Whats the point of the graphs and the sarcastic remark at the end of your post?
It's not sarcastic. Don't be so defensive.
TheIronRuler: Update: A bus blew up in Tel-Aviv, ten injured moderately to lightly.
Is that it? Moderately to lightly? When blowing up a bus? Was it empty or something?
Hamas really suck at this stuff.
. You're playing with fire here, watch your words. It seems like you were hoping for more casualties. This is the first reports, so it may change in the future. Light - Can walk. Moderate - Can Breath, can't walk. Severe- Can't breath. And another status in which the wounded is on the brink of death. 3-4 are moderately-Severely wounded. It's injuries like losing a limb, blindness, etc. that constitute this status.
BTW in 2009 was operation Cast Lead, if you forgot. About 1400 Palestinian casualties.
Seems like a full-on invasion would be a bit OTT. It didn't work in Ireland, so I don't think it'll work in Gaza. Just do what the British did and negotiate on the down-low so neither leader has to worry about saving face.
. Do you know that this is exactly how Hamas and Israel negotiated before this whole debacle? They did all ceasefire agreements through Egyptian intelligence officers which brokered a deal between the IDF and Hamas's military. Problem was that Hamas sometimes couldn't control other forces in the strip or it preferred not to stop them.
Gorfias: More (albeit ignorant... I'm asking) do kids really play football so close to open hostilities?
The Gaza strip is not very wide, less than 5,000m (5Km) in many places (and densely populated) so there would not be many places more than 1,200m from a border (or coastline).
Prahaps this is one of the reasons Israel banned the importation of soccer balls into Gaza...[/quote]
Scary that anyone could become so desensitized because they're in such a small area that violence goes on all around them.
Do you agree with Kissinger, that no matter what, Israel will be gone in 10 years?
If so, is the UN complicit in this? Are they trying to make it illegal for Israel to defend itself?
EDIT: BTW: I think they are dead meat. If they were a stock, I'd short Israel. I think the nation they built will be invaded and destroyed and most of their population will be murdered. Those left alive will be tyrannized or escape to other countries. Sad, but I think it inevitable.
Gorfias: More (albeit ignorant... I'm asking) do kids really play football so close to open hostilities?
The Gaza strip is not very wide, less than 5,000m (5Km) in many places (and densely populated) so there would not be many places more than 1,200m from a border (or coastline).
Prahaps this is one of the reasons Israel banned the importation of soccer balls into Gaza...
Scary that anyone could become so desensitized because they're in such a small area that violence goes on all around them.
Do you agree with Kissinger, that no matter what, Israel will be gone in 10 years?
If so, is the UN complicit in this? Are they trying to make it illegal for Israel to defend itself?[/quote] . Probably yes. The Arab&Muslim voting block can fuck with Israel's status and with bringing over the African nations (not that much work, a few contracts and bribes, look at Japan&whaling) they would have made Israel the new S. Africa if it weren't for the USA.
Whats the point of the graphs and the sarcastic remark at the end of your post?
It's not sarcastic. Don't be so defensive.
Well what happened was a little fiasco called 'Cast Lead'(27th of Dec 08 - 18th of Jan 09) 08 was a really bad year in terms of attacks from both sides, Hamas fired hundreds of rockets each month, Israel retaliated, during the summer of 08 there was a "truce" which lasted for about 3 months, after that the rocket fire amped up again and Israel initiated the military operation.
So although to you the graph might show an inconsistency, there is a clear coloration between rocket attacks against Israel, and Israeli attacks against Gaza, that said it's still not a an mutually inclusive causation.
The problem with the Israeli-Hamas relations that any agreement which will not involve the disarmament of Hamas, or at least of it's rockets would not allow any lasting truce to endure. Every truce has been used by both sides to prepare for the next engagement, in 08 Hamas used those 3 months to smuggle additional rockets and train it's personnel, and Israel spent that time at blowing up smuggling tunnels and collecting information.
At this point it's not enough for Hamas to stop firing at Israel to produce any thing meaningful, Israel would still feel forced to act against high priority threats such as the smuggling operations into Gaza since they can't afford letting Hamas turn into a 2nd Hezbollah, on the other hand Hamas has little will or ability to stop the rocket fire while Israel is still conducting operations against targets with in Gaza.
On the good side this latest conflict could change the situation since Hamas is not able the inflict the same damage it could in times prior to the deployment of Iron Dome. This would force Hamas to reconsider their current strategy which might lead to some sort of agreement to give up their steep trajectory munitions and agree to direct talks with Israel, on the other hand they might just go back to their old playbook as we've seen today with the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv(Although it's not clear at this point if this was a suicide bombing, or just an IED).
On a side note the latest bombing shows just how much ground the PLO and Abbas have lost in the West Bank to Hamas since that bomber just like every other did not came out of Gaza.
