On August 09 2014 02:14 DrCooper wrote: Please show me actual evidence of the Hamas using human shields.
I went and brought you evidence on how the IDF goes through "unprecedented measures to minimize civilian casualties", specifically in Gaza. You dismissed it, and then mentioned that you still fail to see something which was explained in extreme detail to you. I refuse to spend another second bringing you more facts which you will just end up dismissing.
This is getting ridiculous.
I fail to see what is ridiculous about requesting evidence that civilians are being used as human shields.
It's one of the main arguments that Israel uses to excuse its absurdly high civilian casualty rate. It's one of the main arguments that my government uses to justify continuing to supply Israel with ammunition (paid for with my tax dollars).
I find it quite reasonable to demand evidence.
Well you have been provided with evidence that Hamas is using UN schools to store rockets, though the school in question was abandoned at the time of the discovery. I would argue that was the only reason it was discovered and there are likely more schools with rockets stored in them, as this was the second one found.
Unless you are willing to believe that Hamas was only storing the rockets in vacant schools, which I would argue is naive, that is pretty strong evidence Hamas is at minimum indifferent to the safety of civilians. At worse, they are doing to assure the schools are targets of the IDF.
So at minimum, there is evidence that Hamas does not care if the UN schools are targets and that it is a disregard to the safety of the civilians in Gaza.
Except it makes sense. Israel can't tell if the schools are vacant from the air. So they store the weapons in the empty UN schools hoping they won't get bombed.
In the occupied schools there are UN personnel on the ground. The UN personnel didn't even ask Israel not to bomb the school... they asked for time to evacuate the civilians BEFORE Israel bombed the school. A request that was denied. Simply unacceptable.
Yeah, that would be an ass move not matter what the reason is for doing it. "Hey, lets hid our rockets in vacant UN schools that Israel won't shoot at. There is no possible way that could put all the schools at risk of being fired on."
I really don't know what kind of proof people are looking for. Do they need a memo from Hamas command that says "Remember, use the human shield protocol."? We already have confirmed rockets in UN schools and the group that ran the school is taking some heat for turning the rockets back over to Hamas(rather than a third party, or leaving them there.)
If they want a safe zone, it needs to be respected by both sides. Both sides have shown they give no fucks about the UN schools, so both should be blames for the deaths caused by their actions. Neither side has the moral high ground here.
Exactly. Neither side has moral high ground.
Unfortunately only Hamas is being criticized for putting civilians at risk and not Israel. I'm not justifying Hamas's actions... both should be accountable. Israel is getting off easy. It's unnacceptable for the United States to fund the IDF when they have no more justification for their actions than a group we deem to be Terrorists.
re: plansix he's probably arguing over the definition of human shield. there's a degree to which things match a definition; and while some are 100% and some 0%; there's often some things in the sorta area to varying degrees. a 100% clear human shield is the literal holding a person in front of you to block shots. from what I've heard, hamas isn't doing that in the direct literal sense. What they're doing is more in the sorta area.
Dino -> you're simply wrong. both sides have received criticism. as for "getting off/away with" has either side been formally sanctioned by anyone for anything over this?
Also, are you willing to serve as a peacekeeper to see this mess resolved? are you willing to send your son/daughter as a peacekeeper?
On August 09 2014 06:05 zlefin wrote: re: plansix he's probably arguing over the definition of human shield. there's a degree to which things match a definition; and while some are 100% and some 0%; there's often some things in the sorta area to varying degrees. a 100% clear human shield is the literal holding a person in front of you to block shots. from what I've heard, hamas isn't doing that in the direct literal sense. What they're doing is more in the sorta area.
A "human shield" in the "sorta" area is a ridiculous argument to make. Basically, it depends only on what size bomb Israel uses.
If you try to hit every Hamas launching spot with a nuclear warhead, there will be civilian casualties. You cannot then claim "human shields" because you used ammunition that was far in excess of what was necessary.
Israel CAN be more precise with their military efforts. They are very competent at taking out single targets and covert ops (they help train OUR troops...). They choose not to.
