Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 107

Thread: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

  1. #51
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    So are you now saying it was shear incompetance, not hostility? Because it simply can't be None of the Above.
    Shear incompetence is not the sole explanation for accidents.

    Look at the whole picture of the Israeli actions. Can you explain reasonably why these things occured:

    1. The use of explosive shells instead of non-explosive bullets in a "warning" shot?

    2. Land was hit instead of water with a warning shot, not once by a lone wayward shell, but twice by two wayward shells?

    3. Why Israel is firing so often in the region PRIOR to the event that caused injuries during... sorry, DESPITE the cease-fire?
    When an armed terrorist group is engaging in hostilities (as was witnessed earlier today), Israel can ill-afford to go unarmed. Multiple warning shots were fired. One warning shot does not always suffice. As I don't know the circumstances involved e.g., the response to the first warning shot, I can't comment on the necessity for multiple shots.

    If the fishing boat in question was located between the Israeli Navy and land, warning shots would have been fired in the direction of land by virtue of the fishing boat's position. That is a likely location since the Israeli Navy has been blocking outgoing and incoming watercraft essentially since Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Therefore, it would have been unlikely that the fishing boat had come from outside the Israeli naval cordon. Of course, this is not cast in stone.

    Given the competancy level of the Israeli military, it is absurd to think that they could have this many ****-ups in such a short span of time. No, the prima facie assumption must be that at least some of these instances were purposeful.

    To assume otherwise is to engage in self-deception.
    That is little more than declaration of a presumption of guilt. By such reasoning, U.S. and NATO airstrikes that have repeatedly caused harm to civilians or civilian objects would be presumed to have been purposeful.

    I disagree with reasoning that a nation or person should be presumed guilty. Concrete and credible evidence alone should be required to establish whether or not guilt is present.

    Things like this cause me to question Israeli honesty:

    Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza - Times Online
    The article also states, "'Some practices could be illegal but we are going into that. The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) is holding an investigation concerning one specific incident.'”

    To its credit, Israel is investigating the incident. Israel has an effective judicial system and high standard of justice. Just recently, Israel's critics initiated an outcry when two Arab parties were barred from the election. As I had expected, Israel's high court overturned that decision and they will have a chance to participate.

    The reality is that abuses have often occurred during times of war. The abuses at Abu Ghraib are one example. In that case, the U.S. investigated and convicted some individuals who were responsible.

    Similarly, I have little reason to doubt that Israel won't take such meaures as are appropriate should it find that white phosphorus had been wrongly used, clumsy PR approach notwithstanding.

    Finally, as previously noted, I have no objections to an objective investigation into what took place during the Gaza conflict. I even suggested that such an examination could be conducted under the auspices of the Madrid Quartet with the consensus findings being released to the public.

    Where there is wrongdoing, I support bringing the individuals to justice. What I don't condone is an automatic presumption of guilt.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    02-01-09 @ 07:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    66

    Re: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Those were warning shots fired at a fishing boat. Fishing boats have been used, in the past, for smuggling of weapons.

    Is this what you call warning shots and fired at fishing boat?

    Did fishing boats are sailing inside the head of this little boy? & Is this is the action of warning shots?



    *7 year old Ahmed Hassanin, shot in the head outside his home by Israeli soldiers from Gaza’s eastern border, January 22nd.

    On the 5th morning after Israel declared a ‘ceasefire’, Israeli gunboats began shelling, as they had on several mornings since halting the 22 day air and land bombardment of Gaza. The shelling, which began just after 7:30 am off Gaza city’s coast, injured at least 6, including one boy with shrapnel in his head.

    Yasser Abed, 15, came out from his home in Gaza’s Beach camp, on the coast, to see where the shelling was occurring. A shard of shrapnel lodged in his forehead.

    Nisreen al Quqa, 11, was out earlier, before the navy began to fire towards Palestinian fishermen. She and her brother were walking on the beach when the firing started. A piece of shrapnel lodged in her right calf muscle.

    To read the complete story please click here

    it’s a ceasefire…just not on the beach, not in your home

    Last edited by PeaceLover; 01-27-09 at 02:51 PM.

