PDA

View Full Version : Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192



Sapiens
12-27-08, 01:07 PM
Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians)


GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Israeli warplanes retaliating for rocket fire from the Gaza Strip pounded dozens of security compounds across the Hamas-ruled territory in unprecedented waves of airstrikes Saturday, killing nearly 200 people and wounding 270 others in the single bloodiest day of fighting in years.

Most of those killed were security men, but civilians were also among the dead. Hamas said all of its security installations were hit and responded with several medium-range Grad rockets at Israel, reaching deeper than in the past. One Israeli was killed and at least four people were wounded in the rocket attacks. With so many wounded, the Palestinian death toll was likely to rise.

The air offensive followed weeks of intense Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on southern Israel, and Israeli leaders had issued increasingly tough warnings in recent days that they would not tolerate continued attacks.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel would expand the operation if necessary. "There is a time for calm and there is a time for fighting, and now is the time for fighting," he told a news conference. He would not comment when asked if a ground offensive was planned.

But asked earlier if Hamas political leaders might be targeted next, military spokeswoman Maj. Avital Leibovich said, "Any Hamas target is a target."

The strikes caused widespread panic and confusion in Gaza, as black clouds of smoke rose above the territory, ruled by Hamas for the past 18 months. Some of the Israeli missiles struck in densely populated areas as children were leaving school, and women rushed into the streets frantically looking for their children. Most of those killed were security men, but civilians were among the dead.

Said Masri sat in the middle of a Gaza City street, close to a security compound, alternately slapping his face and covering his head with dust from the bombed-out building.

"My son is gone, my son is gone," wailed Masri, 57. The shopkeeper said he sent his 9-year-old son out to purchase cigarettes minutes before the airstrikes began and now could not find him. "May I burn like the cigarettes, may Israel burn," Masri moaned.

In Gaza City's main security compound, bodies of more than a dozen uniformed security officers lay on the ground. One survivor raised his index finger in a show of Muslim faith, uttering a prayer. The Gaza police chief was among those killed. One man, his face bloodied, sat dazed on the ground as a fire raged nearby.

Later, some of the dead, rolled in blankets, were laid out on the floor of Gaza's main hospital for identification. Hamas police spokesman Ehad Ghussein said about 140 Hamas security forces were killed.

Israeli military officials said more than 100 tons of bombs were dropped on Gaza by mid-afternoon. They spoke on condition of anonymity under military guidelines.

Defiant Hamas leaders threatened revenge, including suicide attacks. Hamas "will continue the resistance until the last drop of blood," vowed spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.

Israel told its civilians near Gaza to take cover as militants began retaliating with rockets, and in the West Bank, moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called for restraint. Egypt summoned the Israeli ambassador to express condemnation and opened its border with Gaza to allow ambulances to drive out some of the wounded.

Israeli leaders approved military action against Gaza earlier in the week.

Past limited ground incursions and air strikes have not halted rocket barrages from Gaza. But with 200 mortars and rockets raining down on Israel since the truce expired a week ago, and 3,000 since the beginning of the year, according to the military's count, pressure had been mounting in Israel for the military to crush the gunmen.

Gaza militants fired 30 rockets and mortars Saturday after the air offensive began. A missile hit the town of Netivot, killing an Israeli man and wounding four people, rescue services said.

Dozens of stunned residents gathered around the house that took the deadly rocket hit. Many wept openly. The crowd broke up after an alert siren went off and sent the onlookers running.

Streets were nearly empty in Sderot, the Israeli border town that has been pummeled hardest by rockets. A few cars carried panicked residents leaving town. Dozens of people congregated on a hilltop to watch the Israeli aerial attacks.

Israel declared a state of emergency in Israeli communities within a 12-mile (20-kilometer) range of Gaza, putting the area on a war footing. A siren went off in Kiryat Gat, about 12 miles (20 kilometers) from the border, but early reports that the town was hit by a rocket for the first time were incorrect.

Barak, the Israeli defense minister, said the coming period "won't be easy" for southern Israel.

Protests against the campaign erupted in the Abbas-ruled West Bank and across the Arab world.

Several hundred angry Jordanians protested outside a U.N. complex in the capital Amman. "Hamas, go ahead. You are the cannon, we are the bullets," they cried, some waving the signature green Hamas banners.

In Ein Hilweh, a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, dozens of youths hit the streets and set fire to tires. In Syria's al-Yarmouk camp, outside Damascus, dozens of Palestinian protesters vowed to continue fighting Israel.

The first round of air strikes on Gaza came just before noon.

Hospitals crowded with people, civilians rushing in wounded people in cars, vans and ambulances. "We are treating people on the floor, in the corridors. We have no more space. We don't know who is here or who to treat first," said one doctor who hung up the phone before identifying himself at Shifa Hospital, Gaza's main treatment center.

Dr. Moawiya Hassanain, a Gaza Health Ministry official, said at least 192 people were killed and 270 wounded. Frantic civilians drove wounded people to hospitals in their cars.

In the West Bank, Hamas' rival, Abbas, said in a statement that he "condemns this aggression" and called for restraint, according to an aide, Nabil Abu Rdeneh. Abbas, who has ruled only the West Bank since the Islamic Hamas seized power in Gaza in June 2007, was in contact with Arab leaders, and his West Bank Cabinet convened an emergency session.

Israel has targeted Gaza in the past, but the number of simultaneous attacks was unprecedented.

Israel left Gaza in 2005 after a 38-year occupation, but the withdrawal did not lead to better relations with Palestinians in the territory as Israeli officials had hoped.

Instead, the evacuation was followed by a sharp rise in militant attacks on Israeli border communities that on several occasions provoked harsh Israeli military reprisals.

The last, in late February and early March, spurred both sides to agree to a truce that was to have lasted six months but began unraveling in early November.

(This version CORRECTS that siren went off in Kiryat Gat, but there was no rocket.)



Say bye bye to Pakistan and its nukes. Israel is being baited into striking for a reason.

jtabeb
12-27-08, 05:15 PM
Israel strikes demolish Hamas compounds, kill 192 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians)



Say bye bye to Pakistan and its nukes. Israel is being baited into striking for a reason.

Dude, english please. A lot of us WANT to listen. Could you please be more explicit?

Thank you

ricket
12-27-08, 07:10 PM
Why is this country even allowed to exist anymore?

"Hey, they shot some rockets at us and damaged some of our buildings, so let's just destroy their entire country and murder their duly elected leaders, but as long as we get them it's ok if we take out innocent civilians in the process".

Yeah, that makes sense!

No wonder so many people and other leaders around the world are so Anti-Semitic. The Israelis just seem to always be hell-bent on causing death, destruction, and committing war crimes against their neighbors (Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, etc).

One of these days, a major country is going to get fed up (like Iran) and will try and retaliate for these crimes in a major way. At this point, based on what all Israel is done, in my opinion they *deserve* to have one or both eyes blackened, if not outright gouged out of their skulls. Same goes for the US. Im sick and tired of all the BS that we engage in around the world and it's time for it to stop.

Chris
12-27-08, 08:30 PM
Ricket, a year and a half old cease fire between Israel and Hamas ended two days ago, and during that time a large number of rockets were fired at Israeli cities. At the most superficial level of analysis, the attacks were aimed at halting this.

There are plenty of sites that discuss the geopolitical complexities of the situation in that region. You will probably find more thorough answers to your questions there than you will at iTulip. If you do want to find more meaningful answers then you might, and even if you can't, in time you may be able to ask more meaningful questions about a deeply complex political situation.

