23
   

Israeli airstrikes in Gaza kill more than 200

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 07:23 pm
Hmmmm. Sounds like a yes & a no from Israel at the same time to me.:

Israel 'considering truce favourably'
Posted 1 hour 0 minutes ago
Updated 52 minutes ago


http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200812/r327196_1468885.jpg
Hamas strikes back: A rocket is fired into Israel (AFP: Jack Guez)

A spokesman for Israel's Defence Minister says Ehud Barak is "considering favourably" a proposal for a 48-hour truce in and around the Gaza Strip.

World leaders stepped up calls for an end to the violence as Israeli warplanes pummelled Hamas targets in the battered Gaza Strip for a fourth day.

The spokesman said Mr Barak was looking favourably at proposals for a brief ceasefire, but stressed that it would not prevent Israel from preparing a possible ground offensive.

Israeli officials warned that the onslaught, which has killed at least 373 Palestinians, could continue for weeks, while Hamas militants fired more deadly rockets and threatened to step up their attacks on Israel.

"We tell the leaders of the enemy, if you continue with your assault, we will hit with our rockets further than the cities we have hit so far," a masked spokesman for the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the Hamas armed wing, said in televised comments.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert discussed the French proposal for a 48-hour truce with his foreign and defence ministers, but his office said the Prime Minister had imposed a strict black-out on the details of the meeting.

The discussions focused on "diplomatic, military and operational aspects of Israel's next steps," his office said in a statement.

International pressure

US President George W Bush spoke with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to discuss a "sustainable ceasefire."

"They agreed that for any ceasefire to be effective, it must be respected, particularly by Hamas," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters in Crawford, Texas.

The European Union separately called for a "permanent" ceasefire in and around the Gaza Strip, while the Middle East Quartet called for "an immediate ceasefire that would be fully respected."

The Quartet brings together the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States.

But throughout the day, Israeli officials insisted the armed forces would press on with the offensive, which has sparked Muslim outrage and protests worldwide. ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/31/2457096.htm

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 07:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Thank goodness no American military are needed to die, as occurred in protecting Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, South Vietnam, France, Italy, Britain. In other words, it is nice to have an ally that can fight its own battles


seems like an ass backwards way to look at it too me....how about we consider how much our interests would be further ahead if we did not have the war mongering idiot Israelis as a "friend"? It is long past time to dump this relationship, it just is not working for us.


You sound so assured of your post. However, you are one private citizen, I assume. Are you talking in behalf of our government, military, corporate America?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 07:39 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Foofie wrote:

By the way, for those Americans that are watching this drama play out, the good news is Israel does not need our military to assist them. I mean Israel is not Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, Vietnam, France, Italy, Britain. In other words, in Israel's wars, only Israelis die; no American military dies. Let us dwell on that as the good news. Perhaps, that is what really matters - an ally that does not ask us to die for THEIR battles.


This is only partly true. Israel lives with an implied (and indeed in some areas explicit) American guarantee of security. This is what enables them to cling to the anachronistic concept of a modern tribal or theocratic state in an environment and historical context that make such an outcome a completely unrealistic expectation. There can be no peace and justice for all the people of the region until a pluralistic state is created there able to accomodate all the people. This, of course, won't happen until the zealots on both sides give up their sectarian dreams.


I was not talking about a future scenario that is fictional as of today. The fact remains Israel fights its own wars, as far as who dies. Every war the U.S. has been in since the Civil War has not been to protect our territory (was there a war with Mexico that might not count for the small incursion into our territory?). Our military personnal died in the 20th century protecting, aiding military of other nations. That is a fact; please do not trivialize it with "this is partly true." It is totally true!

And, when there would be a two-state solution, the other (Palestinean) state could also be thought of as an "anachronistic concept of a modern tribal or theocratic state" (your choice of words from above). So, it would seem that it would be incongruous for Israel to not be like the other states in the neighborhood.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 07:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Israel should treat Hamas like the govt it wants to be.
They should cut off all supplies of fuel, electricity, or other supplies they send to the Gaza Strip.
They should close the borders to any Palestinian that doesnt have a Palestinian passport, one recognized by the world.
They should stop allowing any Palestinians into Israel to work.

After all, if Hamas wants to be the govt of the Gaza Strip, then its up to them as the govt to support their own citizens, maintain the infrastructure, issue passports, and provide their citizens with jobs.


So basically you call for the creation of a country-sized prison to house the Palestinians.

Wow, that'll sure stop the violence. Amazing how smart you guys are.

Cycloptichorn


Is not one side of Gaza the Mediterranean Sea? Another side is Egypt (Sinai Peninsula). Why is Egypt not responsible to allow supplies to go into Gaza from the Sinai Peninsula? Why should Israel allow Palestineans free access to their country? Can Isrealis go into Gaza?

You talk of a country sized prison. Notice the neighbors that Israel has. Without the Mediterranean, they too are in a prison. That is the neighborhood, if one is not Muslim.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 07:52 pm
@Zippo,
Zippo wrote:

Israel is doomed because it is run by psychotic idiots who are bent on a "Greater Israel" strategy. Zionist religious fanatics who somehow think that by becoming like the White Anglo Saxon Protestants (W.A.S.P.s) who nearly wiped out the Jews in Europe in World War Two, by adopting the "Let Someone else suffer now" philosophy Zionists think they will be allowed to succeed in their expansionist plans.


Please do not besmirch WASP's who are of British ancestry. The Nazis were German, not British. I hope you are not getting confused with light complected, blonde, tall people. They are all not the same. The British did not harm one hair on any Jew's head in WWII.

Also, I have never heard of any plans to expand Israel? I think there are some people in Gaza that according to the Hamas charter believe that Palestine should expand into all of Israel. Did you have your accusation backwards?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 07:53 pm
@Zippo,
Zippo wrote:

"Considering the Hamas government does not recognize Israel's right to exist"

Have Israel recognized Palestinians "right to exist" ?


Yes, and definitely yes.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 07:54 pm
@Foofie,
Egyptians could open the gates and Gaza would be empty thirty minutes later. Ask yourself why that doesn't happen...
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 07:54 pm
@Foofie,
... as 3rd class citizens, one presumes.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 08:00 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Egyptians could open the gates and Gaza would be empty thirty minutes later. Ask yourself why that doesn't happen...


In my own opinion, because other Arab nations prefer the Palestinean issue fester, and fester, so to speak. That makes me think that pan Arab brotherhood does not really exist, other than in speeches.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 08:02 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

... as 3rd class citizens, one presumes.


What? Palestineans never built up their state to be a thriving modern industrial state. Blame Israel?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 08:17 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
What? Palestineans never built up their state to be a thriving modern industrial state. Blame Israel?


It's never a great idea to steal others lands to set up any new state.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 08:21 pm
Shortages put hospitals on the brink of collapse

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/12/30/1230677371810/Injured-boy-at-Shifa-hosp-001.jpg
An injured boy is treated at the Shifa hospital in Gaza City. Photograph: Khalil Hamra/AP

Emergency medical supplies were being flown to the Middle East yesterday to help Gaza's overstretched hospitals, where doctors say they are still struggling to cope with hundreds of injured patients.

Doctors at the Shifa hospital, a 585-bed complex which is the largest in Gaza, said they had treated patients on the floor and conducted operations with as many as three different patients and a dozen doctors crowded into each operating theatre.

All 25 intensive care beds were full, said Dr Hussain Ashaur, the hospital director, and there were still another 87 patients in a critical condition waiting to enter intensive care.

He said there were severe shortages of medical supplies, including gauze, sterilisation fluids and anaesthetics. In total 135 types of medical supplies were needed and 94 separate medicines. Sheets and cloth for intensive care beds were in such short supply that they were being washed three times a day.

Doctors said they were overwhelmed on Saturday, with the first rush of large numbers of injured patients, although pressure had eased slightly on Monday and yesterday. Still, the hospital was in a fragile state, Ashaur said. "We're close to collapsing if this situation continues. We have shortages of everything," he said.

The hospital was running on generators yesterday after a break in the electricity supply, and already one of its three generators had broken down and could not be repaired because of a lack of spare parts.

The International Committee of the Red Cross was to fly in 11 tonnes of supplies to Tel Aviv, which it hoped would then be allowed into Gaza. A Red Cross surgical team is on standby to fly in as well, as soon as it receives permission from the Israeli authorities.

The World Health Organisation is to fly 50 surgical kits from Norway to Israel, with enough supplies to treat 5,000 wounded people. Another nine basic health kits, enough for three months' treatment of 90,000 people with common illnesses, is also to be sent.

However, for several months Israel has allowed only limited supplies of humanitarian goods into Gaza and no other imports or exports. That has left Gaza's health system in a state of crisis, according to Physicians for Human Rights, an Israeli group.

It said even before Israel's latest bombing campaign began on Saturday that the Gazan health system was "operating under severe shortages and limitations". .... <cont>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/31/israel-gaza-palestinians
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 08:26 pm
Quote:

By DAVID GROSSMAN
Published: December 30, 2008
.
.
.
Until last Saturday, Israel " under the military leadership of Defense Minister Ehud Barak " acted with impressive level-headedness. We must not lose our perspective now, in the heat of battle. We must not forget, even for a moment, that the inhabitants of Gaza will continue to live on our borders and that sooner or later we will need to achieve neighborly relations with them.

We must not under any circumstances strike with such violence, even though Hamas has for years made life excruciating for the Israelis who live on Gaza’s perimeter, even though Hamas’s leaders have rebuffed every Israeli and Egyptian endeavor to achieve a compromise and prevent a conflagration. Restraint, and our duty to protect the lives of Gaza’s innocent inhabitants, must remain our commitment today, precisely because Israel’s power is almost limitless compared to that of Hamas.
.
.
.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/opinion/31grossman.html?hp

http://www.ithl.org.il/author_info.asp?id=104
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 08:57 pm
A must read for all of us who think that proportionality matters:

Quote:
Can Israel Win the Gaza War?
It depends how you define success.
By Shmuel Rosner
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2008, at 4:02 PM ET

A target in the northern Gaza Strip following an Israeli air raidIn a 2006 article about Israel and the doctrine of proportionality, Lionel Beehner of the Council on Foreign Relations explained that applying the test of "proportionality" to Israel's military operations can be a tricky exercise. According to the doctrine"originated in the 1907 Hague Conventions""a state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered. The response must also be immediate and necessary, refrain from targeting civilians, and require only enough force to reinstate the status quo ante."

http://www.slate.com/id/2207636/
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 09:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
another:
Quote:
The laws of war

Proportional to what?
Dec 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition

The rights and wrongs of killing civilians


IN THE arithmetic of death, the latest fight between Israel and Hamas has been an unequal contest: more than 350 Palestinians killed in Israeli air strikes in the first four days, many of them civilians, against four Israelis killed by Hamas’s rockets. But does such one-sided bloodshed make Israel guilty of using “disproportionate force”, as argued by, among others, Amnesty International and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, just ending his six-month presidency of the European Union?

Proportionality is intimately bound up with notions of the just war, and has been enshrined in treaties regulating warfare’s conduct since the Hague Convention of 1907. But familiar as it is, proportionality is a slippery idea. It has two different meanings in Western theory. On the grounds for going to war, jus ad bellum, the cause must be important enough to justify force; any good that will follow must outweigh the inevitable pain and destruction. In the conduct of war, jus in bello, any action must weigh the military gain against the likely harm to civilians.

Human-rights law has developed mostly in terms of jus in bello. The Geneva Conventions of 1949, dealing mainly with the protection of non-combatants in conflicts between states, were updated in 1977 to include more explicitly wars within states. Israel and the United States have not ratified the later protocols, though they do not really question the principle that armies must avoid “an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.

The arguments are over the nebulous facts of a particular incident. Did Israel do enough to avoid civilian deaths? Do Palestinian policemen count as combatants? For Israel, the use of overwhelming force is both legitimate and, given its desire to restore its “deterrent effect” towards its enemies, sometimes necessary. Israel says that intent is what matters: it says it tries to avoid civilian deaths, whereas Hamas deliberately seeks to kill Israeli civilians with its rockets, relatively ineffective as they may be. Hamas responds with two arguments: as the disproportionately weaker party, Palestinians must use the crude means at their disposal to free their lands from Israeli occupation; more controversially, it often says there are no Israeli civilians since most Israelis serve in the army.

Proportionality in jus ad bellum and jus in bello are hard to separate: indiscriminate killing will colour the view of whether a war is justified; and even proportionate actions in battle will be denounced if the war is deemed unjust. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, arguments about legality fast turn into ones about history. If the tit-for-tat starting point is Hamas’s rocket attacks, then the Israelis have a right to defend themselves; if it is Israel’s occupation of Palestine or the dispossession of Palestinians when Israel was born in 1948, then Palestinians can argue for a right to resist. Proportional or not, the killing of innocents will go on until the dispute is settled.

http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12867302&source=hptextfeature
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 09:57 pm
@JTT,
It's never a great idea to steal others lands to set up any new state.

I beg to differ: the Americans did very well: but they did have to do a little genocide first. possibly why they support Israel.
Fountofwisdom
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 09:59 pm
No logical argument can be used to support mass murder. It is wrong period.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 12:45 pm
@Fountofwisdom,
Fountofwisdom wrote:

I beg to differ: the Americans did very well: but they did have to do a little genocide first. possibly why they support Israel.


I believe that the U.S. supports Israel because we do not want history to decide that Britain's Balfour Declaration, paving the way for a Jewish State, was a bad choice. Plus, there is a Protestant voting constituency in the U.S. that wants Israel to survive as a Jewish State, so that Bible prophecy can unfold. Also that many Protestants identify with Israel, inasmuch as old line Protestant families also came to the U.S. as a homeland, to avoid religious persecution in Europe.

You are aware that even though the Catholic Church has officially denounced its historical anti-Semitism, there still exists amongst some the popular belief that Jews should wander the face of the Earth, until the end of time, for rejecting Christ (aka, no homeland). So, the U.S. being a Protestant nation, even though there are many people of other Christian faiths here, in my opinion, finds a number of reasons to be an ally of Israel (as a Jewish State).
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:09 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Also that many Protestants identify with Israel, inasmuch as old line Protestant families also came to the U.S. as a homeland, to avoid religious persecution in Europe. ... ... ...


Luther - truely an "old line Protestestant" - expected Jews to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against Jews. (A couple of sources for that to be found at the Jewish Library online.)
georgeob1
 
  4  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:29 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Foofie wrote:

By the way, for those Americans that are watching this drama play out, the good news is Israel does not need our military to assist them. I mean Israel is not Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, Vietnam, France, Italy, Britain. In other words, in Israel's wars, only Israelis die; no American military dies. Let us dwell on that as the good news. Perhaps, that is what really matters - an ally that does not ask us to die for THEIR battles.


This is only partly true. Israel lives with an implied (and indeed in some areas explicit) American guarantee of security. This is what enables them to cling to the anachronistic concept of a modern tribal or theocratic state in an environment and historical context that make such an outcome a completely unrealistic expectation. There can be no peace and justice for all the people of the region until a pluralistic state is created there able to accomodate all the people. This, of course, won't happen until the zealots on both sides give up their sectarian dreams.


I was not talking about a future scenario that is fictional as of today. The fact remains Israel fights its own wars, as far as who dies. Every war the U.S. has been in since the Civil War has not been to protect our territory (was there a war with Mexico that might not count for the small incursion into our territory?). Our military personnal died in the 20th century protecting, aiding military of other nations. That is a fact; please do not trivialize it with "this is partly true." It is totally true!

And, when there would be a two-state solution, the other (Palestinean) state could also be thought of as an "anachronistic concept of a modern tribal or theocratic state" (your choice of words from above). So, it would seem that it would be incongruous for Israel to not be like the other states in the neighborhood.


You are evading the point. The U.S. security guarantee for Israel has deprived reasonable peoiple in Israel of any real incentive for dealing with their own lunatic zealots who would further expand settlements into Paqlestinian territory, further stoking the fires of hatred and sectarian resentment. Worse it has stifled the voices of those in Israel who understand that the real interests of their otherwise modern and advanced state lie in pluralism and tolerance for all.

The stakes in this game are getting higher and the acceptance of the American people for the increasingly one-sided support of Israeli extremists is decreasing fast.

Your assertions that only Israelis die in their wars ignores the political connectivity of the region and the collateral effects our support of Israel (and its continuing intransigence) has on other vital interests of this country. We are paying an increasing price, both in political and national security terms for our one-sided support of Israel, and the American public is increasingly aware of it.

Israeli zealots have clung to the notion of a Jewish state that requires the oppression of neighboring peoples and a second class status for non-Jews within its borders. Worse, they have, without acknowledging it, effectively prevented a two state solution by refusing the teerritorial integrity - or even air & water rights - of its neighbor, all while hiding behind the anger and retaliation of the victims of its oppression.

This situation can't last much longer, and Israelis will soon enough have to face and deal with the consequences of it.
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/02/2024 at 09:21:40