  3. #53
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Shear incompetence is not the sole explanation for accidents.
    I agree.



    When an armed terrorist group is engaging in hostilities (as was witnessed earlier today), Israel can ill-afford to go unarmed. Multiple warning shots were fired. One warning shot does not always suffice. As I don't know the circumstances involved e.g., the response to the first warning shot, I can't comment on the necessity for multiple shots.
    This incident has nothing to do with Hamas, and that needs to be remembered. This was a fishing vessel that strayed beyond the accepted limits. there was no threat to the Israeli vessel from this.

    And the point about their being multiple shots is irrelevant because the point I was making was that it should be presumed an accident when one shot goes astray. When TWO shells go atray, it is probable that eitehr incompetance or aggression was the culprit.

    If the fishing boat in question was located between the Israeli Navy and land, warning shots would have been fired in the direction of land by virtue of the fishing boat's position. That is a likely location since the Israeli Navy has been blocking outgoing and incoming watercraft essentially since Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Therefore, it would have been unlikely that the fishing boat had come from outside the Israeli naval cordon. Of course, this is not cast in stone.
    Why use shells instead of bullets? Why fire a shell toward land in any circumstance, especially one where the vessel that fired the shot is not under threat? IDF has said that the reason for the warning shots was because the ship had gone astray, NOT becaue they felt the ship was a threat.

    This needs to be cinsidered for a truly unbiased opinion on the matter.

    You are simply taking the IDF's word for things. There is no reason to presume that they are being honest, as the past evidence shows that the opposite is likely to be true.


    That is little more than declaration of a presumption of guilt. By such reasoning, U.S. and NATO airstrikes that have repeatedly caused harm to civilians or civilian objects would be presumed to have been purposeful.
    No, but some of them should be presumed to be purposeful until legitimate reasons are given for the incidents.

    Although, the civilian casualties to total casualty rate seems to be far lower for the battle in afghansitan than teh recent events in Gaza.

    Look at the numbers from Human Rights Watch.

    2006: 4,400 total casualties of which 230 were Civilians killed by NATO and US forces (about 5% of the total casualites)
    2007: 7,700 total casualties of which 434 were civilians killed by US and NATO Forces (still about 5% of the total casualties)


    In those two years combined, we have a total of 664 civilian casualties caused by US and NATO forces, compared to 12,100 total fatalities.

    Now, Using the IDF tally (250 civilians, 1200 total) we get a percentage of 20.8%


    About 4 times as many percentage-wise as what HRW estimates the US and NATO forces to be responsible for. And I'm using the IDF estimates which are skewed in favor of Israel. All other estimates I've seen tally the total count at 1300 with at least 400 of them children (30% of total fatalities being children)

    Couple the numbers with the KNOWN fact that Israel bombed at least two schools and used white phosphorus (two facts notably absent from the Afghansistan numbers) my presumption that at least SOME of the "accidents" were not accidental is warranted.

    I'm not saying ALL of the incidents are purposeful (although you attempt to paint it that way by mentioning the US and NATO casualties in Afghansitan and strawmanning my argument in order to make the claim that my reasoning would mean that they were purposeful deaths. This is not at all true. My reaosning is based on percentages and volume comparisons, and the evidence you cited actually bolsters my argument that some of the IDF actions must have been purposeful.).

    I'm saying to assume that NONE of them were purposeful, as you are doing, given the statistical evidence and factual evidence of eggregious actions is folly and self-delusion.

    What remains to be seen is which instances were purposeful and whehter or not they were actions taken by individual soldiers who lost control during battle or if they were ordered from higher up.

    I would assume that the former is more likely than the latter. I don't believe it is Israeli policy to act in these ways, but I would not be surprised to learn that a few people along the chain went off the reservation and acted in innapropriate ways during this conflict.


    I disagree with reasoning that a nation or person should be presumed guilty. Concrete and credible evidence alone should be required to establish whether or not guilt is present.
    One must look at the entire picture with an unbiased eye. The presumption that some of the actions were done on purpose is not the same as the presumption of guilt for Israel.

    That an act was purposeful does not mean it was condoned by Israel or the IDF higher ups.

