wtf is a person supposed to actually do about israel murdering hundreds of innocent civilians.

[jhonny]

 

It's a war crime if innocent civilians are murdered. It comes down to whether or not you believe Israel are purposefully killing innocent civilians, that's why it's irrelevant if rockets are nearby. They were clearly informed by the UN that innocent civilians were at that location and then they decided to drop bombs on them.

 

Again, stop being pedantic about the type of rockets, and who might be using them. You're talking about the potential for what Hamas could plausibly do, rather than the proportionate response to the deaths caused by Hamas rockets. They're two very different things.

 

Just to note - it doesn't have to be purposeful to be considered a war crime. See my post above.

 

yeah I missed your post when writing mine. Good stuff mate, cheers.

[eugene]

 

 

 

 

so eugene, the deaths of 165 children are acceptable collateral damage when taken in regard of fighting an elusive terrorist force, penned into a very small area of urban landscape no-one is capable of leaving?

acceptable by who/what? if you're asking me personally then i don't know who were the primary targets of those strikes that caused those children deaths and whether those strikes prevented casualties on the side of israelis, so i can't say whether it's acceptable. capabilities wise hamas is very well capable of inflicting massive casualties as there are numerous tunnels dug into israel.

 

Can you remind me when the last time was that Hamas inflicted massive casualties? And since then, how many civilians have been killed by the proportionate response from Israel?

 

what does it matter when it did so last time? it has the capability and the will to do it, more than a thousand rockets were launched into israel during those two weeks is a good indication of that. the fact that israeli managed to avoid heavy civilian casualties is due to anti rocket system and shelters and training. this proportionality argument is fucking horrid, it's as if you're implying that 700 israelis need to be killed for the sake of your sense of justice.

 

what?! How have I in any way implied that? I want less people to be killed by Israel, not more by Palestine!

 

I understand that 1000s of rockets have been launched at Israel, I'm not condoning that.

 

However, how many rockets has Israel launched in the last week?

 

0 that were meant to kill civilians.

 

[jhonny]

 

 

 

 

1. Right, but there has to be some way to do it without violating international humanitarian law.

Which the Israeli army is (in terms of proportionality and distinction).

 

2. Also important to recognize the other side's argument: Hamas needs Israel to maintain legitimacy and power. By ceding to many of their demands, Israel would actually lessen the authority that Hamas currently enjoys.

 

Also: and interesting hypothesis - Israeli operations actually cause an increase in the number of rocket attacks. (study from 2012, interesting if anyone wants to add data to the current round)

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/dissecting-idf-propaganda-the-numbers-behind-the-rocket-attacks.html

1. does it? i've asked this question many times on reddit and here when this argument came up and got no sensible answer. what number of civilian casualties is a proper threshold of proportionality given the circumstances on the ground (the way hamas operates and the threat it poses, the density of gaza and so on) and did israel cross it?

 

2. that's an argument i use when i argue with israeli right wingers, but a sensible counter argument could be that hamas will actually gain legitimacy in the eyes of gazans because it forced its demands on israel.

 

3. mondoweiss is poop.

 

 

1. Sure - easy to prove. There are four basic principles to the LOAC (Law of Armed Combat, which is the same thing as international humanitarian law).

1. Principle of Military Necessity

2. Principle of Distinction

3. Principle of Proportionality

4. Principle of Unnecessary Suffering

 

While Israel might argue that they are meeting the principle of military necessity, (basically securing complete submission - not destruction, and important distinction), a state (or actor) cannot use this as a reason to breach other acts prohibited by the LOAC.

So that leaves us with the last 3 - with 2 and 3 probably being the most relevant:

The principle of distinction is sometimes referred to as the principle of discrimination, this principle requires that belligerents distinguish combatants from civilians and military objectives from civilian objects (i.e., protected property or places). In keeping with this “grandfather” principle of the LOAC, parties to a conflict must direct their operations only against combatants and military objectives. In addition, Additional Protocol I (AP I) prohibits “indiscriminate attacks.”

Now of course you would argue that the defensive party has a responsibility as well, and it is true, under the LOAC, the principle of distinction requires that military forces “distinguish themselves from the civilian population so as not to place the civilian population at undue risk. This includes not only physical separation of military forces and other military objectives from civilian objects . . . but also other actions, such as wearing uniforms.” However, in order to enforce that on Hamas, they would have to be recognized as a legitimate actor, which to my knowledge, Israel has not done.

