The Middle East Conflict Thread

[CTSA]

Sources for the dummy bombs please. And even if they have done something, it does not excuse them from blatantly attacking civilians when there is absolutely no military objective to be gained by doing so. It is in fact a war crime.

Any attack on civilians where there is no evidence of Hamas being anywhere near the bombing site is an intentional bombing act that only killed civilians. It is entirely irrelevant what Israel intended; they did not properly discharge their responsibility regarding not endangering civilians.

It does not excuse them from killing civilians, but it does disapprove that they had intention. Unfortunately, in any war there are civilian casualties. I mean in WWII, civilian casualties were twice that of military casualties. And since Hamas wear civilian clothes, it makes the job even more difficult for the Israelis to differentiate and target properly. So, for a war, Israel has done a lot of effort to warn the civilians. The Hamas asked for a war, so they got it.

I read about the dummy rockets in an article somewhere, but they also have it on wiki.

 

[Xarog]

It does not excuse them from killing civilians, but it does disapprove that they had intention.

Intention is irrelevant. They neglected their duty to ensure that they were firing at the correct targets. In failing to practise due dilligence, they comitted a war crime.

And for the record, it may well be that Israel intentionally targeted the school knowing full well that it had no military value. The IDF's record is awful when it comes to not blowing UN or Red Cross or international observer stations to kingdom come. So much so that the only reasonable conclusion, given the fact that they are one of the most high-tech armies in the world, is that the attacks are deliberate.

Unfortunately, in any war there are civilian casualties. I mean in WWII, civilian casualties were twice that of military casualties. And since Hamas wear civilian clothes, it makes the job even more difficult for the Israelis to differentiate and target properly. So, for a war, Israel has done a lot of effort to warn the civilians. The Hamas asked for a war, so they got it.

Hamas did not ask for a war. Israel occupied the Palestinians for 40 goddamn years. Hamas existed solely as a non-violent organisation for several years before they actually started armed resistance against Israel. Hamas is fighting against this occupation, and whether you like it or not, Israel is the one ultimately responsible for this sorry state of affairs.

I read about the dummy rockets in an article somewhere, but they also have it on wiki.

Then link it please. "Go find it" does not equate to proof.

 

[CTSA]

And just as an aside, I can find no record of Hamas calling their members "mujuhideen".

Here's a correspondence from Khaled Mishaal, Political Bureau Chairman of the Hamas Movement, in 1999:

http://www.rb.org.il/RBIS/RBIS 1999/RBIS 1999.09.26.htm

He uses the term mujahideen often.

Oh, but I was waiting for this...

http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0310.htm


So yes, IDF = Hamas in this context.

Your report is skewed. Yes there are Israeli military posts in some civilian areas. But these are low-risk posts and surrounding areas of evacuated in time of war or any imminent danger. The community of Zarit was evacuated before any attacks were launched from there.

 

[daveza]

Just squeezing a comment into the ping-pong match.

There seem to be issues of report credibility on both sides - some call it spin, some call it propaganda while others simply call it BS.

I'm sure hamas have no claim on integrity but let's just remember that the PM of Israel is himself under investigation for serious corruption.

It's unlikely we will get the whole truth from either side.

 

[krycor]

Another thing that fascinates me about the Pro-Israeli camp here is the lack of response to the Israeli ban on the Arab parties in the coming election(claiming inciting violence when they don't support Israeli war.. Can the Anc pull this with Cope and the same silence? not they any better(Cope) but the point is made), had this been Christian parties in Lebanon we'd see a nice uproar. after all, you guys always claim the Arab Israelis to be equal citizens. Similarly the extreme censorship + media ban there is again very hypocritical when you consider how some condemn china for the same.

Anyways..

Palestinian: 1033 dead(40+% women + children) and 4,500 injured

Palestinian: 13 dead(3 Civilians)

 

[daveza]

Palestinian: 1033 dead(40+% women + children) and 4,500 injured

Palestinian: 13 dead(3 Civilians)

Should be

Israeli: 13 dead(3 Civilians) - and at least 4 of the 10 killed by friendly fire.

 

[CTSA]

Intention is irrelevant. They neglected their duty to ensure that they were firing at the correct targets. In failing to practise due dilligence, they comitted a war crime.

And for the record, it may well be that Israel intentionally targeted the school knowing full well that it had no military value. The IDF's record is awful when it comes to not blowing UN or Red Cross or international observer stations to kingdom come. So much so that the only reasonable conclusion, given the fact that they are one of the most high-tech armies in the world, is that the attacks are deliberate.

It does not result in war crimes, since there attacks were not directed towards civilians. And since Hamas wear civilian clothes and hid in civilian buildings, I doubt whatever you state will have any standing in the ICC. They lacked any intention and to commit a war crime you need intention. The ICC could get Israel on the Zeitun incident. As for the school, Israel states that mortars were being launched from that area, thus it did military value if their statement turns out to be true.