    You have changed my stance to be the presumption of guilt for Israel, instead of the presumption that at least some of the actions were purposeful. I stated it clearly and you have distorted it. you created a strawman because I never said "guilt".

    It is clear that the percentage of civilian deaths are, even using the IDF estimates, higher than those in Afghanistan over a two year span by comparing it to the Human Rights Watch numbers for Afghanistan that you linked.



    The article also states, "'Some practices could be illegal but we are going into that. The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) is holding an investigation concerning one specific incident.'”

    To its credit, Israel is investigating the incident. Israel has an effective judicial system and high standard of justice. Just recently, Israel's critics initiated an outcry when two Arab parties were barred from the election. As I had expected, Israel's high court overturned that decision and they will have a chance to participate.
    The investigation is being conducted by the IDF, which had tried to cover-up the use of white phosphorus initially.

    But like you said, the Israeli Judicial system is admirable because they are very willing to make decisions that are unpopular.

    Anotehr instance would be the use of human sheilds during raids by the IDF which they outlawed.

    Unfortunately, the Judicial system of Israel does not run their military operations.

    I am of the mind that IDF investigations offer little in the way of truth.

    The reality is that abuses have often occurred during times of war. The abuses at Abu Ghraib are one example. In that case, the U.S. investigated and convicted some individuals who were responsible.

    Similarly, I have little reason to doubt that Israel won't take such meaures as are appropriate should it find that white phosphorus had been wrongly used, clumsy PR approach notwithstanding.
    See, you call it a clumsy PR approach, while I would call it "lying" or an attempted "cover-up".

    That being said, I respect that they are at the very least conducting an investigation into the matter, but truth be told, they didn't have much choice.

    The phosphorus was DEFINITELY used on the UN school. There is a ton of evidence to show that. CONCRETE evidence.

    This is clearly illegal by the guidelines that state that it is not to be used in environments where civilians are at risk. That rule is clear. It COULDN'T have happened on accident because the rules state that the precautions must be present in order to prevent this.

    Finally, as previously noted, I have no objections to an objective investigation into what took place during the Gaza conflict. I even suggested that such an examination could be conducted under the auspices of the Madrid Quartet with the consensus findings being released to the public.

    Where there is wrongdoing, I support bringing the individuals to justice. What I don't condone is an automatic presumption of guilt.
    Do you give the Palestinians, Hamas in particular, the same presumption of innocence that you allow Israel to enjoy until you have concrete evidence for you to presume guilt?

    Or do you presume that the attack was a violation of the cease-fire, even if the mortars land short and there is no evidence that they were directly from Hamas?

    Your initial article that started this thread, all that is contained is this:

    "Palestinians fired a mortar shell towards the western Negev on Saturday morning.

    The shell fell short of its Israeli target and landed in the Gaza Strip.

    A warning siren was sounded in southern communities shortly before the shell landed. No casualties were reported."
    A single mortar shell that doesn't even reach Israel and causes no casualties is enough for you to impugn the Palestinians and declare that they have violated of the cease-fire, yet two shells fired from Israeli ship as a "warning" to a fishing boat that fall on land, injuring civilians is beyond reproach?

    You haven't waited for concrete evidence in order to impugn the Palestinians.

    You don't know if this was the act of one person gone off the reservation or an ordered attack from Hamas leadership. You claim that you need concrete evidence before you can presume guilt, but that standard only applies to Israel, as this thread indicates.

    If you honestly want others to presume innocence until hard facts are known, then you should look inward first, because you are not living by the same standard you request other live by.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 01-27-09 at 04:03 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #54
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I'm saying to assume that NONE of them were purposeful, as you are doing, given the statistical evidence and factual evidence of eggregious actions is folly and self-delusion.

    What remains to be seen is which instances were purposeful and whehter or not they were actions taken by individual soldiers who lost control during battle or if they were ordered from higher up.

    I would assume that the former is more likely than the latter. I don't believe it is Israeli policy to act in these ways, but I would not be surprised to learn that a few people along the chain went off the reservation and acted in innapropriate ways during this conflict.
    My point is that that there is no evidence that the incidents that harmed civilians were purposeful. No documentary evidence of orders has been uncovered. No witnesses to offer testament to orders to willfully harm civilians have come forward. If, of course, such evidence is revealed, the matters should be properly examined and any responsible individuals brought to justice.

    War crimes are grave matters. It does not matter whom is responsible. Guilty parties should be brought to justice.

    The presumption that some of the actions were done on purpose is not the same as the presumption of guilt for Israel.

    That an act was purposeful does not mean it was condoned by Israel or the IDF higher ups.

    You have changed my stance to be the presumption of guilt for Israel, instead of the presumption that at least some of the actions were purposeful.
    By presumption of “guilt,” I meant to suggest that you were expressing a view of a presumption that Israel’s actions in the incident(s) in question were purposeful. I meant it in that narrow context and apologize if the implied meaning were broader.

    Do you give the Palestinians, Hamas in particular, the same presumption of innocence that you allow Israel to enjoy until you have concrete evidence for you to presume guilt?

    Or do you presume that the attack was a violation of the cease-fire, even if the mortars land short and there is no evidence that they were directly from Hamas?
    Several things:

    • There is a distinction between Palestinian civilians and members of terrorist organizations such as Hamas.
    • Palestinian civilians are not responsible for the actions of terrorist groups. Only the terrorist organizations are.
    • Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist groups had ample opportunity to deny responsibility for the attempted mortar attack. Had they denied responsibility, I would have used a different subject heading e.g., “Mortar shell fired at Israel.” I might not have posted on the matter. After all, there were numerous rocket attacks during the June-December 2008 hudna on which I did not post, as the responsible party was not altogether clear.
    • With respect to the 1/27 incident, the Hamas spokesman quoted in the article failed to decline Hamas's responsibility and, instead, blamed Israel for what happened.

    A single mortar shell that doesn't even reach Israel and causes no casualties is enough for you to impugn the Palestinians…
    The newspaper refers to “Palestinians.” However, in the context of the piece, it should be abundantly clear that the newspaper was referring to terrorist entities, not Palestinian civilians.

    Furthermore, in my posted messages, I specifically refer to “Hamas,” or “Palestinian terrorist organizations,” etc., so as to distinguish between ordinary Palestinians and the terrorist entities. Gaza’s residents, like Israel’s civilians, are innocent victims of Hamas and other terrorist organizations that are responsible for the hardship they face.

  5. #55
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 02:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Moe,

    The piece posted by Square Melon omitted the background information behind the incident. The January 22, 2009 edition of The Jerusalem Post reported:

    The IDF confirmed the incident, and said it was firing to deter a Palestinian fishing vessel that had strayed off-limits.

    In short, Israel was not shelling Gaza for the sake of doing so, even as the piece posted by Square Melon might have implied such a situation. In contrast, there was no reason whatsoever for terrorists to have attempted to fire a mortar into Israel.
    what a stupid excuse, it really stinks Mukden, just like the 4th November raid stinked Gleiwitz

    if the palestinian ship fishes too much, do you think they'll cluster bomb Gaza?

  6. #56
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 02:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I agree.





    This incident has nothing to do with Hamas, and that needs to be remembered. This was a fishing vessel that strayed beyond the accepted limits. there was no threat to the Israeli vessel from this.

    And the point about their being multiple shots is irrelevant because the point I was making was that it should be presumed an accident when one shot goes astray. When TWO shells go atray, it is probable that eitehr incompetance or aggression was the culprit.



    Why use shells instead of bullets? Why fire a shell toward land in any circumstance, especially one where the vessel that fired the shot is not under threat? IDF has said that the reason for the warning shots was because the ship had gone astray, NOT becaue they felt the ship was a threat.

    This needs to be cinsidered for a truly unbiased opinion on the matter.

    You are simply taking the IDF's word for things. There is no reason to presume that they are being honest, as the past evidence shows that the opposite is likely to be true.




    No, but some of them should be presumed to be purposeful until legitimate reasons are given for the incidents.

    Although, the civilian casualties to total casualty rate seems to be far lower for the battle in afghansitan than teh recent events in Gaza.

    Look at the numbers from Human Rights Watch.

    2006: 4,400 total casualties of which 230 were Civilians killed by NATO and US forces (about 5% of the total casualites)
    2007: 7,700 total casualties of which 434 were civilians killed by US and NATO Forces (still about 5% of the total casualties)


    In those two years combined, we have a total of 664 civilian casualties caused by US and NATO forces, compared to 12,100 total fatalities.

    Now, Using the IDF tally (250 civilians, 1200 total) we get a percentage of 20.8%


    About 4 times as many percentage-wise as what HRW estimates the US and NATO forces to be responsible for. And I'm using the IDF estimates which are skewed in favor of Israel. All other estimates I've seen tally the total count at 1300 with at least 400 of them children (30% of total fatalities being children)

    Couple the numbers with the KNOWN fact that Israel bombed at least two schools and used white phosphorus (two facts notably absent from the Afghansistan numbers) my presumption that at least SOME of the "accidents" were not accidental is warranted.

    I'm not saying ALL of the incidents are purposeful (although you attempt to paint it that way by mentioning the US and NATO casualties in Afghansitan and strawmanning my argument in order to make the claim that my reasoning would mean that they were purposeful deaths. This is not at all true. My reaosning is based on percentages and volume comparisons, and the evidence you cited actually bolsters my argument that some of the IDF actions must have been purposeful.).

    I'm saying to assume that NONE of them were purposeful, as you are doing, given the statistical evidence and factual evidence of eggregious actions is folly and self-delusion.

    What remains to be seen is which instances were purposeful and whehter or not they were actions taken by individual soldiers who lost control during battle or if they were ordered from higher up.

    I would assume that the former is more likely than the latter. I don't believe it is Israeli policy to act in these ways, but I would not be surprised to learn that a few people along the chain went off the reservation and acted in innapropriate ways during this conflict.




    One must look at the entire picture with an unbiased eye. The presumption that some of the actions were done on purpose is not the same as the presumption of guilt for Israel.

    That an act was purposeful does not mean it was condoned by Israel or the IDF higher ups.

    You have changed my stance to be the presumption of guilt for Israel, instead of the presumption that at least some of the actions were purposeful. I stated it clearly and you have distorted it. you created a strawman because I never said "guilt".

    It is clear that the percentage of civilian deaths are, even using the IDF estimates, higher than those in Afghanistan over a two year span by comparing it to the Human Rights Watch numbers for Afghanistan that you linked.





    The investigation is being conducted by the IDF, which had tried to cover-up the use of white phosphorus initially.

    But like you said, the Israeli Judicial system is admirable because they are very willing to make decisions that are unpopular.

    Anotehr instance would be the use of human sheilds during raids by the IDF which they outlawed.

    Unfortunately, the Judicial system of Israel does not run their military operations.

    I am of the mind that IDF investigations offer little in the way of truth.



    See, you call it a clumsy PR approach, while I would call it "lying" or an attempted "cover-up".

    That being said, I respect that they are at the very least conducting an investigation into the matter, but truth be told, they didn't have much choice.

    The phosphorus was DEFINITELY used on the UN school. There is a ton of evidence to show that. CONCRETE evidence.

    This is clearly illegal by the guidelines that state that it is not to be used in environments where civilians are at risk. That rule is clear. It COULDN'T have happened on accident because the rules state that the precautions must be present in order to prevent this.



    Do you give the Palestinians, Hamas in particular, the same presumption of innocence that you allow Israel to enjoy until you have concrete evidence for you to presume guilt?

    Or do you presume that the attack was a violation of the cease-fire, even if the mortars land short and there is no evidence that they were directly from Hamas?

    Your initial article that started this thread, all that is contained is this:



    A single mortar shell that doesn't even reach Israel and causes no casualties is enough for you to impugn the Palestinians and declare that they have violated of the cease-fire, yet two shells fired from Israeli ship as a "warning" to a fishing boat that fall on land, injuring civilians is beyond reproach?

    You haven't waited for concrete evidence in order to impugn the Palestinians.