EDIT: BTW: I think they are dead meat. If they were a stock, I'd short Israel. I think the nation they built will be invaded and destroyed and most of their population will be murdered. Those left alive will be tyrannized or escape to other countries. Sad, but I think it inevitable.
. I love it when you sweet talk me. Your doom-saying is disturbing to say the least, speaking as an Israeli citizen.
You're playing with fire here, watch your words. It seems like you were hoping for more casualties.
I'm sorry you feel yourself in such a position as to read that ambiguity into my words.
This is the first reports, so it may change in the future. Light - Can walk. Moderate - Can Breath, can't walk. Hard - Can't breath. And another status in which the wounded is on the brink of death. 3-4 are moderately-hard wounded. It's injuries like losing a limb, blindness, etc. that constitute this status.
BTW in 2009 was operation Cast Lead, if you forgot. About 1400 Palestinian casualties.
Ah yeah. Had forgot about that. Wikipedia time.
1400+ vs 9? That's ridiculous. 28 Israeli homes vs hundreds of Palestinian. Okay, this is a good case in point:
Can you really not see why that would make the rest of the world question you? There's no propaganda there, just hard numbers. 1400 Palestinian deaths vs 9 Israeli. It's absurd, surely!
Whats the point of the graphs and the sarcastic remark at the end of your post?
It's not sarcastic. Don't be so defensive.
Well what happened was a little fiasco called 'Cast Lead'. 27th of Dec 08 - 18th of Jan 09, 08 was a really bad year in terms of attacks from both sides, Hamas fired hundreds of rockets each month, Israel retaliated, during the summer of 08 there was a "truce" which was maintained for about 3 months, after that the rocket fire amp up again and Israel initiated the military operation.
So although the graph might show an inconsistency there is a clear coloration between rocket attacks against Israel, and Israeli attacks against Palestine, that said it's still not a an mutually inclusive causation.
The problem with the Israeli-Hamas relations that any agreement which will not involve the disarmament of Hamas, or at least of it's rockets would not ensure any lasting truce to endure. Every truce has been used by both sides to prepare for the next engagement, in 08 Hamas used those 3 months to smuggle additional rockets and train it's personnel, and Israel spent that time in blowing up smuggling tunnels and collecting information.
At this point it's not enough for Hamas to stop firing at Israel to produce any thing meaningful, Israel would still feel forced to act against high priority threats and the smuggling operations into Gaza since they can't afford letting Hamas turn into a 2nd Hezbollah, on the other hand Hamas has little will or ability to stop rocket fires while Israel is still conducting operations against targets with in Gaza.
On the good side this latest conflict could change the situation since Hamas is not able the inflict the same damage it could in times prior to the deployment of Iron Dome. This would force Hamas to reconsider their current strategy which might lead to some sort of agreement to give up their steep trajectory munitions and agree to direct talks with Israel, on the other hand they might just go back to their old playbook as we've seen today with the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv(Although it's not clear at this point if this was a suicide bombing, or just an IED).
On a side note the latest bombing shows just how much ground the PLO and Abbas have lost in the West Bank to Hamas since that bomber just like every other did not came out of Gaza.
. It doesn't look like a suicide bomber since there's no report of a casualty (the bomber). It looks like it was thrown at the bus, but they're still trying to figure out what the hell happened. Hopefully people will come out of it alive and well.
You're playing with fire here, watch your words. It seems like you were hoping for more casualties.
I'm sorry you feel yourself in such a position as to read that ambiguity into my words.
This is the first reports, so it may change in the future. Light - Can walk. Moderate - Can Breath, can't walk. Hard - Can't breath. And another status in which the wounded is on the brink of death. 3-4 are moderately-hard wounded. It's injuries like losing a limb, blindness, etc. that constitute this status.
BTW in 2009 was operation Cast Lead, if you forgot. About 1400 Palestinian casualties.
Ah yeah. Had forgot about that. Wikipedia time.
1400+ vs 9? That's ridiculous. 28 Israeli homes vs hundreds of Palestinian. Okay, this is a good case in point:
Can you really not see why that would make the rest of the world question you? There's no propaganda there, just hard numbers. 1400 Palestinian deaths vs 9 Israeli. It's absurd!
. It's absurd compared to what? How are you looking at this? Is there some imaginary timer in your head that says over a certain ratio of casualties you can't support Israel?
It's absurd compared to what? How are you looking at this? Is there some imaginary timer in your head that says over a certain ratio of casualties you can't support Israel?
Crossed out the pointless rhetoric.
The actual question is a good one, though.
I suppose in comparison to other modern conflicts in regions where massacre for massacre's sake is unfashionable.
I was going to say just "other modern conflicts", but I forgot about Congo/Rwanda, etc... where this stuff happens all the time, but with machetes and small arms.