 

The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Since Israel has gained little military advantage in their attacks (rocket attacks from Hamas have not ceased, rather, they have increased), clearly there is little military advantage expected to be gained in proportion to the loss of life.

 

So (because I have limited time before I go to work) there is a pretty straightforward, not very nuanced explanation of how Israel has violated international law.

 

2. With Hamas recognized as a legitimate international actor, sanctions could be made much more enforceable - and the current government in Egypt would be more willing to go along with them (seeing as how Hamas is basically an offshoot of the recently ousted Muslim brotherhood). Target the cash flow to Hamas, and watch popular support nosedive. While Israeli offensives are met more and more with criticism (and imo rightfully so), dialogue, sanctions, and diplomacy would receive much more popular support globally. In the end, you would have fewer Israelis and Palestinians dying, and people in Gaza would see that Hamas rule is not the way forward.

 

3. Great argument.

 

 

you're dead wrong on the second point, when civilian object/building whatever is used to contain military equipment or actual militants it ceases to be protected by the second principle. israel sure does recognize hamas as a "legitimate actor" lol, it shoots rockets at it, this is a silly legalistic argument.

 

regarding the 3rd and 4th principle you have only your own opinion to establish that israel didn't gain enough from its attacks, so it's not even an argument. the rockets are much less of a threat than tunnels, for example, but you i bet it's the first time you're actually hearing of this.

 

So why blow up the school because it may have had rockets underneath?

[pcock]

eugene, you are a sociopathic disgrace to humanity, and its clear there is very little point debating anyone who thinks the lives of innocents are an acceptable loss in the face of the greater good. you sicken me. im out.

[pcock]

lets turn this shit around, in a hypothetical situation. assume that a gang of vicious, murderous scottish seperatists have been stockpiling submachine guns in the flat next to mine in glasgow. is it fair that my life is wiped out in the blink of an eye by a rocket? is that acceptable?

although i would still like to hear what you have to say about this.

[eugene]

 

 

 

 

 

1. Right, but there has to be some way to do it without violating international humanitarian law.

Which the Israeli army is (in terms of proportionality and distinction).

 

2. Also important to recognize the other side's argument: Hamas needs Israel to maintain legitimacy and power. By ceding to many of their demands, Israel would actually lessen the authority that Hamas currently enjoys.

 

Also: and interesting hypothesis - Israeli operations actually cause an increase in the number of rocket attacks. (study from 2012, interesting if anyone wants to add data to the current round)

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/dissecting-idf-propaganda-the-numbers-behind-the-rocket-attacks.html

1. does it? i've asked this question many times on reddit and here when this argument came up and got no sensible answer. what number of civilian casualties is a proper threshold of proportionality given the circumstances on the ground (the way hamas operates and the threat it poses, the density of gaza and so on) and did israel cross it?

 

2. that's an argument i use when i argue with israeli right wingers, but a sensible counter argument could be that hamas will actually gain legitimacy in the eyes of gazans because it forced its demands on israel.

 

3. mondoweiss is poop.

 

 

1. Sure - easy to prove. There are four basic principles to the LOAC (Law of Armed Combat, which is the same thing as international humanitarian law).

1. Principle of Military Necessity

2. Principle of Distinction

3. Principle of Proportionality

4. Principle of Unnecessary Suffering

 

While Israel might argue that they are meeting the principle of military necessity, (basically securing complete submission - not destruction, and important distinction), a state (or actor) cannot use this as a reason to breach other acts prohibited by the LOAC.

So that leaves us with the last 3 - with 2 and 3 probably being the most relevant:

The principle of distinction is sometimes referred to as the principle of discrimination, this principle requires that belligerents distinguish combatants from civilians and military objectives from civilian objects (i.e., protected property or places). In keeping with this “grandfather” principle of the LOAC, parties to a conflict must direct their operations only against combatants and military objectives. In addition, Additional Protocol I (AP I) prohibits “indiscriminate attacks.”

Now of course you would argue that the defensive party has a responsibility as well, and it is true, under the LOAC, the principle of distinction requires that military forces “distinguish themselves from the civilian population so as not to place the civilian population at undue risk. This includes not only physical separation of military forces and other military objectives from civilian objects . . . but also other actions, such as wearing uniforms.” However, in order to enforce that on Hamas, they would have to be recognized as a legitimate actor, which to my knowledge, Israel has not done.

 

The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Since Israel has gained little military advantage in their attacks (rocket attacks from Hamas have not ceased, rather, they have increased), clearly there is little military advantage expected to be gained in proportion to the loss of life.

 

So (because I have limited time before I go to work) there is a pretty straightforward, not very nuanced explanation of how Israel has violated international law.

 

2. With Hamas recognized as a legitimate international actor, sanctions could be made much more enforceable - and the current government in Egypt would be more willing to go along with them (seeing as how Hamas is basically an offshoot of the recently ousted Muslim brotherhood). Target the cash flow to Hamas, and watch popular support nosedive. While Israeli offensives are met more and more with criticism (and imo rightfully so), dialogue, sanctions, and diplomacy would receive much more popular support globally. In the end, you would have fewer Israelis and Palestinians dying, and people in Gaza would see that Hamas rule is not the way forward.

 

3. Great argument.

 

 

you're dead wrong on the second point, when civilian object/building whatever is used to contain military equipment or actual militants it ceases to be protected by the second principle. israel sure does recognize hamas as a "legitimate actor" lol, it shoots rockets at it, this is a silly legalistic argument.

 

regarding the 3rd and 4th principle you have only your own opinion to establish that israel didn't gain enough from its attacks, so it's not even an argument. the rockets are much less of a threat than tunnels, for example, but you i bet it's the first time you're actually hearing of this.

 

So why blow up the school because it may have had rockets underneath?

 

who said that this is what happened ?! the only thing that is established as fact is that something hit the schoolyard and killed 15 people and wounded more.

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

 

1. Right, but there has to be some way to do it without violating international humanitarian law.

Which the Israeli army is (in terms of proportionality and distinction).

 

2. Also important to recognize the other side's argument: Hamas needs Israel to maintain legitimacy and power. By ceding to many of their demands, Israel would actually lessen the authority that Hamas currently enjoys.

 

Also: and interesting hypothesis - Israeli operations actually cause an increase in the number of rocket attacks. (study from 2012, interesting if anyone wants to add data to the current round)

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/dissecting-idf-propaganda-the-numbers-behind-the-rocket-attacks.html

1. does it? i've asked this question many times on reddit and here when this argument came up and got no sensible answer. what number of civilian casualties is a proper threshold of proportionality given the circumstances on the ground (the way hamas operates and the threat it poses, the density of gaza and so on) and did israel cross it?

 

2. that's an argument i use when i argue with israeli right wingers, but a sensible counter argument could be that hamas will actually gain legitimacy in the eyes of gazans because it forced its demands on israel.

 

3. mondoweiss is poop.

 

 

1. Sure - easy to prove. There are four basic principles to the LOAC (Law of Armed Combat, which is the same thing as international humanitarian law).

1. Principle of Military Necessity

2. Principle of Distinction

3. Principle of Proportionality

4. Principle of Unnecessary Suffering

 

While Israel might argue that they are meeting the principle of military necessity, (basically securing complete submission - not destruction, and important distinction), a state (or actor) cannot use this as a reason to breach other acts prohibited by the LOAC.

So that leaves us with the last 3 - with 2 and 3 probably being the most relevant:

The principle of distinction is sometimes referred to as the principle of discrimination, this principle requires that belligerents distinguish combatants from civilians and military objectives from civilian objects (i.e., protected property or places). In keeping with this “grandfather” principle of the LOAC, parties to a conflict must direct their operations only against combatants and military objectives. In addition, Additional Protocol I (AP I) prohibits “indiscriminate attacks.”

Now of course you would argue that the defensive party has a responsibility as well, and it is true, under the LOAC, the principle of distinction requires that military forces “distinguish themselves from the civilian population so as not to place the civilian population at undue risk. This includes not only physical separation of military forces and other military objectives from civilian objects . . . but also other actions, such as wearing uniforms.” However, in order to enforce that on Hamas, they would have to be recognized as a legitimate actor, which to my knowledge, Israel has not done.

 

The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Since Israel has gained little military advantage in their attacks (rocket attacks from Hamas have not ceased, rather, they have increased), clearly there is little military advantage expected to be gained in proportion to the loss of life.

 

So (because I have limited time before I go to work) there is a pretty straightforward, not very nuanced explanation of how Israel has violated international law.

 

2. With Hamas recognized as a legitimate international actor, sanctions could be made much more enforceable - and the current government in Egypt would be more willing to go along with them (seeing as how Hamas is basically an offshoot of the recently ousted Muslim brotherhood). Target the cash flow to Hamas, and watch popular support nosedive. While Israeli offensives are met more and more with criticism (and imo rightfully so), dialogue, sanctions, and diplomacy would receive much more popular support globally. In the end, you would have fewer Israelis and Palestinians dying, and people in Gaza would see that Hamas rule is not the way forward.

 

3. Great argument.

 

 

you're dead wrong on the second point, when civilian object/building whatever is used to contain military equipment or actual militants it ceases to be protected by the second principle. israel sure does recognize hamas as a "legitimate actor" lol, it shoots rockets at it, this is a silly legalistic argument.

 

regarding the 3rd and 4th principle you have only your own opinion to establish that israel didn't gain enough from its attacks, so it's not even an argument. the rockets are much less of a threat than tunnels, for example, but you i bet it's the first time you're actually hearing of this.

 

 

Actually, it does not cease to be protected by the second principle. Because military necessity does not authorize acts otherwise prohibited by the LOAC.

To be recognized as a legitimate actor, would mean to give Hamas a voice in international affairs. It is a legal argument, but since we are discussing whether or not this would be a war crime, this is the context that makes the most sense.

 

I didn't discuss the 4th principle beyond outlining it. With regard to to the 3rd principle - the attacks on the tunnels would appear to be well within the LOAC, especially as there seems to be little collateral (incidental) damage associated with it, and the expected gains are proportionate to the force used. The bombing of schools to destroy a rocket cache on the other hand, could be argued to be a violation.

 

Do you assume me to be a supporter of Hamas? Nothing could be further from the truth. Their actions cannot be condoned. However, with the might of the US behind it, and many eyes worldwide watching, Israel would do well to act in a more cautious manner, lest they lose the public support that have. As JE noted - there seems to be a reluctance to grant Israel carte blanche.

[eugene]

eugene, you are a sociopathic disgrace to humanity, and its clear there is very little point debating anyone who thinks the lives of innocents are an acceptable loss in the face of the greater good. you sicken me. im out.

goddamn you're a fucking idiot, when the greater good is saving more innocent people it's absolutely justifiable according to any commonsensical moral principles.

 

 

lets turn this shit around, in a hypothetical situation. assume that a gang of vicious, murderous scottish seperatists have been stockpiling submachine guns in the flat next to mine in glasgow. is it fair that my life is wiped out in the blink of an eye by a rocket? is that acceptable?

yes if it is certain that they're about to kill many more people. jesus.

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Right, but there has to be some way to do it without violating international humanitarian law.

Which the Israeli army is (in terms of proportionality and distinction).

 

2. Also important to recognize the other side's argument: Hamas needs Israel to maintain legitimacy and power. By ceding to many of their demands, Israel would actually lessen the authority that Hamas currently enjoys.

 

Also: and interesting hypothesis - Israeli operations actually cause an increase in the number of rocket attacks. (study from 2012, interesting if anyone wants to add data to the current round)

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/dissecting-idf-propaganda-the-numbers-behind-the-rocket-attacks.html

1. does it? i've asked this question many times on reddit and here when this argument came up and got no sensible answer. what number of civilian casualties is a proper threshold of proportionality given the circumstances on the ground (the way hamas operates and the threat it poses, the density of gaza and so on) and did israel cross it?

 

2. that's an argument i use when i argue with israeli right wingers, but a sensible counter argument could be that hamas will actually gain legitimacy in the eyes of gazans because it forced its demands on israel.

 

3. mondoweiss is poop.

 

 

1. Sure - easy to prove. There are four basic principles to the LOAC (Law of Armed Combat, which is the same thing as international humanitarian law).

1. Principle of Military Necessity

2. Principle of Distinction

3. Principle of Proportionality

4. Principle of Unnecessary Suffering

 

While Israel might argue that they are meeting the principle of military necessity, (basically securing complete submission - not destruction, and important distinction), a state (or actor) cannot use this as a reason to breach other acts prohibited by the LOAC.

So that leaves us with the last 3 - with 2 and 3 probably being the most relevant:

The principle of distinction is sometimes referred to as the principle of discrimination, this principle requires that belligerents distinguish combatants from civilians and military objectives from civilian objects (i.e., protected property or places). In keeping with this “grandfather” principle of the LOAC, parties to a conflict must direct their operations only against combatants and military objectives. In addition, Additional Protocol I (AP I) prohibits “indiscriminate attacks.”

Now of course you would argue that the defensive party has a responsibility as well, and it is true, under the LOAC, the principle of distinction requires that military forces “distinguish themselves from the civilian population so as not to place the civilian population at undue risk. This includes not only physical separation of military forces and other military objectives from civilian objects . . . but also other actions, such as wearing uniforms.” However, in order to enforce that on Hamas, they would have to be recognized as a legitimate actor, which to my knowledge, Israel has not done.

 

The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Since Israel has gained little military advantage in their attacks (rocket attacks from Hamas have not ceased, rather, they have increased), clearly there is little military advantage expected to be gained in proportion to the loss of life.

 

So (because I have limited time before I go to work) there is a pretty straightforward, not very nuanced explanation of how Israel has violated international law.

 

2. With Hamas recognized as a legitimate international actor, sanctions could be made much more enforceable - and the current government in Egypt would be more willing to go along with them (seeing as how Hamas is basically an offshoot of the recently ousted Muslim brotherhood). Target the cash flow to Hamas, and watch popular support nosedive. While Israeli offensives are met more and more with criticism (and imo rightfully so), dialogue, sanctions, and diplomacy would receive much more popular support globally. In the end, you would have fewer Israelis and Palestinians dying, and people in Gaza would see that Hamas rule is not the way forward.

 

3. Great argument.

 

 

you're dead wrong on the second point, when civilian object/building whatever is used to contain military equipment or actual militants it ceases to be protected by the second principle. israel sure does recognize hamas as a "legitimate actor" lol, it shoots rockets at it, this is a silly legalistic argument.

 

regarding the 3rd and 4th principle you have only your own opinion to establish that israel didn't gain enough from its attacks, so it's not even an argument. the rockets are much less of a threat than tunnels, for example, but you i bet it's the first time you're actually hearing of this.

 

So why blow up the school because it may have had rockets underneath?

 

who said that this is what happened ?! the only thing that is established as fact is that something hit the schoolyard and killed 15 people and wounded more.

 

 

LOL that is some amazing denial of reality:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/gaza-crisis-israeli-shells-kill-15-un-school-compound

 

nor is it the first time IDF has performed such an act:

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870087,00.html

 

Wish I could post more, but gotta go perform some menial labour, and hate trying to post anything serious from my phone.

[Ivan Ooze]

maybe he did touch some children but come on, it's michael jackson!!

[eugene]

chen, this is not a shell tank damage:

 

the guardian brings absolutely zero evidence.

 

it's actually very similar to damage hamas rockets can do now that i think of it, and idf alleged that it could be hamas mortars/rockets as there was fighting in that area but no concrete evidence yet.

[azatoth]

When I am buying oranges I avoid the Israeli ones.

 

Since Gaza is an enclosed urban area with a lot of civilians, why not send in small tactical teams to find and apprehend known Hamas members and securing rocket caches instead of indiscriminately bombing the place. Surely the far superior IDF shouldn't have problems against the pitiful Hamas who can only keep firing shoddy rockets that barely cause any significant damage? The IDF might have a higher risk of casualties with feet on the ground, but at least it would minimize the collateral damage. Or don't a bunch of dead innocent Palestinians matter?

 

It's vicious cycle. And humans are shits so there will never be an end to it until one part gets what they want.

[awepittance]

for the first time perhaps ever, I've found Twitter an extremely great resource for finding up to date information about the Gaza assault

'
some people worth following: @jaypinho @MaxBlumenthal @RaniaKhalek

here are some stories I've seen come up recently:

Jeremy Bowen's Gaza notebook: I saw no evidence of Hamas using Palestinians as human shields

51% of Americans aged 18-29 think Israeli attack is unjustified. Israel's supporters are 50+


Israeli Jewish mayors are suspending and firing Palestinian citizens of Israel for opposing the Gaza slaughter

Israeli women show support of Gaza assault and IDF by posting sexually explicit and lurid photos to social networks

Israel deliberately bombs UN shelter

[awepittance]

here is the actual (real) facebook group for 'boosting' the moral of IDF soldiers

can't imagine a more disturbing juxtaposition at the moment (probably NSFW)

https://www.facebook.com/StandingWithIDF

[luke viia]

haha wow, that facebook is ridiculous...

 

 

 

[eugene]

 

lol, this reads: "that moment

when he returns from his reservist duty"

[jlobkob]

i have read through this whole thread, and this is really unbearable.

eugene, your statements are so soaked with the zionistic, misanthropic doctrine of the israeli government it hurts reading.

the israeli offensive is by no means sustainable in terms of international law; the casus belli is completely arbitrary and implies the mere people of gaza are all terrorists.

how can you, at the same time, see this war as legitimate based on murder of 3 teenagers but deny strenuously the proven fact that israel killed over 170 civilians in this conflict.

 

you do nothing but avoiding facts and suspect everyone who debates with you of willingly using sources that are unreliable, according to your opinion.

 

i do not want to insult you, but i have to second messiaen. this whole topic really sickens me.

[awepittance]

according to a few of the Anonymous twitter accounts, upwards of 10,000 Palestinian citizens are marching and have reached a check-point in Israel within the last hour.

Israel used fabricated images to justify bombing al-Wafa hospital

[eugene]

i have read through this whole thread, and this is really unbearable.

eugene, your statements are so soaked with the zionistic, misanthropic doctrine of the israeli government it hurts reading.

the israeli offensive is by no means sustainable in terms of international law; the casus belli is completely arbitrary and implies the mere people of gaza are all terrorists.

how can you, at the same time, see this war as legitimate based on murder of 3 teenagers but deny strenuously the proven fact that israel killed over 170 civilians in this conflict.

 

you do nothing but avoiding facts and suspect everyone who debates with you of willingly using sources that are unreliable, according to your opinion.

 

i do not want to insult you, but i have to second messiaen. this whole topic really sickens me.

first of all, wtf is "zionistic"? my statements sometimes correlate with official idf statements because i believe they are true and are as good as argument as the statements of the other side.

 

there's was no casus beli or any official declarations, hamas simply escalated its rocket attacks during those events, israel reposnded, then hamas responded to that response and so it rolled to what it is now. nothing of what i said implies that all gazans are terrorist. there was absolutely nothing of what i said that from which it can concluded that this war is justifiable because of that murder of teenagers, you're making shit up. i never denied that there were a lot of civilian casualties in gaza either. i avoided no facts but only proposed alternative explanations to those facts which i believe are plausible.

 

if you're so keen in communicating with me might as well actually read my posts instead of building strawmen.

[doublename]

Lol @ IDF nukeakke

[hoggy]

Does anyone have any solution to the problem of how Israel could proportionately defend itself against attacks from Hamas?

 

Also, is Hamas representative of the Palestinians, and how could the Palestinians reasonably protect themselves from the incursions (they perceive or that exist) into their freedoms?

 

Then another question - since neither of these would likely end the conflict anyway, is there some way for Israel and the Palestinians to co-exist given their ideologies (no cheating here, you can't just say that one or the other should change their beliefs - that's a illegal move in the argument because it is never going to happen), and can the international community do anything to help this?

[xox]

after i've read this thread, posted links and some of my domestic forums and posted links in them all i could do is to cry really. so much injustice so much pain and if the end of the shit comes (not just in gaza but all over the world) still so many have been killed and so many have stayed alive to live with their pain. shiT! i hate this world so much right now

[usagi]

I like how there'll always be some people defending Israel's actions even in the face of damning, undeniable facts like the actual casualty numbers. by no honourable standards are those kinds of massively skewed Palestinian-to-Israeli death ratios acceptable, but someone will always come out and be like "well, this is all because Hamas/Palestinians/whoever didn't/did do this/that/the other, so it's justified".

 

what a crock. at no time can you conveniently dispense with your moral standards to prevent the innocent loss of life - as much as is within your power to do so - just because of some other party's actions. that's never ok. in some cases (not this one) it may be unavoidable, but even so, it's not ok and it should weigh on the conscience of those who allowed it to happen.

 

I've heard the saying that Jews are the conscience of the world, because they've suffered so much through the ages and have developed a wisdom about how to deal with it. you'd think they would be the last people to - after going through the horrors of the holocaust - turn around and inflict their own horrors on another people. but here they are. it says more about our species than anything else.

[eugene]

what ratio would be acceptable then ? 3/1, 7843/38776, 7.535428/0.3478 ?

 

maybe the problem is that people consider it some kind of a tit for tat game and thus israel doesn't play fair? it's not that, it's an attempt to stop an organization that does as much as possible to kill as many israeli jews as possible. if those events were happening during the second intifada, like 2002-03, where every week hamas blew a bus or a restaurant, there would be much less of those ridiculous calls for proportionality. but the idea is simply to prevent what was happening during those years.

[LimpyLoo]

Then another question - since neither of these would likely end the conflict anyway, is there some way for Israel and the Palestinians to co-exist given their ideologies (no cheating here, you can't just say that one or the other should change their beliefs - that's a illegal move in the argument because it is never going to happen), and can the international community do anything to help this?

 

I reject the premise that changing their beliefs is "never going to happen" and thus the matter should be excluded from debate.

 

Disabusing people of crazy beliefs that cause them to act like maniacs should be pretty high on the To-Do List.