Phosphorus bombs in Gaza

[Nacho]

Dear Nacho, do you really think any of the people you see on television earn/get those two hundred and something Euro you spoke off? C'mon, most of them eat bread and water and they feel lucky!

And? Go to Hamas and complain to them for buying rockets to Iran in spite of bread for their kids...

[Stupot]

I agree.  There's no such thing as fair warfare (although bodies like the UN do have lists of what they deem as 'acceptible' war, like a teacher saying to two kids in the playground 'okay, you can beat him him up, but just don't steal his milk money').

[Pumaman]

Say I tell you that you kill 1 billion germs every time you brush your teeth. But, in your life, they've only caused a few cavities and some sore gums. Without any context one might side with the germs. Until one observes, that the germs are going to always, always, always eat and cause decay to our mouth. So we need to take harsh action to make sure our mouth stays intact. Because, with clean teeth and a healthy mouth we have the potential to live longer. I'm not trying to say Hamas are germs here, that would be erroneous. What I am trying to show is that without any proper context one can draw a bad conclusion.

But 99% of the residents of Gaza are not terrorists and don't shoot missiles at Israel.
Just like 99% of the residents of Iraq are not terrorists and had never done anything to hurt the US/UK.

While it's easy to understand the reasons behind Israel's decision, what they have done seems completely disproportionate and heavy handed -- and will only encourage more hate, more terrorists, and lead to more Isrealis being killed.

Just like the war in Iraq has done for the US/UK then, really.

[Nacho]

But Gaza' s population put Hamas in the government...

And about the "It will bring more hate, more terrorism...": Well... The Israelis did something similar in South Lebanon to stop Hizbullah' s attacks two years ago, and they succedded; So, maybe it's not "Hey! Israel is bombing us! Let' s reply with more bombs!" but "Hey... these Israelians fire back, let' s stop bombing them..."

What happened in Gaza has been a calculated and meditated hit in the table by Israel. Look, when the Al-Kassam' s started to fall in Sderot, after Hamas broke the cease fire unilaterally, Israel had two options:

A) Another selective killing, maybe ask for help to the UN or the international community and then more Al-Kassams. More of the same.
B) Do something else. Do a long, bloody (even assuming Israelis casualties) campaing. Try something else.

Israel even consulted the Egypt diplomatic party that was in Tel-Aviv trying to re-start the ceasefire. The official posture of these party was "No! No war!!!" but it is certain that the egyptian military aggregate said something like "Those Hamas guys deserve a lesson..." (It was published in DebKa file BEFORE the campaing started). 

That' s what Israel is doing: A lesson. It' s telling the world: "I don't mind what the UN says, what Amnisty International, the Human Rights or the international community say about the civilian casualties or what our own populations says about our dead soldiers... We will do what we consider necessary to stop those Al-Kassams or those Al-Khuds falling in our land".

The Hamas ceasefire break was coward and calculate: "There are elections soon in Israel, Ehud won't get into a campaign... Obama is going to enter in the White House in a month... Israel weon't do anything: We can lauch kill Israelians for free" Israel is saying "No, you won' t".

Does that I "like" seeing dead civilians? No. Does that mean that I support Israel? Not really, no... But I "understand" what they do. Here, comfortably sitting in my home, I could even say that I don' t support what Israel is doing. Maybe in Sderot I wouldn' t.

[Andail]

Even if you can't acknowledge that Israel did wrong by isolating Gaza and turning it to a humanitarian disaster-zone (which happened prior to the rockets by the way; it was simply a response to Hamas taking power there)...

...let's at least agree that Israel is using excessive force.
A full-scale military invasion, killing more than a thousand civilians and laying waste to tens of thousands of buildings, as a response to home-made rockets that all-in-all killed 8 people?

I mean, 8 people...come on.

[Matti]

And about the "It will bring more hate, more terrorism...": Well... The Israelis did something similar in South Lebanon to stop Hizbullah' s attacks two years ago, and they succedded; So, maybe it's not "Hey! Israel is bombing us! Let' s reply with more bombs!" but "Hey... these Israelians fire back, let' s stop bombing them..."

No, it was TWO israeli soldiers being kidnapped by the Hizbollah which led to that overreaction of the israeli government.

But counting up the numbers of people being killed on both sides doesn't really help. The point is that the paranoid Olmert-government should realize that thowing bombs on everything and everyone who seems to be hostile doesn't solve anything (something that the USA should learn too).

Instead of supporting both Hizbollah and Hamas by leading an uncompromising war against a whole poulace they should treat palestinensians just like Israelis or any other people, tear down the wall, start a Marshall Plan for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and I promise all of you that the people would immediately stand up against the Hamas (or at least the rocket attacks) and those wouldn't be a power anymore.

Why did the palestinensians vote the Hamas? Not because all of them are fundemantalists who want to see Israel destroyed. No, but because they are imprisoned, have nothing to eat and because there's just nobody left they could trust and gather behind. What are they supposed to do?

It's a fairly shitty situation on both sides in the conflict, but I doubt that the current Israelian government has a genuine concern in a permanent peace with palestina. If that would be the case they'd obviously just be plain stupid and naive.

[miguel]

That' s what Israel is doing: A lesson. It' s telling the world: "I don't mind what the UN says, what Amnisty International, the Human Rights or the international community say about the civilian casualties or what our own populations says about our dead soldiers... We will do what we consider necessary to stop those Al-Kassams or those Al-Khuds falling in our land".

What you're saying Natcho is that there's one more country besides US that can and will ignore UN recommendations: Israel.

The world is trying to focus on peace at the moment, there is a new hope, and the country and the man that agreed to lead it took that brave mission today in his hands. I'm sure that what he has to say about Israel acts of abusive violence will give or not credit to his legislature.

People in the Middle East are very proud of their families and land, and will most certain avenge the death of their relatives, that is a cultural fact that we must understand. Bombing Gazza will probably add more supporters to the Hamas cause, an institution that is (regardless of what we think their intentions are) official and legitimized by the UN.   

[Nacho]

You know why there are countries (US and ISRAEL) which do ignore the UN?

Because when Israel was 1 day old, Egypt, Siria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and a Palestinian militia (Called the "holy Arab army") ignored the most important UN rosolution at the moment and attacked Israel with the determination of slaughtering a tiny population of holocaust survivors.

What did the UN? Watch... and complain... Complain loudly, maybe. And nothing else.

That are the "neightbours" Israel has. That is the help Israel can expect from the UN.

Apparently, they learned the lesson. ^_^ And they learned it so well, that from those days come nowadays problems...

[Andail]

Because when Israel was 1 day old, Egypt, Siria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and a Palestinian militia (Called the "holy Arab army") ignored the most important UN rosolution at the moment and attacked Israel with the determination of slaughtering a tiny population of holocaust survivors.

I think "slaughtering a tiny population of holocaust survivors" is a strange way to put it, when that particular war resulted in 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fleeing or being expelled.

The huge influx of Jews into Palestine began before the UN decided to re-draw the map. For a Palestinian at the time, and for that entire generation, what happened was:
1. Huge amounts of Jews immigrate to Palestine and Jerusalem.
2. UN says "Ok, you guys shall all live here. Try to live peacefully together".
3. They try to live peacefully for a while.
4. The Jews proclaim independence and suddenly the whole country is called "Israel".
5. A war breaks out because the Arabs wonder what the heck happened to their country. (This is definitely something I condemn, since I think a war is virtually always the wrong solution.)
6. Israel "wins" the war and the Palestinians get some minor territories annexed by surrounding countries.
7. In the end, another 700,000 Arabs has fled the country.

I'm aware of how the history stretches back further, indefinitely, but for any given time in history, it's impossible to tell who's got the right for what.

And Nacho, I asked a question in my previous post.

Can we agree on that whoever is right in whatever point, Israel is currently using excessive force? I'm going to repeat the numbers until you reckognize them. (Or am I on your ignore-list as well?)

A dozen killed Israels, a portion of them killed by friendly fire.
Over thousand killed Palestinians, and tens of thousands of buildings destroyed in Gaza

How is this justified?

[Nacho]

That' s incorrect. The UN resolution made two countries, one for Arabs, one for hebrews. Israelis accepted the existance of the arab state. Arabs did not accept the existence of Israel... Anyway, hebrews called everybody, even Arabs, to stay and live peacefully (Actually, 30% of the nowadays population is arab, they are integrated and participate as "normal first class" citizens in the life of Israel). What Ben Gurion did on the 14th of may was declaring the independence of that Israeli country, so, doing what the UN told him to do. The "war" started on 15th, 6 hours later.

Do you really mean, Petter, that the Egyptian, Sirian, Transjordanian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Saudi Arab, Yemenie and a Palestinian militia "magically appeared" in the boarders of Israel in 6 hours? Wow... I know you have arab culture in great reputation, but I didn't  know you thought they had teleporting...

The "Palestines" are the people who abandoned the, let' s call it "Hebrew contry according to UN resolution", expecting for the arab army to win, and come back as a conquerors to a "sionist blood" clean palestine. They lost the bet... Sorry!

And, let' s remember it... "Palestines" were not the owners of that land. Brits were. And brits told: "This land for hebrews, this for arabs". Who was not happy about it? Correct!

Be pacifist... But be it allways. Criticise the arab attack on the one day old Israel.