Hamas did not ask for a war. Israel occupied the Palestinians for 40 goddamn years. Hamas existed solely as a non-violent organisation for several years before they actually started armed resistance against Israel. Hamas is fighting against this occupation, and whether you like it or not, Israel is the one ultimately responsible for this sorry state of affairs.

Hamas did ask for it by not accepting the truce extension on the 26/12 when Israel lifted the blockades. From truce, they could have entered talks with Israel, like Abbas and Fatah, which would have let to a peace deal. Remember most Israelis want to get rid of them, but not in a state of war while they still a security risk. They want peace before they let it go. Thats why Hamas should stop fighting.

 

[Xarog]

Your report is skewed. Yes there are Israeli military posts in some civilian areas. But these are low-risk posts and surrounding areas of evacuated in time of war or any imminent danger. The community of Zarit was evacuated before any attacks were launched from there.

An obvious point that no one seems to be making – and given a news blackout that lasted several hours, Israel clearly hoped no one would make – is that the 12 soldiers who were killed on Sunday in Kfar Giladi by a Hezbollah rocket were, under Egeland's definition, "cowardly blending" with the civilian population of that community. We know there are still civilians in Giladi because their response to the rocket barrage was quoted in the Israeli media.

Fail.

 

[Moederloos]

those that read them know what is going on
skimming over them shows a deep lack of interest in the discussion

Nope - it shows an aversion to being bored to tears by a sermon.
It is possible to make a point briefly.

 

[CTSA]

Another thing that fascinates me about the Pro-Israeli camp here is the lack of response to the Israeli ban on the Arab parties in the coming election

Thats cuz no one mentioned it. First, Arab parties were not banned. Only Balad and the United Arab List-Ta'al were disqualified, becuase they refuse to recognize Israel and they call for an armed conflict. In any modern country, such parties would not be allowed to run for elections. In South Africa it's called treason. It's like letting the Boeremag run for elections -> illegal.

Second, there are other Arab parties running for elections, including Hadash and the Arab Centrist Party.

 

[Xarog]

It does not result in war crimes, since there attacks were not directed towards civilians.

Right. No evidence of any targets of military value, yet Israel bombed the place anyway. Apparently the IDF were looking to hunt some chickens for their evening supper.

Btw :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

The following acts as part of an international conflict:

1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers

The UN registered there location of that building with the IDF. The IDF deliberately targeted it. It is a war crime, by definition.

And since Hamas wear civilian clothes and hid in civilian buildings, I doubt whatever you state will have any standing in the ICC.

There is irrefutable evidence that Israel attacked the building, that they had prior knowledge of its nature. Unless they can compellingly show that they had reason to believe that it was a legitimate military target, the ICC will find them guilty of a war crime, if this were ever to go to trial.

They lacked any intention and to commit a war crime you need intention.

They intentionally bombed a place registered with them as a UN building. That is not in dispute even by the IDF.

The ICC could get Israel on the Zeitun incident. As for the school, Israel states that mortars were being launched from that area, thus it did military value if their statement turns out to be true.

They also lied and posed video footage that was over a year old in order to support their claim. They were found out and later retracted their claim.

Hamas did ask for it by not asking the truce extension on the 26/12 when Israel lifted the blockades.

They did that on the 23rd, despite the fact that Israel had not upheld its side of the truce agreement.

From truce, they could have entered talks with Israel, like Abbas and Fatah, which would have let to a peace deal.

Been there, done that, been snubbed by Israel.

Remember most Israelis want to get rid of them, but not in a state of war while they still a security risk. They want peace before they let it go. Thats why Hamas should stop fighting.

Rephrase?

 

[krycor]

Remember, Israel's every single action is being followed by the media, so they wouldn't make any miscalculated risks and attacks.

From where?? 2km outside the border? Israel banned the media from being inside before the war even started and the only media in Gaza is either Aljazeera or Palestinian + Arab media.

Then they also censor media + only allow embedded reporters which basically is as bad a the American attempt except worse with the censorship.

 

[CTSA]

An obvious point that no one seems to be making – and given a news blackout that lasted several hours, Israel clearly hoped no one would make – is that the 12 soldiers who were killed on Sunday in Kfar Giladi by a Hezbollah rocket were, under Egeland's definition, "cowardly blending" with the civilian population of that community. We know there are still civilians in Giladi because their response to the rocket barrage was quoted in the Israeli media.

Fail.

Wrong again. First there were no civilians in Giladi at that time, except for those to refused to leave (barely any) and civilians, such as paramedics, who were needed there. Second, the soldiers weren't in Giladi when the rocket hit, they were on a field outside of Giladi without an civilians. Which explains why there were only military casualties. Recheck where your source is coming from.

 

[Xarog]

Wrong again. First there were no civilians in Giladi at that time, except for those to refused to leave (barely any) and civilians, such as paramedics, who were needed there. Second, the soldiers weren't in Giladi when the rocket hit, they were on a field outside of Giladi without an civilians. Which explains why there were only military casualties. Recheck where your source is coming from.

