• 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

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.


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.
 
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?


ahmed-hassanin.jpg

*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:
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:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 

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?


ahmed-hassanin.jpg

*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
 
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​
Israel_13_year_old_boy.JPG


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

 
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.
 
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.
 
Square Melon,

Hamas is the "governing" authority of the Gaza Strip. It is responsible. If Hamas had criticized the action and/or made an effort to apprehend those responsible that would be a different matter. Hamas made no such efforts.

If an Israeli resident living in the West Bank attacked a Palestinian resident there, Israel would be responsible for bringing its resident to justice.
 
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.

Fair enough, Don. You and I are in full agreement on war crimes being a grave matter.

When I say "purposeful" I chose that word to also include potential off-orders actions that were not direct orders.

Just because it didn't get directly ordered from above does not mean that it is less egregious in nature.

And the fact is if a lone soldier who has the capability to take such an action, does so purposely, yet claims it was an error, there may not be readily available concrete evidence.

My point is that at somr point in this struggle, it is highly likely that one of those accidents was accidentally done on purpose by an individual.





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.

Thanks. I meant it in the broader sense that at least some of the actions that occurred during the conflict and are being criticized are likely to have been purposeful, but not that they were necessarily ordered from the chain of command.

I think it would be highly plausible that at least one or two of the incidents involved someone who went off-reservation.


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.

We agree on these points.


• 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.

Quite frankly, this displays a huge double-standard.

Hamas does not deny responsibility for an attack immediately, so the should be presumed guilty of it? Where's the concrete evidence you call for in defense of Israel?

Yet, when the IDF repeatedly gets caught lying and trying to cover up the truth (UN school bombing, white phosphorus), they should be presumed innocent?

Honestly, IMO, getting caught in a blatant lie is as much as an admission of guilt. Not immediately denying an action is not an admission of guilt

• 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.

So? That isn't concrete evidence against Hamas. In fact, it is clear evidence that you presuppose guilt until they claim otherwise.

And in that case, even the IDF admits Hamas did not carry out the attack.

this further shows that you are starting from a position of presupposed guilt with regards to Hamas. you require some degree of evidence (in the form of at least a denial of responsibility) in order to give the benefit of the doubt.


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.

Where's the concrete evidence in that? That's pure supposition on your part. Presupposition, if you will.

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.

I never deny this. But Hamas being pieces of **** is not concrete evidence to support a presupposition of guilt for them.

And Hamas is not to blame for any violations Israelis engaged in during the conflict. Saying "It's all Hamas' fault anyway" excuses any possible bad behavior from Israel before any objective investigation is conducted.








Finally, I agree that each incident regarding potential Israeli wrong-doing which warrants investigation should be looked at with the presupposition of innocence until proof of guilt exists. The investigating party should be objective in their investigations.

Given the evidence available, though, I would be shocked to discover that such an investigation would not yield some fruit regarding at least some instances of wrong-doing.

But, that being said, if the investigating party were a objective third-party (i.e. not the IDF, I do not trust them at all at this point) and they made this claim, I would (and will if this does actually happen) retract my statements regarding my belief that some of the actions must have been purposeful.

And at the same time, if the IDF investigation ends up stating that illegal actions were taken in certain cases, I will retract my statements regarding my current level if distrust for them, which is quite high right now.
 
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.

The Israeli Courts deserve much credit on that one. It was not a popular decision at the time.
 
Yet, when the IDF repeatedly gets caught lying and trying to cover up the truth (UN school bombing, white phosphorus), they should be presumed innocent?

Honestly, IMO, getting caught in a blatant lie is as much as an admission of guilt. Not immediately denying an action is not an admission of guilt...

If the IDF spokespersons responsible knowingly passed on incorrect information then those who did so should be replaced and better safeguards put into place to reduce the risk of a recurrence of such matters.

And in that case, even the IDF admits Hamas did not carry out the attack.

According to The Jerusalem Post, "The IDF said it was possible that the bombing had not been carried out directly by Hamas, but by other Palestinian terror groups."

Hamas remains the governing entity of Gaza. When a government enters into a commitment, it has an obligation to see that the commitment is met.

And Hamas is not to blame for any violations Israelis engaged in during the conflict. Saying "It's all Hamas' fault anyway" excuses any possible bad behavior from Israel before any objective investigation is conducted.

I believe you are applying an overly broad assessment to my position on that issue. That Hamas bears responsibility for civilian casualties from its human shielding does not mean that others would not be responsible if they carried out prohibited acts.

For example, let's say Hamas used civilians as human shields and those civilians wound up becoming casualties when Israel attacked the military objective while reasonably expecting that such casualties would not be excessive relative to the military advantage attained. Hamas would be solely responsible.

However, let's say that Israel reasonably expected that civilian casualties would be excessive relative to the military objective obtained, then Israel and Hamas would share responsibility and the proper decision would have been to refrain from attacking the military objective. In that case, Israel would be responsible for having failed to exercise proper caution so as to avoid disproportionate civilian casualties. Hamas would bear responsibility for its having engaged in human shielding.

In short, Hamas bears responsibility for any civilian casualties due to its human shielding. Israel would share responsibility, but only if it engaged in acts that were prohibited. Human shielding, by itself, does not render a military objective off limits.

Given the evidence available, though, I would be shocked to discover that such an investigation would not yield some fruit regarding at least some instances of wrong-doing.

If such cases arise, then I will also be critical of those situations. As noted previously, abuses should be addressed.
 
Last edited:
Cowardice seems to be a common practice among Arabs, just as Saddam Hussein's army placed civilians in around their military installation and bunkers.
 
Cowardice seems to be a common practice among Arabs, just as Saddam Hussein's army placed civilians in around their military installation and bunkers.

dum ay-rabs!:roll:
 
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.

Israel along its history is humiliating the Palestinians and did not comply with the human rights laws.

Now they may stop using human shields for a while but they start to use white phosphorus shells to bomb the most dense populated area in the world.

The did not discriminate between armed people and others.

Did you know that more than 40% of the dead during this Gaza war are children and women that means almost 560 human being.

So, what is the difference between Israel using a 13 years old Palestinian as a human sheild and Israel killing 560 child & woman in just 22 days?

The are both the same Israel = devastation in the middle east = the real terrorism.

 
That still violates the ceasefire. A ceasefire is the stopping of all firing. This is not the stopping of all firing. Israel is still firing shells at Gaza from the Mediterranean. As a 'deterrant'. If Hamas were to fire more qassam rockets into Sderot as a 'deterrant' you'd be up in arms about the ceasefire violation.

Yes... and Hamas fired a mortar shell at Isreal first and thats hell missed Negev and landed in Gaza.

Then a fishing ship attempted to enter Israeli waters ... the shots were a warning for it to go back to terrorist land.

Stop your anti-semetic nonsensical bull**** immediately.

You are not allowed to call what Israel did anything until you are will to blame Hamas for what they have done.
 
Israel along its history is humiliating the Palestinians and did not comply with the human rights laws.

Now they may stop using human shields for a while but they start to use white phosphorus shells to bomb the most dense populated area in the world.

The did not discriminate between armed people and others.

Did you know that more than 40% of the dead during this Gaza war are children and women that means almost 560 human being.

So, what is the difference between Israel using a 13 years old Palestinian as a human sheild and Israel killing 560 child & woman in just 22 days?

The are both the same Israel = devastation in the middle east = the real terrorism.

1.) Using Wille Pete IS NOT A WAR CRIME. Get over yourself.

2.) The children who died in Gaza are dead because Hamas used them as human shields are because Hamas hid among them or because Hamas attacked an Israeli postion while surrounded by them. QUIT BLAMING ISREAL FOR THE BULL**** STUNTS THAT HAMAS PULLS.

3.) Isreal did not target civilians. Saying otherwise is nothing but nonsensical hamas rhetoric bull****.

4.) Hamas is responsible for ALL OF THE BLOODSHED IN GAZA. Isreal did not make Hamas hide in civilian areas. Isreal DID NOT make Hamas attack for civilian homes, hospitals, schools, ect. Those are Hamas terrorist tactics. You can tell the whole story or you can stop posting.

5.) Isreal is NOT a terrorist group. Hamas is an Iranian supported terrorist group. Learn the difference or stop posting.
 
According to The Jerusalem Post, "The IDF said it was possible that the bombing had not been carried out directly by Hamas, but by other Palestinian terror groups."

Hamas remains the governing entity of Gaza. When a government enters into a commitment, it has an obligation to see that the commitment is met.

I agree with that. And we should see what, if anything, Hamas does to the perpetrators. It's possible that they are trying to find the culprits themselves and handle the situation.

I don't know the details of whether Hamas is actually trying to do anything, or if they already HAVE done something to those responsible.

But as you stated, Hamas is the governing body in a region that has been truly devastated over the last month. Their first and foremost obligation is to assist those who need assistance, which is a massive amount of people right now.

To expect them to deal with the devastation AND be able to control every single person within the region even after their numbers have been severely reduced is crazy.

And the fact that so many policveman were directly targetted is also a confounding factor. How can a police force that has been decimated be expected to successfully prevent a single person form sending over a mortar?

The difference here is that


I believe you are applying an overly broad assessment to my position on that issue. That Hamas bears responsibility for civilian casualties from its human shielding does not mean that others would not be responsible if they carried out prohibited acts.

For example, let's say Hamas used civilians as human shields and those civilians wound up becoming casualties when Israel attacked the military objective while reasonably expecting that such casualties would not be excessive relative to the military advantage attained. Hamas would be solely responsible.

However, let's say that Israel reasonably expected that civilian casualties would be excessive relative to the military objective obtained, then Israel and Hamas would share responsibility and the proper decision would have been to refrain from attacking the military objective. In that case, Israel would be responsible for having failed to exercise proper caution so as to avoid disproportionate civilian casualties. Hamas would bear responsibility for its having engaged in human shielding.

In short, Hamas bears responsibility for any civilian casualties due to its human shielding. Israel would share responsibility, but only if it engaged in acts that were prohibited. Human shielding, by itself, does not render a military objective off limits.

I apologize for overly-broadening your position. It appears we think in an almost identical manner on this. I agree with every word of that.


I am just naturally skeptical of certain justifications that have been given for certain actions, as I've stated many times on this issue in the past. Those actions were specific, and the initial reasoning, and subsequent justifications have been altered form things like "Three members of Hamas ran into the school to hide" to "Whoops. It was a shell that went astray. Our bad."

These types of things start my warning bells ringing for two reasons.

1. The first attempt was to justify the action using "Human Sheilding" as an excuse for an eggregious action. Even had the information been true, it would have been an excessive response given the actions being taken by Hamas that initiated the response. The threat was statistically minimal, as shown by the very low casualty rate cause by Hamas mortar attacks. Statistically speaking, this threat is next to nothing.

2. The second explanation may well be true, and if so, there is no wrongdoing in the accident, just an unfortunate mistake. But why did they initially attempt to justify the action? The initial attmept to excuse instead of explain smacks of a guilty conscience. It makes me think that there is a cover-up in the works.


Now, at the same time, I believe that this particular issue might have been an honest mistake, or one person who did something out of line. I honestly do not think Israel and the IDF have purposely engaged in targetting civilians as a "policy". In other words, I don't think that many of these targets were ordered fired upon from high up along the chain of command. As I've said before, If it were Israeli policy to wilfully target civilians, the death toll would be much, much higher. The evidence suggests that there is no policy in place to target civilians.

Maybe form someone far lower along the chain of command ordered the actions, or maybe an individual who was at the controls was of the mindset that all actions are justifiable given Hamas' deplorable tactics.

And maybe they really were all just mistakes that happened entirely because of Hamas' deplorable tactics and teh only peopel who were wrong were those who "jumped the gun" and tried to excuse the situation by making false claims.

Clearly, in this situation someone somewhere did something wrong. Which portion was wrong is the problem and that is why investigation is warranted.

Note: I should clarify that when I say some of the actions are purposeful, that would include the attempts to justify a legitimate mistake as a righteous action. Soemwhere along the line, something in the school bombing case was done on purpose. I'm not assuming the bombing itself was the purposeful action. If the second explanation is correct, and the bombing was indeed just a mistake, then the first attempt to explain the action must have been a purposeful attempt to distort the fact in order to cover up the potential violation if the action had been done on purpose. It must have been given before all the facts were known, and been used to try and prevent serious ramifications if it were done on purpose.

To the credit of the IDF in that case, they did acknowledge the error in the bombing, and did eventualy explain what happend and gave a mea culpa.

If the situation occured exactly as they now say it did, then the civilian casualties are entirely on Hamas for having been that close to a school while carryiing out military operations to begin with.

Had the IDF given that explanation initially, or waited until all the facts were known before making a statement, I wouldn't be so skeptical of the situation.

Thus, if the situation occered as it is now explained, it would seriously behoove Israel to punish any and all elements who were responsible for that attempt to excuse the action, since that has brought terrible ramifications regarding international support, etc.

Those types of things are now a major factor in the criticism of Israel being seen worldwide. Sure, there are always people who will villify Israel in any and all circumstances, but these types of people will do so regardless of the explanations given.

I think there is also a large continget of people like myself who are not critical of Israel for the sake of being critical of Israel. I'm not critical of the offensive as a whole, as I believe that sending rockets at a country warrants a military response, and ALL nations have a right to defend themselves and their people. I don't think the offensive in general was a "disproportionate" response to having rackets fired at your civilians. Quite the oposite in fact. I've always felt a ground invatsion inot would be a prefereable response compared to repeated airstrikes because, as the HRW article you cited earlier suggests, airstikes tend to cause more civilian casualties per instance than ground strikes do.

I am only critical of specific incidents that I see that fall into certain categories where I would be critical of any nation who engaged in these actions.

In the end, I am supportive of Israel taking decisive action to secure its borders and protect its people.

Having PR "gaffes" that can turn-off people like me is the last thing Israel needs at this time.


If such cases arise, then I will also be critical of those situations. As noted previously, abuses should be addressed.

Again, we agree.


For the most part, Don, it appears that you and I are in agreement on things, but we each have a different perspective on the matter. I think Hamas' actions such as human shielding are totally and completely unjustifiable.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, and they need to completely renounce violence immediately. They need to stop using their people as a tool, and start acting like responsible memebrs of the global community immediately.

I think they are primarily responsible for the Palestinain woes at the moment. They at the very least, share responsibility for every civilian killed duirng this conflict.

It is possible that Israel shares some responsibility for some of the civilian lives that have been lost, but further investigation from an outside source is necessary to determine what, if any, responsibility Israel shares.

Should it be determined that actions committed by Israelis in this conflict were outside the rules of engagement, then those person's responible should be dealt with, and I do trust the Israeli courts to handle these situations appropriately given their history.

But in the end, even if Israel does share some responsibility for some of the civilian deaths, they cannot bear sole responsibility given the fact that Hamas' actions are directly responsible for those situations even having the opportunity to occur.
 
1.)

5.) Isreal is NOT a terrorist group. Hamas is an Iranian supported terrorist group.

I beleive Israel is showing the worst terrorism by its occupation of Palestine and by enjoing killing them and then blam Hamas or any other for that.

Learn the difference or stop posting.

You have to stop your offensive.
 
Last edited:
I beleive Israel is showing the worst terrorism by its occupation of Palestine and by enjoing killing them and then blam Hamas or any other for that.

This is all your opinion. Isreal took those territories in a war started by Egypt and its racist allies. This is not a terrorist activity.

You have to stop your offensive.

Hamas must stop murdering Isreali citizens and disarm before that will ever happen.
 
From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

Palestinians in the northern Gaza Strip fired a Kassam rocket at Israel on Saturday morning, the third since both Israel and Hamas declared cease-fires on January 18.

In my opinion, Israel needs to respond to this latest act of aggression. Hamas and its terrorist allies are testing Israel. Israel cannot waver in its stated commitment to respond to every terrorist attack. Otherwise, the frequency of attacks would increase as terrorists conclude Israel's commitment is not credible.
 
From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

Palestinians in the northern Gaza Strip fired a Kassam rocket at Israel on Saturday morning, the third since both Israel and Hamas declared cease-fires on January 18.

In my opinion, Israel needs to respond to this latest act of aggression. Hamas and its terrorist allies are testing Israel. Israel cannot waver in its stated commitment to respond to every terrorist attack. Otherwise, the frequency of attacks would increase as terrorists conclude Israel's commitment is not credible.

OK? Israel declared there unilateral ceasefire before Hamas, and ended up shooting a farmer in Khan Younis who an Israeli spokesperson said looked like was planting a bomb. No warning shots or anything, just troops that opened fire on a civilian.

Funny how JPost doesn't seem to put that in there. Or the 8 year old girl shot dead in Beit Hanoun that same morning.
 
Back
Top Bottom