Sapiens
12-27-08, 08:37 PM
in time you may be able to ask more meaningful questions about a deeply complex political situation.

What is so deeply complex about it? It comes down to one simple thing, one either coexists, or excludes others. Usurers believe they have the absolute right to exclude others, deluded fools believe that we all can coexist in a peaceful manner.

What is so deeply complex about that?

Jay
12-27-08, 08:45 PM
What is so deeply complex about it? It comes down to one simple thing, one either coexists, or excludes others. Usurers believe they have the absolute right to exclude others, deluded fools believe that we all can coexist in a peaceful manner.

What is so deeply complex about that?
So what are you Sapiens, a usurer or a fool?

KGW
12-27-08, 09:05 PM
Ricket, a year and a half old cease fire between Israel and Hamas ended two days ago, and during that time a large number of rockets were fired at Israeli cities. At the most superficial level of analysis, the attacks were aimed at halting this.


That would be the most superficial analysis, as you say. Which is the one the Israelis and the U.S. administration are projecting as best they can. . .

Sapiens
12-27-08, 09:07 PM
So what are you Sapiens, a usurer or a fool?

Let me put it this way Jay, I would choose to save the life of my children over your life. Does that answer your question.

However, at an spiritual level, whatever does it matter my actions if we are all in the end one... :D

Scot
12-27-08, 09:09 PM
What is so deeply complex about it? It comes down to one simple thing, one either coexists, or excludes others. Usurers believe they have the absolute right to exclude others, deluded fools believe that we all can coexist in a peaceful manner.

What is so deeply complex about that?

The Pauli exclusion principle makes us all usurers, then.

jtabeb
12-27-08, 09:25 PM
So what are you Sapiens, a usurer or a fool?

Sapiens sets up a dichotomy that seems to present a challenge for peaceful co-existence, a paradox if you will.

What he doesn't state is that the paradox is EASILY resolved.

I met some Israeli pilots while they were here to buy a new airplane from the US. They were here to "try before you buy" type of thing.

We had a great time visiting and flying with them, but the most interesting thing was the conversations that we had in the "ready room" (read B A R) afterwards.

Great, Great bunch of guys. As you know I'm not the most PC guy, nor have I ever been accused of being indirect, to put it mildly.

So bottom line we had a lot of drinks, smoked a few cigs, and talked about all the things you shouldn't talk about when you have foreign visitors. (you know, religion, politics, and money).

I got into a wee bit of trouble for my direct conversations with these guys, but I had the conversation I wanted to have with them, not the bullshit PC version I was told to have with them.

What did I learn?

They were no different from me, they think a lot about the world, put up with a lot of political bullshit, want to protect their countrymen, AND understand that most of us on either side of this divide could live and love and peacefully co-exist with out much effort at all.

Maybe it was just that I have an interesting story,
(my Dad, Palestinian American, died fighting the Russian's in Afghanistan in the early 80's, and here I am a Pilot in the USAF, married to a girl who's grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, and we have three kids) but I think it was much more than that. We all realized that 10% of the people on either side are ******* it all up, it's as simple as that.

So the solution to the paradox is to let the "FOOLS" live together in peace and harmony and let the other ass-wipes duke it out and kill each other.

Now granted the spill over effects of the conflict cause more problems than can be allowed but the important point for all of you to take away is this.

For 80% of the people, a solution exists, it's a shame that it only takes 20% or so to cause a conflict to plunge into perpetual war. Think about that.

But DON'T tell me that MOST people have irreconcilable differences. That is just another popular untruth to allow people to maintain the fallacy of fearing the "other".

Don't buy crap, it smells bad and it will make you stink too if you buy it, so just don't.

P.S. There is no deviation from historical fact in my re-telling of the above, i.e. YES it's all true, in case you were going to ask.

Sapiens
12-27-08, 10:14 PM
Try to occupy the same time and space with another and let me know how that works out for you, that is, if you survive.

jtabeb
12-27-08, 10:23 PM
Try to occupy the same time and space with another and let me know how that works out for you, that is, if you survive.


Been doing that for going on 12 years now, she ain't killed me yet, nor I her, and considering our respective backgrounds, our children are remarkably well adjusted.;)

Sapiens
12-27-08, 10:44 PM
The Pauli exclusion principle makes us all usurers, then.

Thanks Scot.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
This additional force is therefore responsible for the everyday observation in the macroscopic world that two solid objects cannot be in the same place in the same time.

Rajiv
12-28-08, 01:23 AM
They were no different from me, they think a lot about the world, put up with a lot of political bullshit, want to protect their countrymen, AND understand that most of us on either side of this divide could live and love and peacefully co-exist with out much effort at all.

.
.
.
.
We all realized that 10% of the people on either side are ******* it all up, it's as simple as that.


JTabeb,

It is the 10% that make the world unlivable for the 90% -- For a deeper understanding, read "Political Ponerology (http://ponerology.com/)" Understanding that 10%, and recognizing them for what they are, and taking appropriate actions to safeguard yourself and others like you, could be the only way for this world to become a better place to live!

Chris
12-28-08, 05:23 AM
Let me put it this way Jay, I would choose to save the life of my children over your life. Does that answer your question.

However, at an spiritual level, whatever does it matter my actions if we are all in the end one... :D

It matters a great deal, Sapiens, and that is exactly what is missing from all these discussions of the conflict. I do not often quote from intellectuals to explain my point but in this case I must choose one from the political philosopher and champion of liberal democratic pluralism, Jurgen Habermas;


"Christianity, and nothing else," he wrote, "is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [to Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Habermas speaks as a Western atheist intellectual and hence focuses on Christianity, but anyone who has studied and understood the religious foundations of the West will see that Judaism and Christianity must co-exist, one with the other. Many Christian and Jewish theologians (Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, etc) have covered this in great detail (if you are interested in seeing what they have to say). As this is an economics forum, I will leave it at that, except to say that for most enlightened liberal atheists this conflict and it's analysis often come down to simple utilitarian calculus and hence miss the point entirely. For a larger majority in this world I suspect it signifies something much deeper even if most can not (or will not) articulate it.

ricket
12-28-08, 11:18 AM
Ricket, a year and a half old cease fire between Israel and Hamas ended two days ago, and during that time a large number of rockets were fired at Israeli cities. At the most superficial level of analysis, the attacks were aimed at halting this.

What part of killing innocent children in a MAJOR disproportionate amount (at least 10 to 0, as in 0 Israeli children have been killed in this rocket campaign by Hamas so far) is ever justified? What exactly was "halted"? Useless rockets being fired from a poor neighborhood that damaged buildings from a less poor one that sits across an imaginary line (the Gaza border)?


There are plenty of sites that discuss the geopolitical complexities of the situation in that region. You will probably find more thorough answers to your questions there than you will at iTulip. If you do want to find more meaningful answers then you might, and even if you can't, in time you may be able to ask more meaningful questions about a deeply complex political situation.There is nothing that I will ever read, listen, or witness in my life (that I havent already) that could ever make me justify the killing of innocents. To do so is to have perverted the very "justice" that you seek. There is nothing in this world, EVER, that is worth killing innocent children. And the fact that a "government" is responsible for these crimes, then that just proves they lose the right to govern at all (looks at Israel).

So please, give me an example of when killing children is justified, I would love to hear your so called rationalization of this "deeply complex political situation".

Could you please find a comparable image to the one below that shows Israeli children suffering the same fate?

WARNING: GRAPHIC: http://www.thecornerreport.com/media/blogs/links/pitiful.jpg

Chris
12-28-08, 12:56 PM
What part of killing innocent children in a MAJOR disproportionate amount (at least 10 to 0, as in 0 Israeli children have been killed in this rocket campaign by Hamas so far) is ever justified? What exactly was "halted"? Useless rockets being fired from a poor neighborhood that damaged buildings from a less poor one that sits across an imaginary line (the Gaza border)?

Tell me, sir, what then are the right proportions of killing in a war between mortal enemies?

I do not find comfort in the death of innocents and children but neither you nor I are able to force the hand of history. The tides of nations and peoples are far more powerful than the individual actors within them. The nation of Israel, like the Jewish people before them, faces an existential threat, and unlike the Europeans, will fight for the continuation of their peoples. I, as a Christian of Palestinian descent, will support them.

Respectfully, that is all I wish to say on this topic at this forum.

ThePythonicCow
12-28-08, 02:42 PM
Judaism and Christianity must co-existChris - could you point me to readings explaining this further. If it helps you to better select, I ask this as an atheist, of Christian heritage, who agrees that the Christian basis of our Western culture is essential to our freedom, and who vigorously disavows the efforts of more prominent atheists to remove religion from the public square.

My understanding of Judaism is limited to thinking of it as being an antecedent of Christianity and of the other major religions, most like Christianity ... most likely a very limited understanding ;).

Thank-you.

KGW
12-28-08, 02:45 PM
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/4maps.jpg

Who can tell me that "religion" has something to do with this? Someone who does not know the origin or history of Zionism?

BillBoard
12-28-08, 02:59 PM
Why it is a foolish delusion to believe one can coexist in peace?

Contemptuous
12-28-08, 03:30 PM
Tell me, sir, what then are the right proportions of killing in a war between mortal enemies? I do not find comfort in the death of innocents and children but neither you nor I are able to force the hand of history. The tides of nations and peoples are far more powerful than the individual actors within them. The nation of Israel, like the Jewish people before them, faces an existential threat, and unlike the Europeans, will fight for the continuation of their peoples. I, as a Christian of Palestinian descent, will support them. Respectfully, that is all I wish to say on this topic at this forum.

Chris -

Appreciate your no frills and down to earth comments on the roots of this conflict. With regard to the predominance of Judeo-Christian roots in all stable and truly democratic political systems, I am sort of in synch with you but not 100%. There are multiple Latin American countries that put the lie to the notion that Christianity fosters socio political systems with a naturally democratic center of gravity. Certainly however from a Woman's perspective the Judeo-Christian system provides notably greater safeguards than does practically any other major religious grouping worldwide. That much should be beyond dispute to even the most foggy minded intellectualized interpretation. Rickets interpretation of the venality, bloodthirstiness, core lack of scruple and prime warmongering agent attributes of the Israelis is a real eye opener.

I grew up in Italy in an overwhelmingly leftist school and university environment. Friends in Germany and France and Holland were very much steeped in the same profoundly ingenuous internationalist "gestalt". I therefore had this type of convoluted "internationalist" viewpoint shoved down my throat and dinned into my ears shrilly for many years, until I simply became inured to it.

What these fashionable keffiyeh wearing European university students shied away from with an almost comical blindness was any inkling of an idea that such blanket condemnations of Israelis to the exclusion of all others in the region had all the hallmarks of professional Soviet disinformation campaigns oozing out of it. It's not as if the Russians did not have vested interests among the Syrians, Palestinians and the entire populist Arab street to foster. No-one has played the Palestinian question more cynically than Russia with Syria as it's primary client - tool in the region. To have grasped that reality was more complex than this - the reductio ad absurdum that Israel / Zion were the primary agents of all the strife in the region (since the days of Ben Gurion and even earlier apparently) was evidently too herculean an intellectual leap for these idealistic and politically polarized university students.

You could liken their grasp of the full ramifications, to a woefully short legged, but gallantly trotting Lippinzaner pony, tasked with leaping over the trestle of conceptual understanding that there were vested interests in keeping the Israeli / Palestinian question in a state of permanent non-resolution, to serve other great power ends. This perennially baulking Lippinzaner with the short legs was the embodiment of their grasp of international affairs - baulking every time it tried to jump over that trestle. To the best of my knowledge, these otherwise well educated Italian socialist and communist university students (very smart and charming people, otherwise!) remained steadfastly mired, for decades afterwards, in this misconception of the extent of "brazen Israeli iniquity" and the innate evil of the Israeli / American cabal to subjugate the entire region and put it on a slavish leash to the United States.

I used to get steamed about this tripe. Now all I can do is muster a wan smile. I would invite all who feel bursting indignation at the predation of the Israelis on Gaza, to contemplate the state of their indignation here in the US, had we receved a thousand missiles lobbed into our territory from Canada in the past year.

How long are these poor idiot Israelis supposed to sit on their hands issuing one rhetorical warning after another to Hamas while they dare not fire so much as a flare in retaliation for fear of international outcry? How long do they sit there with the missiles raining down,while asking HAMAS to either desist from such endlessly repetitive overt acts of war, or come to the negotiating table and bargain for peace seriously. They offered Arafat 98% of everything he asked for at Camp David, and for Arafat personal pride (or was it merely his core urge to remain perennially a leader with "emergency powers" as in peacetime he'd have risked being voted out?) was more important than compromising on the remaining 2% in order to win a genuine respite for his people, who were crying out to him for a chance to at least start building something resembling a nation. Hamas meanwhile make Arafat's prima-donna performance in squandering every scrap of opportunity from the Camp David accords, look like the soul of reasoned compromise.

Incidentally 09/11 was selected as the terror date on the WTC because it is the anniversary of Camp David attempts to have Arafat and Begin finally close the chapter on endless Arab / Israeli war. If that does not inform observers that there is a very broad and deep enmity to any eventual peace from the radical Muslim side, no other fact can. The destruction of the World Trade Center was a statement against Palestinians ever gaining a homeland short of the removal of any trace of an Israeli state. Tough slog for the Israelis to find some negotiating grounds in that position, eh? And the real point is, it's a far, far tougher slog even for the Palestinian people, with such "visionaries and statesmen" at the helm of their fledgling state.

BTW - Israeli paramedics routinely volunteer and are available to provide emergency services for all critical care which they are called to in Gaza, peacetime or not. Of course the paradox is that one eigth to one quarter of the time the injuries are due to Israeli retaliations after they've submitted to a few hundreds (or is it thousands?) more Hamas missiles fired into Israel, drearily breaking the last truce - a not inconsiderable part of the time instead in the past, the bloodshed within Gaza was occurring when Hamas and Fatah gunslingers were slaying or otherwise imaginatively garotting each other (see Amnesty International's reporting on the highly revealing horrors which occurred within those internal feuds). The point remains that your average North American or European, not to speak of nations such as the immensely territory-proud Chinese, or Indians or Pakistanis, or Iranians, would not tolerate a single missile fired into their territory from any neighbor without considering it instantly an act giving them free rein to reciprocate. One missile fired into one's land by the "government" in a neighboring country is internationally considered at least a technical legal grounds for their retaliation.

The sheer parody, of the world emotionally decrying the occasional spasmodic Israeli reactions to thousands of missiles lobbed day and night into their territory is comical to behold. Comical in an ugly way, frankly.

In recent years, the Israelis routinely put up with thousands and their Prime Minister was discredited in part, precisely for insisting that they NOT retaliate. Evidently to label them bloodthirsty and without even a minimum of scruple is not only a cruel, but also a thorougly specious and pernicious caricature. Ricket needs to take an altogether less ingenuous look at the "moral, wise and unfailingly scrupulous international community" who regard entites like Hamas as A) blameless, and B) worthy of being called statesmen for their people - while the Israelis are labeled bloodthirsty warmongers with a regularity that is so monotonous as to become essentially a morally bankrupt argument in it's own right. So Chris, your own comments appear to me in contrast sober, and are much appreciated. People coming from my viewpoint do not absolutely want to shortchange the Palestinians. But they need to boot Hamas leaders the hell out, and then come with toughness but also with real seriousness, to the bargaining table. I bet they could still get 100% of what Arafat was bargaining for at Camp David, or even better, for a serious lasting peace.

Chris explains his misgivings about governments devised from dandified rationalizations for a "utilitarian" political philosophy. I agree. If ever there was a wretched and dangerous core core guiding principle by which to radically restructure the world's governments, it would be a political philosophy stripped down to "utilitarianism". That and of course governments where ultimate power rests in an ecclesiastical or religious cadre, which is the most horrifically dangerous of all concoctions. You are spot on in this observation.


It matters a great deal, Sapiens, and that is exactly what is missing from all these discussions of the conflict. I do not often quote from intellectuals to explain my point but in this case I must choose one from the political philosopher and champion of liberal democratic pluralism, Jurgen Habermas;

Habermas speaks as a Western atheist intellectual and hence focuses on Christianity, but anyone who has studied and understood the religious foundations of the West will see that Judaism and Christianity must co-exist, one with the other. Many Christian and Jewish theologians (Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, etc) have covered this in great detail (if you are interested in seeing what they have to say).

As this is an economics forum, I will leave it at that, except to say that for most enlightened liberal atheists this conflict and it's analysis often come down to simple utilitarian calculus and hence miss the point entirely. For a larger majority in this world I suspect it signifies something much deeper even if most can not (or will not) articulate it.

___________________


Ricket is demonstrating great ingenuousness in concluding that an organization such as Hezbollah or Hamas, on Israel's doorstep, do not actively engage in nesting their paramilitaries quite intentionally within residential households to fully implement the "human shield" component. Ricket would broaden the substantiality of his moral objections to all wars which involve civilians, by noting that inflitration of civilian comunities to exploit the moral conundrum is a classic insurgency tactic and it has long been expressly designed to PARALYZE the opponents capacity for response. The Israeli contortions around this checkmate strategy have been notable in all the Arab/Israeli wars to date. To decry the "moral horror" Ricket, while engaging in elaborate disingenousness on this point detracts from credibility.

And I would suggest to KGW that he examine maps evidencing the Palestinian populations of Syria and Jordan also, insofar as the larger percentage of Palestinians were residing within those nations in 1947. What has become of them? Do they enjoy full enfranchisement within Jordan and Syria today? What a "conundrum" that the international community ha never uttered so much as a mouse squeak on the predicament of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in makeshift communities within those countries, eh? 60++ years after the creation of Israel, countless Arab Israeli wars, endless tall sounding expressions of grief and concerfn for the plight of the Palestinians from Syria and Jordan, and the Palestinians are still second class transients within their own nations? I smell bunk.

These are countries within the Arab league, who vociferously champion "the plight of the Palestinians" yet they don't fully settle them in-country, and when wars break out, they turn refugees from Palestine AWAY rather than accept more into their own countries. How do we spell hypocrisy?

Sapiens
12-28-08, 04:09 PM
Why it is a foolish delusion to believe one can coexist in peace?

BillBoard,

Because the condition is external to the believerís volition. In other words, one may want to coexist in peace, but someone else may not want to coexist with you and may decide to attack you. You can either repel the attack or acquiesce to the otherís volition. It is delusional because it would be to deny the physical reality that one occupies time and space and foolish because one would choose to believe others will also deny the physical reality.

Does that answer your question?

-Sapiens

ThePythonicCow
12-28-08, 04:49 PM
inflitration of civilian comunities to exploit the moral conundrum is a classic insurgency tacticGood post. Thanks.

Perhaps the day will come when the United States Secretary of State, rather than admonish Israel to avoid causing civilian casualties, instead admonishes Hamas not to launch rocket attacks from civilian enclaves, not to send in civilians as suicide bombers, not to build car bombs in factories in civilian enclaves, and not to hide behind the skirts of women and swaddling clothes of infants when shooting at the enemy.

I remain certain that if Hamas and associates put down their arms for good, we could have peace in the Middle East within the week. If Israel put down its arms, we might also have peace, after the second Holocaust had concluded.

ricket
12-28-08, 06:11 PM
snip

There was not a single ounce of disingenousness in my post. I meant every word of it. To imply that I am morally bankrupt shows that you really dont know who I am or how I think. I do understand that the only way you can gather that understanding is by what I say on here...

By no means did I ever place no blame on Hamas or it's actions. My only statement was that the response was quite lopsided. Even though Hamas has shot hundreds (it's not thousands, reports show only a few hundred since the cease fire ended), Israel retaliated with a level of violence on a much higher order of magnitude than was warranted. The term "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" comes to mind here.

My only argument is that given the facts on the ground, a much more rational set of policy actions would have done a much more effective job and would have done so without angering the entire Muslim community around the world. Why is massive, wide-scale bombing of hundreds of targets necessary in this event, just to snuff out a few hundred rocket firings that hadnt even killed anyone yet (edit: only 1 Israeli has died in the rocket attacks which intensified AFTER the initial assualt).

Let's put this into perspective. If a serial killer murders a woman, is it the right thing to do to go to his hometown and execute everyone who is related to the killer including anyone that also lives in the same town? How are those people responsible for his actions, and why should they be punished when there are completely viable and workable alternatives to be had? Anyone backed into a corner will listen to their demands being heard, whether they are legitimate or not, many times, just coming to the table and letting them state their grievances is enough to pacify them to allow both parties to come to a workable solution.

But to me, just giving up and saying "Oh well, since we cant talk, were going to just shoot at our enemise" is much more "morally bankrupt". And again, anyone who uses violence as a means to a social/political agenda is a criminal and should be treated as such, regardless of what entity that it originates from. In this case, Isreal is just as guilty as Palestine in committing war crimes and I just never hear anything from any mainstream media outlet who recognizes that both sides are to blame. The United States or the UN, or SOMEONE who has any kind of military needs to send in armed forces immediately to keep the peace as both sides (Israel and Palestine) have completely lost the capability of mediating this crisis.

In essence, it's time for both sides to admit they have a problem and they need to ask for counseling and assistance from other countries.

jtabeb
12-29-08, 12:17 AM
JTabeb,

It is the 10% that make the world unlivable for the 90% -- For a deeper understanding, read "Political Ponerology (http://ponerology.com/)" Understanding that 10%, and recognizing them for what they are, and taking appropriate actions to safeguard yourself and others like you, could be the only way for this world to become a better place to live!

Know about the 10% and protection, can't figure out how to get ride of the damn sons-a-bitches.

BiscayneSunrise
12-29-08, 09:23 AM
But to me, just giving up and saying "Oh well, since we cant talk, were going to just shoot at our enemise" is much more "morally bankrupt". And again, anyone who uses violence as a means to a social/political agenda is a criminal and should be treated as such, regardless of what entity that it originates from. In this case, Isreal is just as guilty as Palestine in committing war crimes and I just never hear anything from any mainstream media outlet who recognizes that both sides are to blame. The United States or the UN, or SOMEONE who has any kind of military needs to send in armed forces immediately to keep the peace as both sides (Israel and Palestine) have completely lost the capability of mediating this crisis.

In essence, it's time for both sides to admit they have a problem and they need to ask for counseling and assistance from other countries.

But we do talk. And talk and talk and talk. Diplomacy is about talking but it is also about posing distasteful alternatives to the person you are negotiating with. There is a reason why the eagle on the American seal carries both an olive branch and arrows.

Virtually, all of the leaders of the Arab world have accepted Israel's right to exist, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi, etc. Did you know, for instance Israel has an embassy in Qatar? Even Syria is negotiating a peace treaty with israel. For some reason Hamas hasn't gotten the memo. If Israel is the villian here, where are the condemnations from the Arab League or from the various Arab foreign ministers, where are the formal war crime charges?

Their silence is deafening.

ax
12-29-08, 10:39 AM
Why is this country even allowed to exist anymore?

"Hey, they shot some rockets at us and damaged some of our buildings, so let's just destroy their entire country and murder their duly elected leaders, but as long as we get them it's ok if we take out innocent civilians in the process".

Yeah, that makes sense!

No wonder so many people and other leaders around the world are so Anti-Semitic. The Israelis just seem to always be hell-bent on causing death, destruction, and committing war crimes against their neighbors (Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, etc).

One of these days, a major country is going to get fed up (like Iran) and will try and retaliate for these crimes in a major way. At this point, based on what all Israel is done, in my opinion they *deserve* to have one or both eyes blackened, if not outright gouged out of their skulls. Same goes for the US. Im sick and tired of all the BS that we engage in around the world and it's time for it to stop.

"Why is this country even allowed to exist anymore?"

No reason you should be any different from the rest of the anti-Semitic world, Ricket. To imply that Israel has suffered no loss of innocent lives is ludicrous. I guess launching rockets from the border and hiding in the basements of civilian buildings is the noble thing to do. Just waiting for your thread on how Madoff is the source of all the market's problems next...

D-Mack
12-29-08, 11:30 AM
IAF strike followed months of planning (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050448.html)

By Barak Ravid

Tags: gaza, israel news

Long-term planning, meticulous intelligence-gathering, secret discussions, visual deception tactics and disinformation preceded operation "Cast Lead" which the Israel Air Force launched yesterday in Gaza to take out Hamas targets in the Strip.

The disinformation effort, according to defense officials, took Hamas by surprise and served to significantly increase the number of its casualties in the strike.

Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas. According to the sources, Barak maintained that although the lull would allow Hamas to prepare for a showdown with Israel, the Israeli army needed time to prepare, as well.


Barak gave orders to carry out a comprehensive intelligence-gathering drive which sought to map out Hamas' security infrastructure, along with that of other militant organizations operating in the Strip.

...

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050448.html

nothing new here


Global Research Editor's Note

While the Western media remains silent and complicit, the Israeli Press (Haaretz) reveals the unspoken truth: the careful planning of a military operation entitled "Cast Lead" coupled with a media disinformation and diplomatic campaign. What we are witnessing is genocide. Let us be under no illusiions, this operation was implemented with the knowledge and approval of Israeli's allies.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11521

Chris
12-29-08, 01:02 PM
globalresearch.ca is the Canadian home of Leftist and anti-semitic propaganda. I wouldn't rate their 'findings' very highly.

FRED
12-29-08, 04:25 PM
globalresearch.ca is the Canadian home of Leftist and anti-semitic propaganda. I wouldn't rate their 'findings' very highly.

They are not high on our list for that reason.

Rajiv
12-29-08, 11:59 PM
Here is what Gideon Levy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy) a prominant Israeli journalist had to say in Haaretz

The neighborhood bully strikes again (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050459.html)


Israel embarked yesterday on yet another unnecessary, ill-fated war. On July 16, 2006, four days after the start of the Second Lebanon War, I wrote: "Every neighborhood has one, a loud-mouthed bully who shouldn't be provoked into anger... Not that the bully's not right - someone did harm him. But the reaction, what a reaction!"

Two and a half years later, these words repeat themselves, to our horror, with chilling precision. Within the span of a few hours on a Saturday afternoon, the IDF sowed death and destruction on a scale that the Qassam rockets never approached in all their years, and Operation "Cast Lead" is only in its infancy.

Once again, Israel's violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom.
.
.
.
.
.

Contemptuous
12-30-08, 01:37 AM
Rajiv - With respect, Gideon Levy's observations are grossly disingenuous. Ever since the six day war, Israel has quite consciously institutionalized the strategy of disproportionate response, for very good reasons. The political geography surrounding them to a depth of three or four countries in every direction is Muslim, and the Jewish state is an anathema and an artificially manipulated "casus belli" to all of them with the possible exceptions of Turkey, Egypt and Jordan. All the rest would sit on their hands if a local war turned the tables and threatened to overrun the Jewish state in their midst. This state also has no geographic depth. At it's thinnest, it has virtually zero strategic geography between it and the Mediterranean Sea.

You are far too well read and well informed a contributor here for any jot of this data to be lost on you, therefore the only conclusion left is that you post this article disingenuously, because you know full well that since the 1960's Israel formalized as an essential part of it's geopolitical stance in the region, a standard policy of "overresponse" as the only tool available to it to impress upon it's neighbors, that any hostilities against Israel would be met by double the response, expressly in order to instill in them that attempts to wipe out this lone non-Muslim state in the region would be rendered of a very poor "cost-benefit-analysis".

This was an entirely rational policy tailored to meet the needs of A) by far the smallest nation in the region geographically, B) the sole non Muslim nation, against which wars such as the six day war had pitted fully four to five other neighbors, C) a nation which had never sought to foment a new war with it's neighbors, but had always had to justify it's continuance by force rather than by reason or negotiation, precisely because reason and negotiation were forms of dialogue which all her neighbors have been utterly contemptuous of for 60 years with the sole exceptions of Jordan and Egypt.

Regarding the core issues complicating "lasting peace" for Israel within the Arab sphere of nations, the "Plight of the Palestinians" was given great fanfare, with huge cynicism by those same Arab nations. Meanwhile the Israelis themselves offered Arafat practically everything he asked for, at Camp David, in a wholly contiguous Palestinian State, with strategic water resources, ingress and egress, a whole and consistent Palestinian State - with no "funny tricks" or "traps".

The Israelis would have been delighted and profoundly relieved to have resolved this core issue to their permanence in the ME, but Arafat denied it to them on technicalities to do with 2% of the original demands. What is patently obvious, is that he would have denied it to them had they offered him 100% of his demands, because 2% as the crux of a failed agreement is rubbish to serious negotiators.

I really protest your cited article's mis-characterization. Yes, the Israli's have grown to become a small regional superpower and this has very deftly been commandeered to charicature them as the over-armed "bully in the region" - but the characterization as the neighborhood bully is so disingenuous of history as to render it's proponents highly suspect of opinions tainted by pure knee-jerk ideology, IMO. There is no shortage of Socialist leaning merciless critics of Israel among the Jews living there. Proponents such as yourself who fasten on their pronouncements are demonstrating some degree of a-historicism in the process. What depresses me about the Socialist International is the way all these people sort of line up thinking all in unison, in cookie cutter stereotypes. They remind me of iron filings dumped before a magnet. All point rigidly in the same direction.

My respectful suggestion to you, is to be more multi-dimensional in understanding the history of WHY Israel developed a national strategy of "overwhelming and disproportionate response". It is painstakingly described and substantiated, in ALL the historic analysis of the region. All you have to do is be willing to include it honestly and impartially in your reading, and digest the essential significance of why it emerged in the first place. And no, none of this is an endorsement of the children and innocents dying there now. The dangerously simplistic manipulations of insight rather, lie in either sincerly seeking, or actively obfuscating, who have in fact been the most active contributors to this outcome.


Here is what Gideon Levy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy) a prominant Israeli journalist had to say in Haaretz The neighborhood bully strikes again (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050459.html)

Supercilious
12-30-08, 02:05 AM
Has anybody heard about the unorthodox (haredi) jewish organization called Neturei Karta . A youtube search for Neturei Karta can lead to surprising results ...;)

I have a very good haredi friend. When I first met him and he started talking ... I couldn't believe my ears

Chris
12-30-08, 04:42 AM
Rajiv (et al),

This article (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3194846/groundhog-day-for-the-fifth-column-of-malice.thtml) does a fine job of summarizing the legal context of this war and provides a refreshing view of the current situation.

I don't often engage in debates about this conflict (at least not much any more) because most discussions (at least the ones i've had here in Europe) quickly lead to heated and futile arguments (not to mention the drying up of invitations to social events :)). In Europe it is rare to see accurate coverage of the situation in a mainstream newspaper (not to mention on the campuses of Universities) as Melanie describes in the article linked above:

Excerpt:


The disgusting fifth column in the Gaza conflict, however, is – as ever – the western media. It was telling to witness the sight of British TV camera crews heading out to Israel on Saturday night. The point was that they weren’t already there – because their editors had not thought it necessary to send them to cover the resumed rocket attacks on southern Israel. Indeed, hardly anyone in Britain is aware that Israel is only now finally responding to some 6000 rocket attacks since 2001, with a fifty per cent increase after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. British journalists were only dispatched to the battle zone when Israel finally retaliated – because, appallingly, it is only Jewish violence that is ever the story.

As a result, Israel is painted – wholly unjustly and untruthfully -- as the aggressor. The ineffable BBC reported in radio bulletins on Saturday that Israel’s attack had ‘put back the chance of peace in the region’. Most sane people would think that the reason peace in the region had been put back was that Hamas was continuing to wage aggressive war. And indeed, even now it is still firing rockets at Israel, including Katyushas and Iranian Grads which are reaching as far as Ashkelon and Ashdod. Today they killed another Israeli in Ashkelon and injured many more -- including several Israeli Arabs.

Rajiv
12-30-08, 05:43 AM
I think you will be well served to read the following article in wikipedia in its entirety.

Eye for an eye
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye)

Chris
12-30-08, 09:42 AM
Rajiv, I understand your point but consider this; are the Israelis fighting a religious war or is the state performing one of its basic duties, namely to protect the citizens within it?

Rajiv
12-30-08, 10:24 AM
Chris,

I do not see any side as being right or wrong (the history of the region is such that there is a lot of blame to pass around) -- but rather the dynamics of the situation, and the immense human damage being caused.

Normally, in human interdynamics, it is the more powerful that have to give to the weaker parties -- if ultimate peace and harmony is to be established and maintained -- if one adopts a tit for tat or 2 tits for one tat that Israel apparantly is doing, then given the history and philosophical orientation of Judaism and Islam, one runs the into the danger of things escalating totally out of control -- and in words that have been attributed to Gandhi, "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"

Sapiens
12-30-08, 10:30 AM
Chris,

I do not see any side as being right or wrong (the history of the region is such that there is a lot of blame to pass around) -- but rather the dynamics of the situation, and the immense human damage being caused.

Normally, in human interdynamics, it is the more powerful that have to give to the weaker parties -- if ultimate peace and harmony is to be established and maintained -- if one adopts a tit for tat or 2 tits for one tat that Israel apparantly is doing, then given the history and philosophical orientation of Judaism and Islam, one runs the into the danger of things escalating totally out of control -- and in words that have been attributed to Gandhi, "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"

Such is Natural Law that any abuses cannot be permanent or infinite, Israel's actions in abuse against the Palestinians will eventually corrupt, damage, and destroy Israel itself.

ax
12-30-08, 03:21 PM
Chris,

I do not see any side as being right or wrong (the history of the region is such that there is a lot of blame to pass around) -- but rather the dynamics of the situation, and the immense human damage being caused.

Normally, in human interdynamics, it is the more powerful that have to give to the weaker parties -- if ultimate peace and harmony is to be established and maintained -- if one adopts a tit for tat or 2 tits for one tat that Israel apparantly is doing, then given the history and philosophical orientation of Judaism and Islam, one runs the into the danger of things escalating totally out of control -- and in words that have been attributed to Gandhi, "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"

I wonder if this thread shouldn't end soon. I'm beginning to feel like I'm reading a BBC transcript, not unlike the one Chris pointed out earlier. It's easy to see Israel as the stronger, aggressive party now after fighting for their survival on countless occasions. I suggest reading Gideon's Spies for a brief recounting of all of the people who have tried to blow Israel up over the last 60 years.

Basil
12-30-08, 03:41 PM
Rajiv (et al),

This article (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3194846/groundhog-day-for-the-fifth-column-of-malice.thtml) does a fine job of summarizing the legal context of this war and provides a refreshing view of the current situation.

I don't often engage in debates about this conflict (at least not much any more) because most discussions (at least the ones i've had here in Europe) quickly lead to heated and futile arguments (not to mention the drying up of invitations to social events :)). In Europe it is rare to see accurate coverage of the situation in a mainstream newspaper (not to mention on the campuses of Universities) as Melanie describes in the article linked above:

Excerpt:

If you are going to cite something from a media outlet as something that is going to relieve the bias of other media outlets, then at least cite something worth reading. The notion that Hamas is in any position to preform genocide against Israelis is utterly preposterous. Citing people such as Dore Gold and Barry Rubin should be a dead give away that this is a very one sided piece. The notion that Israel is not going after civilian targets is preposterous. Even MSM outlets such as the Washington Post acknowledge that Israel is attempting to go after every facet of Hamas, including the civilian support network.

And how wonderfully generous it is of Israel to prevent the construction of adequate medical care facilities in Gaza and then treat some of the Palestinians in its own hospitals. This is like starving a family and then lauding yourself for feeding the youngest child.

And who really cares what Mahmoud Abbas has to say about Hamas. He was voted out of power by Hamas and has been desperately working to regain his power.

This piece is sheer propaganda. Removing the settlements from Gaza, followed by the systematic starvation of Gaza has all been part of the plan leading to this phase of the Palestinian holocaust. If there is a genocidal terrorist in this equation it is the Israeli army. State sponsored terrorism is still terrorism.

I am no fan of what the militant elements within Hamas advocate or of what they do, but I would advocate citing more balanced articles, rather than those that are so clearly biased.

metalman
12-30-08, 06:53 PM
I wonder if this thread shouldn't end soon. I'm beginning to feel like I'm reading a BBC transcript, not unlike the one Chris pointed out earlier. It's easy to see Israel as the stronger, aggressive party now after fighting for their survival on countless occasions. I suggest reading Gideon's Spies for a brief recounting of all of the people who have tried to blow Israel up over the last 60 years.

look, israel is in an impossible position. they are perceived as stronger, with the usa behind them, so everything they do to defend themselves against poor little palestinian radical group hamas hiding with their missiles among the civilian population looks like overkill.

the missiles came from the gaza strip, ending the ceasefire... again... crude missiles falling on southern israel. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1228728263534) what nation can sit around and let a group lob missiles into it? the kids in southern israel go to kindergarten in bunkers. they scared all of the time. would your country put up with that? if it were the usa and the missiles came from, say, cuba, what do you think the usa would do? flatten cuba, that's what.

noticed this thread was moved to 'political abyss.' where it belongs.

jtabeb
12-30-08, 09:00 PM
look, israel is in an impossible position. they are perceived as stronger, with the usa behind them, so everything they do to defend themselves against poor little palestinian radical group hamas hiding with their missiles among the civilian population looks like overkill.

the missiles came from the gaza strip, ending the ceasefire... again... crude missiles falling on southern israel. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1228728263534) what nation can sit around and let a group lob missiles into it? the kids in southern israel go to kindergarten in bunkers. they scared all of the time. would your country put up with that? if it were the usa and the missiles came from, say, cuba, what do you think the usa would do? flatten cuba, that's what.

noticed this thread was moved to 'political abyss.' where it belongs.

That's all well and good but the fact of the matter is what is Israel is doing constitutes War Crimes as outlined in the 4th Geneva Convention.

You can argue for or against what ever side any of you choose, but a fact is a fact and not open to opinion, so please keep that in mind in the course of this discussion. In this case, a spade is a spade, no matter whom you support.

From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Fourth Geneva Convention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#searchInput)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/50px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Fourth_Geneva_Convention)
Wikisource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisource) has original text related to this article: Fourth Geneva Convention (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Fourth_Geneva_Convention)


The Fourth Geneva Convention (or GCIV) relates to the protection of civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian) during times of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) "in the hands" of an enemy and under any military occupation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation) by a foreign power. This should not be confused with the better known Third Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention), which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war). The convention was published on August 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_12), 1949 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949), at the end of a conference held in Geneva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva) from April 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_21) to August 12, 1949. The convention entered into force on October 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_21), 1950 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950).
As of 27 June 2006, when Nauru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru) adopted the convention, it has been ratified by 194 countries.
Contents




1 Part I. General Provisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_I._General_Provision s)
2 Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_II._General_Protecti on_of_Populations_Against_Certain_Consequences_of_ War)
3 Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_III._Status_and_Trea tment_of_Protected_Persons)

3.1 Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_I._Provisions_com mon_to_the_territories_of_the_parties_to_the_confl ict_and_to_occupied_territories)

3.1.1 Collective punishments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments)
3.1.2 Right of return (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Right_of_return)


4 Part IV. Execution of the Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_IV._Execution_of_the _Convention)
5 Annexes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Annexes)
6 See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#See_also)
7 Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Notes)
8 References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#References)
9 Further reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Further_reading)


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Geneva_Convention&action=edit&section=1)] Part I. General Provisions

This sets out the overall parameters for GCIV:


Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_conflict) where war has not been declared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war) and in an occupation of another country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country)'s territory.
Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncombatant), members of armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_forces) who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wound), detention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention), or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions: (a) violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence) to life and person, in particular murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) of all kinds, mutilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation), cruel treatment and torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture);(b) taking of hostages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage);(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution) without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_relations) with in the State in whose hands they are.
A number of articles specify how Protecting Powers, ICRC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICRC) and other humanitarian organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_organization) may aid Protected persons.

Protected person is the most important definition in this section because many of the articles in the rest of GCIV only apply to Protected persons.
Article 5 is currently one of the most controversial articles of GCIV, because it forms, (along with Article 5 of the GCIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention) and parts of GCIV Article 4,) the interpretation of "unlawful combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant)" currently in use by the out-going government of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_United_States).

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Geneva_Convention&action=edit&section=2)] Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War

Article 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race), nationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality), religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Geneva_Convention&action=edit&section=3)] Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Geneva_Convention&action=edit&section=4)] Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories

Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment), mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment' While popular debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of torture (see discussion on the Torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) page), the ban on corporal punishment simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical abuse is thereby forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against alternate definitions of torture.
The prohibition on scientific experiments was added, in part, in response to experiments by German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) and Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) doctors during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), of whom Josef Mengele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele) was the most infamous.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Geneva_Convention&action=edit&section=5)] Collective punishments

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation) or of terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) are prohibited.
Pillage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillage) is prohibited.
Reprisals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprisal) against protected persons and their property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) are prohibited.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment) are a war crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime). By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) and II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium) villagers in mass retribution for resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement) activity. In World War II, Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross) (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."
Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Geneva_Convention&action=edit&section=6)] Right of return

Article 49. The second paragraph of Article 49 provides that persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. This right of displaced persons is often referred to as the "right of return (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return)" and has been reaffirmed in later international treaties and conventions. State Practice also establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

metalman
12-30-08, 09:11 PM
ok, so how do you fight an enemy that does not abide by the geneva convention as hamas does not?

the palestinians need a GANDHI to gain the upper hand. they keep electing militants. what do they expect?

jtabeb
12-30-08, 09:44 PM
ok, so how do you fight an enemy that does not abide by the geneva convention as hamas does not?

the palestinians need a GANDHI to gain the upper hand. they keep electing militants. what do they expect?

Within international law, of course.

I like to state facts and argue opinions. The first post was fact according to the 4th Geneva Conventions, so argue what you want about prosecuting the conflict or whom ever you support in it, but please don't dismiss this fact from the discussion.

Go read haaretz about the current operation.

"they keep electing militants. what do they expect?"

I didn't expect this logical fallacy from you but so be it.

That's sort of like "we'll gee those americans re-elected (GWB, republicans, people that didn't support their own economic interests, etc.... )So, they deserve what they get"

Or kind of like, "well she was asking for it, just look how she was dressed."

And kind of like " well what was he expecting? A colored should know better than to go down there after dark"

I could almost give you the above if there were now interventions in the outcome of the fate of the Palestinian people, but there were more than a few. Self-determination has been something that they have longed for but but been unable to capture. I'm sure you know that HAMAS was brought about into being by the Shien Beit, Isreal's security service and that the inital blow was supposed to be to destabilize Fateh, the political movement founded by Yassir Arafat. It was attempt to de-stabilize internal palestinian politics so that political consensus could not be achieved. It worked rather well as you can see.

So to suggest "that people deserve what they get" may be an axiom to you, it is a logical fallacy of monumental proportions. And, I might add, that is fact, not an opinion.

Again the bottom line is Facts are facts, and opinions are not.

War crimes conducted by Israel against the Palestinians are not opinion, which should be obvious to you as you (rightly) didn't argue with this fact.

Hopefully, this will add some perspective to this debate.

V/R

JT

Chris
12-31-08, 06:27 AM
That's all well and good but the fact of the matter is what is Israel is doing constitutes War Crimes as outlined in the 4th Geneva Convention.

But this is untrue. As I posted yesterday, Israel would be breaking the Genocide convention by not attacking (see here (http://www.jcpa.org/text/puzzle1.pdf)).


Anyway, to lighten the tone of this thread...


Middle East Conflict Intensifies As Blah Blah Blah, Etc. Etc. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/middle_east_conflict_intensifies)

D-Mack
12-31-08, 01:08 PM
I'm sure you know that HAMAS was brought about into being by the Shien Beit, Isreal's security service and that the inital blow was supposed to be to destabilize Fateh, the political movement founded by Yassir Arafat. It was attempt to de-stabilize internal palestinian politics so that political consensus could not be achieved. It worked rather well as you can see.


I have read about it and I'm aware of the concepts developed by Frank Kitson from his experience in Kenya for the British.


Gangs and counter-gangs 1960 (http://www.amazon.com/Gangs-counter-gangs-Frank-Kitson/dp/B0000CKJUV/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230742488&sr=1-6)

Low intensity operations; subversion, insurgency, peace-keeping (http://www.amazon.com/intensity-operations-subversion-insurgency-peace-keeping/dp/0811709574)


But I haven't been able to find work on it. There is again something from the Canadians, called Hamas is a Creation of Mossad (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html) and it mentions the Jewish professor Zeev Sternhell. It seems like this guy has been a victim of terrorism himself recently.


A little more than two months ago, a prominent left-wing professor and Israel Prize winner, Professor Zeev Sternhell, was wounded by a pipe bomb planted outside his home.
http://jta.org/news/article/2008/12/08/1001408/unchecked-settler-violence-prompts-fears-of-intifada

Contemptuous
12-31-08, 03:56 PM
Jtabeb - I find the post below disingenuous to the highest order. Read the PDF Chris posted. What's his point? You want to wave UN rules defining
"acceptable norms" in the settlement of international disputes around, with an idea of boxing the Israeli's up in this legal framework, yet you say nothing whatsoever about the fact that HAMAS have adopted as the core strategy of BOTH their offence and defence now since many years, A) the direction of their bombs and missiles systematically against civilian targets, and B) for their defence, their sytematic strategic dispersal within civilian populations. Any international court of law which was free of the cloying biases in evidence here both at the UN, on the popular street, and amongst those who hold Israel to a different set of rules than they apply to any other country on earth, would have to recognize that when an entity such as HAMAS waives these "international rules of combat" not only casually, but formally, by incorporating the use of Civilians as a core concept in it's offence and defence, then excoriating the Israelis from eventually resorting to limited waivers of these same international rules of combat constitutes hypocrisy of a quite notable extent.

Hamas not only has long since abrogated this core UN human rights principle, they have in fact been one of the most systematic PIONEERS in it's use, both in offence and defence. If you want to wave UN Human Rights charter rules at the Israelis, at least be credible and note clearly that after Camp David, which Arafat scrapped on behalf of the Palestinians (much to the dismay of the Israelis!) the failures of leadership are on the PALESTINIAN side, not on the Israeli side, to find the most conclusive diplomatic avenues to resolution of the strife. Your palestinian leaders here are the very worst thing that could have befallen the Palestinian people. Unless and until Palestinians recognize this frankly, and stop the childish heaping of blame for their continuing impasse on Israeli "gross human rights violations and cynical refusal to make peace" they will be trapped in an endless suffering. These HAMAS leaders are the worst. Bloodthirsty. Uninterested in developing a civilian core to their command of their country. Uninterested in multi-party systems. Uninterested in cohabiting with Israel. Worse yet, committed to a vision of endless war to extract a blood tithe from Israel to appease their hatreds.

I have zero patience with proponents of Israel's "gross human rights violations" who artfully and mincingly step around any mention of the current crop of Palestinian leaders horrific institutionalization of human rights violations. These people have pioneered the concepts of mass, indiscriminate civilian bombings, mass, indiscriminate assassination of their opposing internal opposition groups, and mass, indiscriminate dispersal of their fighting cadres within the civilian population to use as "human shields". What is not to understand, in these very simple and factual observations, eh? Chris's objections are not "slanted" nor "favoritist". They are sober and they represent a series of tough questions which apologists for Palestinian victimhood need to answer truthfully. The Palestinians are some of the most gifted and intelligent people in the Middle East. But the ENTIRE crop of leadership, both in Hamas and Fatah, represents horrifically failed leadership. Palestinians deserve better. Indeed, the arrival of a "Ghandi" would galvanize Israeli interest to cut them every bit as good a deal as Arafat was offered at Camp David by Begin.

If I saw someone as good (or preferably better even!) than Mahmoud Abbas not only genuinely at the helm of Palestinian negotiations, but actually demonstrating some scrap of control over the innumerable Palestinian militant cadres who's only language is a gun and a bomb, I would line up much more emphatically behind them and demand stiff concessions from the Israelis.

I'd speak up for the Israelis being good for their original promises, to give the Palestinians exactly what was promised at Camp David. But the problem is I DON'T SEE A TRACE OF THAT in any Palestinian faction. I see Abbas as a decent man whom however has no credible scrap of control over the seething cauldron of "militant factions" in the Palestinian arena. Let's not mince words - these "factions" are thoroughly married to using every ugliest terror trick in the book to gain attention to their claims. They not only tear up the Geneva convention or UN "human rights" rulebooks - they spit on this stuff. You want to excoriate the Israelis, then desist from using victim-like justifications for the whole mass of these Palestinian splinter groups. They are heavily funded by a lot of very cynical groups outside the Israeli / Palestinian question altogether, and they have been funded and manipulated by these larger interests for DECADES. Heap scorn on the Israelis for their "rampant human rights abuses" without mentioning with full detail and seriousness, the gravity of the failures of leadership among Palestinians, and your critiques lose credibility to my view.

No need to wave important and legally analytical sounding declaratives such as "logical fallacy" around, if you decline to get the rudiments of your impartial preliminary acknowledgements uttered first - if you did, that would gain our trust in your impartiality. Declaiming on individual points that "It's a fact" means NOT MUCH, if you engage in such heavy editing of the full dimension of the issues.



Within international law, of course.

I like to state facts and argue opinions. The first post was fact according to the 4th Geneva Conventions, so argue what you want about prosecuting the conflict or whom ever you support in it, but please don't dismiss this fact from the discussion.

Go read haaretz about the current operation.

"they keep electing militants. what do they expect?"

I didn't expect this logical fallacy from you but so be it.

That's sort of like "we'll gee those americans re-elected (GWB, republicans, people that didn't support their own economic interests, etc.... )So, they deserve what they get"

Or kind of like, "well she was asking for it, just look how she was dressed."

And kind of like " well what was he expecting? A colored should know better than to go down there after dark"

I could almost give you the above if there were now interventions in the outcome of the fate of the Palestinian people, but there were more than a few. Self-determination has been something that they have longed for but but been unable to capture. I'm sure you know that HAMAS was brought about into being by the Shien Beit, Isreal's security service and that the inital blow was supposed to be to destabilize Fateh, the political movement founded by Yassir Arafat. It was attempt to de-stabilize internal palestinian politics so that political consensus could not be achieved. It worked rather well as you can see.

So to suggest "that people deserve what they get" may be an axiom to you, it is a logical fallacy of monumental proportions. And, I might add, that is fact, not an opinion.

Again the bottom line is Facts are facts, and opinions are not.

War crimes conducted by Israel against the Palestinians are not opinion, which should be obvious to you as you (rightly) didn't argue with this fact.

Hopefully, this will add some perspective to this debate.

V/R

JT

tranquill
01-02-09, 02:53 PM
Israeli dissident analytic writes that IDF op in Gaza is already stuck, Israelis are bogged down, and basically that's the end of the war: http://samsonblinded.org/news/israeli-attack-on-gaza-loses-momentum-5424