I was talking about the Palestinian Authorities. You need to differentiate between them and Gaza.
Let me think... They are a major partner to U.S arms and tech industry and they are a Middle-east ally (one of the only ones) that isn't in or in foreseeable future going to be an unstable mess.
U.S to maintain its status needs to keep influence in many areas of the world. Not to mention why side with Palestinians over Israel? We aren't talking morality here, we are talking national interests. Don't think just because we aide Palestinians, that the Arab countries are suddenly going to like U.S.
As the other guy said, their motivation doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is they are under attack every year by Hamas with rockets. At what point is it okay to intervene?
Threads involving Israel do tend to be one-sided, with most condemning Israel as if Palestinians (the one's in power mainly) isn't innocent here. There are many other things Palestinians can do to gain their goals and firing rockets isn't one of them, it only feeds into this unending feud. Both sides have incredible amounts of racism towards one another and feeds propaganda.
I think Palestine should focus on social and economic aspects of their people while pushing for the state they desire. Firing rockets won't stop the settlement building, nor will creating a resolution that condemn it. No I do not think they should go through U.N for statehood and I will support U.S vetoing every attempt. What U.S should do is go on a more personal level to force Israel to seriously negotiate.
- Status