On August 09 2014 06:05 zlefin wrote: re: plansix he's probably arguing over the definition of human shield. there's a degree to which things match a definition; and while some are 100% and some 0%; there's often some things in the sorta area to varying degrees. a 100% clear human shield is the literal holding a person in front of you to block shots. from what I've heard, hamas isn't doing that in the direct literal sense. What they're doing is more in the sorta area.
Dino -> you're simply wrong. both sides have received criticism. as for "getting off/away with" has either side been formally sanctioned by anyone for anything over this?
Also, are you willing to serve as a peacekeeper to see this mess resolved? are you willing to send your son/daughter as a peacekeeper?
I should have been more precise with my words. I meant criticism from the US government and other world powers (whose opinion actually matters, let's be serious Bolivia...).
The rhetoric here is always "Israel has the right to defend themselves etc. etc." My dad wrote a letter to his congressman, Richard Blumenthal, and got the same kind of response you'd expect from an IDF spokesman... Human shields blah blah etc.
On August 09 2014 06:05 zlefin wrote: re: plansix he's probably arguing over the definition of human shield. there's a degree to which things match a definition; and while some are 100% and some 0%; there's often some things in the sorta area to varying degrees. a 100% clear human shield is the literal holding a person in front of you to block shots. from what I've heard, hamas isn't doing that in the direct literal sense. What they're doing is more in the sorta area.
A "human shield" in the "sorta" area is a ridiculous argument to make. Basically, it depends only on what size bomb Israel uses.
If you try to hit every Hamas launching spot with a nuclear warhead, there will be civilian casualties. You cannot then claim "human shields" because you used ammunition that was far in excess of what was necessary.
Israel CAN be more precise with their military efforts. They are very competent at taking out single targets and covert ops (they help train OUR troops...). They choose not to.
I think that last part is very wishful thinking. This is not surprising a single target in a normally peaceful area, its a war zone. There is no guarantee that using ground troops would lead to fewer civilian deaths. Full blown, protracted fire fights in populated areas where the opposition does not where uniforms sounds like a recipe for a lot of people getting killed. And that is what they would be. It wouldn't be a "get in, get rid of the rockets, get out", sort of situation.
It's worth remembering that there are more than two sides here. And one of those actually does have the moral high ground, but I'm guessing that's little comfort.
There are no numbers from 2014. None any rational person would rely on. We'll wait until Hamas provides the world with real numbers in a few years. Until then, can you manage to accept that in the 2008/9 cycle, the ratio of Gazan civilian:Combatant casualties was the lowest in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare? You don't need to admit that its thanks to the IDF going to unprecedented measures of avoiding harming civilians. Just take that ratio composed of provable numbers as a fact until proven otherwise.
Yes 2008/9 they did. But I hope you know that today is not 2009 and this thread is not about the conflict of 08/09. Today is 2014.
Look up the definition of a war-crime and come back with your finding. Hint, when the target has military value, and civilians are notified ONCE and given enough time to evacuate, it is not a war-crime. BTW, the IDF notifies 3 times in 3 different ways, but you already refuse to accept this weird notion of the IDF trying to not harm civilians, so why did I just write that...???
I think I'm missing the important military value of shooting up an UN-All Girls school, killing 14 civilians, under the premise "Sometimes they store rockets in those places"
On August 09 2014 02:14 DrCooper wrote: But Israel doesn't really care about commiting warcrimes, as shown in the past.
Show me. I promise I won't say "you're quoting war-crimes from 1935-1945. This is 2014".
Warcrimes committed by Israel? How about the use of chemical weapons in 08 that exploded over a refugee camp (!) and the use of palestinians as human shields in 08?
On August 09 2014 02:14 DrCooper wrote: So frankly, I fail to see how they try so hard to not cause civilian death.
Your failure is quite apparent. Hint, look in the nested quote. Seriously though, how can you fail to see something that I Just Showed You? Let's solve for X where X is "The IDF tries to not cause civilian death". One side is admittedly trying to cause civilian death. The end result was less civilian deaths than any other war ever in the history of the known universe plus other dimensions. What was the cause of the result? Was it X ?!
No you didn't show anything. All you said was, in 08 they tried not to cause too many civilian deaths. And I'm saying, this isnt 08, this is 2014. Then I gave you examples (bombing schools full of civilians that are of no military value) to reinforce my argument that Israel might not kill civilians on purpose, but they are indifferent about it. Sort of a 'shoot first, ask questions later' type of mindset.
On August 09 2014 02:14 DrCooper wrote: Please show me actual evidence of the Hamas using human shields.
I went and brought you evidence on how the IDF goes through "unprecedented measures to minimize civilian casualties", specifically in Gaza. You dismissed it, and then mentioned that you still fail to see something which was explained in extreme detail to you. I refuse to spend another second bringing you more facts which you will just end up dismissing.
This is getting ridiculous.
I'm still waiting for your evidence that Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields.
i do not know what would satisfy as "conclusive" proof of hamas using human shields, nor what the "appropriate" response ought to be. that is a different issue. but Dr. Cooper has asked for evidence of that practice.
the IDF regularly publishes videos taken from drones showing the use of human shields. but clearly, can't trust the IDF. so examples from non-IDF sources in gaza are the only other possibility. note that most of the foreign journalists in gaza would be putting their lives at risk if they ever reported anything that wasn't approved by hamas.
anywho, stupid, pointless war. lasting ceasefire now, no more deaths.
EDIT: point 4a) should be move to 5a), reporting of the use of hospital grounds as launch site. EDIT 2: the final hamas MP quote was taken from 2008, not 2014. but still illustrates the mindset. one could argue that quote bears no relevance today.
Russia seems extremely cautious in their reactions so far. What are they going to do really? They seem to support a heavy role for the Arab League in finding a solution. Both Russia and the Arab League seems to be slightly pro-Israel since "security concerns" are very important to them internally.
China seems pretty clearly on the palestinian side of things with their support for lifting of the blockade and release of prisoners. But they are not completely blind to Israeli security concerns. They call for heavy UN involvement in implementing a solution.
Both are calling for peace and supporting the Egypt negotiations. That is what I gather.
The only way if this stops is if both Hamas and Israeli military and political branches are are detained and tried for war crimes and put to the sword if convicted. That would take neutral military occupation and forced disarmament of both the nation of Israel and Hamas for the sake of peace. Guess what? Not gonna happen, because if it did, it would probably entice WW3 and the end of us all. As it stands, the easy way out is to sit by idly and watch the slow massacre of the Palestinians until their occupation of Gaza ends. Israel will ultimately get their way, and they will never be held accountable for their actions but will be emboldened by it. Its like watching a school yard beat the shit out of nerd... you may feel uncomfortable, you may say even say something, but once that bully looks at you threateningly you back the fuck off or face the consequences.
On August 09 2014 07:49 LibertyRises wrote: The only way if this stops is if both Hamas and Israeli military and political branches are are detained and tried for war crimes and put to the sword if convicted. That would take neutral military occupation and forced disarmament of both the nation of Israel and Hamas for the sake of peace. Guess what? Not gonna happen, because if it did, it would probably entice WW3 and the end of us all. As it stands, the easy way out is to sit by idly and watch the slow massacre of the Palestinians until their occupation of Gaza ends. Israel will ultimately get their way, and they will never be held accountable for their actions but will be emboldened by it. Its like watching a school yard beat the shit out of nerd... you may feel uncomfortable, you may say even say something, but once that bully looks at you threateningly you back the fuck off or face the consequences.
There is no fixing this.
Netanyahu and Egypt have both indicated that the process in Egypt for finding a short term and even a long term solution was very positive and close to something both sides can live with. Most of the points for a solution had been resolved and only details lacked in the last parts of an agreement for more lasting peace. The contentious points still on the table were:
- A change to the embargo. Israel wants to maintain control of imports to Gaza to better be able to avoid fabrication of rockets by the extremists. Hamas wants as close to a lifting of the blockade as they can get it. Under this point a harbor and airport in Gaza is on the table. - Release of 125 prisoners. Many of these prisoners are from the West Bank and several of them emprisoned as payback for the 3 kids getting murdered. - Israel demands a demilitarisation of Gaza. Hamas sounds like they are actually split on this point. The political side seems to be willing to go a long way in that direction, while the Qassam Brigade side will never give up, never surrender.
Given that Hamas political wing has indicated that they are willing to negotiate all of these points, it should not be ruled out that a lasting solution can be reached. Both sides are back at negotiating today.
On August 09 2014 07:49 LibertyRises wrote: The only way if this stops is if both Hamas and Israeli military and political branches are are detained and tried for war crimes and put to the sword if convicted. That would take neutral military occupation and forced disarmament of both the nation of Israel and Hamas for the sake of peace. Guess what? Not gonna happen, because if it did, it would probably entice WW3 and the end of us all. As it stands, the easy way out is to sit by idly and watch the slow massacre of the Palestinians until their occupation of Gaza ends. Israel will ultimately get their way, and they will never be held accountable for their actions but will be emboldened by it. Its like watching a school yard beat the shit out of nerd... you may feel uncomfortable, you may say even say something, but once that bully looks at you threateningly you back the fuck off or face the consequences.
There is no fixing this.
Netanyahu and Egypt have both indicated that the process in Egypt for finding a short term and even a long term solution was very positive and close to something both sides can live with. Most of the points for a solution had been resolved and only details lacked in the last parts of an agreement for more lasting peace. The contentious points still on the table were:
- A change to the embargo. Israel wants to maintain control of imports to Gaza to better be able to avoid fabrication of rockets by the extremists. Hamas wants as close to a lifting of the blockade as they can get it. Under this point a harbor and airport in Gaza is on the table. - Release of 125 prisoners. Many of these prisoners are from the West Bank and several of them emprisoned as payback for the 3 kids getting murdered. - Israel demands a demilitarisation of Gaza. Hamas sounds like they are actually split on this point. The political side seems to be willing to go a long way in that direction, while the Qassam Brigade side will never give up, never surrender.
Given that Hamas political wing has indicated that they are willing to negotiate all of these points, it should not be ruled out that a lasting solution can be reached. Both sides are back at negotiating today.
I wish I could share your optimism. I hope with every fabric of my being that your are right and I am wrong.
It's ridiculous that this war is so disproportionate. Israel should just use the same rockets (and the exact same amount) that Hamas is using, fire indiscriminately, killing thousands, and then kill some of it's own civilians for each rocket stopped by the Iron Dome system.
On August 12 2014 23:38 Ghostcom wrote: I'm quite frankly baffled at how it is possible to retain any sort of support in the international community whilst saying stuff like this:
There's less credibility to the investigation if Cuba, China, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Vietnam are investigating you for human rights abuses. The HRC has been a joke for a long time.
On August 12 2014 23:38 Ghostcom wrote: I'm quite frankly baffled at how it is possible to retain any sort of support in the international community whilst saying stuff like this:
There's less credibility to the investigation if Cuba, China, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Vietnam are investigating you for human rights abuses. The HRC has been a joke for a long time.
Do you have an actual critique of the HRC or are you just throwing shit to see if it sticks? Naming 8 countries you don't like on a 47 member council with two year membership terms is kind of dumb. As to the people who 'think it's a joke"
Three nations abstained. Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau joined the US in voting against the plan.
Source Funny, Israel, US, and two 'former' US islands were the only ones against it.
On August 12 2014 23:38 Ghostcom wrote: I'm quite frankly baffled at how it is possible to retain any sort of support in the international community whilst saying stuff like this:
There's less credibility to the investigation if Cuba, China, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Vietnam are investigating you for human rights abuses. The HRC has been a joke for a long time.
Do you have an actual critique of the HRC or are you just throwing shit to see if it sticks? Naming 8 countries you don't like on a 47 member council with two year membership terms is kind of dumb. As to the people who 'think it's a joke"
Three nations abstained. Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau joined the US in voting against the plan.
Source Funny, Israel, US, and two 'former' US islands were the only ones against it.
perhaps the israelis are not keen on kangaroo court proceedings as was evinced by the prior UNHRC precedents, including the Goldstone report of 2008. perhaps the same level of scrutiny has yet to be placed on hamas and their rockets which are mostly aimed at civilian centers. perhaps the head of the inquiry is a Canadian whose partiality is questionable with known anti-israel sentiments and statements. http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2014/08/11/ngo-william-schabas-must-recuse-himself-from-un-gaza-inquiry/
anywho, hamas will be firing rockets tomorrow night once again this ceasefire term expires. i hope i'm wrong.
EPT
