THE WAR IN GAZA

@revel,

When did the "customary law" cited in your highly partisan source become either customary or law???

The bombing and shelling of cities using both explosive and incendiary weapons was very widely used by all the participants in WWII. Such tactics were used by UN forces in Korea and by their North Korean & Chinese opponents. Same goes for Vietnam.

I believe your reference to "customary law" is the figment of someone's imagination.

Why didn't your source also note the rather indiscriminate rocket fire launched by Hamas into Israeli cities?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Probably b/c the rocket fire is rarely deadly, while white phosphorous is often quite deadly.

As for the firebombing the US has engaged in in the past, you're correct. It was a horrible thing that we have done and we have had to come to terms with our decision to do it. I believe that there is a presumption, that we have entered an age where we have decided to attempt to limit the casualties of war, instead of increase them to the highest amount possible; the world-wide peace movement has been extremely successful in exposing the true horrors of war and this has led to a certain tightening of standards on the part of 'civilized' countries.

Our past actions in no way excuse Israel's current ones.

In other news,

Israel is wiping Pal villages right off the map in Gaza - literally:

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As for the firebombing the US has engaged in in the past, you're correct. It was a horrible thing that we have done and we have had to come to terms with our decision to do it. I believe that there is a presumption, that we have entered an age where we have decided to attempt to limit the casualties of war, instead of increase them to the highest amount possible; the world-wide peace movement has been extremely successful in exposing the true horrors of war and this has led to a certain tightening of standards on the part of 'civilized' countries.

Our past actions in no way excuse Israel's current ones.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. From Chechnya to Georgia, Ruanda, Congo, Bosnia, Croatia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Tibet and Palestine contemporary warfare has become relatively more murderous and destructive than that which proceeded it.

The "presumption that we have entered an age ... blah, blah, blah" may well be held by some who believe their conversations will have real meaning when the stakes are high and the chips down. However the facts of the contemporary world clearly demonstrate that this is an illusion.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

The Zionist entity in the middle east is an abortion. And the Israeli Disgrace Force, its commanders and political overlords war criminals and sons and daughters of bitches.

Who else but the Israelis would use white phosphorus against densely packed civilians? Against UN and ICRC personnel. Flaschette and DIME weapons against children?

Kind of laying it on aren't you? Israelis are human beings just like everyone else. Very few things in this world either are all good or all bad. While I have fundamental disagreements with Israeli policy, I don't believe the evidence suggests they are solely responsible for all that is wrong in the Middle East. You seem not to make that distinction here.

Incidental use of white phosphorus as a marker or illumination source is both legal and standard in modern warfare. There is no creditable evidence that Israel has done more than that.

Widespread use of it as an incindary device to create mass urban conflagrations was pioneered by the USA and the UK during WWII.

George, I respect your knowledge and experience. But nothing recently has upset me more than the Israeli onslaught in Gaza. They are not trying to protect themselves, but to establish greater Israel, whatever the cost. And if that means war with Iran, they will engineer it for the Americans to bear the brunt. Regarding the use of phosphorus bombs...well the pictures I saw of shells exploding on a UN school were shot in daylight, hardly a military necessity to illuminate targets at night.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As for the firebombing the US has engaged in in the past, you're correct. It was a horrible thing that we have done and we have had to come to terms with our decision to do it. I believe that there is a presumption, that we have entered an age where we have decided to attempt to limit the casualties of war, instead of increase them to the highest amount possible; the world-wide peace movement has been extremely successful in exposing the true horrors of war and this has led to a certain tightening of standards on the part of 'civilized' countries.

Our past actions in no way excuse Israel's current ones.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. From Chechnya to Georgia, Ruanda, Congo, Bosnia, Croatia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Tibet and Palestine contemporary warfare has become relatively more murderous and destructive than that which proceeded it.

Wow; I wonder if you really are all that familiar with the horrors perpetrated in earlier wars, to make such a statement.

I think you'll note that I specifically mentioned 'civilized' countries; that is to say, Western Democracies. The Iraq ware has in no way been as destructive as previous conflicts, Palestine either; though the Israelis are trying.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

After this so-called war (the war is between two forces), the idea of Peace for Land has completely ceased to exist. By this savage act Israel has arousing great anger in the Arab and Muslim world, and makes impossible the possibility of its peaceful integration in the region, because Israel wants dominance, not peaceful coexistence.
There are no objectives of this savage act because how do you explain its results? All of Martyrs are civil and 50 per cent of whom are children. In the old days, Jewish people had called the killers of prophets and now they are called the killers of children.

1 Reply

@FyaSet,

It is hilarious for FS, who is probably a Muslim, to call Israelis killers of children. Hamas always targets civilians, and have shot up to 8,000 rockets into Southern Israel, terrorizing the civilians there. No country with any power would tolerate that. Also, Hamas hides and operates from the midst of civilians, including children. Stop the lying.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

It is hilarious for FS, who is probably a Muslim, to call Israelis killers of children.

Why is that hilarious? The Israelis are killers of children. They are quite good at it and have a long track record of doing so.

In this present conflict alone they have killed hundreds of children. Now, I know you don't give a damn, Advocate, because you don't consider them to be people. But the rest of us do.

Own up to Israel's perfidy if you expect to be taken seriously.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Advocate wrote:

It is hilarious for FS, who is probably a Muslim, to call Israelis killers of children.

Why is that hilarious? The Israelis are killers of children. They are quite good at it and have a long track record of doing so.

In this present conflict alone they have killed hundreds of children. Now, I know you don't give a damn, Advocate, because you don't consider them to be people. But the rest of us do.

Own up to Israel's perfidy if you expect to be taken seriously.

Cycloptichorn

So, let us be fair and remember that prior to that wall being built, when suicide bombers were a recurrent theme, the targets were where women and children could be casualties.

The interesting thing might be that when the weapon du jour of the militants was suicide bombers, Israel could not give credence to a military attack. So, by eliminating many of those attacks, by building a wall, the militants went to a weapon du jour (rockets) that gives credence to a military response. Is there not an old saying, biting one's nose, to spite one's face?

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Easy enough to decide who is or is not killers of children.

Statistics are kept.

Here are some that I found:

Here are the facts:

Totals killed from 2000 through 2007:

Palestinians killed by Israelis: 4439

Israelis killed by Palestinians: 1032

Children killed from 2000 through 2007:

Palestinian children killed by Israelis: 826

Israeli children killed by Palestinians: 119

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/download/synopsis.pdf

This could be a biased source. If you have any better statistics, furnish them!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Horrific for sure, but both of these groups are pikers.

Quote:

100k Civilians Killed In Iraq By Coalition Forces

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00025.htm

For truly stunning numbers, consider, the number of children murdered in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, Panama, hell, half a million alone in Iraq before the illegal invasion.

Yup, the hands down experts are the Americans and their cohorts. That Israel is so good at it is that they have trained under the experts.

0 Replies

Hamas if guilty of killing its own children. There is no question that they hide and operate among its children and other civilians. So who is at fault for childlren dying? It is clearly Hamas.

3 Replies

@Advocate,

Hummm, blaming people for their own misery.

Where have I heard a group of people arguing that doing that is a disgusting thing to do?

Lemme think???

Who were those folks???

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Quote:

So who is at fault for childlren dying?

It couldn't be the very people who are launching the bombs, could it?

0 Replies

At what age does a child stop being a source of "greater" concern if killed during a military conflict? It seems the world cries more when a child dies; however, I am not sure a respective mother of a dead soldier cries less?

My point is that talking about dead children is no different than talking about all dead, I believe. Yet, it seems our western culture pays more attention to the death of a child than the death of an adult, I believe, because there is the "innocence factor." True, children are more innocent than adults; yet, all adults should not be better at being a casualty statistic, by virtue of being less innocent, I believe.

A partial solution might be similar to what Londoners were able to do during WWII; that is, send the children to the country. So, as part of any peace proposals, it might be valuable to have both sides sign some agreement to give fair warning where children might be. Then both sides would see that there is no moral high ground for what they both did.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Quote:

Hamas if guilty of killing its own children. There is no question that they hide and operate among its children and other civilians. So who is at fault for childlren dying? It is clearly Hamas.

I'll put you down as one vote for making expendable the principle that one does not kill innocents in war. Yes guerrillas take advantage of their cultured opponents unwillingness to stoop to certain levels, but keep in mind that they also cheer when they are successful in provoking these same opponents into giving up their civilized ways, giving up voluntarily the moral high ground (ask Bin Laden if you see him).

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Excellent point, Hawkeye.

One of the problems I have with people who think torture at Guantanamo is okay is...

...it seems to be voluntarily giving up the standards those people pretend torture is necessary to protect.

It really makes no sense!

It's like levelling a village and killing everyone in it to protect it from the communists.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You would have to say though Frank that compared to non-Christian forms of torture waterboarding represents something of an advance. And now even that is removed to real progress.

Not that I approve of waterboarding. I agree with you entirely. In fact I thought it a sufficient reason on its own for regime change in Iraq. As I do anywhere else which uses human ingenuity and intelligence for an inhuman purpose. If only because it says that human intelligence and ingenuity is a two-sided concept which it didn't ought to be.

1 Reply

One thing I find curious about this whole argument is this...

What if Israel gives in?
What if they were to accede to every demand being made by Hamas?
If they were to open the borders (ignoring the fact that every country has the right to determine who is allowed entry), what if they were to allow access to Gaza from the sea(ignoring the fact that every country with an ocean has its territorial limits at sea, usually 20 miles), what if Israel was to allow entry thru Egypt (ignoring the fact that Egypt closed the border.If Israel were to accede to every demand made by Hamas, would Hamas stop shooting at Israel?

If they didnt stop, would Israel then have the right to retaliate?

But lets make it equal.
We allow Israel to retaliate by shooting rockets randomly into Gaza.
Every time Hamas fires a rocket, Israel is allowed to fire a rocket back.
That way, Israel is responding "proportionaly", and that should make everyone happy.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

assuming that you are/have been married: when ever your wife lashes out at you do you punch her in the face? If you do not punch her does that mean that you gave always give in to her?

violence is only occasionally the right response, in intimate relationship between individuals as well as countries. Israel knows of nothing else.

3 Replies

THE WAR IN GAZA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know