    You don't know if this was the act of one person gone off the reservation or an ordered attack from Hamas leadership. You claim that you need concrete evidence before you can presume guilt, but that standard only applies to Israel, as this thread indicates.

    If you honestly want others to presume innocence until hard facts are known, then you should look inward first, because you are not living by the same standard you request other live by.
    it's needless to try and debate about this. He'll always find excuses. Israel is always right.

  7. #57
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 02:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceLover View Post

    Is this what you call warning shots and fired at fishing boat?

    Did fishing boats are sailing inside the head of this little boy? & Is this is the action of warning shots?



    *7 year old Ahmed Hassanin, shot in the head outside his home by Israeli soldiers from Gaza’s eastern border, January 22nd.

    On the 5th morning after Israel declared a ‘ceasefire’, Israeli gunboats began shelling, as they had on several mornings since halting the 22 day air and land bombardment of Gaza. The shelling, which began just after 7:30 am off Gaza city’s coast, injured at least 6, including one boy with shrapnel in his head.

    Yasser Abed, 15, came out from his home in Gaza’s Beach camp, on the coast, to see where the shelling was occurring. A shard of shrapnel lodged in his forehead.

    Nisreen al Quqa, 11, was out earlier, before the navy began to fire towards Palestinian fishermen. She and her brother were walking on the beach when the firing started. A piece of shrapnel lodged in her right calf muscle.

    To read the complete story please click here

    it’s a ceasefire…just not on the beach, not in your home

    you have to blame the hamas because this kid was used as a human shield

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    02-01-09 @ 07:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    66

    Re: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

    Quote Originally Posted by bub View Post
    you have to blame the hamas because this kid was used as a human shield
    Hamas never used human shields these claims are promoted by the Israelis to cover their crimes.

    Do you want to see a true human shield see that:

    THE DAY ISRAEL USED A BOY AGED 13 AS A HUMAN SHIELD



    to read the full story of a real terrorist entity (Israeli occupation) click here


  9. #59
    Student SquareMelon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    02-19-09 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    248

    Re: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    From the January 27, 2009 issue of Haaretz:

    One Israeli soldier was killed and three others were wounded near Gaza on Tuesday morning, in the first serious clash since a cease-fire went into effect in the coastal strip more than a week ago.

    The incident occurred when a bomb exploded near an Israel Defense Forces patrol along the Gaza border, near the Kissufim crossing.


    In my opinion, Hamas is doing exactly what it did during its previous ceasefire. Violence is reduced, but not eliminated e.g., during the June-December 2008 period, no months saw 0 rockets fired at Israel.

    I believe Israel should respond sharply to this ceasefire violation.
    The Haaretz piece did not blame Hamas for carrying out this attack. You however did. As you know there are many palestinian factions inside Gaza, it takes time to have all those in line. Jumping into conclusions of who did what immediately can be wrong. The IDF said that Hamas did not carry out this attack.

    IDF: Hamas didn't carry out attack – but is responsible - Israel News, Ynetnews

    Ambush on IDF patrol near Kissufim crossing executed by pro-Iranian militant group whose extremism outstrips even Hamas. Army stresses that even if Hamas didn't carry out the attack, it authorized it. An Islamist group affiliated with Al-Qaeda calling itself the 'Jihad and Tawhid Brigades' claimed responsibility for the attack. The group delivered the announcement to the Ramattan news agency, which distributed the footage.

    The IDF believes that the cell behind the attack is an extremist pro-Iranian group, which espouses a militant ideology that surpasses even Hamas' positions in its opposition to Israel. The group receives direct support from Tehran, but is connected in various ways to Hamas as well.

    The army says that even though the attack was executed by this group, Hamas was involved and at the very least gave its consent to the plot.
    A speculation by the IDF that Hamas at the very least gave consent to the plot is not an evidence. Credible evidence need to be presented that links Hamas to this, hence the statement that Hamas violated the cease fire.
    The Square Water Melon Revolution

  10. #60
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Gaza Ceasefire Violation

    PeaceLover,

    In the past there had been some occasions of human shielding by Israel. That inexcusable practice has since been discontinued. There is never any justification for human shielding.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •