• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gaza Ceasefire Violation

donsutherland1 said:
Moe,

In his memoirs, Lee wrote:

I gradually crystallized my thoughts and settled on a two-pronged strategy to overcome our disadvantages. The first was to leapfrog the region, as the Israelis had done. This idea sprang from a discussion I had with a UNDP expert who visited Singapore in 1962. In 1964, while on a tour of Africa, I met him again in Malawi. He described to me how the Israelis, faced with a more hostile environment than ours, had found a way around their difficulties by leaping over their Arab neighbors who boycotted them, to trade with Europe and America. Since our neighbors were out to reduce their ties with us, we had to link up with the developed world—America, Europe, and Japan—and attract their manufacturers to produce in Singapore and export their products to the developed countries.

Source: Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World To First: The Singapore Story: 1965-2000, New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2000, pp.57-58.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Singapore is a common port for US flag ships and I been there quite a few times. It is a beautiful prosperous city of mixed nationalities.

I had no idea that Isreal was the example they followed.

Moe
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

donsutherland1 said:
There is a distinction between warning shots and hostilities. Warning shots do not necessarily violate a ceasefire.
Click to expand...

The full article in the Jpost with the IDF version that was not linked is;

A Navy boat off the shores of Gaza City shot and wounded a man and a girl on Thursday morning, according to a Palestinian medical official. The IDF confirmed the incident, and said it was firing to deter a Palestinian fishing vessel that had strayed off-limits.

Between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m. Thursday, the Navy partially lifted the naval blockade so as to allow Palestinian fishermen to fish.

Moaiya Hassanain, a Palestinian doctor, said a shell fired by the boat hit a house in a beach-side refugee camp, and that two who were wounded were walking in the street.

Another shell landed 100 yards (meters) away in an empty area near a UN aid distribution center.

Three gunboats were operating off Gaza City's coast Thursday.

Gunboats have been firing off Gaza's shore for several days despite a cease-fire that has ended a three-week Israeli offensive against Gaza rocket operations aimed at Israel.
Click to expand...

The piece does not state that warning shots were fired during the alleged incident. It states "Gunboats have been firing off Gaza's shore for several days despite a cease-fire" without giving justifications for this firing.

Why would shells land in beach-side refugee camp if they were only fired at a fishing boat? Israel had allowed the fishermen to fish as the piece reported.

Navy hurts Palestinian man, girl in Gaza | Israel | Jerusalem Post
 
SquareMelon said:
The piece does not state that warning shots were fired during the alleged incident.
Click to expand...

The article states: "firing to deter..." To deter is to prevent something. Even as the word "warning" wasn't specifically used, the article's language makes clear that the shots were warning shots.

As for the other operations, the article does not go into the circumstances involved. Unless one knows the circumstances, one can only speculate. One cannot draw firm conclusions. If the earlier firing was aimed at rocket squads, deterring smuggling, etc., then there would be no ceasefire violation. As the details concerning the earlier incidents are not available, I cannot draw any conclusions with respect to those incidents.
 
moe said:
Man that link is good thanks Joe.
[...] It is to bad that the Muslims can not see how much Israel really has to offer the middle east considering that if it were not for their oil they would be at the bottom of the worst case list of third world countries.

Moe
Click to expand...

Anytime :cool: ...

And it's nice to see people who actually see Israel/the middle east for what it is.
These are the times that I think that maybe the world isn't influenced by the media as much as I thought;
and that the truth, armed with facts, in context, shines through the media imposed darkness.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The article states: "firing to deter..." To deter is to prevent something. Even as the word "warning" wasn't specifically used, the article's language makes clear that the shots were warning shots.
.
Click to expand...

I am aware what "deter" means, but the IDF has used this word sometimes differently. Recall the Gaza operation was described as a "deterrence" against Hamas by the IDF and the Israeli government, this "deterrence" was a war that lasted 22 days.

donsutherland1 said:
As for the other operations, the article does not go into the circumstances involved. Unless one knows the circumstances, one can only speculate. One cannot draw firm conclusions. If the earlier firing was aimed at rocket squads, deterring smuggling, etc., then there would be no ceasefire violation. As the details concerning the earlier incidents are not available, I cannot draw any conclusions with respect to those incidents.
Click to expand...

I did not draw conclusions myself either. I just pointed out that the article did not give justifications for the firing "without giving justifications for this firing"

I am still puzzled, how "deterrence" firing on a fishing boat land on the beach injuring people. Perhaps, the boat was very close to the beach and the shells missed and landed in the camp?
 
Last edited:
JoeMama said:
Anytime :cool: ...

And it's nice to see people who actually see Israel/the middle east for what it is.
These are the times that I think that maybe the world isn't influenced by the media as much as I thought;
and that the truth, armed with facts, in context, shines through the media imposed darkness.
Click to expand...

What the heck does a link describing Israel's economy have to do with anything?!? Especially in the "context" of a thread on Israeli excuses for killing innocent people?

Is this what is called 'derailing' a topic?
 
Israel started the second day after ceasfire to violate it when it killed one palestinian and injured some.
 
Jakers said:
Especially in the "context" of a thread on Israeli excuses for killing innocent people?
Click to expand...
I italicized "context" to stress the fact that many facts, statistics, quotes etc. are taken out of context. and lead to unintended, or maybe purposely false impressions. MANY people on this forum can testify to that.

Jakers said:
Is this what is called 'derailing' a topic?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but a major point of these threads is to learn, not just to release testosterone in debating (assuming you are a boy...) and if you go off topic that is fine.

If you get annoyed from that, you are gonna have serious problems in life...:roll:
I don't mean to offend you (and you are probably saying to yourself "well ya did")....but cmon..:doh
 
Jakers said:
What the heck does a link describing Israel's economy have to do with anything?!? Especially in the "context" of a thread on Israeli excuses for killing innocent people?

Is this what is called 'derailing' a topic?
Click to expand...


It had to do with a question that I asked concerning hamas strategy. War is a very serious drain on a nations economy and I asked if any one knew anything about the state of Israels economy.

Moe
 
moe said:
It had to do with a question that I asked concerning hamas strategy. War is a very serious drain on a nations economy and I asked if any one knew anything about the state of Israels economy.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Moe,

Part of DP's purpose is to encourage learning and understanding. You need not apologize for asking a question.

P.S. Ignore the heading that says this is a "warning." It isn't.
 
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.
 
Of course you do, but you'll gladly ignore Israel shelling from the sea, won't you? Because you . You'll gladly ignore that Israel won't let a fraction of the aid needed into Gaza through, letting conditions that let organisations like Hamas flourish continue. The initial stage of the ceasefire agreement is the halting of ALL enemy fire. That includes shelling as shelling is a an offensive weapon.

Use force? Pick up a history book and see how far that gets. Hamas were created out of force.
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You support the blood shed in Gaza?

Did not you hear about shelling Gaza from the sea after Israel announced the cease fire from one side?

Did Israel stop its aircrafts from threatening the Palestinians in Gaza and putting them in great fear and danger till now?

Do you support an occupation force to kill more innocents in Gaza?

Isn't enough to kill more than 1400 and wound more thatn 5000 in only 22 days.

Istead I wish you can ask those guys in Israel to end their occupation and terrorist activities in the middle east.

I wished you ask the USA government to stop sending hte white phosphorus bombs to kill the Palestinian children and women.

 
PeaceLover said:
You support the blood shed in Gaza?
Click to expand...


Of course not. Unfortunately, I suspect Hamas welcomes and encourages such bloodshed in a cynical bid to maintain its grip on power and continue its pursuit of its radical objectives.

Did not you hear about shelling Gaza from the sea after Israel announced the cease fire from one side?
Click to expand...

Those were warning shots fired at a fishing boat. Fishing boats have been used, in the past, for smuggling of weapons.

Did Israel stop its aircrafts from threatening the Palestinians in Gaza and putting them in great fear and danger till now?

Do you support an occupation force to kill more innocents in Gaza?

Isn't enough to kill more than 1400 and wound more thatn 5000 in only 22 days.
Click to expand...

Hamas bears complete responsibility for the civilians who were killed and injured. I am appalled that Hamas cares so little for Gaza's women and children that it would launch attacks that can only lead Israel to defend itself.

Had Hamas not ended its ceasefire, the military operation would not have been necessary. Israel, like any other country, has a right of self-defense.

Given the consequences of violence, I favor a permanent ceasefire. Hamas, on the other hand, rejects such a ceasefire. As a result, whenever Hamas launches attacks, Israel has a right to defend itself.

Istead I wish you can ask those guys in Israel to end their occupation and terrorist activities in the middle east.
Click to expand...

I've stated in the past--and maintain that position--that I would support a two-state solution that is reasonably close to the parameters of President Clinton's bridging proposal. Would you support such a settlement if it were possible again?

I believe Yasser Arafat made a dreadful error in failing to accept that agreement, even after then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak accepted it. In doing so, he squandered a rare historic opportunity for a peace agreement. Had the Palestinians been led by a leader of the stature and foresight of an Anwar Sadat or King Hussein, there would be a Palestinian state coexisting in peace with Israel today.

Bad leadership has a price. The Palestinians are suffering on account of the choices, including those to forego the historic chance for peace, of bad leadership.

With respect to today, the reality of the situation probably requires a "West Bank first" approach to peace. There, a step-by-step diplomatic process that could culminate in a final settlement a few years down the road may be feasible. The West Bank's political future should not be frozen merely because Hamas continues to occupy the Gaza Strip on account of its June 2007 coup.

So long as the Hamas terrorist organization retains its grip on Gaza, prospects for including Gaza in a diplomatic process are probably slim. It is highly unlikely that Hamas will abandon its objective of eliminating Israel nor rescind its opposition to compromise and peace initiatives. In the meantime, Gaza's residents suffer on account of Hamas' oppression and its sacrificing their wellbeing for that terrorist group's objectives.
 
A Hamas spokesman has confirmed that Hamas does not view the present ceasefire as requiring an elimination of all violence. Instead, it interprets the ceasefire as precluding only significant combat so to speak.

Haaretz reported, "Al-Masri [Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas leader] said his group had not agreed to a full cease-fire but only to a lull in fighting."

I am not suprised by this interpretation. I believe that Israel's unilateral declaration of a ceasefire was premature and it reduced pressure for Hamas to end all violence. It also took away leverage that could have potentially facilitated Hamas' release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit whom the terrorist organization has held hostage for more than two years.

The latest incident and lack of progress with respect to freeing Cpl. Shalit could lead increasing numbers of Israelis to conclude that the current government is not meeting Israel's needs. If so, they could elect a center-right government headed by the Likud's Binyamin Netanyahu in next month's elections. I believe prospects for such an outcome are growing and have become more likely than not.
 
Intepretation? That was the agreement. A lull in fighting to allow aid corridors to open into Gaza.

Reuters AlertNet - FACTBOX-Israel-Hamas ceasefire talks

"Initially, the diplomat said, Israeli and Palestinian fighters would abide by a "lull" in fighting to allow for the establishment of a humanitarian corridor to aid Gaza's 1.5 million residents. Israeli troops could remain in parts of the coastal territory during this phase but would not advance."
 
donsutherland1 said:
The article states: "firing to deter..." To deter is to prevent something. Even as the word "warning" wasn't specifically used, the article's language makes clear that the shots were warning shots.
Click to expand...

Definition from Webter's

Main Entry: de·ter·rence
Pronunciation: \di-ˈtər-ən(t)s, -ˈter-; -ˈtə-rən(t)s, -ˈte-; dē-\
Function: noun
Date: 1861
: the act or process of deterring: as a: the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear especially of punishment b: the maintenance of military power for the purpose of discouraging attack
Click to expand...

The shots injured people. Injury = Punishment


donsutherland1 said:
There is a distinction between warning shots and hostilities. Warning shots do not necessarily violate a ceasefire.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and firing a weapon at someone is an overt act of war. Thus Israel was engaging in hostilities when they shot AT Gaza:

Main Entry: hos·til·i·ty
Pronunciation: \hä-ˈsti-lə-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hos·til·i·ties
Date: 15th century
1 a: deep-seated usually mutual ill will b (1): hostile action (2)plural : overt acts of warfare : war
2: conflict, opposition, or resistance in thought or principle
Click to expand...

A warning shot would not have been capable of injuring people UNLESS by way of shear incompetance of the one firing the shots.

So Was Israel engaging in hostilies or was it incometance, because those are the ONLY to options when people are injured by "warning" shots.




To use a simple, and accurate, analogy. A guy who is a known theif is about to tresspass on my lawn. In order to DETER him from doing so, I shoot his friend in the leg and call it a warning shot.

Do you think I'll avoid the attempted murder charges using that as my defense, or will the judge look at me like I'm a complete retard for even trying to come up with something that absurd as my defense for shooting the guy in the leg?

Seriously? Saying that Israel did NOT vioalate the ceasefire becasue they were trying to "deter" is pure unadulterated sophistry.
 
Tucker Case said:
The shots injured people. Injury = Punishment...

Yeah, and firing a weapon at someone is an overt act of war. Thus Israel was engaging in hostilities when they shot AT Gaza:

A warning shot would not have been capable of injuring people UNLESS by way of shear incompetance of the one firing the shots.

So Was Israel engaging in hostilies or was it incometance, because those are the ONLY to options when people are injured by "warning" shots.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with your interpretation. Under the interpretation you advance, the U.S. was responsible for an act of war against Egypt (an ally, no less), engaged in hostilities with Egypt, or the U.S. Navy demonstrated "shear incompetence" in an incident in which one of its warning shots killed an Egyptian in March 2008.

