31
   

THE WAR IN GAZA

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 05:05 pm
@Advocate,
What's next, a coke snortin' drunk for president?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 05:27 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Plea to Hamas: No Ceasefire until Joe the Plumber Arrives in Gaza

Dear Hamas,

Allow us to restate that we deplore your actions, which have harmed both Palestinians and Israelis. However, it has come to our attention that Joe the Plumber is headed to the Middle East, to cover the war for WNWO-TV in Toledo. And while we are not technically asking you to kill Joe the Plumber (that's illegal!), we are encouraging you to reject a ceasefire until at least three rockets are fired in his direction. He's easy to spot. He literally has a skinhead, and he'll be surrounded by Israelis who will be asking themselves, "it's come to this? Israel's security is dependent on the editorial skills of Joe the Plumber?"

--236.com



I think you have, perhaps unwittingly, uncovered the central issue here. Israel's security is indeed dependent on the continuing guarantee provided by the United States, and any action that might result in reduced popular support for this increasingly costly guarantee is itself a threat to the security of Israelis.

This should remind Americans that, as an unintended side effect of that support, we have removed any incentive for Israelis to deal responsibly with their neighbors and the people who occupy the land which they covet. Worse, Zionists have come to expect this almost as a right - no matter what they do or what it may cost us.

I believe Americans have become increasingly aware of this situation.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 06:30 pm
@georgeob1,
I think we all have George.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 06:49 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Free, where have you been. Israel pulled out of Gaza completely, leaving valuable commercial properties, which were promptly destroyed by Gaza. For some strange reason, Israel dislikes the some 8,000 rockets, plus shells, fired at it. Should Hamas stop this, it could have peace.


Right. Israel was just minding its own business being a good neighbor and Hamas fired rockets into Israel for no reason. Israel instituted a blockade, which is itself an act of war, and launched several attacks in Gaza. Israel is not the victim.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 07:11 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
One humanitarian effort was to mature people, the other one is to people I cannot even define.


In that case it's of course okay to shoot the relief workers.


I assume you are being sarcastic. If you are looking for my correction of your thought, keep waiting. My character has nothing to do with the points that might be the purpose of this thread.

If one wonders why there are so many civilian casualties, it might have something to do with rushing to get a job done (end the rockets from Gaza). Israel knows that much public opinion is against them from the moment they look in the direction of Gaza. The longer the military action goes on, the more anti-Israel sentiment grows, regardless of the number of casualties amongst the Palestineans, I believe. So, Israel, I believe, is rushing due to those that are so vehemently anti-Israel. Rushing causes casualties amongst civilians. The anti-Zionists (including so much of the media) are making a self-fulfilling prophecy, I believe, by so many clamoring for Israel to stop defending itself.

I do not even think that many people who are anti-Israel truly realize that being anti-Zionist is just another form of anti-Semitism, since based on Jewish history, either in Muslim or Christian countries, there are Jews who do not want to live amongst Gentiles. Everyone else has the ability to live SOMEWHERE amongst there own kind, if they are not social extraverts, so to speak. Jews though, I believe, are thought of by many as some sort of commodity that can be shared by the world's nations. That is why as an American, I can still commiserate with Israel, since as a secular Jew, I understand not all Jews have the constitution to lead a happy life and swim in a sea of Gentile culture. As good a country as the U.S. is, Christmas is still a national holiday, and only in a few islands of political correctness do people say "Happy Holidays." In the hinterlands of the U.S. people consider Christmas as American as apple pie, which it is. However, it can be annoying to those who do not subscribe to the holiday. I do not mind the Christian dominated culture, but I would like to think that other Jews can live in peace where it is their rightful place to live; like Germans have Germany, even after losing two world wars. If Israel loses one war, they are gone!
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 07:12 pm
@revel,
revel wrote:

You responded to the post about the UN workers getting killed by demonizing the UN. I wondered what relevance of the UN's popularity with conservative Americans would have with the workers getting killed doing a job they had prior permission to do.



A rhetorical question? No relevance!
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 07:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
The horrors in Gaza are the fault of Hamas, which continually attacked Israel from day one. Israel was always willing to live in peace with Gaza and its governments. Israel is not willing to wear a bullseye for the Hamas gunners.



Advocate...lemme ask you a question.

If some people came into your house and appropiated a significant portion of it for their own use, but declared that they will willing to live in peace with you there...

...would you consider it logical or proper for them to declare you to be at fault for struggling, by whatever means, to reclaim the house?


Bad analogy, I believe. Unless of course, all of Israel, in your opinion, should belong to the Arabs, and the Jews should go somewhere else.

You may not be aware, living in a state with an upper middle-class Jewish population, that there are Jews in the world that would like to live their respective lives NOT swimming in a sea of Gentile culture. Sort of like the Italians that never came to the New World.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 07:18 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Israel was always willing to live in peace with Gaza and its governments.


Is that why it reacted to the election of Hamas by demanding that the government be dissolved? Is that why Gaza was blockaded? Israel doesn't want peace -- she wants land and resources and she wants a Jewish controlled democratic state in an area where the demographics make it nearly impossible unless it is ethnically cleansed.


Hamas does not, nor will not, based on its charter, accept the existence of Israel. It makes reference to the forgery, from 19th century Czarist Russia, of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 07:27 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:


I think you have, perhaps unwittingly, uncovered the central issue here. Israel's security is indeed dependent on the continuing guarantee provided by the United States, and any action that might result in reduced popular support for this increasingly costly guarantee is itself a threat to the security of Israelis.

This should remind Americans that, as an unintended side effect of that support, we have removed any incentive for Israelis to deal responsibly with their neighbors and the people who occupy the land which they covet. Worse, Zionists have come to expect this almost as a right - no matter what they do or what it may cost us.

I believe Americans have become increasingly aware of this situation.


The only security that the U.S. affords Israel, is to keep Russia out of the Middle East, invading Israel. Israel can handle their own fights with its neighbors. And do not tell me how much of the taxpayers' money goes for military arms to Israel. Those military arms may be from our government, but the money to pay for them goes right to the armament/aircraft industries that make them. You knew that I would guess, having been in the military. My question then, what is wrong with making those U.S. companies having a greater profit? Better than bailing them out like we seem to be doing with other industries. Remember there are wealthy stockholders in the U.S. that do not have pensions from the government. It is called capitalism.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 07:41 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:


Right. Israel was just minding its own business being a good neighbor and Hamas fired rockets into Israel for no reason. Israel instituted a blockade, which is itself an act of war, and launched several attacks in Gaza. Israel is not the victim.


What is this belief that Israel is obligated to treat Palestineans like Friar Tuck, and offer them jobs, and whatever. Israel, in my opinion, should give Mexicans guest worker Visas, so that Palestineans can never be needed as labor in Israel. Palestineans should fend for themselves, since they have a coastline, and an Arab neighbor to the south. Israel is not a railroad flat where one must go through every room to get to the last room.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 08:25 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie,

You do know what the word "blockade" means, right?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 09:22 pm
Security Council votes for Gaza ceasefire
Posted 37 minutes ago
Updated 28 minutes ago


The UN Security Council has voted to call for an "immediate, durable" ceasefire in the Gaza Strip leading to the "full withdrawal" of Israeli forces, but the United States abstained.

Fourteen of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the compromise resolution worked out in three days of intense bargaining involving several Arab foreign ministers, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

The text "stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza."

It "calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment" and welcomes initiatives aimed at "creating and opening humanitarian corridors and other mechanisms for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid."

Resolution 1860 also "condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism" and urged member states to intensify efforts for arrangements and guarantees in Gaza "to sustain a durable ceasefire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition and to ensure the reopening of the crossing points (into Gaza)."

It "welcomes the Egyptian initiative (the three-point truce proposal unveiled by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday) and other regional and international efforts that are under way."

Mr Mubarak invited Israel and the Palestinians to Cairo for talks on conditions for a truce, on securing Gaza borders, reopening of its crossings and lifting the Israeli blockade on the Palestinian enclave.

The abstention vote cast by Dr Rice came as a surprise as diplomats indicated earlier that they expected the text to get unanimous support.

The vote capped a day of high drama in which Arab ministers had threatened to press for a vote on their own draft....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/09/2462423.htm
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 02:07 am
Israel continues attacks, despite UN ceasefire vote
Posted 1 hour 20 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 14 minutes ago


Israel pushed ahead with its offensive in the Gaza Strip, ignoring a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire to the 14-day-old conflict.

Israeli warplanes dropped bombs on the outskirts of the city of Gaza, residents said. Elsewhere, Palestinian medics said tanks shelled a house in Beit Lahiya in the north of the Gaza Strip, killing six Palestinians from the same family.

In New York, the Security Council passed a resolution urging an "immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire", and for Israel to withdraw from Gaza after its two-week air-and-ground offensive. The United States abstained.

There was no immediate reaction from Israeli officials to the vote, but Israel opposed the idea of a binding resolution. Israel's military commanders appeared keen to pursue the ground offensive to try to secure more gains. ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/09/2462705.htm
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 05:48 am
Interesting report, from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humantarian Affairs in Jerusalem, pdf-data here.
http://i44.tinypic.com/mjpenn.jpg
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 06:09 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
The United Nations on Friday cited witnesses saying Israeli forces moved about 110 Palestinians into a house, told them to stay inside, and later shelled it repeatedly, killing about 30 people.

The Israeli army said it had no knowledge of such an incident but was investigating.

The UN report said that "according to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitun (half of whom were children) warning them to stay indoors. Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing approximately 30."
Source
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 07:02 am



HAMAS is causing the death of Palestinian children and nobody cares...
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 07:28 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Hamas does not, nor will not, based on its charter, accept the existence of Israel.

And Likud will not accept the existence of a Palestinian state. So what.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 07:30 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

What is this belief that Israel is obligated to treat Palestineans like Friar Tuck, and offer them jobs, and whatever.

I give up, what is it?

Quote:
Israel, in my opinion, should give Mexicans guest worker Visas, so that Palestineans can never be needed as labor in Israel. Palestineans should fend for themselves, since they have a coastline, and an Arab neighbor to the south. Israel is not a railroad flat where one must go through every room to get to the last room.


See ebrown's repsonse.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 08:18 am
Quote:
Deadly And Proportionate Force: The Tragedy Of Hamas
Richard A. Epstein 01.06.09, 12:00 AM ET


The breakdown of the uneasy truce between Israel and Hamas once again exposes the open conceptual wounds that surround the law of self-defense. On the one side, Hamas indiscriminately lobs deadly homemade rockets from Gaza into Southern Israel, especially the town of Sderot, killing to date some four people and wounding dozens of others. In response, the Israelis have unleashed, first, a sustained air attack, followed by a major ground offensive. Both of these target Hamas operatives but kill and wound, in addition, hundreds of women and children, some of whom Hamas uses as human shields around its sensitive targets. It is a given that if Hamas were to renounce the use of force, the Israelis would instantly follow suit. But when Hamas declares open season on Israeli civilians, what may the Israelis do in response?

On this issue, we are all libertarians insofar as we believe that no individual or nation is entitled to use force against another. Why? Because the world is a far more dangerous place if everyone is entitled to use force than if no one is. But just how is that peace secured? As if by design, Article 51 of the U.N. Charter is quite useless. It recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." But it does not explain the scope and limits of that inherent right. Rather, it contents itself with saying that the right may no longer be exercised once "the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security," which it rarely does.

So what's to be done in the interim? Understanding self-defense in international affairs depends on the imperfect analogies to individual conflicts. Dead people lack good legal remedies. Self-help is thus allowed universally to repel or defeat the aggressor. By the same token, however, self-defense may not transmute itself into vengeance by the use of excessive force. But just how much force is necessary, and for how long may it be used? In general, the private law throws the risk of uncertainty on the aggressor so long as the innocent party acts in good faith to minimize unnecessary harm.

As applied to the Israeli/Hamas dispute, two points are clear. Hamas has been the aggressor, and the nonstop Israeli response against military targets cannot be regarded as excessive so long as the rocket attacks continue. But can the Israeli actions still be condemned as disproportionate to a legitimate end? Tough question. At one level, many libertarians bridle at the mere mention of proportionality. Right should not have to yield to wrong--period. So if it takes deadly spring guns to keep robbers at bay from my house at night, so be it. Yet even for most libertarians, that stark view of right vs. wrong comes out second best. Better that $1,000 of goods be stolen than a guilty human life be sacrificed. The innocent party has to rest content with criminal sanctions and recovery of the goods if the wrongdoer is caught. The price of perfect justice is just too high.

The principle of proportionality can be extended to some cases of bodily harm. You can't kill an attacker who for sure will do no more than scratch your face. The innocent party has to lick his wounds for the benefit of a wrongdoer. But you may kill, if need be, the attacker who threatens to maim but not kill you. Or all 10 gang members act with that same intention. Unavoidably messy.

The face-off in Gaza, however, pushes the idea of proportionality one step further. The claim is that it is not permissible for the Israelis to kill many individuals, including civilians, to stop sporadic deaths from rocket fire. Sorry. As with individual aggression, proportionality has no place in dealing with deadly force, where the right rule is that all necessary force is permissible.

The Israelis are not required to slowly bleed in Sderot because Hamas is at present only capable of using primitive rockets against it. It need not wait until the attacks become ever more deadly to raise the ante. It should of course do whatever it can to avoid the killing of civilians, even those who serve as human shields. It can, of course, back off to take into account the political repercussions, and it has been well-advised to dance the peculiar minuet that couples bombings on one day with relief conveys on the next.

As these examples show, the riddle of self-defense has no tidy theoretical solution. If overwhelming force is needed to stop persistent deadly attack against nations or groups that flout international law, then so be it. The sooner the international community acknowledges that principle, the sooner it will intervene constructively to stop bloodshed--by putting troops on the ground in Gaza if necessary, and by convicting top Hamas leaders of crimes against humanity.

Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago; the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution; and a visiting professor at NYU Law School. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.com.
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 08:18 am
35% of the dead were children and 15% women. They targeted schools!!!!

Half the dead are women and children. Must make them so very proud!!!!!!!

 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » THE WAR IN GAZA
  3. » Page 12
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 02:12:05