There should also be a comparison between other conflicts involving "Western" states. It'd be interesting to see if the collateral civilian casualty rate in Iraq/Afghanistan (Afghanistan especially) is comparable to this, what with the USA and Israel using similar levels of technology against similar opponents.
It's absurd compared to what? How are you looking at this? Is there some imaginary timer in your head that says over a certain ratio of casualties you can't support Israel?
Crossed out the pointless rhetoric.
The actual question is a good one, though.
I suppose in comparison to other modern conflicts in regions where massacre for massacre's sake is unfashionable.
I was going to say just "other modern conflicts", but I forgot about Congo/Rwanda, etc... where this stuff happens all the time, but with machetes.
There should also be a comparison between other conflicts involving "Western" states. It'd be interesting to see if the collateral civilian casualty rate in Iraq/Afghanistan (Afghanistan especially) is comparable to this, what with the USA and Israel using similar levels of technology against similar opponents.
. Pointless rhetoric was just repeating the question, really... You can compare it to other conflicts indeed. However I do need to ask about what data you would compare - the ratio of casualties between the two nations or the ratio of civilian-to-combatant killed?
BTW in 2009 was operation Cast Lead, if you forgot. About 1400 Palestinian casualties.
Ah yeah. Had forgot about that. Wikipedia time.
1400+ vs 9? That's ridiculous. 28 Israeli homes vs hundreds of Palestinian. Okay, this is a good case in point:
Can you really not see why that would make the rest of the world question you? There's no propaganda there, just hard numbers. 1400 Palestinian deaths vs 9 Israeli. It's absurd![/quote]
Again it don't understand the fascination with K/D ratio,this isn't Call of Duty. There is not doubt that Israel has a much grater ability to inflict casualties than Hamas, but on the other hand it can't sustain the incoming rocket fire which since 2001 literally cripples about 18% of it's population and has very high costs in in damages to public and private property.
Saying that Israel killed more people than Hamas so Israel is wrong is moronic, excluding the Holocaust(which i never count with any meaningful relation to WW2) Germany lost more civilians(x30) and soldiers(x6) than all the Allies(not counting Russia, since technically they were not in the "Allies") combined, does that makes them the good guys? The Americans lost more soldiers in Nam than the Vietcong did that made them the "good guys"?
There aren't many conflicts that can summarized to who's in the right, who's in the wrong, and who's the baddie of the day. The fascination with WW2 in fact holds much of it's merit to the fact that it's pretty much one of the few if not the only conflict in History i which there was a clear "baddie", even if only since both ethics and history evolved to the point where it was possible to clearly paint the the 3rd Reich in such way.
It's absurd compared to what? How are you looking at this? Is there some imaginary timer in your head that says over a certain ratio of casualties you can't support Israel?
Crossed out the pointless rhetoric.
The actual question is a good one, though.
I suppose in comparison to other modern conflicts in regions where massacre for massacre's sake is unfashionable.
I was going to say just "other modern conflicts", but I forgot about Congo/Rwanda, etc... where this stuff happens all the time, but with machetes and small arms.
There should also be a comparison between other conflicts involving "Western" states. It'd be interesting to see if the collateral civilian casualty rate in Iraq/Afghanistan (Afghanistan especially) is comparable to this, what with the USA and Israel using similar levels of technology against similar opponents.
It's higher in both conflicts, and they do not have many of the same problems in the Taliban although employing unconventional tactics was a very organized militia, and much of the fighting was no where near major population areas, not to mention urban warfare. Afghanistan was mostly fought in open unpopulated terrain, Iraq initially was also quite similar where the US military engaged Iraqi military and organized militias.
There are no clear numbers for any of those operations, nor there are for the US drone strikes in Pakistan and other countries, but from available information and testimonies of people involved in those conflicts the collateral damage caused by Israeli operation is lower to NATO/US operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
You can compare it to other conflicts indeed. However I do need to ask about what data you would compare - the ratio of casualties between the two nations or the ratio of civilian-to-combatant killed?
Well if we establish a hypothesis that Israeli troops are not taking sufficient precautions in avoiding civilian casualities, which is the main point of contention here, then the appropriate variable to measure would be civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios.
Afghanistan is very similar. A technologically superior combatant with a fragile infrastructure and media opposition (USA), and a technologically inferior combatant with a robust infrastructure and a tendency to attack from civilian-occupied areas(Taliban). There is also a parallel between the multiple warlords in Afghanistan and the multiple power bases in Gaza.
We could then possibly conclude that if Israel's ratio is higher than the USA's in Afghanistan, it is not taking sufficient precautions. No?
We wouldn't be able to pass comment as to why without some ethnography, though.
You can compare it to other conflicts indeed. However I do need to ask about what data you would compare - the ratio of casualties between the two nations or the ratio of civilian-to-combatant killed?
Well if we establish a hypothesis that Israeli troops are not taking sufficient precautions in avoiding civilian casualities, which is the main point of contention here, then the appropriate variable to measure would be civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios.
We could then possibly conclude that if Israel's ratio is higher than the USA's in Afghanistan, it is not taking sufficient precautions. No?
We wouldn't be able to pass comment as to why without some ethnography, though.
The IDF tallied 709 Hamas and affiliated militant deaths. The Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad stated that up to 750 Palestinian militants and policemen were killed.[248][350] In addition, 295-720 (or 740-PMoH[351]) civilians were killed in the conflict. Ten Israeli soldiers were killed, along with three civilians.[352] Difficulties in ascertaining an accurate Palestinian casualty count have been attributed to a number of factors. It was reported that Hamas fighters had been ordered not to wear military uniforms during the fighting.[132][280] Israeli-Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh wrote in The Jerusalem Post that this practice led to the over-counting of civilian casualties and under-counting Hamas military casualties, as Palestinian casualties arrived at hospitals without weapons or any other signs revealing they were fighters.[353] Further difficulties were met with due to differing definitions of who should be counted as a combatant, and the lack of access to the conflict zone by independent media or human rights workers due to Israel's strict blockade of the borders before, during, and after the conflict.[354]
So this can be either around 1:1 for ration of civilian to combatant killed or less, with around 1:3 at some of the lower estimates.
You can compare it to other conflicts indeed. However I do need to ask about what data you would compare - the ratio of casualties between the two nations or the ratio of civilian-to-combatant killed?
Well if we establish a hypothesis that Israeli troops are not taking sufficient precautions in avoiding civilian casualities, which is the main point of contention here, then the appropriate variable to measure would be civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios.
Afghanistan is very similar. A technologically superior combatant with a fragile infrastructure and media opposition (USA), and a technologically inferior combatant with a robust infrastructure and a tendency to attack from civilian-occupied areas(Taliban). There is also a parallel between the multiple warlords in Afghanistan and the multiple power bases in Gaza.
We could then possibly conclude that if Israel's ratio is higher than the USA's in Afghanistan, it is not taking sufficient precautions. No?
We wouldn't be able to pass comment as to why without some ethnography, though.
See my edit, and or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo yes he's "biased" but does not mean what he's saying is not true, just that he has a reason to speak out.
Israel as far as i know the only country that uses such measures, not to mention uses mostly loitering munitions with abort after launch capabilities to ensure lower civilian casualties. Gaza is the one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and neither the Taliban or the insurgents in Iraq don't use the same tactics, and the battlefield is quite different.
The argument that Palestinian actions are only reactionary is quite wrong, unless you count the existence of Israel or Jewish population in Palestine as "oppression".
I count the systematic demolition of the homes of innocent people living in land Israel took in a war of aggression as oppression, yes.
Also the covert murder squads that the Mossad began as and still often operate as.
Also blockading aid from entering Palestine.
Also repeatedly blocking the UN from being allowed to declare them a state, essentially keeping them in an even more powerless limbo status.
Also the partitioning of Palestine by the UN against the will of the Palestinian people living there. Can you imagine if the UN came over to your house and said get out we are giving it to someone else because something bad(that you had nothing to do with) happened to them? Because that's exactly what happened to Palestine. And when they didn't want to give up their homes the Mossad started gunning down dissenters with Uzis.
Arab aggression against Israelis, and against Jews in the area predates any occupation, the establishment of the state of Israel, and even the Zionist immigration. Periodic pogroms against Jews by the local Arab populous were a common practice since the crusades.
That was then and this is now. Or do I get to kill innocent people because their ancestors were assholes to the Irish?
But the Irish never did that in the US did they. Hmm I wonder why that is? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we accepted them into the culture instead of aggressively and violently forming a pro-everyone-who-isn't-Irish government, and then bulldozing all the Irish homes.
There is no issue with negotiating with your enemy, but the basic premise for any negotiation is first and foremost - mutual acceptance.
No it isn't. The premise for negotiation is that both sides of something to be gained(or to not be lost) by negotiating.
Verbatim: Hamas both in its manifesto, and daily outcries does not call for the "liberation" of the Palestinian people, but the destruction of the state of Israel, and Jews everywhere. It does not accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel in any borders and until that situation changes there little to talk about.
Firstly I already said Hamas is wrong so I'm not sure exactly wtf you are trying to argue.
Secondly, Israel is by self-admission a fundamentally racist state.
Thirdly, it was founded by land taken from the Palestinians by forcible partitioning enforced by the US and the USSR in the aftermath of WW2, and unsuccessfully protested by the UK, the Palestinians and other Arabic populations. And when the Palestinians didn't want to get out the Israelis formed elite murder squads called the Mossad to do away with dissenters and protestors.
Fourthly, the only source I can find calling for the death of all Jews is by Ahmad Bahr who is a single politician, not their leader, just a deputy speaker for one of their parliamentary territories. Using him as a source for the entire government is silly. You might as well say that the entire US government wants to transvaginal ultrasound all women because a couple of politicians verbally supported the bill.
Fifthly, honestly what the hell do you expect, it was Palestinian land that they were forcibly evicted from by the UN and Israelis. Why wouldn't they want the rest of their homeland back?
Sixthly, the Jewish population did not need a state of their own. They did not need to bulldoze and steal Palestinian homes. They did not need to carry and continue to constantly carry out assassinations. All they needed was a land that allowed them to practice their religion in peace without trying to murder all of them. Is it too crazy for me to suggest that instead of showing up and bunch of guns and a piece of paper telling the Palestinians to GTFO, they should have tried I don't know immigrating to the US where we have religious freedom laws and very rarely commit genocide?
There is a very simple premise to the whole situation, don't fire rockets don't get JDAM's back
Again it was originally their land unless you're really going to cite the Roman Diaspora of the Jews. Which again is ridiculous, you have to deal with the now not the then(unless of course you want to agree that the American Indian's have the right to start killing other ethnic groups in the US.) And the now when Israel took the land, was that it belonged to the Palestinians who had been inhabiting it for thousands of years.
If I steal your wallet, you come after me, and I start punching you in the face until you can't fight back anymore. And then I proceed to parade around afterwards for months with your wallet and refuse to give it back. Every time you call the police they side with me, and every time you try to get it back I beat the shit out of you. Who is in the right? Because that's what don't fire rockets at us or we will kick the everloving shit out of you is.
In the west bank there is security and economical cooperation, and although their life still are quite bad(sadly the west bank has still one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world) they are not being bombed by Israeli fighter jets and artillery.
Yes, and prostitutes with abusive pimps are better off financially than those that aren't. And the slaves on American plantations were more economically well off than they were after they were freed, and they were way less prone to being lynched. Boy, we should all be so lucky to be conquered by Israel and threatened daily with military force if we are unhappy about being invaded.
. I'm calling this the second most misinformed post on this thread. It's riddled with imaginary information I'm very curious to see where it came from.
I must say this is very convincing. I'll get researching this myself some more probably some time this weekend (I've got a couple of essays/exams).
This raises a new question though:
The civilian-to-combatant ratio is really low, and getting lower, but the casualty counts in Palestine keep going up. I'm not sure what the population growth rate is there, but if the casualty count is growing faster than the population, while the c-to-c ratio is falling or constant, does that point to increasing militarization of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip?
I must say this is very convincing. I'll get researching this myself some more probably some time this weekend (I've got a couple of essays/exams).
This raises a new question though:
The civilian-to-combatant ratio is really low, and getting lower, but the casualty counts in Palestine keep going up. I'm not sure what the population growth rate is there, but if the casualty count is growing faster than the population, while the c-to-c ratio is falling or constant, does that point to increasing militarization of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip?
. Now can you see why I'm outraged when people call my army 'baby killers' and the actions the IDF does in Gaza crimes against humanity?
I don't see a systematic increase in the deaths within the strip. It spikes in 2009, but that's an abnormality (Cast Lead). It depends on the operations the IDF does.
I must say this is very convincing. I'll get researching this myself some more probably some time this weekend (I've got a couple of essays/exams).
This raises a new question though:
The civilian-to-combatant ratio is really low, and getting lower, but the casualty counts in Palestine keep going up. I'm not sure what the population growth rate is there, but if the casualty count is growing faster than the population, while the c-to-c ratio is falling or constant, does that point to increasing militarization of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip?
39.45 births/1,000 population (2006 est.) Mortality rate
3.8 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)(about 4 times lower than say Bulgaria or Russia)
Gaza is actually in a "demographic trap", and no it's not as bad as it sounds it means that the birth rate grows while the death rate declines, the Gaza strip has the 7th largest growth rate in the world and has a lower death rate than Israel, heck it has a lower death rate than Sweden. The accuracy of the data might be some what questionable(CIA WFB, original data for the ICRC), but it accounts for both natural and unnatural causes.
Edit: CIA WFB is more updated than Wikipedia
Gaza Strip: 3.22 deaths/1,000 population (July 2012 est.) [2]
Edit 2: Also to be completely fair the low mortality rate is also due to the "demographic trap". This is common to developing nations that undergo drastic improvements in life expectancies, or nations that take on a large amount of immigration that changes the age distribution with in the population(to the better). That said Gaza even with all of it's wars and chaos still has(as does the west bank) the lowest death rate in the Arab world, and one of the highest growth rates globally.
So although you might argue that Hamas is getting more members(although it had to recruit FATAH police officers after 09 since it lost popular support, and after nearly 300 of them died no one really wanted to join Hamas ;)) due to Israeli 'aggression' you're not going to work it out on any level by looking at demographics(which i think is quite cynical to begin with).