No, YOU are wrong.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=936453

The IDF has admitted responsibility for the death of the 12 reservists who were killed by a Katyusha rocket near the entrance of Kibbutz Kfar Giladi on August 6, 2006, during the Second Lebanon War.

"The IDF is responsible for the failures and mistakes that led to the tragedy," Northern Command Chief of Staff Brigadier General Alon Friedman wrote recently in a letter to the kibbutz and the head of the Upper Galilee regional council. "The residents of Kfar Giladi must not be held at all responsible."

Following the war, relatives of those killed claimed that residents would not let the soldiers into the kibbutz due to fears that the soldiers would cause damage to property.Benjamin Ben David, whose son Daniel died in the rocket strike, said at the memorial service that, "the blood of our sons calls out from the earth to the kibbutz."

 

[CTSA]

Xarog, I studied international law. I know what war crimes constitute. Yes, you are not allowed to directly attack civilians or UN workers, but if the target is used for military purposes, then any attack on it does not constitute a war crime. So if Israel can prove it was being used by Hamas, then they have a case. It doesn't matter whether it was a UN building or not. Israel can't prove Hamas was there, but Hamas and the UN can't prove Hamas wasn't there. And since Israel has the shadow of a doubt, the case won't stand in the ICC.

 

[Xarog]

Xarog, I studied international law. I know what war crimes constitute. Yes, you are not allowed to directly attack civilians or UN workers, but if the target is used for military purposes, then any attack on it does not constitute a war crime. So if Israel can prove it was being used by Hamas, then they have a case.

And yet they have retracted ALL claims that could possibly be used to givine them a case. They no longer claim there were militants in the area. QED.

It doesn't matter whether it was a UN building or not. Israel can't prove Hamas was there, but Hamas and the UN can't prove Hamas wasn't there.

If you've studied law then you'll be aware of the concept of "burden of proof". Israel attacked, the burden is on them to prove it was justified. Failing that, the only reasonable assumption is to assume that they were wrong. This is a central tenet not only of every advanced legal system in the world, but also of plain simple logic.

You can't just tell a judge, "Sorry, you can't prove I wasn't insane at the time," and expect to be aquitted.

And since Israel has the shadow of a doubt, the case won't stand in the ICC.

Wrong.

 

[Alan]

Yes, you cannot read and have trouble with comprehension, we have already established this. Another fine example of the uselessness of OBE.

ROFL you're clearly loony. The quotes are right there for everybody to see and yet you still won't accept it. This is more ridiculous than the El-Baradei episode

Rep. Steve Rothman, D-N.J., introduced a resolution in the fall calling for greater transparency and accountability at UNRWA. The bill called on the agency to make its textbooks available on the Internet for public inspection and to implement "terrorist name recognition software and other screening procedures that would help to ensure that UNRWA staff, volunteers, and beneficiaries are neither terrorists themselves, nor affiliated with known terrorist organizations."

Rothman said he plans to re-introduce his UNRWA resolution in the coming weeks because, "as timely as this bill was before, it is even more timely now. It is urgent that Congress can be assured that U.S. taxpayer money is not being spent to support Hamas and its murderous activities."

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill say they are also concerned that terrorist propaganda is being taught in UNRWA schools. A notebook captured by Israeli officials at the UNRWA school in the Kalandia refugee camp several years ago glorified homicide bombers and other terrorists. Called "The Star Team," it profiled so-called "martyrs," Palestinians who had died either in homicide bombings or during armed struggle with Israel. On the book's back cover was printed the UNRWA emblem, as well as a photo of a masked gunman taking aim while on one knee.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479940,00.html

About time too

 

[daveza]

And since Israel has the shadow of a doubt, the case won't stand in the ICC.

Why does Israel get the benefit of the doubt ?

 

[CTSA]

And yet they have retracted ALL claims that could possibly be used to givine them a case. They no longer claim there were militants in the area. QED.

To my knowledge, they have never retracted their claims. But just wanna check since you're stating it so much. Do you have any proof that it might be otherwise?

If you've studied law then you'll be aware of the concept of "burden of proof". Israel attacked, the burden is on them to prove it was justified. Failing that, the only reasonable assumption is to assume that they were wrong. This is a central tenet not only of every advanced legal system in the world, but also of plain simple logic.

You can't just tell a judge, "Sorry, you can't prove I wasn't insane at the time," and expect to be aquitted.

Wrong.

Yes, I have studied law. Got distinction in criminal law. And it's obvious you haven't. In every advanced legal system, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff (complainant), not on the defendant (accused). So in this case it would be Hamas' or the UNWRA's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there weren't Hamas militants stationed at the school. Since there is a shadow of a doubt for now, there is no case against Israel as we speak.

If someone claims insanity in trial, different standards take place.

 

[CTSA]

Why does Israel get the benefit of the doubt ?

Because it can't be proven there weren't any Hamas militants and mortar rockets in the vicinity of the school.