Israel begins ground operations [Archive]

Tsukasa Buddha

3rd January 2009, 07:22 PM

I'm sorry, but you need to add on some adamantly Zionist comments or terrorist apologizing ones before constructive discussion can begin.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, representing major powers sponsoring Middle East peace talks, planned to begin shuttling on Sunday between Israeli leaders and Palestinian leaders -- Hamas's rivals -- in the occupied West Bank.
But divisions within the European Union over the Israeli operation could buy Israel more time.
France condemned the Israeli ground assault, as well as Hamas rocket fire. On Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is scheduled to go to Jerusalem. Israel had rejected Paris's calls for a 48-hour ceasefire.
Diplomats said the Europeans were drafting a new proposal for a truce. Political sources said some Israeli officials favor a formal ceasefire backed by the U.N. and major powers. Other decision makers in Israel say it would only tie their hands should rocket fire continue.

Why are Europeans making peace plans? If either of the warring parties want peace, they should advocate that on their own and ask for mediation. Otherwise, let them fight it out, because the truces will probably be as effective as the last one, and the one before that, and the one before...

My question is what will Israel do after kicking Hamas' *** in Gaza? 'Cause we all know that that is going to happen and no amount of UN whining will stop it.

Texas

3rd January 2009, 07:34 PM

I'm sorry, but you need to add on some adamantly Zionist comments or terrorist apologizing ones before constructive discussion can begin.

Why are Europeans making peace plans? If either of the warring parties want peace, they should advocate that on their own and ask for mediation. Otherwise, let them fight it out, because the truces will probably be as effective as the last one, and the one before that, and the one before...

My question is what will Israel do after kicking Hamas' *** in Gaza? 'Cause we all know that that is going to happen and no amount of UN whining will stop it.
It appears that the plan is to overthrow Hamas and allow Fatah to take control. Hamas appears to be very isolated at the moment by most Arab States. I don't believe Israel has any desire to re-occupy Gaza.

WildCat

3rd January 2009, 07:37 PM

Here's IDF video of the preparations. Lots of heavy armor.

rZOnUG3TIWg

For all those worried about the IDF not allowing comments on their videos, they are allowed for this video for the time being.

Policenaut

3rd January 2009, 07:37 PM

My question is what will Israel do after kicking Hamas' *** in Gaza? 'Cause we all know that that is going to happen and no amount of UN whining will stop it.

That's the question. Hamas won't quit no matter if they "see that shooting rockets into Gaza is not helpful to their situation." I think they know that continuing shooting rockets isn't doing a damn thing for their people. It's only bolstering Hamas' power and support. So Israel really has no good options and this ground invasion will probably end pretty soon or else it will be in a semi-occupation status for a fairly long period of time. But now that they've started they can't just roll in, say mission accomplished, roll out, and then still have rockets being launched out of Gaza. And the UN doing anything substantial would be a miracle.

Texas

3rd January 2009, 07:54 PM

That's the question. Hamas won't quit no matter if they "see that shooting rockets into Gaza is not helpful to their situation." I think they know that continuing shooting rockets isn't doing a damn thing for their people. It's only bolstering Hamas' power and support. So Israel really has no good options and this ground invasion will probably end pretty soon or else it will be in a semi-occupation status for a fairly long period of time. But now that they've started they can't just roll in, say mission accomplished, roll out, and then still have rockets being launched out of Gaza. And the UN doing anything substantial would be a miracle.

I have a feeling that this is the real deal this time. All signs appear to point to Israel having tacit approval by the Arab states and Fatah to do whatever it takes to kill Hamas once and for all. The UN has shown absolutely no urgency on this and that in itself is telling.

interwaff

3rd January 2009, 07:57 PM

Those rockets are a nuisance, but since there are no WMDs in Gaza, there is no right to invade. We all learned that, didn't we?

Thunder

3rd January 2009, 07:59 PM

Cool. Now let the real fighting begin. I hope Hamas kicks some butt. Even the score a little. Show the Israelis that 4 Jews DOES NOT equal 400 Arabs.

Texas

3rd January 2009, 08:01 PM

Cool. Now let the real fighting begin. I hope Hamas kicks some butt. Even the score a little. Show the Israelis that 4 Jews DOES NOT equal 400 Arabs.Wow.

WildCat

3rd January 2009, 08:05 PM

Cool. Now let the real fighting begin. I hope Hamas kicks some butt. Even the score a little. Show the Israelis that 4 Jews DOES NOT equal 400 Arabs.
You are sick.

interwaff

3rd January 2009, 08:10 PM

Cool. Now let the real fighting begin. I hope Hamas kicks some butt. Even the score a little. Show the Israelis that 4 Jews DOES NOT equal 400 Arabs.

Body count is one good measure of justice, but it's far more efficient to do it by gross weight.

For example- have all of the Jews and Arabs stand on a scale, and randomly kill however many are needed to balance it.

No children or fat people will be allowed on the scales, because that would be cheating.

Thunder

3rd January 2009, 08:11 PM

lol

but seriously, I think its cowardly to bomb an enemy into submission. soldier to soldier combat is what a real war is all about.

let the games begin!!!

but in all seriousness, I think Israel has done a horrible thing with the blockade and then the destruction of Gaza. only when an army actually suffers real human loses do they seem to start to understand the seriousness of their actions.

A body count of 500 Israeli soldiers will hopefully smack some sense into Israel.

WildCat

3rd January 2009, 08:14 PM

lol

but seriously, I think its cowardly to bomb an enemy into submission. soldier to soldier combat is what a real war is all about.

let the games begin!!!
It's about winning, not about fairness.

Texas

3rd January 2009, 08:21 PM

lol

but seriously, I think its cowardly to bomb an enemy into submission. soldier to soldier combat is what a real war is all about.

let the games begin!!!
Parky have you ever been in a bar fight? Your attitude would put you in a hospital or worse. War is even more unfair. Remember Indiana Jones and the guy with the sword in the market?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLXdLgOybE

Childlike Empress

3rd January 2009, 08:25 PM

[image removed]

Thunder

3rd January 2009, 08:25 PM

Parky have you ever been in a bar fight? Your attitude would put you in a hospital or worse. War is even more unfair. Remember Indiana Jones and the guy with the sword in the market?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLXdLgOybE

There used to be some sense of honor in warfare. Not anymore.

There is nothing honorable..nothing courageous..about attacking an enemy armed with mortors and AK-47s..with 1,000 pound bombs and laser guided missiles from the safety of a F-16 at 10,000 feet.

Texas

3rd January 2009, 08:26 PM

Thunder

3rd January 2009, 08:27 PM

http://www.proswastika.org/e107_images/custom/original_symbol_corrected.jpg

funny. that is the early image of the crazy Raelian cult.

:D

Texas

3rd January 2009, 08:28 PM

Thunder

3rd January 2009, 08:30 PM

Texas

3rd January 2009, 08:33 PM

http://www.proswastika.org/e107_images/custom/original_symbol_corrected.jpg
It's telling that, so far, 100% of the forum truthers that have posted on this issue in "politics" have been rabid haters of Israel.

Childlike Empress

3rd January 2009, 08:33 PM

funny. that is the early image of the crazy Raelian cult.

:D

I don't think it's funny. It's so sad. Most pedophiles were abused during their childhood. :(

Texas

3rd January 2009, 08:35 PM

i think a fair fight...or even a fairer fight...has some honor to it.

why is punching someone in the groin not allowed in boxing or karate? cause there is no honor in it...and renders the opponent useless.You stated that "war" used to be fought with "honor" now you are bringing up boxing and Karate that are both refereed sports. Learn the first rule of holes. BTW a groin kick is one of the FIRST karate kicks learned.

Thunder

3rd January 2009, 08:39 PM

I don't think it's funny. It's so sad. Most pedophiles were abused during their childhood. :(

Um...come again?
:confused:

talk about a massive derail. Its like the F train is heading towards Philly.

WildCat

3rd January 2009, 08:39 PM

There used to be some sense of honor in warfare.
When was that? Please be specific.

Texas

3rd January 2009, 08:42 PM

When was that? Please be specific. IT must have been in a Galaxy far far away.

The Fool

3rd January 2009, 08:44 PM

i think a fair fight...or even a fairer fight...has some honor to it.

why is punching someone in the groin not allowed in boxing or karate? cause there is no honor in it...and renders the opponent useless.
This isn't MMA Cage rage 2008 pay per view. Many innocent peple have died and will die.

Hamas has had its go and shown it can't control itself. If rumors are true and a different Palestinian regime is to be given a chance then lets please give them a chance. Its time to address Palestinian nationalism and sort out a real deal that includes a viable palestinian state. This will not end all the troubles but it is required before any end is possible.

Childlike Empress

3rd January 2009, 08:48 PM

Um...come again?
:confused:

talk about a massive derail. Its like the F train is heading towards Philly.

I have removed the image. I am sorry. I made a decision to not get involved in any discussions about this conflict, mainly because of my heritage. But it hurts me SO much and i am drunken now. Sorry. Carry on.

Texas

3rd January 2009, 08:53 PM

This isn't MMA Cage rage 2008 pay per view. Many innocent peple have died and will die.

Hamas has had its go and shown it can't control itself. If rumors are true and a different Palestinian regime is to be given a chance then lets please give them a chance. Its time to address Palestinian nationalism and sort out a real deal that includes a viable palestinian state. This will not end all the troubles but it is required before any end is possible. It appears that Israel has promised Fatah that it will hand over Gaza to them as soon as Hamas is destroyed. In the meantime Fatah members are being targeted by Hamas as "collaborators".

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733155685&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The move came amid reports that the Fatah leadership in the West Bank has instructed its followers to be ready to assume power over the Gaza Strip when and if Israel's military operation results in the removal of Hamas rule.

Fatah officials in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post that Hamas militiamen had been assaulting many Fatah activists since the beginning of the operation last Saturday. They said at least 75 activists were shot in the legs while others had their hands broken.

Wisam Abu Jalhoum, a Fatah activist from the Jabalya refugee camp, was shot in the legs by Hamas militiamen for allegedly expressing joy over the IDF air strikes on Hamas targets.

"Hamas is very nervous, because they feel that their end is nearing," a senior Fatah official said. "They have been waging a brutal campaign against Fatah members in the Gaza Strip."

Meanwhile, sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations

Thunder

3rd January 2009, 09:02 PM

Hmm.....Fatah and Israel becoming stronger allies due to the common enemy in Hamas.

Interesting. This might go in some interesting directions.

If Israel really wants peace, they will start seriously propping up and assisting Fatah NOW.

Tin Foil Timothy

3rd January 2009, 09:23 PM

You are sick.

Sick is he?

I think a country with one of the most modern militaries in the world , thanks to the America Taxpayer, pounding the **** out of a small group of people who are armed with little more than primitive rockets and killing a whole bunch of civilians in the process is SICK.

I think a country that racially discriminates against people, implements a regime of apartheid, collectively punishes, persecutes and ghettoizes a whole group of people, including holding up their pregnant women at checkpoints is SICK.

The IDF aren't civilians, they are legitimate targets. I also hope Hamas gives 'em a good kicking.

All those sitting in front of their TV with six packs and egging on the murder of Palestinian civilians because they are the wrong race are sick!!

Texas

3rd January 2009, 09:27 PM

Sick is he?

The IDF aren't civilians, they are legitimate targets. I also hope Hamas gives 'em a good kicking.

All those sitting in front of their TV with six packs and egging on the murder of Palestinian civilians because they are the wrong race are sick!!
Yeah I hope Hamas comes out of their holes too. They don't seem too eager to actually put their asses on the line.

interwaff

3rd January 2009, 09:34 PM

What is and isn't cowardly will not be determined by the dead.

You just have to live with yourself afterward, and some annoying dumb people at home who wish to shame you for their own political gain, regardless of your deeds good and evil.

WildCat

3rd January 2009, 10:06 PM

Gotta love it when stupid people protest:

http://home.mindspring.com/~dylanaverysucksballs/death_to_juice.jpg

Tin Foil Timothy

3rd January 2009, 10:09 PM

Yeah that was really funny. :)

I hope he doesn't shoot my kool-aid

gdnp

3rd January 2009, 10:33 PM

i think a fair fight...or even a fairer fight...has some honor to it.

Bull. War is killing the other guy before he kills you. The honor comes in those who risk their lives for the greater good. If I see the enemy sitting on the john I'm going to shoot him there, not wait for him to get his pants on so we can have a fair fight.

That being said, it would appear that Israel's objective is to destroy Hamas completely. They will try to complete the coup that Fatah was preparing for when Hamas kicked them out of Gaza. Israel has the advantage that Hamas, being clients of Iran, are not particularly popular in the Arab world.

It remains to be seen whether Fatah is seen by the Gazans as puppets of the Israelis when Abbas is put back in charge. Hamas has considerable support on the West Bank as well. People on the street will tend to side with the civilian population. If Fatah are seen as collaborators with the Israelis it could get pretty ugly. It's hard to imagine the new leadership will be less radical.

Perhaps Israel will release Barghouti to pick up the pieces. I remember hearing years ago the theory that they were keeping him in jail to give him street cred and to keep his hands clean in the internal palestinian power struggles. If they are planning on playing the Barghouti as Mandella card, their opportunity may be soon.

plumjam

3rd January 2009, 11:59 PM

Give me just one example of "honor" in war ever.
I recently read a book about Agincourt. Prior to this battle Henry V took many prisoners at the siege of Harfleur. These prisoners were released on oath, that they would be allowed to go home, but would have to turn up on a particular date at Calais, in order to be taken as prisoners back to England. After moving on to Agincourt and winning that battle Henry and his army moved north to Calais to return to England.
All of the prisoners released on oath weeks earlier indeed turned up at Calais for the specified date, and most were taken to England. Many of these were ransomed back to their families and estates in France, but this process often took years. Some never saw France again, being judged as too influential, capable, and therefore dangerous to English interests. They lived out the rest of their lives in England, as prisoners.
So, rather than suffer the dishonour of breaking an oath, all of these men willingly returned to captivity, knowing that this could well mean years or a lifetime away from their homes and families.
Apparently this was pretty standard practice at the time. There are other examples, but that is one that surprised me just recently.

gtc

4th January 2009, 12:08 AM

All those sitting in front of their TV with six packs and egging on the murder of Palestinian civilians because they are the wrong race are sick!!

Do you think you ought to take up your concerns with those people then?

Texas

4th January 2009, 12:13 AM

I recently read a book about Agincourt. Prior to this battle Henry V took many prisoners at the siege of Harfleur. These prisoners were released on oath, that they would be allowed to go home, but would have to turn up on a particular date at Calais, in order to be taken as prisoners back to England. After moving on to Agincourt and winning that battle Henry and his army moved north to Calais to return to England.
All of the prisoners released on oath weeks earlier indeed turned up at Calais for the specified date, and most were taken to England. Many of these were ransomed back to their families and estates in France, but this process often took years. Some never saw France again, being judged as too influential, capable, and therefore dangerous to English interests. They lived out the rest of their lives in England, as prisoners.
So, rather than suffer the dishonour of breaking an oath, all of these men willingly returned to captivity, knowing that this could well mean years or a lifetime away from their homes and families.
Apparently this was pretty standard practice at the time. There are other examples, but that is one that surprised me just recently.

How do you explain this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#The_assault_on_the_baggage_tra in_and_the_killing_of_the_prisoners

The assault on the baggage train and the killing of the prisoners
The only French success was a sally from Agincourt Castle behind the lines attacking the lightly protected English baggage train, with Ysembart d'Azincourt (leading a small number of men-at-arms and about 600 peasants) seizing some of Henry's personal treasures, including a crown. In some accounts this happened towards the end of the battle, and led the English to think they were being attacked from the rear. Barker (2005) prefers the Gesta Henrici however, believed to have been written by an English chaplain who was actually in the baggage train, who says that the attack happened at the start of the battle.

Regardless, there was definitely a point after the initial English victory where Henry became alarmed that the French were regrouping for another attack. The Gesta Henrici puts this after the English had overcome the onslaught of the French men-at-arms, and the weary English troops were eyeing the French rearguard ("in incomparable number and still fresh"). Le Fevre and Waurin similarly say that it was signs of the French rearguard regrouping and "marching forward in battle order" which made the English think they were still in danger.

In any event, Henry ordered the slaughter of what was perhaps several thousand French prisoners, with only the most illustrious being spared. His fear was that they would rearm themselves with the weapons strewn upon the field, and the exhausted English (who had been fighting for about three hours) would be overwhelmed. This was certainly ruthless, but arguably justifiable given the situation of the battle; perhaps surprisingly, even the French chroniclers do not criticise him for this.[28] This marked the end of the battle, as the French rearguard, having seen so many of the French nobility captured and killed, fled the battlefield.

gtc

4th January 2009, 12:15 AM

It remains to be seen whether Fatah is seen by the Gazans as puppets of the Israelis when Abbas is put back in charge. Hamas has considerable support on the West Bank as well. People on the street will tend to side with the civilian population. If Fatah are seen as collaborators with the Israelis it could get pretty ugly. It's hard to imagine the new leadership will be less radical.

Perhaps Israel will release Barghouti to pick up the pieces. I remember hearing years ago the theory that they were keeping him in jail to give him street cred and to keep his hands clean in the internal palestinian power struggles. If they are planning on playing the Barghouti as Mandella card, their opportunity may be soon.

The Palestinians are between a rock and a hard place. If they want peace and prosperity they have to work with the Israelis and work against the Islamist militants. But anyone who does that will be portrayed as a collaborator or a puppet of the zionists.

Tsukasa Buddha

4th January 2009, 12:21 AM

When was that? Please be specific.

Pretty sure the Red Coats did.

But other than that, wow, what the **** parky?

Texas

4th January 2009, 12:24 AM

Pretty sure the Red Coats did.

But other than that, wow, what the **** parky? How did the "Red Coats" act honorably during the revolution other than marching in suicidal straight lines.

Tsukasa Buddha

4th January 2009, 12:26 AM

It appears that the plan is to overthrow Hamas and allow Fatah to take control. Hamas appears to be very isolated at the moment by most Arab States. I don't believe Israel has any desire to re-occupy Gaza.

Ah, yeah, that makes sense.

Of course, IIRC Hamas gained power because Fatah wasn't taking care of the Palestinian people properly, and Hamas was supposed to be getting rid of the status quo. Well, new boss, old boss I guess.

Texas

4th January 2009, 12:31 AM

Ah, yeah, that makes sense.

Of course, IIRC Hamas gained power because Fatah wasn't taking care of the Palestinian people properly, and Hamas was supposed to be getting rid of the status quo. Well, new boss, old boss I guess.
It all comes down to a simple equation...is the destruction of Israel more important than building a country. That is what every mother of a suicide bomber in Gaza or the West Bank has to decide. If the Mothers decide their children are more than weapons then there will be an independent Palestinian state.

yairhol

4th January 2009, 01:48 AM

There used to be some sense of honor in warfare. Not anymore.

There is nothing honorable..nothing courageous..about attacking an enemy armed with mortors and AK-47s..with 1,000 pound bombs and laser guided missiles from the safety of a F-16 at 10,000 feet.

It is plain to see that parky76 has never seen combat up close.
What complete nonsense and utter stupidity in one post.

Cool. Now let the real fighting begin. I hope Hamas kicks some butt. Even the score a little. Show the Israelis that 4 Jews DOES NOT equal 400 Arabs.

I'm sure Randi is so proud to have a terrorism supporter in his forum.
At least now we know who we're dealing with in this forum.

lupus_in_fabula

4th January 2009, 05:13 AM

It all comes down to a simple equation...is the destruction of Israel more important than building a country. That is what every mother of a suicide bomber in Gaza or the West Bank has to decide. If the Mothers decide their children are more than weapons then there will be an independent Palestinian state.

I find that to be quite naïve: If indeed it were for the mothers to decide, there probably would be an Palestinian state already. But naiveté aside, there is some truth in what you say: namely that of emancipation of women, and that they should have much more to say in regards to politics and everyday administration. After all, their experiences will set the tone for how children perceive their situation and possible future. But that will only happen if Palestinians gain some normality in their everyday lives; something tangible to look forward to; something other than continuance of occupation and territorial disregard without end in sight.

Sadly, the 'facts on the ground' are already such that a reasonable territorial agreement is nowhere in sight. The Israeli settlements are hardly going anywhere anymore, the separation barrier is not going anywhere either (maybe after some minor adjustments it will perhaps be the future border), control over water resources is thus going to be out of reach for the Palestinians in the future as well. Realistically, there's not much to bargain for. Hence, 'no viable end in sight' is probably the hardest barrier to break. Peace, in and of itself, is not tangible enough, that much we know.

Ending all acts of terrorism would certainly give the Palestinians more diplomatic bargain power however, but that wouldn't prevent them for getting a rotten deal in return anyway, and they probably know that all too well (and so does Israel). They should have understood that a long time ago already. Today, at the very best, they might achieve a deal where they could share resources with the Israeli settlers. But for having reasonable control over them... not a chance! That ship sailed away with Arafat's blunders, especially in regards to the gulf war. The real question is probably how much more must slip out of their reach in order for them to consider a crappy deal thats left for them? It's getting crappier all the time.

Thunder

4th January 2009, 08:17 AM

It is plain to see that parky76 has never seen combat up close.
What complete nonsense and utter stupidity in one post.
I'm sure Randi is so proud to have a terrorism supporter in his forum.
At least now we know who we're dealing with in this forum.

Do you support the blockade upon Gaza that sought to only allow in enough food and medicine to prevent a "humanitarian disaster"?

Do you know that this blockade was NOT in response to any violent actions against Israel by Hamas?

This blockade, in my humble opinion, was a war crime, and anyone who supported this move, is a supporter of war crimes.

I'm sure Randi is proud to have a supporter of war crimes in this forum.

And btw...the reason as far as my support for Israel getting their butt kicked?...perhaps I am just supporting David against Goliath.

or maybe I am just @#$%&$% sick of it all.

WildCat

4th January 2009, 08:38 AM

Do you support the blockade upon Gaza that sought to only allow in enough food and medicine to prevent a "humanitarian disaster"?

Do you know that this blockade was NOT in response to any violent actions against Israel by Hamas?

This blockade, in my humble opinion, was a war crime, and anyone who supported this move, is a supporter of war crimes.
It's not a war crime according to any definition that matters.

I'm sure Randi is proud to have a supporter of war crimes in this forum.
Bizarre.

And btw...the reason as far as my support for Israel getting their butt kicked?...perhaps I am just supporting David against Goliath.

or maybe I am just @#$%&$% sick of it all.
No, you're just sick.

Thunder

4th January 2009, 09:08 AM

It's not a war crime according to any definition that matters.
.

denying any amount of food, medicine, fuel, and civilian supplies is a war crime.

what does food have to do with fighting terrorism? medicine?

this was a move to force the Palestinians to rebel against Hamas...using basic living neccessities as a weapon. This is a war crime.

gambling_cruiser

4th January 2009, 09:13 AM

Gaza has a border with Egypt. Why don't the arabs supply the palaestinians?
Might be they don't like Hamas?

WildCat

4th January 2009, 09:19 AM

denying any amount of food, medicine, fuel, and civilian supplies is a war crime.
No, it's not.

Which is completely separate from the fact that Israel hasn't blocked food and medicine. If there are shortages of those things it's because Hamas is taking that which Israel allows through.

what does food have to do with fighting terrorism? medicine?

this was a move to force the Palestinians to rebel against Hamas...using basic living neccessities as a weapon. This is a war crime.
Please show where a blockade is a war crime. Fact is, Israel is the only country in the world that is expected to supply a country at war with them food and medicine and fuel.

Thunder

4th January 2009, 09:26 AM

Please show where a blockade is a war crime. Fact is, Israel is the only country in the world that is expected to supply a country at war with them food and medicine and fuel.

So, now Palestine is a country?

OK, perhaps it is not legally a "war crime", but collective punishment is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-7B5QL3?OpenDocument

Myriad

4th January 2009, 09:36 AM

Please keep this discussion civil and polite. Recognize that reasonable people are going to disagree on such a divisive matter. (Which doesn't mean that all possible positions are reasonable, but it does mean that disagreeing with your own position doesn't make that person irrational, immoral, or insane.) Do not personalize the argument.

WildCat

4th January 2009, 09:36 AM

So, now Palestine is a country?

OK, perhaps it is not legally a "war crime", but collective punishment is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-7B5QL3?OpenDocument
Denying your enemy war materiel is not "collective punishment". It wasn't just "Palestinian militants" firing rockets at Israel, it was the army of the government of Gaza!

Thunder

4th January 2009, 09:39 AM

Denying your enemy war materiel is not "collective punishment". It wasn't just "Palestinian militants" firing rockets at Israel, it was the army of the government of Gaza!

Ah, I see. So now grain, rice, and medicine...brought in by the United Nations are "war materials".

I guess you are right. The Palestinian people of Gaza are the enemy. Anything that keeps them alive is "war material".

Is that what you are trying to say?

Fascism is alive and well at JREF.

WildCat

4th January 2009, 09:45 AM

Ah, I see. So now grain, rice, and medicine...brought in by the United Nations are "war materials".
They are not blocking such shipments!

eAfbLZgnIpI

I guess you are right. The Palestinian people of Gaza are the enemy. Anything that keeps them alive is "war material".

Is that what you are trying to say?
No.

Fascism is alive and well at JREF.
You think I'm a fascist now? :boggled:

Thunder

4th January 2009, 09:55 AM

They are not blocking such shipments!

"On December 15, 2008, following a statement in which he described the embargo on Gaza a 'crime against humanity', United Nations human rights investigator Richard A. Falk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk) was prevented from entering the Palestinian territories by Israeli authorities and expelled from the region."

"Addressing a special session (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/6/index.htm) [official website] of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour (http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/arbour/index_e.asp) [official profile] said (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-7B5QL3?OpenDocument) [transcript] Wednesday that Israel's policy of collective punishment, disproportionate use of force and targeted killings, coupled with the Palestinian militant practice of indiscriminate firings of bombs and rockets, has led to the current crisis in the Gaza Strip. Israel had compounded the situation, she said, by blockading Gaza, preventing citizens from getting basic necessities such as food, gas, water, electricity and medicine. "

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/01/un-rights-chief-slams-israeli-blockade.php

Are you calling the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights a liar?

Are you a fascist? I'm not sure. But your words seem to suggest the possibility of fascist attitudes.

WildCat

4th January 2009, 10:05 AM

"On December 15, 2008, following a statement in which he described the embargo on Gaza a 'crime against humanity', United Nations human rights investigator Richard A. Falk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk) was prevented from entering the Palestinian territories by Israeli authorities and expelled from the region."

"Addressing a special session (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/6/index.htm) [official website] of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour (http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/arbour/index_e.asp) [official profile] said (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-7B5QL3?OpenDocument) [transcript] Wednesday that Israel's policy of collective punishment, disproportionate use of force and targeted killings, coupled with the Palestinian militant practice of indiscriminate firings of bombs and rockets, has led to the current crisis in the Gaza Strip. Israel had compounded the situation, she said, by blockading Gaza, preventing citizens from getting basic necessities such as food, gas, water, electricity and medicine. "

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/01/un-rights-chief-slams-israeli-blockade.php

Are you calling the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and a liar?
No, I'm calling her a useful idiot. I love the bit from the Jurist where Syria is portrayed as a champion of human rights. Syria is an actual fascist regime!

Are you a fascist? I'm not sure. But your words seem to suggest the possibility of fascist attitudes.
:rolleyes:

Thunder

4th January 2009, 10:11 AM

Yeah. I thought so.

plumjam

4th January 2009, 10:12 AM

How do you explain this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#The_assault_on_the_baggage_tra in_and_the_killing_of_the_prisoners

What are you on about?
You ask for an explanation, and the explanation is there in the text you supplied. :boggled:

Stout

4th January 2009, 12:09 PM

Denying your enemy war materiel is not "collective punishment". It wasn't just "Palestinian militants" firing rockets at Israel, it was the army of the government of Gaza!

Now that's the relationship I was trying to establish yesterday when I was asking whether Hamas was democratically elected or some militant group that had seized power.

I side the Israelis on this, if the Palestinians elected a government that wanted to go to war, then obviously they got just that.

Now where was it I was reading someone going on about Israel dropping 100 pound bombs on a civilian population ? When i read articles like this (http://http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20090101.aspx)I'm really having a tough time swallowing this whole "Israelis are targeting civilians" argument.

Thunder

4th January 2009, 01:12 PM

Darth Rotor

4th January 2009, 01:25 PM

It is against the Geneva Conventions to withhold food and medicine from a civilian population..even if they have chosen to elect a crappy Islamic extremist govt.

Imagine what would happen if one day, some nation that we are dependant upon for food and medicine, decided to withhold it from us, because they decided they didn't like our choice of leadership?

Bad guys withhold food and medicine. Good guys dont.
Then the UN Charter is in violation of the Geneva Convention. It explicitly allows for embargoes and blockades. Read Articles 40-52. Come back when you understand them.

Care to try again, Parky?

DR

gdnp

4th January 2009, 01:49 PM

Then the UN Charter is in violation of the Geneva Convention. It explicitly allows for embargoes and blockades. Read Articles 40-52. Come back when you understand them.

Care to try again, Parky?

DR

Yes. The UN charter allows for embargoes and blockades. When authorized by the security council. I do not recall Israel asking for a security council resolution authorizing their Gaza blockade.

Or would you assert, for example, that because the security council can authorize the use of lethal force, that the use of lethal force outside of a security council authorization is legal?

Oh, and I'd like some examples where the security council embargoed food and medicine to a civilian population. The closest that comes to mind are the Iraq sanctions, and there they set up alternative means of delivering humanitarian supplies (the oil for food program).

IDB87

4th January 2009, 03:51 PM

Yes. The UN charter allows for embargoes and blockades. When authorized by the security council. I do not recall Israel asking for a security council resolution authorizing their Gaza blockade.

If they (Israel) do not ask for authorization, and proceed with a blockade, is there a certain set of protocols the U.N. must follow inorder to end the illegal blockade? The same applies to Hamas targetting civilians - are there steps the U.N, set by its' own rules and standards, must follow to end the illegal targetting of Israeli civilians that hold no military significance?

Parky:

Could you explain to me how two military bodies slugging it out in urban centers with high-powered rifles and explosives is fair? All military equipment (including the training of the soldier), throughout history, is and was designed to give one side an advantage.

Thunder

4th January 2009, 05:44 PM

Yes. The UN charter allows for embargoes and blockades. When authorized by the security council. I do not recall Israel asking for a security council resolution authorizing their Gaza blockade.

Or would you assert, for example, that because the security council can authorize the use of lethal force, that the use of lethal force outside of a security council authorization is legal?

Oh, and I'd like some examples where the security council embargoed food and medicine to a civilian population. The closest that comes to mind are the Iraq sanctions, and there they set up alternative means of delivering humanitarian supplies (the oil for food program).

Um...I think it is fair to say:

"DR.....you got BUSTED!!!!"

:D

Darth Rotor

4th January 2009, 05:57 PM

Yes. The UN charter allows for embargoes and blockades. When authorized by the security council. I do not recall Israel asking for a security council resolution authorizing their Gaza blockade.
Nor do they need to. A state of belligerency exists, whether or not it is declared, at which time the two parties can act as do belligerents. Funny, they are doing that. I find it bizarre that the UN -- not a state -- can order an embargo on behalf of Bosnia or the people of Haiti, but that a nation in a state of belligerency with another party can't. Sorry, that's a little inside out.

By the way, did either of you bother to read Article 51?

I thought not. From Parky I expect that, but from you I expected better.

Likewise, with your love of the UN, do you hold the attack on Serbia 1999 was unlawful? That wasn't a UN op either. Curious at your reasoning here.
Or would you assert, for example, that because the security council can authorize the use of lethal force, that the use of lethal force outside of a security council authorization is legal?
I will point out that a state of belligerency, when it exists, opens the door for belligerent acts, of which a blockade is one. An embargo, such as the trade embargo the Arabs laid on the US, or the US laid on certain good with the Soviets, are not beliggerent acts, and to NOT require UN authorization in any case.

Parky, if you were smart enough to understand this conversation, I'd address you, but you aren't.
Oh, and I'd like some examples where the security council embargoed food and medicine to a civilian population. The closest that comes to mind are the Iraq sanctions, and there they set up alternative means of delivering humanitarian supplies (the oil for food program).
Since that faulty Parkyesque summary has already been shown, in this thread and about ten others in the past month, to be incorrect -- hum aid has indeed been sent, and some getting in, and as noted by numerous reports, frequently misdirected, sorta like Iraq, please try again.

DR

interwaff

4th January 2009, 06:23 PM

I wonder how long oporations will last.

Likely until the fat lady sings, like when one goes to the opora.

"Fat" as in Oporah Winfrey.

"Sings" as the oporative word.

Pardalis

4th January 2009, 07:08 PM

WildCat

4th January 2009, 07:23 PM

Guerilla war will only increase the casualties, I don't think Israel has any chance to take Hamas down without taking twice as much civilians in the process. It's hard to crunch big numbers but I just saw the 500 casualties mark in the news, and that's pretty steep. They've got to start thinking if it's worth it.
They can do it now, while Hamas is relatively weak or they can do it later, after Hamas has had more years with which to smuggle even more and better arms from their Iranian patrons and to train and build up their army.

The first "it" in "is it worth it" is Israels very existence.

It's funny that no one is mentioning Iran in these threads, as if they were just a casual bystander.

4th January 2009, 07:29 PM

Pardalis

4th January 2009, 07:33 PM

The first "it" in "is it worth it" is Israels very existence.

I know Hamas' goal, and I know any war costs lives, but the body count is growing exponentially now with the ground operations. I'm starting to wonder if the end result, the destruction of Hamas, is ever likely to be acheived.

It cost 1 thousand lives in Lebanon and Hezbollah are still around.

4th January 2009, 07:36 PM

will the Children and other relatives of the killed Hamas members be peacefull in future?

Pardalis

4th January 2009, 07:39 PM

will the Children and other relatives of the killed Hamas members be peacefull in future?

Well they were going to get brainwashed by their Hamas fathers if they stayed alive anyway, but the Israeli retaliation will further the resentment and hatred too I agree. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. A real mess.

Texas

4th January 2009, 07:46 PM

Guerilla war will only increase the casualties, I don't think Israel has any chance to take Hamas down without taking twice as much civilians in the process. It's hard to crunch big numbers but I just saw the 500 casualties mark in the news, and that's pretty steep. They've got to start thinking if it's worth it.
There is nothing worse than entering a Guerrilla war and then leaving it before the job is done. Yes there have been about 100 civilian deaths so far but to pullout with Hamas still in control on the heels of Lebanon it will destroy Israel's military credibility as an effective deterrent and you can bet that Israel's enemies in the Middle East are watching events closely. Israel is fast losing its larger than life image as an unbeatable military power and given the geographical realities surrounding it that is a very real threat to its future viability as a country.

Texas

4th January 2009, 07:55 PM

will the Children and other relatives of the killed Hamas members be peacefull in future? Would they have been peaceful had their Hamas parents lived? There is an old ethics exercise that asks would it have been right to travel back into time and kill Hitler as a child. Given what Palestinian children are being taught in schools, Mosques and their parents and the honoring of suicide bombers in Palestinian culture as martyrs is it unreasonable to assume that most adolescent children are so indoctrinated into genocidal hatred that they are no longer "innocent"?

a_unique_person

4th January 2009, 08:00 PM

Pardalis

4th January 2009, 08:03 PM

There is nothing worse than entering a Guerrilla war and then leaving it before the job is done.

It depends on what "done" means, the job wasn't done in Lebanon for example.

They had every reason to retaliate, but until what point?

Darth Rotor

4th January 2009, 08:07 PM

For all the claims of Hamas having stockpiles of advanced weapons, I haven't seen any sign of it to date.

You most likely wouldn't, until they use them, if they have them. Why? It is in their interest to exploit technological surpise.

For a better example, albeit old and more along the lines of conventional warfare, consider the SA 6 in 1973. It worked better due to the Egyptians doing a little OPSEC and not broadcasting their newer, monopulse radar guided SAM's.

It was eventually countered, but exacted a price.

DR

Texas

4th January 2009, 08:15 PM

It depends on what "done" means, the job wasn't done in Lebanon for example.

They had every reason to retaliate, but until what point? If all Isael wanted to do was retaliation it could have stopped with the air assault. Israel first stated that its goal was to "change the facts on the ground" in Gaza. Now Israel is saying that it has no intention of deposing Hamas. Lebanon very badly damaged the credibility of Israel's resolve and if they do the same thing in Gaza it will be critically damaged or even destroyed. Israel is playing a VERY dangerous game by giving groups like Hezboallah and Hamas moral victories. Should Israel withdraw with Hamas still in control then every life lost on both sides were lost just to maintain the status-quo. To me that would actually be a moral crime Israel could fairly be accused of commiting.

The Fool

4th January 2009, 08:19 PM

They can do it now, while Hamas is relatively weak or they can do it later, after Hamas has had more years with which to smuggle even more and better arms from their Iranian patrons and to train and build up their army.

The first "it" in "is it worth it" is Israels very existence.

It's funny that no one is mentioning Iran in these threads, as if they were just a casual bystander.
Apparently when you want to scare the kiddies into eating thier vegetables you tell them that Hamas will destroy thier nation......yep, Hamas....will destroy one of the largest most advanced armed forces in the world. Only a moron would believe it possible but you don't necessarily have to be a moron to try to scare kiddies into eating thier vegetables by chanting it.

yell IRAN a lot too, that works.

this miserable pisfarting Hamas will annihalate Israel!! one day...........some day........please believe me kiddies.

MattusMaximus

4th January 2009, 08:28 PM

Yippee, now the real fun begins :rolleyes:

Pardalis

4th January 2009, 08:30 PM

If Hamas had the means, they definitely would exterminate the Jews from Israel, I have absolutely no doubt about it.

Alot of extremists both from left and right like to compare Israel to Nazi Germany. Israel has the means, but there is no evidence and nothing that they've done shows that it is their intention to exterminate Arabs, it's been 60 years and counting and they haven't attempted anything like it, it's not part of their rhetoric, they do not teach their young to kill Arabs, etc. Hamas on the other hand...

I agree Fool that we musn't inflate Hamas's threat, but one needs to understand that they would it they could.

WildCat

4th January 2009, 08:32 PM

For all the claims of Hamas having stockpiles of advanced weapons, I haven't seen any sign of it to date.
We've already seen they have Grads, courtesy of Iran. Whether the Iranian anti-tank weapons they are rumored to have is reality we will soon find out. Hezbollah certainly had them in Lebanon.

If Hamas survives this and Israel gives in to pressure to end the blockade you can be certain that better and more lethal Iranian arms will find their way to Gaza.

Thunder

4th January 2009, 08:40 PM

If Hamas had the means, they definitely would exterminate the Jews from Israel, I have absolutely no doubt about it.

And there are more then a few right-wing Zionists who would love to ethnically cleanse Israel and the West Bank of every living soul that is not a Jew.

WildCat

4th January 2009, 08:43 PM

Apparently when you want to scare the kiddies into eating thier vegetables you tell them that Hamas will destroy thier nation......yep, Hamas....will destroy one of the largest most advanced armed forces in the world. Only a moron would believe it possible but you don't necessarily have to be a moron to try to scare kiddies into eating thier vegetables by chanting it.

yell IRAN a lot too, that works.

this miserable pisfarting Hamas will annihalate Israel!! one day...........some day........please believe me kiddies.
If Israel pulls out of Gaza without ending Hamas as a viable military force then Hamas will have shown they don't need to actually destroy Israel's army. And Hamas has shown they will use whatever means they have to attack Israel. Yesterday it was homemade Qassams, today it is Iranian-made Grad missiles, tomorrow they will use Iranian missiles with even longer ranges, a bigger warhead, and greater accuracy.

Do you think Israel is sustainable as a nation with a hundred missiles striking random civilian targets every single day?

Israel has no choice but to fight back, or it will cease to exist. That is reality.

Pardalis

4th January 2009, 08:44 PM

And there are more then a few right-wing Zionists

How many? How big are they? Are they part of the government? Do they have television shows that teach children to hate?

Malerin

4th January 2009, 08:47 PM

WildCat

4th January 2009, 08:48 PM

will the Children and other relatives of the killed Hamas members be peacefull in future?
Do you think these children of living Hamas members will be peaceful in the future?

eTGbP55HGi8

WildCat

4th January 2009, 08:54 PM

During the Civil War, there were a lot of displays of honor on by both sides. I recommend Reflections on the Civil War by Catton. I'll try to tell one of Catton's stories (don't have the book any more):

A couple confederates had befriended some union soldiers they were encamped next to and invited them to a party on the confederate side. The Union soldiers went and through bad luck, an officer happened to stumble on the party. He immediately tried to arrest the Union soldiers, but the confederates intervened, saying they had given their word the Yanks would have safe passage. The officer let the Yanks go, rather than see the Rebs break their word.
Probably pickets, such interactions were common then among pickets.

But such acts were far overshadowed by the horrendous POW camps of both sides, not to mention the guerilla war in border states such as Missouri and Kansas that persisted even after the Civil War proper had ended.

Texas

4th January 2009, 08:55 PM

During the Civil War, there were a lot of displays of honor on by both sides. I recommend Reflections on the Civil War by Catton. I'll try to tell one of Catton's stories (don't have the book any more):

A couple confederates had befriended some union soldiers they were encamped next to and invited them to a party on the confederate side. The Union soldiers went and through bad luck, an officer happened to stumble on the party. He immediately tried to arrest the Union soldiers, but the confederates intervened, saying they had given their word the Yanks would have safe passage. The officer let the Yanks go, rather than see the Rebs break their word.

Lee's decision not to engage in guerilla warfare could also be construed as honorable (also the generous surrender conditions Grant gave Lee at Appamatox). The "Christmas Truce" during WWI could also be argued to be an honorable act. Then there was Sherman's march through Georgia, POW treatment on both sides etc. The Civil War was one of the most brutal wars ever fought by any country in history. You can point out individual anecdotes but the fact is that war is never fought "honorably" as in giving the other guy a fair chance. That gets you dead. Grant was magnanumus because he had defeated Lee. While he fought Lee no quarter was given or asked.

The Fool

4th January 2009, 09:07 PM

If Israel pulls out of Gaza without ending Hamas as a viable military force then Hamas will have shown they don't need to actually destroy Israel's army. And Hamas has shown they will use whatever means they have to attack Israel. Yesterday it was homemade Qassams, today it is Iranian-made Grad missiles, tomorrow they will use Iranian missiles with even longer ranges, a bigger warhead, and greater accuracy.

Do you think Israel is sustainable as a nation with a hundred missiles striking random civilian targets every single day?

Israel has no choice but to fight back, or it will cease to exist. That is reality.
No that is not reality, that is bollocks. I don't believe you are a stupid person but I believe you believe that stupid things need to be chanted sometimes for propaganda purposes. Hamas can't and never will be able to be anything but a fleabite to Israel. You know this...why persist with the bollocks.

and please....the "tomorrow the world" stuff....really, whats next?....eventually hamas will get a death ray and knock the moon out of orbit?

WildCat

4th January 2009, 09:29 PM

No that is not reality, that is bollocks. I don't believe you are a stupid person but I believe you believe that stupid things need to be chanted sometimes for propaganda purposes. Hamas can't and never will be able to be anything but a fleabite to Israel. You know this...why persist with the bollocks.

and please....the "tomorrow the world" stuff....really, whats next?....eventually hamas will get a death ray and knock the moon out of orbit?
Who said anything about "tomorrow, the world"?

Do you think Hamas will stop seeking any missiles bigger than the Grad from Iran? Do you think Iran won't supply them with bigger missiles? Do you think Hamas wouldn't use them when they get them?

Funny, you ignore all that. But hey, you're not worried about it from your comfy chair in sunny Oz, so why should the Israelis care, right? :rolleyes:

4th January 2009, 11:55 PM

Well they were going to get brainwashed by their Hamas fathers if they stayed alive anyway, but the Israeli retaliation will further the resentment and hatred too I agree. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. A real mess.

what the hell?

a post of yours and i 100% agree.

4th January 2009, 11:56 PM

Do you think these children of living Hamas members will be peaceful in the future?

eTGbP55HGi8

i guess not. Will killing theyr parents creat even more hatred in them?

Travis

5th January 2009, 01:36 AM

I think the whole idea of "war with honor" is not only fallacious but dangerous. I think war should be brutal and should come to conclusive ends because with the idea of a "sanitized" war running around people might start thinking war isn't so bad and might not have the necessary motivation to try and avoid it where possible.

yairhol

5th January 2009, 05:07 AM

And there are more then a few right-wing Zionists who would love to ethnically cleanse Israel and the West Bank of every living soul that is not a Jew.
You will find such extremists in every country on earth. Israel is no special and no exception.

Personal attack removed.

yairhol

5th January 2009, 05:14 AM

Hamas....will destroy one of the largest most advanced armed forces in the world.
So now Israel is one of the largest armies in the world?? Where'd you get that information?

You think it is a question of how big or advanced one army is against a terrorist organization fighting at its own territory?
It doesn't take much to make life a living hell for the Israeli civilians bordering with Gaza and its terroristic organizations.
If you start putting yourself in other's shoes maybe you will begin to understand how it is living with a terroristic organization next to your house.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2009, 05:20 AM

Do you think Hamas will stop seeking any missiles bigger than the Grad from Iran? Do you think Iran won't supply them with bigger missiles? Do you think Hamas wouldn't use them when they get them?

From a practical standpoint, there is a limit to the tech Hamas can both store, keep hidden, and deploy quickly. For example, Frogfoot class missiles are to big and too maintenance intensive to fit into their MO for the near future.

If they start getting ahold of a misslie family that is large enough for a modest GPS guidance package, life changes a lot. See Google Earth for your target data base. What you and I can use on the internet today was, twenty years ago, the sort of thing not typically available. How that would be stored and maintained is a non trivial logistical problem.

DR

WildCat

5th January 2009, 06:15 AM

From a practical standpoint, there is a limit to the tech Hamas can both store, keep hidden, and deploy quickly. For example, Frogfoot class missiles are to big and too maintenance intensive to fit into their MO for the near future.

If they start getting ahold of a misslie family that is large enough for a modest GPS guidance package, life changes a lot. See Google Earth for your target data base. What you and I can use on the internet today was, twenty years ago, the sort of thing not typically available. How that would be stored and maintained is a non trivial logistical problem.

DR
If Hamas is able to prevent Israel from entering Gaza because of either imternational pressure or by armed force their options as far as keeping missiles stored, hidden, and deployed greatly increase.

Just look at how easily Saddam was able to hide Scuds during GWI, and those needed a flatbed truck to move around on!

Hamas doesn't need a missile nearly as big to reach all of Israel. And if Gaza is given control of their ports as some here have demanded (or even worse, allowed to open the airport) there is no check on what Hamas can import.

Thunder

5th January 2009, 08:12 AM

How many? How big are they? Are they part of the government? Do they have television shows that teach children to hate?

actually yes...they do.

Pardalis

5th January 2009, 08:14 AM

actually yes...they do.

Could you elaborate? Excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

Thunder

5th January 2009, 08:18 AM

there is a cable program in NYC by right-wing Zionists that calls for the expulsion of all Arabs. they have a membership of several thousand. they are associated with Kahane Chai and Kach.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2009, 08:20 AM

If Hamas is able to prevent Israel from entering Gaza because of either imternational pressure or by armed force their options as far as keeping missiles stored, hidden, and deployed greatly increase.

Just look at how easily Saddam was able to hide Scuds during GWI, and those needed a flatbed truck to move around on!

Hamas doesn't need a missile nearly as big to reach all of Israel. And if Gaza is given control of their ports as some here have demanded (or even worse, allowed to open the airport) there is no check on what Hamas can import.
1. Saddam had a lot of real estate. Gaza does not.

2. UAV's change quite a bit in this game.

3. Scud hunting was hard, and yes, in urban terrain, playing the shell game is a tactical option. I don't say it is easy, but it's not impossible.

4. If the UN is to have any mission, customs inspectors in Gaza might be it. Then again, customs inspectors can be bought off. :( There were two massive blows to the UN to come from the Iraq War. One was the failed gut check, August 2003, after the car bomb at the HQ bldg. The second was how badly exposed the UN was in terms of insider corruption on the Oil for Food deal. Or maybe that was a good thing, clearing away the smoke screen, but it makes any claim of UN impartiality very hard to support. Tough on UN in terms of the political game always in play.

DR

Pardalis

5th January 2009, 08:31 AM

5th January 2009, 08:39 AM

So now Israel is one of the largest armies in the world?? Where'd you get that information?

You think it is a question of how big or advanced one army is against a terrorist organization fighting at its own territory?
It doesn't take much to make life a living hell for the Israeli civilians bordering with Gaza and its terroristic organizations.
If you start putting yourself in other's shoes maybe you will begin to understand how it is living with a terroristic organization next to your house.

Ever tried a Palestinian shoe?

Thunder

5th January 2009, 08:42 AM

Are they active in Israel?

have u never heard of the Jewish Task Force, the Jewish Defense League, Baruch Marzel, Moledet, and Noam Federman?

Pardalis

5th January 2009, 08:48 AM

have u never heard of the Jewish Task Force, the Jewish Defense League, Baruch Marzel, Moledet, and Noam Federman?

Are you comparing Hamas to a couple of illegal fringe groups who have little to no political power?

Thunder

5th January 2009, 08:57 AM

Oh, there is also Gush Emunim, that fool Lieberman, and the whole lot of right-wing Zionists who want Eretz Yisrael to be Arabrein.

I am indeed comparing their extremist views to the views of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. ALL of them are racists.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2009, 09:02 AM

Oh, there is also Gush Emunim, that fool Lieberman, and the whole lot of right-wing Zionists who want Eretz Yisrael to be Arabrein.
FWIW, in history, after WW I there was a population transfer between Greece and Turkey that The Powers hoped would defuse what looked to be potential conflicts. A few hundred thousands each (maybe over a half a million each) over a million total anyway, were moved. Not gonna say it was a great success, but it was a partial success. Of course, Turks still refer to part of what you and I know as Greece as "Turkish Thrace" ... Cyprus is a related but different issue. Note that for a tenuous peace, they had to clear each other's turf out, roughly. It is a possible solution set, maybe not the solution set for this particular problem, and of course it brings its own set of problems. :( So too did the 1967 cease fire agreement.
I am indeed comparing their extremist views to the views of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. ALL of them are racists.
OK, let's grant you that all of them are Semitic racists. Fine.

Who has used which means to do what? Do you find them equivalent? Does that matter?

DR

Pardalis

5th January 2009, 09:09 AM

I am indeed comparing their extremist views to the views of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. ALL of them are racists.

Yes, of course, you have every reason to be wary of them, but that wasn't the point. As Yairhol pointed out, there are racists groups everywhere, but do they have any political influence and power?

I briefly looked them up on Wiki and it seems most of the names you gave have been denounced by the Iraeli government.

yairhol

5th January 2009, 10:38 PM

there is a cable program in NYC by right-wing Zionists that calls for the expulsion of all Arabs. they have a membership of several thousand. they are associated with Kahane Chai and Kach.

Kach and Kahane Chai are the same minor (very minor) group of people. This party was taken out of the law some years ago.

(anyone, please correct me if "out of the law" is not the correct way to say this in English. Thanks).

Slayhamlet

5th January 2009, 10:40 PM

Kach and Kahane Chai are the same minor (very minor) group of people. This party was taken out of the law some years ago.

(anyone, please correct me if "out of the law" is not the correct way to say this in English. Thanks).

"Outlawed" is the English word.

yairhol

5th January 2009, 10:43 PM

have u never heard of the Jewish Task Force, the Jewish Defense League, Baruch Marzel, Moledet, and Noam Federman?
Baruch Marzel & Noam Federman are extremists with very little support of others. Again, extremists are everywhere in the world. Israel is no exception.
Moledet does not hold views in favor of killing Arabs. They wish to do a willing transfer of Israeli Arabs to wherever they would like to go in return for a financial compensation. That is not so extreme and I'm positive that there are not so few Israeli arabs who will be willing for this compromise.

yairhol

5th January 2009, 10:44 PM

"Outlawed" is the English word.
Thank you.

lionking

5th January 2009, 10:46 PM

yairhol

5th January 2009, 10:48 PM

Reports are starting to pour in that Israeli newspapers have been getting quite a big number of emails from Palestinians in Gaza pleading the Israeli government to continue with the operation and destroy the Hamas.
Some brave Palestinians have come up on radio talk shows and said that the Hamas are forcing the civilians to act as human shields. Other civilians are forced to become shahids or else their family members will be killed.

Slayhamlet

5th January 2009, 10:51 PM

Slayhamlet

5th January 2009, 10:52 PM

Thirtieth largest according to wikipedia. Creative definition of "one of"....

ETA This is directed at the Fool, not you.

Well, it's one of the largest per capita.

gumboot

5th January 2009, 11:09 PM

So, now Palestine is a country?

OK, perhaps it is not legally a "war crime", but collective punishment is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-7B5QL3?OpenDocument

This is false. Even assuming that closing the border with Palestine could be considered collective punishment (it cannot), it would be impossible for Israel to be guilty of collective punishment against the citizens of Gaza.

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the prohibition against collective punishment is applied to protected persons, as defined by the Convention:

"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"

(Article 4, 4th Geneva Convention)

Given that Palestinians are not in the hands of Israel, as Israel was not occupying Gaza, but are in fact in the hands of Palestine, of whom they are nationals, it is impossible for Israel to conduct Collective Punishment against Palestinians.

This could, of course, all changes with the movement into Gaza as this will make Israel an Occupying Power (assuming they conquer Gaza).

If you're going to bleat on about war crimes I would strongly suggest you actually bother to read the Laws of Armed Conflict so that you know what the [RULE10] you're talking about.

lionking

5th January 2009, 11:39 PM

Well, it's one of the largest per capita.
Is this a serious point? The world must be in terror of the Eritrean and Transnistrian armies then.

gumboot

5th January 2009, 11:56 PM

Is this a serious point? The world must be in terror of the Eritrean and Transnistrian armies then.

Not to mention Sealand's armed forces, which, according to my understanding, normally constitute 100% of the resident population (since only the "Sealand Guard" normally live there).

lionking

6th January 2009, 12:20 AM

Not to mention Sealand's armed forces, which, according to my understanding, normally constitute 100% of the resident population (since only the "Sealand Guard" normally live there).
Thanks gumboot. Any country attacking Sealand would be absolutely crapping itself up against the largest per capita army in the world.

Slayhamlet

6th January 2009, 01:00 AM

Is this a serious point? The world must be in terror of the Eritrean and Transnistrian armies then.

No, I was being sardonic. I thought the context would have made that obvious. Guess not.

Don't really see how this little tangent matters much, anyway. Israel's military is among the most advanced in the world.

lionking

6th January 2009, 01:20 AM

yairhol

6th January 2009, 03:28 AM

Okay. Can we actually see these reports?

Here's one I found from the radio station 103 FM but it's in Hebrew.
http://www.103.fm/programs/event.aspx?R8r06VQ=EHEK&c41t4nzVq=JK

gumboot

6th January 2009, 08:35 PM

No, I was being sardonic. I thought the context would have made that obvious. Guess not.

Don't really see how this little tangent matters much, anyway. Israel's military is among the most advanced in the world.

I've been told before by people that know, that the only reason the IDF look any good is because their opposition is so bad. Against any other modern western army they would be annihilated.

I have seen some videos of their military operations that support this position, however this observation was made quite a few years ago, and may now be wrong.

Texas

6th January 2009, 08:44 PM

I've been told before by people that know, that the only reason the IDF look any good is because their opposition is so bad. Against any other modern western army they would be annihilated.

I have seen some videos of their military operations that support this position, however this observation was made quite a few years ago, and may now be wrong.
They are the best in the Middle East but that isn't saying a lot. There appears to have been a bit of myth making when it comes to the Israeli military which has served it well over the years. That suffered a bit in 2006 in Lebanon and if it doesn't gain a clear victory in Gaza it will suffer even more so. That is extremely dangerous for Israel since the surrounding nations and especially Iran are watching very closely.

gtc

6th January 2009, 09:50 PM

I would imagine the armies and terrorist groups that have been beaten by the IDF would have an incentive to over emphasise the IDF's qualities.

Travis

6th January 2009, 11:01 PM

The IDF does have a lot of experience, which is invaluable, especially in urban operations.

gdnp

7th January 2009, 11:00 AM

Given that Palestinians are not in the hands of Israel, as Israel was not occupying Gaza, but are in fact in the hands of Palestine, of whom they are nationals, it is impossible for Israel to conduct Collective Punishment against Palestinians.

So as long as Israel has not troops on the ground in Gaza, they can do whatever they want at the borders? Even cutting off all food, fuel, and medicine? I don't think so.

As long as Israel controls Gaza's borders, they remain the occupying power.

IDB87

7th January 2009, 02:26 PM

Even cutting off all food, fuel, and medicine? I don't think so.

I thought Gaza receieved 'the bare minimum'? Make up my mind please.

As long as Israel controls Gaza's borders, they remain the occupying power.

Can the goal of the Gaza blockade (whatever it may be) be applied to the West Bank? Why or why not?

WildCat

7th January 2009, 02:33 PM

As long as Israel controls Gaza's borders, they remain the occupying power.
Utter nonsense.

To occupy a place you have to, you know, occupy it.

Gaza has been Jew-free (ethnically cleansed) since 2005.

Tin Foil Timothy

7th January 2009, 03:34 PM

Utter nonsense.

To occupy a place you have to, you know, occupy it.

Gaza has been Jew-free (ethnically cleansed) since 2005.

Ok then they are the imprisoning power. just as bad.

gumboot

7th January 2009, 03:38 PM

So as long as Israel has not troops on the ground in Gaza, they can do whatever they want at the borders? Even cutting off all food, fuel, and medicine? I don't think so.

As long as Israel controls Gaza's borders, they remain the occupying power.

Israel control's Israel's side of the Israel-Gaza border. This shouldn't of any surprise to you. France controls the French side of the France-Germany border. The USA controls the American side of the USA-Canada border.

Controlling your own borders is very much the norm. When an entity you are at war with borders your state, the first peaceful solution is to close your border with that state. Look to North and South Korea as a perfect example.

Tin Foil Timothy

7th January 2009, 10:09 PM

Israel control's Israel's side of the Israel-Gaza border. This shouldn't of any surprise to you. France controls the French side of the France-Germany border. The USA controls the American side of the USA-Canada border.

Controlling your own borders is very much the norm. When an entity you are at war with borders your state, the first peaceful solution is to close your border with that state. Look to North and South Korea as a perfect example.

Do you honestly expect anyone to take that seriously given the actual situation there?

Where Israel controls not only hte borders but the access from the sea and the airspace. israel is preventing enough supplies getting through to give the Gazans a decent standard of living and it's certinly restricting the flow of goods in order that the Gazans might build up any sort of economy that they might feed themselves.

Making such an analogy between the French-German Border, the American-Canadian border and the imprisonment of the Gazans by the Israelis is complete and utter nonsense. And by doing so you just make yourself look a fool.

No one is buying it!!

yairhol

7th January 2009, 10:28 PM

Again proven that Israel is taking humanitarian actions to ease the pain that the Hamas are unleashing on the Palestinian people:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=6592570&page=1

A state at war with a close-to-being a state (Palestine) and Israel loads hundreds of trucks with food, medicine and other supplies for the needy Palestinians who get no support from their own government.

yairhol

7th January 2009, 10:30 PM

Do you honestly expect anyone to take that seriously given the actual situation there?

Where Israel controls not only hte borders but the access from the sea and the airspace. israel is preventing enough supplies getting through to give the Gazans a decent standard of living and it's certinly restricting the flow of goods in order that the Gazans might build up any sort of economy that they might feed themselves.

Making such an analogy between the French-German Border, the American-Canadian border and the imprisonment of the Gazans by the Israelis is complete and utter nonsense. And by doing so you just make yourself look a fool.

No one is buying it!!

Don't you wonder why the Egyptians are closing their border with the Palestinians as well? Probably something that Israel and Egypt know that you refuse to understand.

gumboot

8th January 2009, 12:28 AM

Where Israel controls not only hte borders but the access from the sea and the airspace. israel is preventing enough supplies getting through to give the Gazans a decent standard of living and it's certinly restricting the flow of goods in order that the Gazans might build up any sort of economy that they might feed themselves.

That's a pretty sensible thing for a country to do to a neighbour they are at war with.

Why do you keep ignoring this important point? Israel is at war with Palestine. Palestine is their enemy.

Why on earth should Israel help Palestine?

Seriously. Give me one reason.

Making such an analogy between the French-German Border, the American-Canadian border and the imprisonment of the Gazans by the Israelis is complete and utter nonsense. And by doing so you just make yourself look a fool.

The complete and utter nonsense is your repeated claim that there's something odd about Israel controlling their own border. There isn't.

a_unique_person

8th January 2009, 01:07 AM

Utter nonsense.

To occupy a place you have to, you know, occupy it.

Gaza has been Jew-free (ethnically cleansed) since 2005.

:rolleyes: As Sharon's advisor said, Gaza was 'placed in formaldehyde'. They may have removed the settlers, they didn't relinquish ultimate control.

Thunder

8th January 2009, 02:40 AM

Travis

8th January 2009, 04:01 AM

yairhol

8th January 2009, 04:34 AM

I don't believe that for one second and would like to see evidence.

What you believe or don't believe is not important.
I already gave evidence.

gdnp

8th January 2009, 04:31 PM

Don't you wonder why the Egyptians are closing their border with the Palestinians as well? Probably something that Israel and Egypt know that you refuse to understand.

Is it a shock to you that Egypt favors Fatah over Iran-supported Hamas?

gdnp

8th January 2009, 04:41 PM

That's a pretty sensible thing for a country to do to a neighbour they are at war with.

Why do you keep ignoring this important point? Israel is at war with Palestine. Palestine is their enemy.

Why on earth should Israel help Palestine?

Seriously. Give me one reason.
What is your definition of "help Palestine?" I don't recall anyone here calling for Israel to supply humanitarian supplies to the Palestinians. Only for them to stop blockading the delivery of humanitarian supplies to the Palestinians.

The complete and utter nonsense is your repeated claim that there's something odd about Israel controlling their own border. There isn't.

Please, gumboot, this straw man is beneath you. The question is not Israel's right to control their border with Gaza. The question is whether Israel has the right to control what goes in (not enough) and what can come out (virtually nothing) of Gaza and simultaneously claim to not be an occupying power, regardless of whether these goods cross their border or not.

As was posted elsewhere (I think in this thread), the only legitimate use of a siege under the laws of war is to force the military capitulation of the enemy. Not to punish the civilian population for electing a government you don't like.

gdnp

8th January 2009, 04:46 PM

A state at war with a close-to-being a state (Palestine) and Israel loads hundreds of trucks with food, medicine and other supplies for the needy Palestinians who get no support from their own government.

Yes, why has Hamas not been shipping food, fuel, and medicine into Gaza? Or better yet, starting their own farms, building their own pharmaceutical factories, and drilling their own oil wells and building their own refineries? Why indeed? :rolleyes:

Thunder

8th January 2009, 04:51 PM

What you believe or don't believe is not important.
I already gave evidence.

you have? where?

gumboot

9th January 2009, 06:05 AM

Please, gumboot, this straw man is beneath you. The question is not Israel's right to control their border with Gaza. The question is whether Israel has the right to control what goes in (not enough) and what can come out (virtually nothing) of Gaza and simultaneously claim to not be an occupying power, regardless of whether these goods cross their border or not.

"Controlling your border" and "controlling what crosses your border" are exactly the same thing. To suggest that controlling what crosses your own border constitutes "occupying" a state is essentially claiming that every single country in the world that borders another country is occupying that country.

I honestly cannot see why you find this so hard to grasp. Does the USA control what leaves the USA into Canada, and what leaves Canada into the USA? Yes.

Does that means the USA is occupying Canada? Absurd.

So, again, the question no one wants to answer:

"Why is it that Israel does not have a right to control their border with an enemy?"

As was posted elsewhere (I think in this thread), the only legitimate use of a siege under the laws of war is to force the military capitulation of the enemy. Not to punish the civilian population for electing a government you don't like.

I'd love you to cite that law. There's only two ways, in international law, that a blockade can be illegal:

1) If the blockade is a "paper blockade" that is not actually acted on, as established in the Congress of Paris, 1856
2) If the blockade is declared illegal by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter

Given that neither of these has happened, the Israeli blockade of Gaza cannot be considered illegal.

(By the way, your use of the term "siege" is incorrect.

Stout

9th January 2009, 06:27 AM

"Why is it that Israel does not have a right to control their border with an enemy?"

They do...It's the marine blockade that prevents anything form entering and leaving Gaza that I'm curious about. Seems that there's more to it than Israel simply wanting to control their own borders.

gdnp

9th January 2009, 06:41 AM

"Controlling your border" and "controlling what crosses your border" are exactly the same thing. To suggest that controlling what crosses your own border constitutes "occupying" a state is essentially claiming that every single country in the world that borders another country is occupying that country.

I honestly cannot see why you find this so hard to grasp. Does the USA control what leaves the USA into Canada, and what leaves Canada into the USA? Yes.

Does that means the USA is occupying Canada? Absurd.

So, again, the question no one wants to answer:

"Why is it that Israel does not have a right to control their border with an enemy?"

Does Canada control what enters the US through California? No. thus Canada is not the occupying power for the US, even though they control their side of the US-Canadian border.

Now look at a map of Gaza. You will note that there is a Mediterranean coastline of roughly 30 km in length.

Since the time that Israel pulled their settlers and troops out of Gaza, they have maintained control over everything shipped in and out across the Gaza coastline. This is not Gaza's border with Israel: this is Gaza's border with international waters. Akin to the California coast. Yet if an international relief agency were to attempt to ship supplies into Gaza by sea, they would be stopped by Israeli warships. Not only now during the all-out war, but since the day Israel pulled out their troops. They have never, not once, relinquished control over the Gaza coastline, which (I repeat) is not a border with Israeli territory.

One last time (before I give up). Israel's control of their land border with the Gaza strip does not make them the occupying power. Israel's control of the Gaza coastline and airspace, which they have never relinquished, does.

gumboot

9th January 2009, 06:52 AM

"

They do...It's the marine blockade that prevents anything form entering and leaving Gaza that I'm curious about. Seems that there's more to it than Israel simply wanting to control their own borders.

Well Israel has been at war with Palestine since 2000, let's not forget. Which, incidentally, is when Israel shut down the West Bank-Gaza corridor and the Gaza Airport.

gumboot

9th January 2009, 07:22 AM

One last time (before I give up). Israel's control of their land border with the Gaza strip does not make them the occupying power. Israel's control of the Gaza coastline and airspace, which they have never relinquished, does.

The airspace and coastline is a separate issue, and I would consider it a military blockade, which given Israel has been at war with Palestine since 2000 (the beginning of the ongoing 2nd Intifada), I consider to be perfectly acceptable.

Irrespective of this, you are wrong. A blockade does not amount to an occupation. An occupation is a very specific legal military term.

Stout

9th January 2009, 07:49 AM

Yet Israel withdrew their "occupation" of Palestine in 2005.

I'm just trying to get some sort of handle of what life as an "average" Palestinian is/was actually like. I mean, I've been in a few third world countries so people living in poverty is nothing new to me and I'm curious just as to how much life in Palestine "sucks" compared to a country like, say, Honduras.

Seems to me that the Palestinians "smartest" move would be to cast their lot with the Israelis and basically suck it up when it comes to separatist politics like "we want our own country" in favour of quality of life.

From what meager information I've been able to glean from the internet, ( eg. 70% of Palestinians have TV and radio in their households, 20% have home PCs ) I'm led to believe that maybe Palestine isn't the humanitarian "hell hole" that *some* people would have me believe.

Then there's the idea of the people of Palestine being used as pawns by extremist factions, like Hamas. Or are they an extremist faction by choice? Things I've been reading tell me that Israel assassinated all the moderates in Palestine and they ( The Israelis) have grand designs on keeping the Palestinians at each other's throats until they, presumably" kill each other off.

I have no issue with Israel doing what they're doing right now in Palestine, I think their methods of operation are designed to minimise civilian casualties ( otherwise they'd just carpet bomb the place ) but I'm wondering, as the ultra left is trying to convince me, if the people of Palestine really do have a "case" against the Israelis

gumboot

9th January 2009, 03:05 PM

I'm just trying to get some sort of handle of what life as an "average" Palestinian is/was actually like. I mean, I've been in a few third world countries so people living in poverty is nothing new to me and I'm curious just as to how much life in Palestine "sucks" compared to a country like, say, Honduras.

I imagine it sucks, but the degree of suck probably varies over time. Right now it sucks big time.

Seems to me that the Palestinians "smartest" move would be to cast their lot with the Israelis and basically suck it up when it comes to separatist politics like "we want our own country" in favour of quality of life.

I agree. If nothing else, Israel has demonstrated an ability to run a functioning society, which Palestine has not. Actually, I find Israel's success pretty impressive. Israel has something many of us forget - that is a substantial minority who could potentially cause major problems. 1 in 5 Israelis is an Arab. They don't seem to be causing any major problems for Israel, and I haven't seen much evidence of violent oppression by the Jewish majority. To go from blind hatred to peaceful co-existence in 60 years is pretty damn impressive. Consider the track record of the United States with its black population, which is only about half the percentage of Arab Israelis.

From what meager information I've been able to glean from the internet, ( eg. 70% of Palestinians have TV and radio in their households, 20% have home PCs ) I'm led to believe that maybe Palestine isn't the humanitarian "hell hole" that *some* people would have me believe.

To be fair, it's possible that it was once not a hell hole, but now is. The ICRC was reporting a family who starved to death, or something. I get the impression the situation there has deteriorated dramatically since the beginning of the 2nd Intifada.

Then there's the idea of the people of Palestine being used as pawns by extremist factions, like Hamas. Or are they an extremist faction by choice?

I think it's a bit of both. We have to remember that Palestine has always been ruled by extremist factions, and these factions controlled the schools. If children are being raised from infants in Palestine to hate Israel, to hate Jews, and to celebrate in Jihad, can you consider their inevitable support of extremists as voluntary? The Palestinians are victims of 60 years of brain washing, and their behaviour, given this, is unsurprising. In all seriousness what is desperately needed is for Palestine to be opened up, taken over by the International Community for several decades, and Islamic Fundamentalism brutally stamped out. Something akin to the De-nazification of Germany is needed. A whole generation of Germans were raised on Nazi ideology, but they were successfully weaned off their hate after the war. The same can happen here, but only if Palestine is given over to control of someone other than the hate-mongers.

I have no issue with Israel doing what they're doing right now in Palestine, I think their methods of operation are designed to minimise civilian casualties ( otherwise they'd just carpet bomb the place ) but I'm wondering, as the ultra left is trying to convince me, if the people of Palestine really do have a "case" against the Israelis

I think it's quite sad that there's this inherent notion of sides. The absolute victims of this mess are indeed the Palestinians. I have no doubt of this. There's no way Israel's suffering compares. But the mistake is to assume that Israel is at fault. It's Palestine that is at fault. The leaders, over 60 years, have destroyed their own people in their efforts to push through a murderous agenda.

There are currently about 80,000 troops deployed on UN missions around the world, with that figure set to rise to over 95,000 once the full UN force is deployed to Darfur. I see no reason why Palestine should not be put under UN control.

a_unique_person

10th January 2009, 04:19 PM

There are currently about 80,000 troops deployed on UN missions around the world, with that figure set to rise to over 95,000 once the full UN force is deployed to Darfur. I see no reason why Palestine should not be put under UN control.

Abbas is calling for UN observers to be brought in, and has done so before. It is Israel that doesn't want them.

gumboot

10th January 2009, 04:26 PM

Abbas is calling for UN observers to be brought in, and has done so before. It is Israel that doesn't want them.

I don't blame them. UN observers are worse than useless. They need peacekeepers with robust ROE.

Thunder

10th January 2009, 04:28 PM

Abbas is calling for UN observers to be brought in, and has done so before. It is Israel that doesn't want them.

Don't you realize that ALL UN observers are Nazi-sympathizing anti-Semites??

=)

gumboot

10th January 2009, 04:37 PM

Don't you realize that ALL UN observers are Nazi-sympathizing anti-Semites??

=)

During the 2006 Lebanon War UN observers publicly issued reports on current Israeli troop movements while failing to provide any information about Hizbollah troop movements, in blatant violation of the UN's impartiality and neutrality. I cannot blame Israel for wanting nothing to do with them. UNMOs are a joke, and anyone who thinks deploying UNMOs is a serious effort for resolution by the international community is deluded.

a_unique_person

10th January 2009, 05:15 PM

During the 2006 Lebanon War UN observers publicly issued reports on current Israeli troop movements while failing to provide any information about Hizbollah troop movements, in blatant violation of the UN's impartiality and neutrality. I cannot blame Israel for wanting nothing to do with them. UNMOs are a joke, and anyone who thinks deploying UNMOs is a serious effort for resolution by the international community is deluded.

On July 25, there were 14 recorded events of artillery shelling of the UN OP, in so doing, approximately at 19:15 a 155-mm shell directly hit the wall of the OP shelter but the wall proved to be strong enough, and the UNMOs had a chance to advise the Naqura HQ on the fire. However, at 19:30 an aerial bomb pierced the shelter roof and exploded inside. All UNMOs were killed instantly, and the OP was smashed.

Taking into account the types of bombs used by the Israeli combat aircraft, their damage radius, intensity of bombardments as well as the fact that the aerial bombs always have deviation of up to 1000 meters if dropped from about 5 kilometers, we may come to a conclusion that the bombardment of the UN OP location was intentional.

Some joke.

http://www.peacekeeper.ru/en/index.php?mid=2186

gumboot

10th January 2009, 06:02 PM

Some joke.

http://www.peacekeeper.ru/en/index.php?mid=2186

And yet the actual peacekeepers on the ground at the time claim that Hizbollah were operating in the area on a regular basis. The joke is that the UN kept their UNMOs there after the war had started.

Email sent by the Canadian peacekeeper who was killed in the strike:

What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.

CTV (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/mideast_lebanon_UN_060716/20060718/)

Commenting on the implication of those words, a retired Canadian general:

Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.

"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

The Ottawa Citizen (http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50)

This is confirmed by Squadron Leader Andrew Greig, a New Zealander, who was supposed to be at the post at the time of the air strike, but could not get there due to the intensity of fire between Hizbollah and the IDF at the time.