[Andail]

That' s incorrect. The UN resolution made two countries, one for Arabs, one for hebrews. Israelis accepted the existance of the arab state. Arabs did not accept the existence of Israel... Anyway, hebrews called everybody, even Arabs, to stay and live peacefully (Actually, 30% of the nowadays population is arab, they are integrated and participate as "normal first class" citizens in the life of Israel). What Ben Gurion did on the 14th of may was declaring the independence of that Israeli country, so, doing what the UN told him to do. The "war" started on 15th, 6 hours later.

Let's say that Moors suddenly immigrated en masse in south of Spain, and settled there. It would be comfortable for them, and rather provokative for the people of e.g. Cadiz, if they just looked around and said "let's now all live in peace!"
I know the stories are not related, but you need to try and take the perspective of the other side.

Wow... I know you have arab culture in great reputation, but I didn't  know you thought they had teleporting...

I don't hold Arabs very dear, but I sometimes manage to think with my brain and not with my heart. My biggest bias towards Arabs come from my girlfriend, who's Persian, and more or less hates Arabs.

And, let' s remember it... "Palestines" were not the owners of that land. Brits were. And brits told: "This land for hebrews, this for arabs". Who was not happy about it? Correct!

But in a Palestinian's point of view, this cookie is pretty hard to digest. Brits "owned" the country because of the results in the war, and had no history, interest or legitimate excuse to be there. They said Jews could be there because of a European holocaust-related guilt trip. But it was not the Palestinians/Arabs who gassed millions of Jews, all that happened in Europe. A Palestinian could easily argue "let the Jews get a free state in Europe!"

Be pacifist... But be it allways. Criticise the arab attack on the one day old Israel.

I did.

And I'm eagerly awaiting your response to my question about Israel using excessive force.

[Nacho]

Sorry for the long post

I start from the finish: Replying to your question about "excessive force": I thought that Israel is using excessive force was out of discussion because it' s pretty obvious they are  I thought we were pressuming things, and this things are:

A)Civilians casualties are a tragedy.
B)Israel is going too far away.
C)We do not like wars.
D)Israel is playing dirty.

I thought that the discussion was more about "who really is more responsible". For me, if a boxer gives a severe beating to another in a fight, using dirty tricks, the cheater boxing is responsible of unfair play... BUT... if that boxer tells me "Hey! Have you seen the combat? The other guy bite my ear! I complained to the referee, he made nothing, after that, he threw a low punch, referee did nothing again, and then he hit my head with his, and the referee did nothing again... Who is responsible then?

The only possible replies to that boxing are:

A) You could go on fighting according to the rules, and try to win even against the dirty fight of the other (What Israel did during the ceasefire... a ceasefire Hamas broke coward and unilaterally) A tactic Israel used with Cisjordania, and worked well...

A-B Works.
A-C Does not work.

Who is the responsible then? According to ceteris Paribus condition, it must be C (Gaza).

OR

B) Hey... You are right. The other guy did not like rules? The referee did nothing to make the other guy following the rules? Congrats, well done with the dirty firghting...

I don't  know if I specifically mentioned that I endorse "B" (If I did it was a mistake, because I don't really do...) But I understand B, and I am so in the middle between A and B that it makes me not wanting to move a finger, or feel excesivelly bad when Israel took "B".

Now, example 2: You put the example of moors coming to Cadiz, settling there, and ask them "We will settle here, can we live in peace?" Well...

A) They are already doing it. Spain was the european country with less inmigrants 10 years ago. Now it's the first... So, to the "offer of living in peace together" we said "yes". Palestinians did not to Isralis. Israelis did with the muslim pupulation who remained on its terrain.

Side note: We are eving considering turning the Cathedral of Cordoba into a Mosque. (Which is silly, because, whereas it originally was a mosque, it became a cathedral and then, for years... A MUSEUM!)


B) You can't really compare. Spain is a sovereign country and "has allways been". Palestina didn' t. Allow me to paint the scenario to make they match competelly: If we lost the 1812 war and Spain was under France government, and in 1049 France said "Hey, Spaniards... We leave: Live in peace with this moors in am bringing to your land" I REALLY DOUBT we had called 6 or 7 friend countries to help us kill all the moors. (Something the arabs did).

So, as you can see, I put myself in the arab's shoes... and I simply think that they acted poorly.

And about your "great reputation" for arabs, I was not meaning nothing about Azadeh, I talked with her and I know she considers herself "Historically Persian", with everything it means toward Islam and the Arabs.  What I was really meaning is that I *think* (I can' t be sure because I never asked, now I am doing it...) that you must be inconsciently balanced to the arabs in the arab-israeli country because Israel means anything you dislike.

They do not believe in diplomacy, multi-lateralism, they trust on its alliance with the US, they are bellicistic and support free-market. I have the feeling that seeing how Israel exist must be a big "I was wrong" to any "let' s not deppend on the US", multilateralist pacifist socialdemocrat.

At least, if a socialdemocrat, multilateralist pacifist country survives and developes better without the help of the US than it's free market, belicists, US-friends neighbour counties I would think "Hey! My ideas about bellicism, unilateralism, alliance with the US and capitalism might be wrong..." and I would feel very insecure about that imaginary country... 

But I recommend you to ask yourself if your support of Gaza is because of that... I don' t know, maybe you are a bit balanced to support them because of that. I did the same, and I must recognise that I have allways been balanced to Israel because of similar reasons. 

[Andail]

(damn, I could be correcting tests during these coffee breaks....)

Fair enough, I think we have settled on a few topics then. I'm happy that you have acknowledged Israel's responsiblity, and faults, in the conflict.

Some more points:

You can't really compare. Spain is a sovereign country and "has allways been".

I brought up Spain and the Moors just because Spain was muslim during the late middle ages, and muslims today could use that as an argument to re-settle on a territory historically theirs.

They are already doing it. Spain was the european country with less inmigrants 10 years ago. Now it's the first

But muslims don't proclaim Spanish territory their own nation. And some random Arab state doesn't suddenly decide that Andalusia should belong to the Moors, because they need a free state of their own, since they're being persecuted back in Africa.
Just painting up an allegory here, don't take it literally.

I don't think I'm being particularly pro-Arabic in general, but I think people in the "West" have a tendency to dehumanise them and lump them together as "terrorists" far too easily.

[Nacho]

Hehe, the "interesting thread virus attacks again", eh?

Again, your example is flawed, so, it falls into (Imho) phallacy. Muslims don' t proclaim spanish territory their own nation, BUT nor did the Jews. What happened is that a sovereign country said, "This, the land that was mine, it' s now yours. I want it to be half arab, half Israelian. Israel said "coolio! A land for us... I proclaim this my country. Israel. The arabs who want to live here will be able to do it, they will be allowed to talk arab (It' s official in Israel) and practise their religion freely, if they want"

And a percetage of that arabs left Israel, thinking "Well... In two months this jews will be history, I will be back to my country, 100% free of Jews".

But that never happened... I understand that the Jews there, when the people who left the country with the desire of coming back soon in a "Jew free land" said "Hey, you know what, chap? You are not welcomed here". Even muslims Israelis do that.

It' s not that the Jews went there, and said "Hey! This is mine... Those who were here before, fuck you". It is that the previous owner said "I am leaving... share this land as good brothers while I am outside, eh?" and the brothers started to fight... and one won.

[MillsJROSS]

...let's at least agree that Israel is using excessive force.
A full-scale military invasion, killing more than a thousand civilians and laying waste to tens of thousands of buildings, as a response to home-made rockets that all-in-all killed 8 people?

That's exactly what we (at least you and I) disagree on. I think we can both agree that the loss of life, no matter the number, caused by war is sad and unfortunate. Where we differ is that you attribute the 1000+ lives that were lost in Gaza as Israels fault. I put the brunt of the blame back to Hamas.

I mean, 8 people...come on.

This is exactly the argument I don't like. You can repeat a number as many times as you want. The number of people Hamas killed is irrelevant. Their actions, sending bombs into civilian targets, is what is relevant. It's not like if Israel killed the same number of people as Hamas does, that everything is OK. Israel is defending its borders from a threat that could kill more of their own citizens if left unchecked. Should they let some number of their own civilians die, just so we can have even numbers?

But 99% of the residents of Gaza are not terrorists and don't shoot missiles at Israel.
Just like 99% of the residents of Iraq are not terrorists and had never done anything to hurt the US/UK.

Israel isn't bombing 99% of Gaza. Their aim is at military targets that are embedded in civilian hotspots. While drawing a comparison between the U.S. and U.K. seems to make parallels, it fails to really encompass one thing. The reason I don't like our (US/UK) involvement in Iraq, is we are defending ourselves from a vague enemy with the threat of some unknowable future attack. Israel is fighting a more tangible enemy where the threat of attack is today or tomorrow, and the means of that attack is starring them in the face.

Well, I think a strong argument can be made for any underdog nation applying less-than 'honorable' tactics in order to sway the battle in their favor; they are, afterall, heavily outclassed.

I'm not arguing whether the tactic is honorable or not. If they want to continue using that tactic at the cost of lives of their own people, then that is their decision to make. My argument is only that when those civilians are killed, we should be laying blame on the people who decided to put a buffer of innocent people between them and enemies.

-MillsJROSS

[Nacho]

We must fight against the idea of every Arab being a terrorist... I 100% agree...

But this kind of things do not help... 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers