Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

I edited my post to expand on those points.

You appear to be asking for Rules of Engagement. Since I have already linked to a pdf from the US Marine Corps that actually contains the ROE of the US Armed Forces, from this point on I will assume you have read it and therefore already know the ROE I think the IDF should have for its operations in Gaza.

You realize Israel rejected the US approach as causing way too many civilian casualties?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The IDF doesn't look away. They do their best to control the settlers. The fanatical Jews that cause the most problems don't do military service. Its against their retarded faith. The rest of the Jews/Israelis hate them, because they make life dangerous for the rest of the Jews. There's just legal limits on what the IDF is allowed to do to contain them.

I don't think they do their best. There's a high political cost for opposing them. We certainly don't do our best against the Bundy crowd, either.

The IDF is probably the world's most well behaved army. If you compare civilian dead or atrocities perpetrated by soldiers in any other conflict, the IDF are great at following rules of engagement. No they're not perfect. But the IDF are held to unrealistically high standards. They’re still soldiers

Exactly. And note that they are facing enemies that are experts at causing civilian casualties.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd just like to point out that Hamas is an organisation controlled by Iran. When Hamas took control over Gaza the first thing they did was to wreck to economy and turned Gaza into a military base (which is the reason this war is so protracted). Once the Gazan economy was wrecked they became completely dependent on Iranian economic support. Making the Gazans (Palestinians in Gaza) easy to manipulate by Iran.

The wrecking of the economy was already well underway, started by the Second Intifada. You're right about why, though.

By hating Israel at this point we're just playing into the hands of the Axis of Evil powers. Just don't. Don't get played like a fiddle.

Iran is an expert fiddler.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That hope and pride soon turned to despair. According to Jabir, in order for the project to be successful, it would require moving at least 25 truckloads of produce a day through the Karni crossing. On rare days when the Karni crossing was functioning smoothly he was only able to move 3 truckloads. A crossing that was supposed to be open 24/7, per an international agreement to which Israel was party, was only open sporadically and unpredictably. Israel cited security concerns. The Palestine Economic Development Corporation and its Israeli distribution partner Adafresh were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars every week.

By February 2006, the BBC reported that because the farmers could not get their produce through the crossing, trucks were dumping perfect, ripe produce onto a wasteland to be eaten by goats. Bassil Jabir joked that because cows were eating their strawberries after they had rotted in the harsh sun next to the checkpoint, they had developed perfectly natural strawberry-flavored milk. According to Special Envoy Wolfensohn, “Instead of hope, the Palestinians saw that they were put back in prison.”

It's no secret why the greenhouses failed as commercial enterprises. You just have to be interested enough to find out.

You quote the damning words and don't even realize it.

"citing security concerns."

In other words, Hamas attacked the crossing. When Hamas yeets mortars and the like against the crossing Israel pulls it's people under cover and the crossing closes. In other words, Hamas wrecked the agriculture industry.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are Palestinians moving into properties and land they don't own inside Israel's 1967 borders, or outside of them? If it's happening inside, how are the Palestinians evading the checkpoints or deceiving the soldiers manning them? Are they using fake IDs or something?

Your "1967 borders" are the 1948 armistice line. Not final borders. And note that part of Jerusalem ended up on the Palestinian side of the 1948 line and was ethnically cleansed. Since Israel retook the area in 1967 a lot of the people living in houses they stole from the Jews have been evicted.

Anyway, the PLO, acting as the governing body of the Palestinian people and the foundation of the Palestinian Authority, recognized the State of Israel and ceded the land inside Israel's 1967 borders to it when the Oslo Accords were negotiated. The position of the PA has not changed since then: what is inside the 1967 borders belongs to the State of Israel, what is outside of them doesn't.

No, because they don't recognize that a state of Israel is allowed to exist. They want to take a piece now and then continue the fight.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is that terrorist movements have a source of funding.

I am not "missing" that at all; It simply isn't relevant to my rebuttal of your post.

I am well aware that US funding was critical to the ongoing terrorism by the IRA throughout the twentieth century, for example.

As long as there are wealthy people who support causes - particularly religion based causes, such as catholicism, revolutionary communism, or islamic jihadism - there will be funding for any terrorist organisation that pays lip-service to that cause.

Which is not a rebuttal of my point.

I do agree our tolerance of IRA fundraising was not a good thing. That says absolutely nothing about whether Iran is driving terrorism.

(And note that to a large degree the IRA had turned into a protection racket anyway.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was asked a wuestion, and I answered the question as asked. Do I think anyone in that region who really wants peace and is in a position to act will do anything at this time? No.

Yet you seem to think Israel should engage in appeasement. It never works, yet you keep demanding it.

If you had actually read my response, you'd realize it rebuts your straw man. I even bold-faced and italicized it for you.

You said nobody in the region really wants peace. Iran is in the region. Thus you are saying Iran doesn't want peace. And note that war will persist so long as their is a party with the desire and the power to make it happen.

I admire how you pretend to address posts while ignoring the content on such a consistent basis. I think it makes sense for us to explicitly ignore each other’s posts instead of you implicitly ignoring the content. So carry on.

Try a mirror.

You're not addressing my point at all. Iran is there, Iran doesn't want peace. You don't accept that that means the war will continue and still blame Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From what I’ve seen, people here do engage with your points and often ask for evidence to better understand your perspective. However, I haven’t yet seen a case where your arguments were ignored outright. Could you share specific examples of an ignored explanation? I think clarifying this might help all of us understand better. Just as a note, someone disagreeing with an explanation doesn’t necessarily mean they’re ignoring it.

This serious needs to be addressed to somebody.

 

[TomC]

I've never had reason to look into it, so I'll just ask.
Do the Geneva Conventions and other forms of Rules of Engagement cover violent conflicts where the leadership reliably use their own people as cannon fodder and human shields?

If not, they aren't applicable to the ways Iranian proxy forces, such as Hamas, use the Palestinians.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

I edited my post to expand on those points.

You appear to be asking for Rules of Engagement. Since I have already linked to a pdf from the US Marine Corps that actually contains the ROE of the US Armed Forces, from this point on I will assume you have read it and therefore already know the ROE I think the IDF should have for its operations in Gaza.

You realize Israel rejected the US approach as causing way too many civilian casualties?

Where? When? Cite?

 

[Tigers!]

Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time? There was the extra distance to get there but it dos not seem to have been too much extra.

That's a good question. Are you at all interested in finding out the answer?

Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time? There was the extra distance to get there but it dos not seem to have been too much extra.

That's a good question. Are you at all interested in finding out the answer?

Always interested in finding answers.
What I am not interested in is ad-hominien attacks or an unwillingness to acknowledge that Israel is doing its best to defend itself.

 

[Tigers!]

As long as there are wealthy people who support causes - particularly religion based causes, such as catholicism, revolutionary communism, or islamic jihadism - there will be funding for any terrorist organisation that pays lip-service to that cause.

I was not aware that revolutionary communism was religion-based.

 

[Tigers!]

Sigh. I will say it again. People, including your self, keep saying that Israel can defend it itself. But when Israel uses a tank, bomb, shell, aircraft etc. to defend itself up pop cries of war crimes, disproportionate response etc. If on the one hand you say that Israel can defend itself and on the other hand complain when it does then you are actually not willing to let Israel defend itself. You want Israel to lie back and think of England.

I mean, provide links and/or quotes.

Show, not tell.

Also, you are once again missing an essential point: saying Israel can defend itself is not the same thing as saying Israel can defend itself by doing whatever the fuck it wants no matter how heinous.

You keep saying you don't object to Israel defending itself but you reject everything they do.

What would meet your definition of a reasonable defensive action?

I have asked Arctish that same questions 3 or 4 times. Still waiting for an answer. Perhaps he will answer you?

 

[Arctish]

Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time? There was the extra distance to get there but it dos not seem to have been too much extra.

That's a good question. Are you at all interested in finding out the answer?

Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time? There was the extra distance to get there but it dos not seem to have been too much extra.

That's a good question. Are you at all interested in finding out the answer?

Always interested in finding answers.
What I am not interested in is ad-hominien attacks or an unwillingness to acknowledge that Israel is doing its best to defend itself.

I'm not interested in Ad Hominem attacks, either. Or an unwillingness to acknowledge what Israel is doing and has done in the past, or to consider whether those past and current actions are the best way for Israel to defend itself.

As I said earlier in this thread, if you want peace you have to allow the peacemakers to succeed. You have to help them, if necessary, to secure the benefits of peace for their people and their societies. The greenhouse project wasn't just a commercial failure and waste of money, it was deliberate kneecapping of Gaza's economic prospects and a provocation. Resentment against Israel increased when the trucks were held up at the crossing and the crops were ruined. If fuckery like that keeps happening (and let's be honest, we know it most likely will under the current Israeli government) then the hopes for peaceful relations between Israelis and Palestinians are almost non-existent.

Is that in Israel's best interest? I don't think so.

 

[Arctish]

Sigh. I will say it again. People, including your self, keep saying that Israel can defend it itself. But when Israel uses a tank, bomb, shell, aircraft etc. to defend itself up pop cries of war crimes, disproportionate response etc. If on the one hand you say that Israel can defend itself and on the other hand complain when it does then you are actually not willing to let Israel defend itself. You want Israel to lie back and think of England.

I mean, provide links and/or quotes.

Show, not tell.

Also, you are once again missing an essential point: saying Israel can defend itself is not the same thing as saying Israel can defend itself by doing whatever the fuck it wants no matter how heinous.

You keep saying you don't object to Israel defending itself but you reject everything they do.

What would meet your definition of a reasonable defensive action?

I have asked Arctish that same questions 3 or 4 times. Still waiting for an answer. Perhaps he will answer you?

Bullshit.

I have answered your questions. I have linked to Rules of Engagement I have explicitly said I support. I have also said I think the ROE the US forces followed in Somalis should be amended to reflect conditions and goals in Gaza if the IDF were to follow them, but I would not discuss that part until you gave me reason to think you had read what I had posted.

Did you read the information in the links? Are you familiar with the ROE that were in effect during the Battle of Mogadishu? Can you guess which rules I think should be amended?

Go ahead and post your best guess. It should be very easy to figure out.

I think what's happening here is you aren't getting the answer you want so you're ignoring the answers you're getting, much like Loren ignoring the answers he got to the question about the baby strapped to the chest plate of an armored kidnapper.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time? There was the extra distance to get there but it dos not seem to have been too much extra.

That's a good question. Are you at all interested in finding out the answer?

Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time? There was the extra distance to get there but it dos not seem to have been too much extra.

That's a good question. Are you at all interested in finding out the answer?

Always interested in finding answers.
What I am not interested in is ad-hominien attacks or an unwillingness to acknowledge that Israel is doing its best to defend itself.

I'm not interested in Ad Hominem attacks, either. Or an unwillingness to acknowledge what Israel is doing and has done in the past, or to consider whether those past and current actions are the best way for Israel to defend itself.

As I said earlier in this thread, if you want peace you have to allow the peacemakers to succeed. You have to help them, if necessary, to secure the benefits of peace for their people and their societies. The greenhouse project wasn't just a commercial failure and waste of money, it was deliberate kneecapping of Gaza's economic prospects and a provocation. Resentment against Israel increased when the trucks were held up at the crossing and the crops were ruined. If fuckery like that keeps happening (and let's be honest, we know it most likely will under the current Israeli government) then the hopes for peaceful relations between Israelis and Palestinians are almost non-existent.

Is that in Israel's best interest? I don't think so.

Responding responsibly to a valid threar isn't "fuckery"

The Palestinians are bullies. Bullies without anything to defend themselves when Israel gets annoyed about the continual Palestinisn harassment.

 

[Tigers!]

Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time? There was the extra distance to get there but it dos not seem to have been too much extra.

That's a good question. Are you at all interested in finding out the answer?

Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time? There was the extra distance to get there but it dos not seem to have been too much extra.

That's a good question. Are you at all interested in finding out the answer?

Always interested in finding answers.
What I am not interested in is ad-hominien attacks or an unwillingness to acknowledge that Israel is doing its best to defend itself.

I'm not interested in Ad Hominem attacks, either. Or an unwillingness to acknowledge what Israel is doing and has done in the past, or to consider whether those past and current actions are the best way for Israel to defend itself.

As I said earlier in this thread, if you want peace you have to allow the peacemakers to succeed. You have to help them, if necessary, to secure the benefits of peace for their people and their societies.

Sometimes to secure the benefits of peace it must be backed up by force or the possibility thereof. Gaza is one of those places.

The greenhouse project wasn't just a commercial failure and waste of money, it was deliberate kneecapping of Gaza's economic prospects and a provocation.

As I have said on a number of ocassions that Israel was foolish to impose a blockage the way that they did, esp. at the beginning. Opportunity should have given to some attempts to develop a better Gazan economy.

Resentment against Israel increased when the trucks were held up at the crossing and the crops were ruined. If fuckery like that keeps happening (and let's be honest, we know it most likely will under the current Israeli government) then the hopes for peaceful relations between Israelis and Palestinians are almost non-existent.

Is that in Israel's best interest? I don't think so.

What is the answer to the question "Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time?"

 

[Arctish]

Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time? There was the extra distance to get there but it dos not seem to have been too much extra.

That's a good question. Are you at all interested in finding out the answer?

Why did the Gazans not try the Rafah crossing which was controlled by Egypt at that time? There was the extra distance to get there but it dos not seem to have been too much extra.

That's a good question. Are you at all interested in finding out the answer?

Always interested in finding answers.
What I am not interested in is ad-hominien attacks or an unwillingness to acknowledge that Israel is doing its best to defend itself.

I'm not interested in Ad Hominem attacks, either. Or an unwillingness to acknowledge what Israel is doing and has done in the past, or to consider whether those past and current actions are the best way for Israel to defend itself.

As I said earlier in this thread, if you want peace you have to allow the peacemakers to succeed. You have to help them, if necessary, to secure the benefits of peace for their people and their societies. The greenhouse project wasn't just a commercial failure and waste of money, it was deliberate kneecapping of Gaza's economic prospects and a provocation. Resentment against Israel increased when the trucks were held up at the crossing and the crops were ruined. If fuckery like that keeps happening (and let's be honest, we know it most likely will under the current Israeli government) then the hopes for peaceful relations between Israelis and Palestinians are almost non-existent.

Is that in Israel's best interest? I don't think so.

Responding responsibly to a valid threar isn't "fuckery"

Choking off traffic when Gaza is exporting produce through the only crossing they can use and then restoring the flow-through to what it was when Jewish settlers were the ones exporting produce once the Palestinian production is ruined, is fuckery.

Did you not get to that part of the article I linked? Did you not read the article at all?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've never had reason to look into it, so I'll just ask.
Do the Geneva Conventions and other forms of Rules of Engagement cover violent conflicts where the leadership reliably use their own people as cannon fodder and human shields?

If not, they aren't applicable to the ways Iranian proxy forces, such as Hamas, use the Palestinians.
Tom

AFIAK Geneva does not address human shield tactics. Geneva was written in the spirit of what can we do to minimize civilians being caught in the crossfire, it didn't consider that someone might be putting them there deliberately. Besides, as written Geneva doesn't even apply--as written it's only binding if both sides signed it. In practice we have applied it to combats where the other side did not sign.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I edited my post to expand on those points.

You appear to be asking for Rules of Engagement. Since I have already linked to a pdf from the US Marine Corps that actually contains the ROE of the US Armed Forces, from this point on I will assume you have read it and therefore already know the ROE I think the IDF should have for its operations in Gaza.

You realize Israel rejected the US approach as causing way too many civilian casualties?

Where? When? Cite?

It was last fall, early in the war.