They're not making "mistakes" and accidentally hitting civilians. Civilians are the target. In this environment, it is hard for me to believe people think Israel is the bad guy.
KingsGambit: This is because of an embargo on Gaza which is completely legal, recognised by the UN and supported and enforced by Egypt. A blockade prevents items getting in and there are no Israelis or Egyptians inside Gaza to enforce this.
Citation required. Please link me to the UN statement of support.
See this Palmer report from the UN web site. Page 27.
TechNoFear: In 2010 UNCHA "restrictions imposed on the civilian population by the continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip amount to collective punishment, a violation of international humanitarian law."
There are multiple legal opinions stating that the blockade is in violation of the Geneva Convention (which prohibits collective punishments of civilian populations for military actions).
There are many that say it is legal. Here is the San Remo Memorandum for you yourself to consider to describe international law of armed conflicts at sea. Note Section II, points 93 on. I also like how you ignore the fact that Egypt also enforces this blockade. You condemn Israel, but not Egypt. Why? Why aren't Egypt committing the war crimes you are yelling about?
TechNoFear: The result of the blockade has been the destruction of the Gazan economy to the point where over 50% of Gazans do not have enough food (are 'food insecure').
Yes, it's a humanitarian crisis. And I think Bloomberg know a bit more about economics than either of us. Anyway, Gaza made war on Israel and Israel and Egypt are enforcing a blockade against them. Of course people are going to suffer. It's not a humanitarian crisis, but yes, economy will be seriously hurt. Gazans need only look to the West Bank to see dropping unemployment levels, economic growth, freedom of movement, no blockades, no war, no Hamas executions.
They're not making "mistakes" and accidentally hitting civilians. Civilians are the target. In this environment, it is hard for me to believe people think Israel is the bad guy.
. Me too, but people like that exist. Example-
AnarchistFish: I don't understand how you could support a terrorist government like that of Israel. Even if Hamas are equally evil, you can't take over a region and then systematically oppress and kill the indigenous population. If any other nation did it they'd be universally condemned.
What even gives Israel the right to defend themselves? Of course it's probably decades too late to reverse the situation that's been created but if you go years back, it's little more than a group of people collectively invading a piece of land and claiming it for unjustified historical reasons.
As Noam Chomsky said, you cant call it self-defence when you are an occupying force. Paraphrased, obviously.
TechNoFear: -snip- I suppose these children's deaths will be dismissed as another case of the 'terrorists using human shields', even though it was the families' home.
Saying that Israel killed more people than Hamas so Israel is wrong is moronic, excluding the Holocaust(which i never count with any meaningful relation to WW2) Germany lost more civilians(x30) and soldiers(x6) than all the Allies(not counting Russia, since technically they were not in the "Allies") combined, does that makes them the good guys?
Why on earth wouldn't you count russia? As most of the german losses were on the east front that just makes the numbers misleading.
They're not making "mistakes" and accidentally hitting civilians. Civilians are the target. In this environment, it is hard for me to believe people think Israel is the bad guy.
. Me too, but people like that exist. Example-
AnarchistFish: I don't understand how you could support a terrorist government like that of Israel. Even if Hamas are equally evil, you can't take over a region and then systematically oppress and kill the indigenous population. If any other nation did it they'd be universally condemned.
What even gives Israel the right to defend themselves? Of course it's probably decades too late to reverse the situation that's been created but if you go years back, it's little more than a group of people collectively invading a piece of land and claiming it for unjustified historical reasons.
As Noam Chomsky said, you cant call it self-defence when you are an occupying force. Paraphrased, obviously.
TechNoFear: -snip- I suppose these children's deaths will be dismissed as another case of the 'terrorists using human shields', even though it was the families' home.
When did I ever say Hamas were the good guys? I think they're disgusting. I said just as much in my original post that you just quoted. And how do Hamas's actions defend those of the Israeli government's?
I'd respond to the other post but we're never gonna come to agreement. The land-buying thing is interesting but how does owning private land equate to running land as an independent country?
They're not making "mistakes" and accidentally hitting civilians. Civilians are the target. In this environment, it is hard for me to believe people think Israel is the bad guy.
. Me too, but people like that exist. Example-
AnarchistFish: I don't understand how you could support a terrorist government like that of Israel. Even if Hamas are equally evil, you can't take over a region and then systematically oppress and kill the indigenous population. If any other nation did it they'd be universally condemned.
What even gives Israel the right to defend themselves? Of course it's probably decades too late to reverse the situation that's been created but if you go years back, it's little more than a group of people collectively invading a piece of land and claiming it for unjustified historical reasons.
As Noam Chomsky said, you cant call it self-defence when you are an occupying force. Paraphrased, obviously.
TechNoFear: -snip- I suppose these children's deaths will be dismissed as another case of the 'terrorists using human shields', even though it was the families' home.
