|
Interesting source. Tried to set it to "US-led coalition incl. iraqi state forces"?
Statistics are brilliant, especially if you think other people are too dumb to press two buttons.
edit: not to mention that you compare an ongoing war with something that supposed to have peacetalks (and times where the IDF didn't bomb the shit out of shelters etc) etc.
|
Is it just me or does the OP seem a bit too biased? I'm not on either parties side here but it seems like the post that opens discussion should be a bit more balanced.
|
On July 31 2014 10:54 m4ini wrote:Interesting source. Tried to set it to "US-led coalition incl. iraqi state forces"? Statistics are brilliant, especially if you think other people are too dumb to press two buttons. edit: not to mention that you compare an ongoing war with something that supposed to have peacetalks (and times where the IDF didn't bomb the shit out of shelters etc) etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
The Chechen wars, The NATO attack on Yugoslavia, the Vietnam and the Korean war paint similar if not grimmer pictures.
|
On July 31 2014 10:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 10:54 m4ini wrote:Interesting source. Tried to set it to "US-led coalition incl. iraqi state forces"? Statistics are brilliant, especially if you think other people are too dumb to press two buttons. edit: not to mention that you compare an ongoing war with something that supposed to have peacetalks (and times where the IDF didn't bomb the shit out of shelters etc) etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratioThe Chechen wars, The NATO in attack on Yugoslavia, the Vietnam and the Korean war paint similar if not grimmer pictures.
I'm not "up to date" about the chechen war, but:
The tactics employed by Russian forces in both wars were heavily criticized by human rights groups, which accused them of indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilian areas and other crimes .
NATO in Yugoslavia, considering the civilian/combatant ratio, even IF you take the word of the yugoslavian government, it's 4 civilians to 1 combatant. That's not as bad as what is happening right now (roughly 5:1?).
Vietnam, now you're getting stupid. Comparing military capabilities of today with guys flying in meteors, using white phosphorous (legally and with full intent), poisonous gas and whatnot, to one of the most modern armies of day and age. It would be quite sad if they couldn't do it at least a bit better (fun thing though, they don't).
PS: in gaza, at this time, roughly 20% (239 out of 1200) already of those casualties are kids. Doesn't look good for a good ratio, does it? In fact, haaretz is talking about 70-80% civilians. That's pretty much worse than any war the US fought (yes, worse than iraq).
|
I just put the numbers out there. Obviously the civilian death toll in Gaza is terribly high. But given how dense the area is and that the Hamas is actively encouraging people to sacrifice themselves, I don't think the numbers are so absurdly high that they would constitute some kind of knock-out argument without context. 3:1 seems to be as "good" as it gets even if you go several decades back.
The number of child casualties has obviously also to do with the fact that nearly half of the Gaza population is 14 years old or younger, which is pretty insane.
|
On July 31 2014 11:22 Nyxisto wrote:
I just put the numbers out there. Obviously the civilian death toll in Gaza is terribly high. But given how dense the area is and that the Hamas is actively encouraging people to sacrifice themselves, I don't think the numbers are so absurdly high that they would constitute some kind of knock-out argument without context. 3:1 seems to be as "good" as it gets even if you go several decades back.
The number of child casualties has obviously also to do with the fact that nearly half of the Gaza population is 14 years old or younger, which is pretty insane.
Yeah, but the numbers you tried to use as an argument (i assume, since otherwise it wouldn't help your cause), kinda do not represent what you're claiming (careful and actively trying to prevent civilian deaths).
It shows that the IDF does the same as everybody, not giving a shit about civilian life. There's no "but they're trying to avoid" - no they don't. They accept them happily to protect their own soldiers (which btw should be a warcrime, not just for the IDF but any country - a soldier has to value non-combatant lives, otherwise he's just a murderer, and i'm saying that as a former soldier for almost 6 years).
I didn't know that half the gaza population is 14 years old or younger, and to be honest, indescriminate shelling of an area like this (so densly populated etc) is simply not justifiable. There's no if or but, it's simply not. They're getting heavily criticised even by our government now (should make you think), and it's about time. That critique is not coming from nowhere.
I do understand that Israel wants to protect it's citizens, and i very much agree with that (got two friends/clanmates in Tel Aviv), but what they're doing, and how they're doing, is not even remotely close to protecting them. In fact, they're making it worse. I'm not even saying "don't touch the tunnels", obviously. But bombing complete houseblocks is definately not the way. Obviously, shelling UN shelters isn't, either.
|
Now one of Gaza's main power plants that provides power to 2/3(?) of the territory has been accidentally destroyed by IDF. Power also went to running water. So now there's no electricity (Gaza city municipality estimated it would take a year to fully fix), no water, no where to run and no where to hide. 44% of Gaza is also described by IDF as a "no-go" zone.
Nope, no occupation here.
|
There's an opposite argument that's made by Israel's supporters: that people like me, who write about our disappointment with Israeli policy, are "blaming Israel first." But it's not about blame. If interest in geopolitics was driven by outrage and horror Israel and Palestine would spend less time on the front page. The suffering there is immense, but the death toll is dwarfed by the slaughter in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Syria. I pay unusual attention to what Israel does because, for family and cultural reasons, I am unusually invested in Israel. Focusing on Israeli policy is a byproduct of focusing on Israel itself. For these reasons, I used to write about Israel often. It felt, even a few years ago, that peace was a live possibility, that Israel had choices — and that some of them might even turn out well. But Israel seems to have made its choice, at least for now, and the results are painful to watch. I haven't become less pro-Israel. But I've become much more pessimistic about its prospects, and more confused and occasionally horrified by its policies. My sense is that's happened to Chait, too. I notice he writes about Israel less these days, also. My sense is it's happened to a lot of us. -- Ezra Klein
With the blockade, I think that electricity could take even longer than a year to get by running. The irony (or one of the many ironies) is that based on civilian and infrastructure damage, the Israelis are the ones here who could be considered the terrorists.
|
it makes me really sad that people are trying to justify killing of civillians here in TL
|
|
|
The only long term solution for peace is to demilitarize Gaza, but that seems impossible with all of the commanders of Hamas hiding in bunkers and using secure landlines and couriers to maintain communications. Some of these bunkers could easily be bombed by Israel, but there would be too many civilian casualties above ground, which is something Israel does not want, contrary to what a lot of people mistakenly believe.
|
On July 31 2014 11:22 Nyxisto wrote:
I just put the numbers out there. Obviously the civilian death toll in Gaza is terribly high. But given how dense the area is and that the Hamas is actively encouraging people to sacrifice themselves, I don't think the numbers are so absurdly high that they would constitute some kind of knock-out argument without context. 3:1 seems to be as "good" as it gets even if you go several decades back.
The number of child casualties has obviously also to do with the fact that nearly half of the Gaza population is 14 years old or younger, which is pretty insane.
The problem is not the ratio in itself but the general strategy of the IDF. Israel has determined that the tunnels in Gaza need to go, because they are a security threat. They started the current military action, when three youth were kidnapped/murdered in the West Bank. There is actually no direct correlation between the tunnel system and this incident. So basically the war was started under a pretext, which is the first issue.
The second issue is the actual tactic that followed. In order to ensure the maximum safety of their own soldiers, Israel decided to erect a 3 mile "safe-zone". To further make sure that they don't have to get involved in close quarter fights, in which technical superiority is much less important and knowledge of the area is far more important, they decided to literally level the playing field by bombing and detonating all the buildings. Now they are looking amidst the rubble for tunnel entrances and blow them up if they can find them. All of this is sound military strategy, but it completely disregards the needs of the civilian population in Gaza. And in my opinion as well as in the opinion of amnesty international in direct violation of the Geneva convention.
None of this is normal or acceptable by the standards of international law. Israel has a legitimate right to protect themselves, but they can't do this by punishing the Palestinian people as whole while claiming moral superiority. What they are doing now might bring short-term peace, but please ask yourself, what will all these 14 year olds think of Israel, when they grow up? What do you think they will do? Israel is breeding the next generation of freedom fighters/terrorists and you're not helping by blindly defending these actions. Anyone interested in the long term stability of the Israeli state should urge them to halt their current course of action.
|
On July 31 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides? I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective.
Evidence suggests they don't care the least about civilian casualties. And their politicians are getting higher approval ratings for it - much like Putin got popular at home after Crimea, Netanyahu and his comrades knew that a massacre would please many of their voters.
I also find it disgusting how you frequently keep dismissing their actions as modern warfare. If you know that a UN school shelters over 3000 refugees because we destroyed their homes, you're NOT going to bomb that school, there's simply nothing that could serve as an excuse for that.
|
i think everyone should remember israel's end goal is to gobble up palestine. hamas' methods, israel fighting to defend their people, all these are just smaller contents that are the results of a bigger picture, which is the end of palestine.
there will be no two state solution, there will be no peace. israel will take over palestine and there will be more bloodshed before and after state of palestine is completely gone.
|
On July 31 2014 17:03 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides? I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective. Evidence suggests they don't care the least about civilian casualties. And their politicians are getting higher approval ratings for it - much like Putin got popular at home after Crimea, Netanyahu and his comrades knew that a massacre would please many of their voters. I also find it disgusting how you frequently keep dismissing their actions as modern warfare. If you know that a UN school shelters over 3000 refugees because we destroyed their homes, you're NOT going to bomb that school, there's simply nothing that could serve as an excuse for that.
If they didnt care the least about civilians they would simply do what Russia did to Grozny in 99, surround it from all sides, bring up heavy artillery and destroy everything before sending in light infantry to mop up. I agree that Natanyahu is using the excuse of teenagers to crush any left wing Israelis in Israel and he doesnt have a concept of long term peace beyond periodically invading Gaza. I think Nyxisto is too quick to dismiss the fact that right Israeli political parties have no interesting in reaching any kind of long term solution (and I believe like most people he supports that). BUT lets not pretend that Israel is facing not facing a disproportionate amount of public opinion (less people died in Gaza so far than in Syria or Pakistan but hey, when Arab-Muslims kill other Arab-Muslims you dont see mass protests in Europe.) AND lets not pretend that there is some really ugly antisemitism that is cropping up all over the world and especially shockingly in Europe.
For whatever reason the Palestine conflict is a pet conflict of a lot of really disperate groups -- and the comedy of European fascists marching along with Arab-Europeans they normally hate in joint hatred of Jews -- and not Israelis or more specifically not those Israelis who dont want a long term solution -- is a bit too much.
|
Zurich15355 Posts
I agree with what has been argued repeatedly here, that the current Isreali strategy seems to be to manage the recurring violence instead of striving for any kind of peace. Something along the lines in this piece:
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926275/israel-gaza-mowing-the-grass
But, as the bombardment continues, and apparently Netanyahu announcing an even broader offensive, really: What is the point at this point? There simply can't be anything sensible to bomb left. I am not even asking from a moralistic standpoint, I am just truly puzzled at what Israel is trying to achieve here, if even only on the short term.
|
On July 31 2014 17:16 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 17:03 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 31 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides? I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective. Evidence suggests they don't care the least about civilian casualties. And their politicians are getting higher approval ratings for it - much like Putin got popular at home after Crimea, Netanyahu and his comrades knew that a massacre would please many of their voters. I also find it disgusting how you frequently keep dismissing their actions as modern warfare. If you know that a UN school shelters over 3000 refugees because we destroyed their homes, you're NOT going to bomb that school, there's simply nothing that could serve as an excuse for that. If they didnt care the least about civilians they would simply do what Russia did to Grozny in 99, surround it from all sides, bring up heavy artillery and destroy everything before sending in light infantry to mop up. I agree that Natanyahu is using the excuse of teenagers to crush any left wing Israelis in Israel and he doesnt have a concept of long term peace beyond periodically invading Gaza. I think Nyxisto is too quick to dismiss the fact that right Israeli political parties have no interesting in reaching any kind of long term solution (and I believe like most people he supports that). BUT lets not pretend that Israel is facing not facing a disproportionate amount of public opinion (less people died in Gaza so far than in Syria or Pakistan but hey, when Arab-Muslims kill other Arab-Muslims you dont see mass protests in Europe.) AND lets not pretend that there is some really ugly antisemitism that is cropping up all over the world and especially shockingly in Europe. For whatever reason the Palestine conflict is a pet conflict of a lot of really disperate groups -- and the comedy of European fascists marching along with Arab-Europeans they normally hate in joint hatred of Jews -- and not Israelis or more specifically not those Israelis who dont want a long term solution -- is a bit too much.
Well said, some of the pictures that you see of demonstrations in Europe are almost comical if the issue wouldn't be so serious. Leaders of the surrounding Arab states have used Israel as a scapegoat for a long time. They fuel the hatred in order to divert attention from internal problems that are not really related to Israel at all. None of the problems between Shiite's and Sunnites in the region will be solved by the removal of Israel, nor will the rampant corruption and mismanagement in the surrounding states disappear.
|
Norway28703 Posts
anti-muslim sentiments are much more common than anti-semitic sentiments in Europe. I guess Israel is trying to make themselves competitive on this arena as well, but this is the only conflict ever where public opinion is siding with muslims. And that's not because people hate "the jews" so much, it's because there hasn't been a this one-sided conflict where the dominant factor is so dependent on the international community's support.
|
On July 31 2014 17:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
anti-muslim sentiments are much more common than anti-semitic sentiments in Europe. I guess Israel is trying to make themselves competitive on this arena as well, but this is the only conflict ever where public opinion is siding with muslims. And that's not because people hate "the jews" so much, it's because there hasn't been a this one-sided conflict where the dominant factor is so dependent on the international community's support.
Anti-muslim is flavour of the month. Anti-Semitism is a tried and true build since the beginning. Sorry, but your statement is so lopsided, that I had to resort to SC2 strategy terms to respond. Also one sentiment isn't exclusive to the other. People are perfectly capable of irrational hatred towards more than one thing/person/issue.
|
On July 31 2014 06:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 06:46 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 31 2014 06:40 Plansix wrote:On July 31 2014 06:33 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 31 2014 06:22 Plansix wrote:On July 31 2014 06:17 DinoMight wrote:On July 31 2014 06:14 Sn0_Man wrote:On July 31 2014 06:06 EtherealBlade wrote:
So forcing out the native people from a land[...] Define native please How about "people who've been living there continuously for over a millenium." Not exactly scientific but I think it gets the point across. So we give the land to the Canaanites? I don't think they are around. How about the Egyptians? I mean, how far back do we go here. We need specifics. A lot of people have owned this land at one point or another. I mean, the Roman's owned it for a while, and the Babylonians too. Anyone here a Babylonian? If everyone applied zionism to their own history (or really, their holy book) there'd be wars everywhere. Don't you see how it creates a dangerous precedent? If Israel can be allowed do it why shouldn't Italy get Mare Nostrum. Or why not let Mongolia rule the Eurasian landmass. As ridiculous these sound, so ridiculous the idea of zionism is, except some people really followed it through and many still do. Yeah, but I don't care about zionism or who is right or wrong or who gets the land. Israel currently holds it and no-one can take it from them because they don't have the military power to do so. Any other arguments about "native land" are just stupid. The US took native american's land and they(as a whole) don't go around demanding that the US government return it, because they know it will never happen.(clearly there are other issues, but on one is that unreasonable). So if someone in the future had the military power to take the land, and they proceeded to do it, you'd say it's fine, whatever the consequences? Only children look at foreign policy through the lens of morality. Foreign policy -- with war being one of its biggest tools -- is an exercise in cold, amoral calculation. Appealing to morality may be a tool that some use to accomplish their ends, but at the end of the day, the exercise of raw power -- diplomatically, economically, or militarily -- will always be the deciding factor. Thus, whether someone is "fine" with conquering Israel or any other piece of land is irrelevant. The real question is what are they willing and able to do about it.
Only children look at foreign policy through the lens of cold, amoral calculation. Like when Hitler thought Britain would sue for peace if France was conquered. They forget their armies march upon their metaphorical stomachs -- that is, their armies are comprised, funded by, and supported by people bound to morality. Incidentally, Israel sits snugly upon 3 billion a year in aid from the U.S. No amount of amoral calculation will save this money should Israel ever cross that line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
