What should Israel do?

[laughing dog]

No, I'm afraid not. I went through the whole article.

The specific grievances mentioned were three:
i) That Hamas put military personnel and buildings in neighbourhoods that contain civilians, thus encouraging a blurring of the line between military and civilian targets. Unfortunately, the IDF also do this. There simply isn't the space to put large empty spaces between military buildings and civilian houses.
ii) That Hamas don't abide by the rules of war, separating military and civilian targets, and avoiding reprisals on civilian targets for military actions. Again, the IDF, as a matter of public policy, target civilian buildings for bombing on a regular basis, and are particularly fond of punitive attacks - destroying local businesses, power stations, and other buildings outside of active combat.
iii) That Hamas violate articles of the Geneva convention. The Geneva specifically prohibits the actions taken under the settlement program

The difference of course is that hamas deliberately places their arsenal under schools and high civilian density buildings. Furthermore, which other country has ever done this. Israelis warn the civilians to get the fuck out because they are about to get bombed. Cowardly hamas hides behind women and children on purpose.

No doubt Hamas deliberately uses civilians as cover as a strategy and for survival. Since the IDF personnel and bases are not on the border out in the open for easy attack wouldn't you also have to say the IDF is cowardly as well?

 

[angelo]

That is not going to happen anytime soon. Why isn't the spineless UN castgating Qatar for habouring a terrorist.

 

[Derec]

First off, assassinating a leader doesn't make the leadership of the political party weaker, it makes it stronger.

First off, Hamas is not a "political party". It is a terrorist organization hellbent on destroying Israel and currently engaged in shooting thousands of rockets into Israel and infiltrating Israel with their fighters.
Mashaal himself is responsible for numerous terrorist attacks which is why Israel tried to assassinate him way back in 1997.
Of course, Qatar could arrest and extradite him to Israel to stand trial but they won't do that because they are very friendly toward Hamas.

Whoever takes over will have much more support.

By whom? The rank and file terrorists? Perhaps. But if you take out enough of the leadership the B- and C-listers will have comparatively less skill and experience. As long as you play whack-a-mole long enough you'll take out all the competent ones.

If Sharon got shot, you think his successor would have the same problems rallying a broad base of support?

Sharon is dead. He was also not a leader of a terrorist organization.

Second of all, do you have some evidence that Hamas is somehow blocking peace?

The more than 10,000 rockets and mortars they fired at Israel since Israel withdrew from Gaza are not evidence enough for you? How about kidnapping and murder of the three teens that sparked the latest hostilities?

What is it about their own peace proposals that you feel is promoting conflict?

What peace proposals? They are refusing to recognize Israel so they have no peace proposal. The only thing they have is the laughable plan for a 10 year truce where Israel is to give in to many Hamas demands (like lift the siege) but Hamas reserves the right to stock up on weapons and resume attacking Israel in 10 years time. Their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. You can't have peace with them.

Third of all, didn't you say that the ceasefire should be rejected, until Hamas could be blown up some more? Why assassinate someone who agrees with you?

Because blowing him up would go a long way towards "blowing Hamas up some more" of course. I am not ecstatic about a premature ceasefire that accomplishes nothing but room for Hamas to regroup, rearm and dig some more tunnels (using cement provided for humanitarian projects by the West) only to attack Israel again in a few years. But that is still better than a premature ceasefire and giving in to Hamas demands for lifting the blockade and releasing terrorists.

Fourthly, previous Palestinian leaders have not agreed to ceasefires on the grounds of personal safety, so why would they suddenly start now?

Well as long as they think themselves safe abroad what do they care about personal safety?

And why would you want to weaken Hamas anyway? Hamas rose to power partly as a result of Fatah's struggling to maintain support. If you somehow weaken Hamas, then you'll just get someone worse taking over.

Not necessarily. It will give the Gazans an opportunity to chose again. They chose very poorly in 2006.

What you really seem to be after is getting the Palestinian population suitably cowed that they won't oppose their overlords any more.

Wrong. It is the Hamas who are the overlords in Gaza.

I'd suggest that assassination of individuals is a poor way to achieve this. A better approach would be to have a look at some successful repressive societies - such as pre-civil war Deep South in the US, Apartheid South Africa, or some of the present Gulf states that have large ethnic underclasses, and see how they do it.

Israel doesn't want a repressive society. They want to live in peace. Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Therefore, to have peace Hamas must be destroyed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

YES. Not other Arab countries outside the former British Mandate of Palestine, but they had declared a state and expanded beyond the UN partition plan borders (which were non-viable to begin with).

Try again.

They declared a state on the UN lines. The expansion was the result of the Arab-initiated war.

Did Israel attack in 1967? --- NO

YES. Pre-emptive strike. Contrast this with the 1948 Arab invasion... is the one who starts the war the one who fires the first shot, or the one who takes the gun out of the cabinet and starts loading it? If the former, then clearly, Israel started the 1967 war. If the latter, then Israel (and the Zionist agency before that) clearly started the 1948 war.

1) Pre-empting an enemy attack shouldn't really be called starting a war, any more than it's murder if you shoot your attacker before he shoots you.

2) The actual first act of war was a blockade and was done by Egypt. Thus Egypt started it.

Did Israel offer to give back the land in 1967? --- YES

NO. Israel made an offer to return Golan, Sinai and Gaza, but they never offered East Jerusalem and the entire West Bank. Arabs at the time likely would have rejected the offer anyway, but your statement is still inaccurate.

Egypt never owned anything on the West Bank, they can't be returned to Egypt. It should be returned as a part of a peace agreement with Jordan.

I'll ask you a simple question as someone who has thought about this for a long time and is a student of world affairs:

Scenario One: Israel lays down all of it's arms and disbands it's army tomorrow: You tell me what happens.

Scenario Two: Hamas lays down it's arms and disbands it's army of fighters: You tell me what happens.

Scenario One: Israeli government will be taken over by the extremists, who reinstitute the army with minor disruption. Or if you are suggesting that nobody in Israel will pick up a rifle, which is a ridiculous notion, then the UN or the USA would cover them. The life for the settlers would be more difficult of course and they would have to move back to Israel proper. A Palestinian state would be formed and there would be peace.

Scenario Two: Other groups like Islamic Jihad will continue to fire rockets at Israel. Fatah gains a liittle bit more foothold in Gaza. Israel expands in West Bank and continues its oppression of Palestinians as before.

In other words, you don't want to answer the question.

Here is a third scenario for you: what would happen if Israel were to withdraw from West Bank tomorrow?

The same thing as happened when they pulled out of Gaza--the war would continue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The difference of course is that hamas deliberately places ...

Of course they do. Most of Gaza is high civilian density - it's a refugee camp. However, this wasn't a point addressed by the article you provided. The article, as I said, merely criticises Hamas for breaking the same rules that the IDF does.

There are a lot of open spaces.

Furthermore, which other country has ever done this. Israelis warn the civilians to get the fuck out because they are about to get bombed.

All countries do this, when they're conducting punitive bombing - that is bombing intended to punish the population as a whole by destroying significant buildings. The IDF are particularly known for it because they indulge in far more punitive bombing that other countries. Most countries shy away from it because of the Geneva Convention.

Israel isn't doing punitive bombing. There are a lot better targets they could be hitting if they were.

No one, including the IDF, does this when they're trying to hit the enemy, for obvious reasons. So the first wave missile strikes on civilian targets in Operation Cast Lead, or the IRA's Brighton Hotel bombing, were done without warning, because the entire point was to kill the people inside the buildings.

There's no warning when they are after commanders--the missiles simply come in.

Likewise, there is no warning (beyond general warnings) when they're after rocketeers, although anyone on the ground nearby should know that if they see a rocket being launched they should get the hell out of there.

Warnings are sent when they're after weapons storage, though.

- - - Updated - - -

The difference of course is that hamas deliberately places their arsenal under schools and high civilian density buildings. Furthermore, which other country has ever done this. Israelis warn the civilians to get the fuck out because they are about to get bombed. Cowardly hamas hides behind women and children on purpose.

No doubt Hamas deliberately uses civilians as cover as a strategy and for survival. Since the IDF personnel and bases are not on the border out in the open for easy attack wouldn't you also have to say the IDF is cowardly as well?

Bunkers and the like are fine. Using civilians as cover is not.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Hamas soldiers are attacking IDF soldiers with babies strapped to their chests? Ok. I hadn't read that yet. Sorry for assuming you were presenting a hypothetical.

Nah, babies carried in the off arm.

Well, clearly they should invest in some Baby Bjorn carriers, because it doesn't make sense to enter battle without both hands free. Also, you could put one on both the front and the back to cover your retreat.

 

[Togo]

Israel wasn't ethnically cleansed of Arabs

Not completely, no. The aim was never to get rid of all the Palestinians, but merely to establish a local Jewish majority so as to control the land. Hence the settlement program, which aims to establish Jewish majority throughout the entire country, and the discrimination against Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, to try and reduce the claim the Palestinians have on it as their capital.

Nonetheless, a great many Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed from Israel and from settlement areas around Israel that it is trying to claim as part of it's state, and a great many have ended up in Gaza, hence the crowds.

And could you please distinguish between Palestinians and 'Arabs'. Just because you can't tell towel-heads apart, doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

It is a territory that finds itself under a 7 year blockade

No there have been continual blockades and restrictions well before that point.

What I am saying is that when people talk about how many people live in such a small strip of land yadda yadda they also must realize that Israel did not cause that situation,

Yes, Israel did cause that situation. They threw these people off their own land, and they ended up in a giant refugee camp staring through the barbed wire at where they used to live. You're blaming the Palestinians for Israel not allowing them to go home.

The article doesn't address that. Please distinguish between 'evidence presented' and 'things I believe to be true'.

There is plenty of evidence that...

No, you've posted a lot about who is responsible, but such a claim is very difficult to evidence, and you've not really made much attempt to do so. Angelo did attempt to present evidence, which I promptly showed to be false - the article itself did not support it's own conclusions. That you believe those conclusions were correct make no difference to the article, and certainly doesn't constitute evidence.

Try reading my post again.

I only see "blah blah blame Israel blah blah"

Yes, that is basically the problem.

How are we going to discuss the matter and reach a reasoned conclusion if you refuse to even read what other people post?

Is it perhaps, that you don't want to discuss this precisely because you know what will happen if you do?

Countries, by contrast, don't tend to punish the community for cooperating with their enemies because that's a violation of the Geneva Convention.

And what evidence do you have that this is the goal of Israel...

Well, what are the reasons for attacking a large building with high explosives? You might want to kill people in the building, but we're talking about cases where people are warned to quit the building first. Similarly if you're targeting a building and give people time to evacuate, there's no obvious reason why they can't take their man-portable rockets with them when they leave. A large store would be hard to move perhaps, but that clearly doesn't apply to a small house, or an individual apartment, where there isn't space

And then you can look at what is consistent with other Israeli actions, where they regularly bulldoze local businesses. Again they're not trying to trap anyone in the building, and if they wanted to catch weapons stores they wouldn't be giving people days to evacuate. They just want the building gone.

[

I'm using the definition reported in the article that was presented, that explains in considerable detail exactly why civilian policemen are not considered military personnel, and thus, as I said, does not in fact support the conclusion that was reported.

Except that these purportedly "civilian" policemen are heavily armed Hamas thugs.

If you don't agree with the article, then it probably shouldn't have been presented as evidence to support you.

I suspect that the article avoids your blanket definition of militant because if you just define it as anyone who might be armed, then you run into the problem that almost all Israeli citizens of draft age are a lot more heavily armed than a Palestinian policeman.

Of course, wiping them out in a surprise missile attack in the middle of the night is a violation of the Geneva Convention either way.

Why?

You're not allowed to kill people unless they're actively engaged in hostilities against you. You can't kill retired soldiers, citizens with military training (I.e. most Israelis), hospitalised soliders, etc. It's precisely to stop the situation where you wholesale slaughter police, ambulance, fire and so on just because they have equipment and training that might be useful in battle.

Of course you're already been openly calling for murder already, so that may not bother you.

 

[Togo]

First off, Hamas is not a "political party". It is a terrorist organization....

I'm afraid it is a political party. That's why it keeps standing for election. It is a political party that represents and is closely involved with a great many terrorist groups. Most terrorist organisations work this way - you have a political wing that does all the speeches, stands for elections, and organises the civilian side of things, and then you have the armed brigades that work in smaller groups, carry out attacks, acquire weapons, etc. So, for example, Sein Fein is the political wing of the IRA. The IDF is the military wing of the Israeli government.

Even in the middle of a conflict zone, a movement will have many more non-combatant members than people who can or want to actually fight. Hamas consists of thousands of nurses, teachers, shopkeepers, tradesmen, farmers, and so on.

Hamas was elected partly on the strength of their policies. They're good on healthcare, education, law and order, and were considered less corrupt than their rivals Fatah. They've come up with some new ideas for getting a better working relationship with international aid agencies, in particular paying for local graduates to serve as interns in medical and education roles, thus getting the necessary cross-training for intelligent people that Israel won't allow to move freely in and out of the area. They set up a civilian administered police force, which was very popular with locals, and they managed to smuggle in a lot of Western school books, which Israel had banned. The civilian leaders of Hamas were largely western-educated, and got the nickname of 'government by PhD'.

Of course it helped a lot that Fatah has pursued a policy of peace with Israel, and had gained nothing to show for it. Instead the West Bank is divided into small fenced off enclaves, from which the inhabitants can watch Israeli settlers driving past on Israeli-only roads, while queuing for permission to enter and leave.

Whoever takes over will have much more support.

By whom? The rank and file terrorists? Perhaps. But if you take out enough of the leadership the B- and C-listers will have comparatively less skill and experience. As long as you play whack-a-mole long enough you'll take out all the competent ones.

Firing rockets takes competent leadership?

Second of all, do you have some evidence that Hamas is somehow blocking peace?

The more than 10,000 rockets and mortars they fired at Israel since Israel withdrew from Gaza are not evidence enough for you?

No, Israel still occupies most of Palestine and is gradually clearing the Palestinians out, and replacing them with settlers. Fighting against Israel seems only sensible under the circumstances. They've clearly laid out what they see as a peaceful solution. Israel doesn't appear to be interested.

What is it about their own peace proposals that you feel is promoting conflict?

What peace proposals? They are refusing to recognize Israel so they have no peace proposal. The only thing they have is the laughable plan for a 10 year truce where Israel is to give in to many Hamas demands (like lift the siege) but Hamas reserves the right to stock up on weapons and resume attacking Israel in 10 years time.

They have proposed 5-6 other peace plans. Why don't you know about them?

Their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. You can't have peace with them.

If that's really what you believe, then genocide or ethnic cleansing are the only answer. Which are you supporting?

Third of all, didn't you say that the ceasefire should be rejected, until Hamas could be blown up some more? Why assassinate someone who agrees with you?

Because blowing him up would go a long way towards "blowing Hamas up some more" of course.

So there isn't really a plan here, you just want some bloodshed. I'll admit that was the impression I got when you lovingly described an '8mm brain haemorrhage', but I wanted to ask.

And why would you want to weaken Hamas anyway? Hamas rose to power partly as a result of Fatah's struggling to maintain support. If you somehow weaken Hamas, then you'll just get someone worse taking over.

Not necessarily. It will give the Gazans an opportunity to chose again. They chose very poorly in 2006.

What would have been the benefit of voting for Fatah?

What you really seem to be after is getting the Palestinian population suitably cowed that they won't oppose their overlords any more.

Wrong. It is the Hamas who are the overlords in Gaza.

Overlords crouching in tunnels, hiding from airstrikes, and desperately trying to get hold of food, medicine and textbooks?

Nah, I'm going to go with the overlords being the people in the guard towers at the border, shooting anyone who gets too close to the wire.

I'd suggest that assassination of individuals is a poor way to achieve this. A better approach would be to have a look at some successful repressive societies - such as pre-civil war Deep South in the US, Apartheid South Africa, or some of the present Gulf states that have large ethnic underclasses, and see how they do it.

Israel doesn't want a repressive society. They want to live in peace.

Can you describe what this peace looks like? Israel can't afford to make the Palestinians citizens for demographic reasons, so what would their eventual status be? An underclass? Ethnically cleansed? What's the endpoint here?

 

[HaRaAYaH]

YES. Not other Arab countries outside the former British Mandate of Palestine, but they had declared a state and expanded beyond the UN partition plan borders (which were non-viable to begin with).

NO. You are factually incorrect. When the state of Israel was declared it was attacked.

On 15 May 1948 the ongoing civil war transformed into an inter-state conflict between Israel and the Arab states. A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine - Jordan having declared privately to Yishuv emissaries on May 2 it would abide by a decision not to attack the Jewish state.[11] The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements

Wikipedia

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded/ territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents.

US Department of State Office of the Historian

In May 1948, Israel became an independent state after Israel was recognised by the United Nations as a country in its own right within the Middle East. If relations in pre-war Palestine had been fraught with difficulties, these difficulties paled into insignificance after Israel became a state in its own right. Immediately on being granted its independence, Israel was attacked by a number of Arab nations

The History Learning Site It was the Arabs that attacked Israel, not the other way around. Also notably absent from your comments is the fact that at no time did the Palestinians declare their own state. Also absent is your failure to note the fact that Jordan annexed the West bank after the war of 1948.

Did Israel attack in 1967? --- NO

YES. Pre-emptive strike. Contrast this with the 1948 Arab invasion... is the one who starts the war the one who fires the first shot, or the one who takes the gun out of the cabinet and starts loading it? If the former, then clearly, Israel started the 1967 war. If the latter, then Israel (and the Zionist agency before that) clearly started the 1948 war.

Wrong again. I suggest getting your glasses checked as you only seem to see one side of each story. While Israel did fore the first shot, it was because the Egypt had mobilized it's armed forces on the Israeli border, closes the straits of Tiran, and ordered the UN buffer force out of the Sinai ALL in preparation for Invasion. Also, the Israeli's sent three separate messages to Jordan, saying they wanted no conflict. So If Jordan had kept out of the 1967 war, they would still be the occupying power.

Did Israel offer to give back the land in 1967? --- YES

NO. Israel made an offer to return Golan, Sinai and Gaza, but they never offered East Jerusalem and the entire West Bank. Arabs at the time likely would have rejected the offer anyway, but your statement is still inaccurate.

Actually the offer was authorized but may never have been transmitted. But in any event the Arabs issued their famous three NOs No peace with Israel No recognition of Israel No negotiations

I'll ask you a simple question as someone who has thought about this for a long time and is a student of world affairs: Scenario One: Israel lays down all of it's arms and disbands it's army tomorrow: You tell me what happens. Scenario Two: Hamas lays down it's arms and disbands it's army of fighters: You tell me what happens.

Scenario One: Israeli government will be taken over by the extremists, who reinstitute the army with minor disruption. Or if you are suggesting that nobody in Israel will pick up a rifle, which is a ridiculous notion, then the UN or the USA would cover them. The life for the settlers would be more difficult of course and they would have to move back to Israel proper. A Palestinian state would be formed and there would be peace. Scenario Two: Other groups like Islamic Jihad will continue to fire rockets at Israel. Fatah gains a liittle bit more foothold in Gaza. Israel expands in West Bank and continues its oppression of Palestinians as before.

Of course you refuse to answer the question. The question was if Israel lays down it's arms and disbands it's army, that assumes nobody else picks of arms. You have to add this because you know and don't have the courage to admit, they would be wiped out by the Arabs.

Here is a third scenario for you: what would happen if Israel were to withdraw from West Bank tomorrow?

The would be attacked from closer range.

 

[laughing dog]

Bunkers and the like are fine. Using civilians as cover is not.

So when should the world expect you to call on the IDF to move all of its bases to the Gaza border?

 

[arkirk]

This makes at least TWO U.N. schools in recent memory the Israelis have attacked....(yesterday's attack on a U.N. school in Gaza with 16 dead and about 200 injured). I also noted that this place appeared to have been attacked from the ground level as there were bullet holes in the walls that would not be there with an aerial attack only. It was mainly kids that got killed and injured.

The last U.N. school I recall information on the Israelis attacking was also attacked with white phosphorous...a military crime in anybody's book, especially against women and kids.

Loren and Derec both seem more concerned with the "how to" of war and clearly have their minds in the shoes of IDF troops and pilots. They say this kind of casualty is just an unfortunate side effect of Hamas, but it indeed is IDF bombs and guns (much of which originated in the U.S.A.) that were used in this atrocity. They only allow in their minds the possibility of continued war and killing. Peace is a concept alien to their understanding.

Which side am I on? Between tweedledee and tweedledum, neither. We are guided by the warmongers into a choice between two sides only and the possibility of a third way is foreclosed in dealing with who was first and who was second or who was worst and who was less bad. These issues lose their importance if we allow the slaughter to carry on. In the midst of all this fire and bursting bombs, it is children that are the main victims. It is the future of a whole people that pays for this exercise in punitive war making. We are long past the time when this should have been stopped by intervention from the U.N. Blowing up U.N. property and attacking U.N. personnel should be grounds for expulsion from the U.N. and the application of sanctions. It is obvious this fight will continue till disease and starvation begin to take a heavy toll of the civilian population of Gaza. This was covered in a U.N. report on environmental conditions in Gaza. I wonder if the publishing of this report may have prompted this "oops! You guys were just too close to Hamas for your own good" response from Israel, when the U.N. people were in contact with IDF forces and the area was clearly identified as a U.N. school. This is just like LAST TIME. It is time to get busy and demand there is no NEXT TIME.

It is not a matter anymore what Israel should do. It is clear they are not doing that. It is a matter of what the rest of the world should do. What should the U.S. do? Stop supplying the instruments of death to Israel. That is simple. Israel is already armed to the teeth. A lessening of military advantage to this rogue nation would lead to a greater willingness to compromise and make peace. Of course, Obama with his "lock step with Israel" policy is not likely to contribute to peace in the area. So we are not doing what we should and this horror just continues. It will end badly. It has already become terrible.

 

[arkirk]

Derec and Loren: There was NO ARSENAL UNDER THE U.N. SCHOOL.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm afraid it is a political party. That's why it keeps standing for election.

Reality check: There has been no election since they were elected.

Hamas was elected partly on the strength of their policies. They're good on healthcare, education, law and order, and were considered less corrupt than their rivals Fatah.

Only because they can spend their money helping in visible ways. It's not really that they do more. I do agree they are less corrupt.

and they managed to smuggle in a lot of Western school books, which Israel had banned.

Some evidence of this? Most of the things supposedly banned were not. Furthermore, there is a widespread tendency on the left to think that shortages mean bans when they often just mean Hamas (or in some cases Fatah) won't pay for it.

Can you describe what this peace looks like? Israel can't afford to make the Palestinians citizens for demographic reasons, so what would their eventual status be? An underclass? Ethnically cleansed? What's the endpoint here?

They would look like any other nation. They'll be poor because they've spent more than a decade wrecking their economy but it would still be better than what they have now.

- - - Updated - - -

Bunkers and the like are fine. Using civilians as cover is not.

So when should the world expect you to call on the IDF to move all of its bases to the Gaza border?

Are the Hamas bases on the Gaza border? Mostly, no.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The last U.N. school I recall information on the Israelis attacking was also attacked with white phosphorous...a military crime in anybody's book, especially against women and kids.

The primary military role of white phosphorus is to create smoke, not to hurt anybody. Any area it's dropped is likely either a battlefield or about to become one.

Loren and Derec both seem more concerned with the "how to" of war and clearly have their minds in the shoes of IDF troops and pilots. They say this kind of casualty is just an unfortunate side effect of Hamas, but it indeed is IDF bombs and guns (much of which originated in the U.S.A.) that were used in this atrocity. They only allow in their minds the possibility of continued war and killing. Peace is a concept alien to their understanding.

Yeah, we look at the how to because we realize that Hamas is deliberately causing civilian casualties and we blame Hamas for that. You persist in falling for their deception.

It is not a matter anymore what Israel should do. It is clear they are not doing that. It is a matter of what the rest of the world should do. What should the U.S. do? Stop supplying the instruments of death to Israel. That is simple. Israel is already armed to the teeth. A lessening of military advantage to this rogue nation would lead to a greater willingness to compromise and make peace. Of course, Obama with his "lock step with Israel" policy is not likely to contribute to peace in the area. So we are not doing what we should and this horror just continues. It will end badly. It has already become terrible.

Cutting our aid would increase the death toll.

Being precise is expensive. You would see less use of precision weapons.

You think you can force them to make peace but you're not trying to make Hamas do anything--and it's Hamas that keeps the fighting going.

You're the school that keeps telling the kids that it's their own fault they are being bullied, make peace with the bullies and you won't be hurt.

- - - Updated - - -

Derec and Loren: There was NO ARSENAL UNDER THE U.N. SCHOOL.

I note no links.

There's also the question of whether it was actually Israel that hit it. Hamas hits plenty of things in Gaza.

 

[laughing dog]

Are the Hamas bases on the Gaza border? Mostly, no.

Well, they are alot closer to the border then IDF bases, but your evasion of the point is duly noted.

 

[untermensche]

Cutting our aid would increase the death toll.

"OUR" aid?

 

[Derec]

Derec and Loren: There was NO ARSENAL UNDER THE U.N. SCHOOL.

It is very likely that the school was hit by an errant Hamas rocket. You assume anything that goes boom in Gaza is due to Israeli fire but a significant percentage of the Hamas rockets actually fail to clear the border and hit something in Gaza. Of course the Hamas blames Israel and the useful idiots abroad lap it up.

 

[untermensche]

Derec and Loren: There was NO ARSENAL UNDER THE U.N. SCHOOL.

It is very likely that the school was hit by an errant Hamas rocket. You assume anything that goes boom in Gaza is due to Israeli fire but a significant percentage of the Hamas rockets actually fail to clear the border and hit something in Gaza. Of course the Hamas blames Israel and the useful idiots abroad lap it up.

The truth is, Israel is committing reprisals.

It is killing civilians as collective punishment and as an attempt to drive a wedge between the population and Hamas.

This is no different from rounding up a few civilians and shooting them.

 

[Derec]

This is no different from rounding up a few civilians and shooting them.

So it's Israel's fault even if it is actually a Hamas rocket that killed those people, and who knows how many others among the 800+ dead so far (since as many as 20% of the rockets actually fall within Gaza)?

 

[untermensche]

This is no different from rounding up a few civilians and shooting them.

So it's Israel's fault even if it is actually a Hamas rocket that killed those people, and who knows how many others among the 800+ dead so far (since as many as 20% of the rockets actually fall within Gaza)?

I haven't researched this specific incident.

If Hamas is firing rockets and killing civilians then that is just as bad as Israel doing it. Always claiming some mysterious terrorist lurking just over the shoulder of the dead children.

But Israel is knowingly killing civilians. They know the weapons they use and where they use them will kill some civilians.

And they are doing it as reprisals. Collective punishment.