When did I ever say Hamas were the good guys? I think they're disgusting. I said just as much in my original post that you just quoted. And how do Hamas's actions defend those of the Israeli government's?
I'd respond to the other post but we're never gonna come to agreement. The land-buying thing is interesting but how does owning private land equate to running land as an independent country?
. ...how does owning private land equate to running land as an independent country?.... It lead to Jewish presence in the mandate of Palestine. The large Jewish presence and the resentment (& violence) between the Jews and the Arabs living in mandatory Palestine among other factors (WW2 Jewish refugees, the Holocaust, Anglo-American committe for the situation of Jewish refugees in Europe, etc.) lead to Britain dumping the process of decolonizing Palestine to the UN. The UN, looking at the Jewish population centers and settlements and the Arab population centers and settlements divided the land in a partition plan (in '47). That line would become the new borders of the two states in the mandate of Palestine (and they took into consideration the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees that would head to the newly formed Jewish nation).
The suggestion failed because the Arabs couldn't agree to dividing the land and allowing a Jewish state to exist. That land bought by the Jews and settled there helped draw the borders for the UN partition plan and were one of the reasons for the establishment of Israel.
Though I'm pretty sure Benjamin won't cancel the truce, I just wanted to point it out.
It was pretty obvious but I wasn't certain that everyone else know about this.
Edit - there was a siren at Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council, sderot and in Negev field(I don't know the correct translation) 20 miniutes after the truce came in effect.
Actually the Israeli demands are a total cease of hostilities, a buffer zone, and an Egyptian(with US Guarantee) crack down on the smuggling operations, which are issues that Hamas would most likely have major issues with. Israel would not likely negotiate any major "long term" agreements before a preset time period of no rocket fire would be achieved.
Israel needs the truce to happen to help the Egyptians more than to achieve any local strategic benefits, since even a MB/Morsi run Egypt is a much better political counterweight to Iranian influence both over Hamas and the entire region.
Now it all depends on Hamas' ability to control the other militant elements with in Gaza since any rocket fire from now on(9PM GMT+2) would mean a violation of the ceasefire agreement and most likely would entail a very strong response from Israel.
If Israel could get the US to actually force the Egyptians to crack down on the smuggling tunnels since both Israel and Egypt knows exactly where they are, and since Hamas knows that with Iron Dome his ability to inflict damage is getting smaller and smaller every day it might actually by it self turn the situation around.
The problem is that this situation is quite bad for the Palestinian "cause" since with US, Egypt and Israel being forced into a mutual negotiation/normalization. Abbas and the PLO will come out even less relevant than before, which means that neither the UN bid or any other negotiations over the future of the Palestinian state would occur or produce any thing in the foreseeable future.
For Israel currently all of the outcomes are quite beneficial, now it depends on what road map agreement can actually be agreed on and maintained(ensuring that Israel does not recieves any more gifts from Gaza) since at this point even a rock flying over the border would most likely mean a ground invasion.
Verbatim: Israel should get US to force Egypt to do something for them.
Youknow, there's a reason Obama joked to the President of France about the behavior of Israeli leaders. I think he receives at least three calls a week asking for the US to do shit.
Whatever happens, I want America to have no part in it. America is not going to enforce, gurantee, support, or do ANYTHING here if we have any sense.
I'm OK with us being there to make sure it's on the up and up at the negotiation table, but I am so not OK with us lifting a finger to 'guarantee' or 'enforce' anything in that region for another nation, even staunch allies. It's not our god damn jobs and unless we start getting paid because we need the money, screw it.
But in reality I am sure we will back up Israel with whatever it wants.
They're not making "mistakes" and accidentally hitting civilians. Civilians are the target. In this environment, it is hard for me to believe people think Israel is the bad guy.
. Me too, but people like that exist. Example-
AnarchistFish: I don't understand how you could support a terrorist government like that of Israel. Even if Hamas are equally evil, you can't take over a region and then systematically oppress and kill the indigenous population. If any other nation did it they'd be universally condemned.
What even gives Israel the right to defend themselves? Of course it's probably decades too late to reverse the situation that's been created but if you go years back, it's little more than a group of people collectively invading a piece of land and claiming it for unjustified historical reasons.
As Noam Chomsky said, you cant call it self-defence when you are an occupying force. Paraphrased, obviously.
TechNoFear: -snip- I suppose these children's deaths will be dismissed as another case of the 'terrorists using human shields', even though it was the families' home.
Are we using dead/injured as a bar level of awfullness which invalidates any opposing argument then? Only Israel has causes more deaths/injuries then Palestine overall and had single attacks which have injured and killed more than any attack performed by Palestine. The only metric relating to attacks where Palestine comes off worse is number of missiles launched, in which case Palestine have launched several thousand; far more than Israel.
Of course if you apply the fact that almost all of these were Qassam missiles, jury rigged pieces of explosive and scaffolding which illiterate uneducated Palestinians have been taught to put together with only a range of a few miles, and this becomes less impressive. Less relevant still when despite the several thousand missiles launched over several years, only 23 people have been confirmed killed, less than have been killed in some single Israeli bombing runs.
The people offering a more nuanced view feel exactly the same as you do, but at least for my part I'm offering to exchange views. When I left a rather lengthy reply leaving a statement backed by all kinds of academics and experts, you first of all dismissed it as irrelevant without any need to actually address it simply because it didn't fit with your world view, then when I pointed out what you had done you explained that you didn't believe it so therefore it couldn't possibly have any merit, QED etc.
Israel has been described as racist and an apartheid state by UN investigators, academics, human rights activists, politicians from neutral states and all kinds of impartial observers. If you consider this point of view so crazy that you can't even bring yourself to address it, that's a problem with you rather than the argument.
Bentusi16: Whatever happens, I want America to have no part in it. America is not going to enforce, gurantee, support, or do ANYTHING here if we have any sense.
I'm OK with us being there to make sure it's on the up and up at the negotiation table, but I am so not OK with us lifting a finger to 'guarantee' or 'enforce' anything in that region for another nation, even staunch allies. It's not our god damn jobs and unless we start getting paid because we need the money, screw it.
But in reality I am sure we will back up Israel with whatever it wants.
Roughly $500 million in additional US funds for Iron Dome is what we've heard the US contribution to the current ceasefire agreement was regardless if things start back up again.
. You said - "Bomb the launch sites and be done with it. " Israel was bombing launch sites for the first 5 days and continued to do so. Since the negotiations were stuck while the Al-Qassam brass told the Hamas leadership they could carry on the fighting - and the IDF assassinated them. This is when they broke off and made more actions besides just bombing the launch sites. If you bomb the launch sites and be done with it it wouldn't take two weeks till Hamas fires rockets at Israel again and this whole thing happens again.
The only way to stop the bombs for a couple years is an invasion which would destroy the rapport with the Palestinians. And like I've already stated that's the same thing they always do and the same results will be achieved. Another problem in the next couple of years. If you want to read my full opinion I have plenty of posts where I have plainly stated it and why what I say is closer to truth than expecting the violence to suddenly end one day with people get board or some shit.
If Israel invades it's only going to recycle the same thing that happens every couple of years. If Israel didn't invade and instead let the Palestinians take Hamas out of power and just decided to instead destroy the rocket sites whenever they popped up it would benefit both Israel and Palestine. Israel wouldn't have to fund a ground campaign but could still keep the offensive abilities of palestine in check and Palestine would eventually see the struggle is going no where and not be enraged at an invasion.
. Your solution is to just keep bombing the fuck out of those launching sites again and again and again? Before the assassinations happened, around 40 people were already dead and hundreds wounded. How can Israel keep doing that every few months? Do you think that the world would see this in a better light than what Israel is doing right now and preparing to do in the near future? What about the people who live in terror in southern Israel every time these skirmishes continue, not to mention the palestinians living in Gaza.
1) What do you think is more expensive an costly to human life a ground invasion or bombing launch sites? I know this answer and i'm sure you do as well.
2)40 dead is less than half the number that it is since they expanded their bombing campaign. And less of those 40 where civilians which is the reason you should only be aiming at missile launchers.
3)The cease fire would have been agreed to much quicker if Israel just stopped bombing yesterday or the day before or even the day before that. Jews around the world will pay the prize if Israel invades, history has proven that, don't believe me look it up.(edit: especially those living in israel or are foreign israeli nationals.)
Bentusi16: Whatever happens, I want America to have no part in it. America is not going to enforce, gurantee, support, or do ANYTHING here if we have any sense.
I'm OK with us being there to make sure it's on the up and up at the negotiation table, but I am so not OK with us lifting a finger to 'guarantee' or 'enforce' anything in that region for another nation, even staunch allies. It's not our god damn jobs and unless we start getting paid because we need the money, screw it.
But in reality I am sure we will back up Israel with whatever it wants.
Roughly $500 million in additional US funds for Iron Dome is what we've heard the US contribution to the current ceasefire agreement was regardless if things start back up again.
Thats insane. Half a billion dollars for a cease-fire? They could have achieved the same with less.
.
You're playing with fire here, watch your words. It seems like you were hoping for more casualties. This is the first reports, so it may change in the future.
Light - Can walk.
Moderate - Can Breath, can't walk.
Severe- Can't breath.
And another status in which the wounded is on the brink of death. 3-4 are moderately-Severely wounded. It's injuries like losing a limb, blindness, etc. that constitute this status.
BTW in 2009 was operation Cast Lead, if you forgot. About 1400 Palestinian casualties.