With respect to that incident, Reuters reported:

The United States said on Wednesday a warning shot fired from a U.S. naval vessel appeared to have killed an Egyptian on Monday, after earlier denying reports of such a death.

"The Global Patriot, a ship on short term charter to the U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command, fired warning shots at a small boat approaching the ship as it was preparing to transit the Suez Canal Monday evening," a statement from the U.S. embassy in Egypt said.

"It appears that an Egyptian in the boat was killed by one of the warning shots."

Intent matters. The U.S. did not intend to kill the Egyptian. There is no evidence that Israel intended to injure the Palestinians in the incident in question.
 
There's a bit of a difference here. The US is not and has not been hostile with Egypt since Sadat.
 
Richard Nixon said:
There's a bit of a difference here. The US is not and has not been hostile with Egypt since Sadat.
Click to expand...

Richard Nixon,

Your point further debunks the notion that Israel's warning shots were prima facie evidence that Israel was engaging in hostilities. The article noted that the shots were fired to deter. They were warning shots.

Even when warning shots are fired, accidents can occur. Intent matters. There is no evidence that Israel intended to harm the Palestinians in the incident in question.
 
Why? Are the US and Egypt under some sort of stressful ceasefire agreement? And stop with the intellectual dishonesty. Israel is shelling on a regular basis the coastal areas of Gaza during a ceasefire. Let me remind you what a ceasefire is:

–noun
1. a cessation of hostilities; truce.

And firing a weapon at a coastal area during a ceasefire fire - I stress the word FIRING - is breaking that ceasefire. I love how you can claim Israel shelling the coast with huge shells is acceptable but a tiny Hamas firing rockets and you're calling for Israel to invade again. And there's a difference between shooting at a merchant boat approaching your ship and firing random shells at a coastal area of a nation you're holding a ceasefire with.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I strongly disagree with your interpretation. Under the interpretation you advance, the U.S. was responsible for an act of war against Egypt (an ally, no less), engaged in hostilities with Egypt, or the U.S. Navy demonstrated "shear incompetence" in an incident in which one of its warning shots killed an Egyptian in March 2008.

With respect to that incident, Reuters reported:

The United States said on Wednesday a warning shot fired from a U.S. naval vessel appeared to have killed an Egyptian on Monday, after earlier denying reports of such a death.

"The Global Patriot, a ship on short term charter to the U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command, fired warning shots at a small boat approaching the ship as it was preparing to transit the Suez Canal Monday evening," a statement from the U.S. embassy in Egypt said.

"It appears that an Egyptian in the boat was killed by one of the warning shots."

Intent matters. The U.S. did not intend to kill the Egyptian. There is no evidence that Israel intended to injure the Palestinians in the incident in question.
Click to expand...

Let's look at the two incidents directly, Don.

Navy hurts Palestinian man, girl in Gaza | Israel | Jerusalem Post

Moaiya Hassanain, a Palestinian doctor, said a shell fired by the boat hit a house in a beach-side refugee camp, and that two who were wounded were walking in the street.

Another shell landed 100 yards (meters) away in an empty area near a UN aid distribution center.

Three gunboats were operating off Gaza City's coast Thursday.

Gunboats have been firing off Gaza's shore for several days despite a cease-fire that has ended a three-week Israeli offensive against Gaza rocket operations aimed at Israel.
Click to expand...

The bolded section shows that the shells hit land, not water, injuring people who were NOT on the boat..

Now let's look at the US variant you are attempting to portray as equivilant http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL2667123320080326:

"It appears that an Egyptian in the boat was killed by one of the warning shots."

A statement by the Navy on Tuesday said it had not recorded any casualties, that the warning shots were 20 to 30 metres in front of the small motorboat's bow, and that all shots were accounted for as they entered the water.

Egyptian security sources had said Mohammed Fouad Afifi Gaafer was killed by bullets fired from the ship and was buried on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Now what we see here are a few glaring differences.

1. The US ship used Bullets not shells. Shells carry an explosive payload. Israel used shells.
2. The US ship hit water not land and apparently on shot hit a man ON THE BOAT. The Israeli incident hit LAND and injured people who were just walking on the street
3. The US had not been firing in the region over the past few days while a ceasefire was going on

(from the Jeruselem post article I linked above):

Gunboats have been firing off Gaza's shore for several days despite a cease-fire that has ended a three-week Israeli offensive against Gaza rocket operations aimed at Israel.
Click to expand...


This fact, as reported by the Jeruselem Post, clearly saying despite a cease-fire, Israel is firing in the region, implies that Israel has indeed BROKEN the cease-fire by shooting SHELLS towards land and injuring civilians.



And I would say that in the case of the US navy, it was incomptence that caused the man to die. If you are aiming 20-30 yards in front of the boat, then you should not hit someone on the boat. If it was not an act of aggression, then surely it was an act of incompetance to miss the target by 20-30 yards.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
The bolded section shows that the shells hit land, not water, injuring people who were NOT on the boat.
Click to expand...

That a warning shot likely sailed wide does not mean that the shot was not a warning shot. Such an outcome is not prima facie evidence that Israel was targeting the land or deliberately engaging in hostilities. The news report stated, "The IDF confirmed the incident, and said it was firing to deter a Palestinian fishing vessel that had strayed off-limits." There is no evidence that this explanation is not accurate.

Shells have sailed wide in the past. They are not "smart" weapons.

Now let's look at the US variant you are attempting to portray as equivilant...
Click to expand...

I never said the incident was "an equivalent." However, it is an example that warning shots can cause unintended harm and that such harm is not automatic proof that those firing the warning shots were engaging in hostilities (the allegations directed at Israel). Intent is what matters. There is no evidence that either Israel or the U.S. intended for their warning shots to inflict harm.

That was my point.
 
donsutherland1 said:
That a warning shot likely sailed wide does not mean that the shot was not a warning shot. Such an outcome is not prima facie evidence that Israel was targeting the land or deliberately engaging in hostilities. The news report stated, "The IDF confirmed the incident, and said it was firing to deter a Palestinian fishing vessel that had strayed off-limits." There is no evidence that this explanation is not accurate.

Shells have sailed wide in the past. They are not "smart" weapons.
Click to expand...
You're speculating. From your quote, there is no way to tell if they were firing at the land or at the actual fishing vessel. Not to mention that you agree the weapons they used to "deter" were indiscriminate in there nature.


donsutherland1 said:
I never said the incident was "an equivalent." However, it is an example that warning shots can cause unintended harm and that such harm is not automatic proof that those firing the warning shots were engaging in hostilities (the allegations directed at Israel). Intent is what matters. There is no evidence that either Israel or the U.S. intended for their warning shots to inflict harm.

That was my point.
Click to expand...

A flare is a warning shot. Artillery shells are not.

YouTube - cnn - mckinney ship rammed by israeli patrol boat
Just 3 weeks ago look at the method they used to stop the a boat with humanitarian aid, with no warning shots given!

Intent does not matter. There is no evidence to suggest that Israel was not intending to inflict harm in this situation.
 
donsutherland1 said:
That a warning shot likely sailed wide does not mean that the shot was not a warning shot. Such an outcome is not prima facie evidence that Israel was targeting the land or deliberately engaging in hostilities. The news report stated, "The IDF confirmed the incident, and said it was firing to deter a Palestinian fishing vessel that had strayed off-limits." There is no evidence that this explanation is not accurate.

Shells have sailed wide in the past. They are not "smart" weapons.



I never said the incident was "an equivalent." However, it is an example that warning shots can cause unintended harm and that such harm is not automatic proof that those firing the warning shots were engaging in hostilities (the allegations directed at Israel). Intent is what matters. There is no evidence that either Israel or the U.S. intended for their warning shots to inflict harm.

That was my point.
Click to expand...

So are you now saying it was shear incompetance, not hostility? Because it simply can't be None of the Above.

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?

The issue at hand is either the Israeli military is thoroughly incompetent by the sheer volume of mistakes they are admitting to on a daily basis, from white phosphous being deployed on a school to firing deadly warning shots, or they have taken some of these actions purposely.

I am inclined to believe any military that can wage an offensive while only suffering 13 fatalities is HIGHLY competant. In fact, I KNOW that the Israeli military is highly competant. They are one of the most well-trained militaries in the world.

Thus I MUST assume that these plethora of "mistakes are NOT simply accidental in nature. At least a few must have been purposeful actions.

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.


Was Israel justified in going into Gaza? Yes, they were. Does Hamas deserve vilification for the tactics they employ? Abso-friggin'-lutely.

Does Israel warrant an assumption of the benefit of the doubt regarding their constant "mistakes"? Absolutely NOT.


Things like this cause me to question Israeli honesty:

Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza - Times Online

They've tried to excuse/deny/cover up numerous things such as their use of white phosphorus. Why on earth would any rational persopn choose to give them the benefit of the doubt about shelling civilians during the cease-fire?

One thing I know for certian, Israel has lied repeatedly over the last month. Irregardless of what Hamas has done, they are not excused for this behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom