voltron:

Classic @davidylan BH is not your worry cos you do not live here. Disassociation eh? Always gettin in that last kick to the shins. Lol PC types

davidylan:

Why should i care about BH? Its your business to worry.

BlackBaron: Both sides are to blame.

Hamas for launching guerilla rocket attacks from within their civilian populations and Israel for hitting back with excessively punitive actions against the civil populace.

Sadly war in this current era has moved off open fields into bedrooms, hospitals and classrooms.

Israeli actions in this conflict has been far too punishing and constitutes war crimes. Hamas too is a terrorist organisation that deserves to have its cadres down to the last man wrung to death.

davidylan: ...

BlackBaron:
Your argument is ignoring the context.
Israel does have a right to defend itself against aggressors, but the current onslaught has come at a very heavy price for the civilians in between. Entire families and children wiped out was surely not the goal of this campaign.

I'm all for seeing the end of Hamas but not by incurring significant civilian casualties.

ProfCorruption:
Israel is not targeting civilians directly. So what's the point?

BlackBaron:
Your argument is ignoring the context.
Israel does have a right to defend itself against aggressors, but the current onslaught has come at a very heavy price for the civilians in between. Entire families and children wiped out was surely not the goal of this campaign.

I'm all for seeing the end of Hamas but not by incurring significant civilian casualties.

BlackBaron: No one said Israel is 'targeting civilians ' directly. The consensus here is that the collateral damage is too much.

What is hard to grasp about that?
I can't help anyone's bias if they choose to continue looking at this with coloured lenses

davidylan:
Well what would you have Israel do? WWII required the destruction of entire countries... two atomic bombs that killed more than 200,000 innocent civilians was needed to stop Japan during WWII... war is war. I do not buy this false sympathy for entire families and children that seems to exist only when Israel has to defend itself.

BlackBaron: No one said Israel is 'targeting civilians ' directly. The consensus here is that the collateral damage is too much.

What is hard to grasp about that?
I can't help anyone's bias if they choose to continue looking at this with coloured lenses

BlackBaron:
Take your head out of your asss please!
So in other words, to eliminate BH we'll have to employ a scorched earth policy. Oh, yh...let's just nuke the northern population then...?

Israel has the iron dome to protect her civilian population. The Palestinian population is helpless between Hamas terrorists and Israeli army onslaught.

My buck stops here. Horses for courses like I always say.

BlackBaron:
Take your head out of your asss please!
So in other words, to eliminate BH we'll have to employ a scorched earth policy. Oh, yh...let's just nuke the northern population then...?

Israel has the iron dome to protect her civilian population. [b]The Palestinian population is helpless between Hamas terrorists [/b]and Israeli army onslaught.

My buck stops here. Horses for courses like I always say.

BlackBaron: Both sides are to blame.

Hamas for launching guerilla rocket attacks from within their civilian populations and Israel for hitting back with excessively punitive actions against the civil populace.

Sadly war in this current era has moved off open fields into bedrooms, hospitals and classrooms.

Israeli actions in this conflict has been far too punishing and constitutes war crimes. Hamas too is a terrorist organisation that deserves to have its cadres down to the last man wrung to death.

Chrisbenogor: Sometimes I wonder if civil discussions are ever possible on Nairaland.
Between a Rock and a Hard Place -

It really does not matter at this point what the history is that brought Israel and its arab neighbours together. As far as this present escalation is concerned, the real question here is
WHAT SHOULD ISREAL DO?

On the surface so many things look unfair, Hamas seems to be the ones who have no moral boundaries. Its ok for Hamas to shoot rockets into isreal, its ok for Hamas to "Intentionally" target civillian populace with rockets. Isreal has every right to protect itself.

I dunno who is a lot more cruel here, the fighter Firing rockets from his backyard knowing fully well that it would be traced and his house brought down or the one that even has the patience to place a phone call to a house and say hey guys you have to leave now before we bring that house down.

Or maybe isreal should have sent peace envoys to go plead with the Palestinians to stop the rocket fire.


800 people Vs 36
I wonder which side should wave the flag first.

ProfCorruption:

Israel is not targeting civilians directly. So what's the point?

davidylan:
Well what would you have Israel do? WWII required the destruction of entire countries... two atomic bombs that killed more than 200,000 innocent civilians was needed to stop Japan during WWII... war is war. I do not buy this false sympathy for entire families and children that seems to exist only when Israel has to defend itself.

BlackBaron:
Take your head out of your asss please!
So in other words, to eliminate BH we'll have to employ a scorched earth policy. Oh, yh...let's just nuke the northern population then...?

Israel has the iron dome to protect her civilian population. The Palestinian population is helpless between Hamas terrorists and Israeli army onslaught.

My buck stops here. Horses for courses like I always say.

ProfCorruption:

Consensus from ?? Go on and be preaching morality in the midst of a devastating war. Whoever blames both sides, like yourself, I presume is looking at this conflict with plain lenses?

Sagamite:

When Israel targeted 4 pre-teens little boys on the beach with aerial bombing, that was not intentional targeting of civilians? When they missed with the first bomb and the little unarmed boys were running with their little legs for their lives and Israel sent a second bomb to finish the job because they dared play football on the beach, that is not intentional targeting of civilians?

When Israeli snipers targeted a teenager running from bombings with his mum and shot him in the legs, that was not intentional targeting of civilians? While his mother was wailing and perambulating on the spot in horror for it to stop and the sniper kept shooting at the boy, it was not intentional targeting of civilians?

When Israeli snipers shot an unarmed, skinny guy going to look for his family in a rumble who had just been blown into shreds in their beds to see if anyone survived, that was not intentional targeting of civilians? When this unarmed guy was on the floor wounded and the sniper shot him again in the belly, that was not intentional targeting of civilians? When the sniper then put the last bullet in his head, that was not intentional targeting of civilians?

Israel has killed more than 1000 civilians out of the over 1300 it has killed and Hamas has killed 2 civilians and 53 soldiers, and you think it is only Hamas that is intentionally targeting civilians?

So it is OK for Israel to kill civilians?

When Israelis are on the streets of Tel Aviv singing joyfully "There are no more schools in Gaza because all the children are dead", you think many don't know their crimes?

You honestly believe Hamas fighters are reetarded enough to be firing from their own homes?

Sagamite:

When Israel targeted 4 pre-teens little boys on the beach with aerial bombing, that was not intentional targeting of civilians? When they missed with the first bomb and the little unarmed boys were running with their little legs for their lives and Israel sent a second bomb to finish the job because they dared play football on the beach, that is not intentional targeting of civilians?

When Israeli snipers targeted a teenager running from bombings with his mum and shot him in the legs, that was not intentional targeting of civilians? While his mother was wailing and perambulating on the spot in horror for it to stop and the sniper kept shooting at the boy, it was not intentional targeting of civilians?

When Israeli snipers shot an unarmed, skinny guy going to look for his family in a rumble who had just been blown into shreds in their beds to see if anyone survived, that was not intentional targeting of civilians? When this unarmed guy was on the floor wounded and the sniper shot him again in the belly, that was not intentional targeting of civilians? When the sniper then put the last bullet in his head, that was not intentional targeting of civilians?

Israel has killed more than 1000 civilians out of the over 1300 it has killed and Hamas has killed 2 civilians and 53 soldiers, and you think it is only Hamas that is intentionally targeting civilians?

So it is OK for Israel to kill civilians?

When Israelis are on the streets of Tel Aviv singing joyfully "There are no more schools in Gaza because all the children are dead", you think many don't know their crimes?

You honestly believe Hamas fighters are reetarded enough to be firing from their own homes?

Chrisbenogor:
Saga how body,
Let me start by saying war is not pretty.

If there is any side of this country losing the PR war it has got to be Isreal, this is why I it is hard for me to make some sense of saying something like intentionally targeting teens on a beach. If the Isreali policy is to kill palestinian civilians and in three weeks they have only managed to kill under 1,500 people then that policy is failing. Same cannot however be said of Hamas, lets take a look at an article in hamas charter (http://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm).


'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and

kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind

me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)
I think the charter speaks a lot for itself, Hamas has come out to say it is a piece of history however it cannot change it. Hamas leaders would take an oath to this document, this is policy in black and white.


Does it happen that an isreali soldier would go bersek and shoot an innocent Palestinian yes it does, does it happen that a missile mistakenly hits where it is not supposed to hit yes it does. We can catalogue all of Isreal's mistakes in all this, they should take responsibility for that. However Saga even you should agree that it is stretching the truth to say that Isreali policy on Palestine is to kill innocent citizens when the opportunity presents itself.


Now to the numbers, I concede that there is no way to look at those disproportionate numbers and not be appalled by the civilian death toll so far. Gaza is a densely populated area, urban warfare is bound to claim a lot of civilians. It is sad but it is also the truth, hamas however has not helped this fight by its practices. Hamas has shot rockets from residential areas, from schools, beside hospitals, mosques. While it is certainly wrong to bomb a shelter full of refugees to get to hamas, can we really pause and think of how despicable anyone who will store and fire rockets inside a house where his 5 month old baby lives? What else am I supposed to think except that they do it so that when Isreal returns fire, they can show videos to the world and win the battle on the only front they can which is the media. That is what the lives of their loved is worth to them. Even the UN has come out to say that Hamas not once in this conflict has compromised a combat zone by storing weapons at UN schools. SO yes unless one is totally biased there is no way you can look at this conflict and say Hamas has not been using human shields.


I know previously you have failed to take a stand on this issue, but maybe you really should. It is easy for anyone to look at the conflict and say hey the civilian death toll is too high. But really what do you think both sides should do? If you were prime minister today of Isreal what would you do? If you were the leader of Hamas what would you do? And finally if you were to broker peace between both sides what would be your approach?
Those three positions would have different approaches, but I am hard pressed for any alternative for Isreal other than pressing on with what they are doing now.

raumdeuter: In all of these I support Israel.

When Hamas decides in its charter that Israel has no right to live then you live the Israelis with no option

If Hamas wants war they should take their rockets out of civilian areas and confront the IDF frontally

[size=18pt]My time in Israeli Defence Force tells me the level of casualties in Gaza is avoidable[/size]

In the 1982 Lebanon war I served as an Israeli artillery forward observer, my task to pinpoint the PLO’s positions and call in fire from our artillery units. We stayed in the evacuated Al Jamous School, overlooking Beirut. The routine was simple enough: I would pop into the classroom next door from where I would collect the co-ordinates and description of my military targets: “a military camp”, “a mortar”, “an antenna”. I would then return to my room and, looking out of the windows, I would direct our fire on the targets.

From time to time I would pause to let the air force get in to drop its munitions; and the navy would fire from the sea. Beirut, in the summer of 1982, was all burning up – a city on fire.

There was a purpose to this massive bombardment: to hit Yasser Arafat’s guerrilla force and its weapons – and also put pressure on the Lebanese, particularly those living inside Beirut with no water, food and electricity, so they demanded Arafat get out of Beirut which would then stop our assault.

In the end, a Lebanese military officer by the name of Jonny Abdu confronted Arafat who left Lebanon and moved to Tunisia.

Looking back now, I’m appalled by our brutal bombing of Beirut. Was it justified to turn this beautiful city into a Middle Eastern Dresden and kill hundreds of innocent civilians in the process?

Now to Gaza where, like in 1982 Beirut, the Israeli army is using overwhelming military power to locate and destroy Hamas’s tunnels, to stop them firing rockets into Israel – and also to put pressure on the Gazans (as we had pressured the Beirutis) so they turn their backs on Hamas as a political force.

In the process, just as in Lebanon, hundreds of innocent Palestinians have been killed and parts of Gaza, as some sections of 1982 Beirut, have been turned into wastelands. Even worst, UN schools in Gaza which are shelters to more than 250,000 refugees, and their hospitals have also been hit by Israeli artillery and bombs.

Wayward artillery
Can anything be done so that in the next round between Israel and Hamas, which is inevitable, there would be fewer innocent civilian casualties?

The answer to this question is yes. It is indeed possible to reduce the number of casualties on the Palestinian side, but this would require a modification of the Israeli army’s rules of engagement, namely the way it operates, particularly when in close proximity to schools, hospitals and other shelters.

For example, as an artillery officer I know that even now – with advanced technologies – artillery fire is unreliable. As an artillery forward observer, I always looked up to the sky, praying my shells hit the targets and not land on my head. Artillery shells have a strange habit of going astray.

In 1996, in southern Lebanon, wayward Israeli artillery shells landed on a UN compound near the village of Qana, killing 106 innocent people. In the current Gaza war many of the innocent casualties were victims of artillery shells landing in the wrong place. What’s needed here is to ensure that heavy artillery is not used in Gaza’s urban areas – particularly not near schools and hospitals.

As for Israeli attacks from the air, at the moment, Israeli pilots, or those who dispatch them, can choose from a range of bombs weighing from 250-1,000kg. They often opt for the latter, as they are big enough to destroy the target completely – and the pilots are confident they can hit the target accurately, as they often do.

The problem is that the collateral damage of such big bombs is catastrophic in densely populated Gaza; it destroys not only the intended targets but also causes massive damage to nearby structures and kills non-combatants. Such big bombs must be banned altogether from being used in the vicinity of shelters, schools and hospitals.

Hannibal Protocol
Finally, certain practices employed by the Israeli army should not be allowed to be used, most notably the “Hannibal Protocol”, which is the IDF’s procedure for preventing soldiers from falling into enemy hands.

The Hannibal Protocol is yet another product of Israel’s Lebanon wars: a procedure to be used in the first minutes and hours after a possible abduction of an Israeli soldier. It calls on the military to dramatically escalate attacks in the vicinity of any kidnapping – to strike at bridges, roads, houses, cars – everything, in fact, to prevent the captors from disappearing with the abducted soldier.

When the IDF thought – wrongly as it turned out - that one of its officers had been abducted by Hamas in the southern Gaza Strip, the Hannibal protocol was activated to a most devastating effect. The army used everything at its disposal – tanks, artillery, aeroplanes, drones – and pounded vast areas in Rafah, causing enormous damage, killing and wounding scores of innocent Palestinians.

The brutal Hannibal procedure seems to me to break all rules of war. It should be thrown out of the window and never used again in Gaza.

What will ultimately stop the death of innocent Palestinians and Israelis is a peace deal putting an end to the conflict. But in the meantime, a modification of the Israeli rules of engagement could reduce the number of innocent casualties.

In 2010, following Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip which resulted in hundreds of Palestinian casualties, the IDF produced a document calling on military commanders, operating in densely populated areas, to “exercise judgement and use more accurate weapons, or lower-impact weapons”.

It seems, judging from the sheer number of Palestinian casualties in the current Gaza war, that the Israelis are not following their own rules – or the rules were produced at the time as a PR exercise to silence international criticism.

There’s no reason to think the Israelis couldn’t change their rules, though. We have international conventions banning, for instance, the use of chemical weapons in war, so it is possible, I believe, to also prohibit the use of heavy artillery, big bombs and cruel procedures in densely populated areas such as the Gaza Strip. After all, it is also in Israel’s interest, as the horrific pictures coming out of the Gaza Strip ruin the country’s already tarnished reputation.

NairaMinted: How much more is there left to destroy in Gaza? This is a question that cannot afford to be answered. Nearly one in three people in the country fled their home to escape the onslaught of bombing, and are now facing an uncertain future.

Sagamite:

Israel's arbitrarily and intentionally kills civilians to effect political change and then PR-tune it as "mistakes".