Israel: Operation Protective Edge

[sana8410]

In a conflict so long blaming any one party would be naive, as far as current politics go, Israel is the main obstacle to peace. Hamas doesn't help of course, but Israel could easily marginalize them through dealings with Fatah if they had wanted to cede to a two state solution. The conflict has continued over the past several years because there hasn't been the political will for a settlement in Israel under Olmert or Netanyahu.

Even now the Netanyahu administration is largely using this incident as an excuse to throw a tantrum over the unity government construction and target Hamas like they have in the past in hopes that they can break up the new government. It has been a fairly standard (and unfortunately effective) tactic. Most of the rockets coming into Israel haven't even been fired by Hamas, yet it has been primarily Hamas' infrastructure and activists that have thus far been bombed in the operation and it was primarily Hamas sympathizers that were arbitrarily detained without charge in the West Bank during the search.

Seems like a fairly restrained response considering Hamas's penchant for firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Even if they respond with home demolitions, I'd call it totally reasonable and justified since Hamas's tactics are essentially collective punishment to begin with. Really, all terrorism is just collective punishment committed by a weak force against a stronger one and can only be deterred by the stronger party being willing to escalate to a much more extreme level of violence.

You can start calling the Israeli response disproportionate when Gaza looks like Grozny.

It is largely Jihadi Salafi groups firing the rockets, groups that are actually opposed to Hamas, which is why it is easier to recognize the overzealous targeting of Hamas in the campaign. the same was true of their search for and accusations surrounding the missing students which third party groups claimed responsibility for, but which Netanyahu took the opportunity to blame on Hamas instead and used it as a justification to illegally harass and target Hamas affiliates. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its persistence is simply proof that your ideologies are pretty poor tactics when it comes to ending cycles of violence. So in other words, you are a supporter of terrorism. Not surprised.

[Starscream]

In a conflict so long blaming any one party would be naive, as far as current politics go, Israel is the main obstacle to peace. Hamas doesn't help of course, but Israel could easily marginalize them through dealings with Fatah if they had wanted to cede to a two state solution. The conflict has continued over the past several years because there hasn't been the political will for a settlement in Israel under Olmert or Netanyahu.

Even now the Netanyahu administration is largely using this incident as an excuse to throw a tantrum over the unity government construction and target Hamas like they have in the past in hopes that they can break up the new government. It has been a fairly standard (and unfortunately effective) tactic. Most of the rockets coming into Israel haven't even been fired by Hamas, yet it has been primarily Hamas' infrastructure and activists that have thus far been bombed in the operation and it was primarily Hamas sympathizers that were arbitrarily detained without charge in the West Bank during the search.

Seems like a fairly restrained response considering Hamas's penchant for firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Even if they respond with home demolitions, I'd call it totally reasonable and justified since Hamas's tactics are essentially collective punishment to begin with. Really, all terrorism is just collective punishment committed by a weak force against a stronger one and can only be deterred by the stronger party being willing to escalate to a much more extreme level of violence.

You can start calling the Israeli response disproportionate when Gaza looks like Grozny.

It is largely Jihadi Salafi groups firing the rockets, groups that are actually opposed to Hamas, which is why it is easier to recognize the overzealous targeting of Hamas in the campaign. the same was true of their search for and accusations surrounding the missing students which third party groups claimed responsibility for, but which Netanyahu took the opportunity to blame on Hamas instead and used it as a justification to illegally harass and target Hamas affiliates. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its persistence is simply proof that your ideologies are pretty poor tactics when it comes to ending cycles of violence. So in other words, you are a supporter of terrorism. Not surprised.

Israel is the main obstacle? Did you read hamas party covenant?
Let me quote:
"'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'"
You simply cannot deal with a party who put in its front banner the destruction of your country. Fatah, on the other hand, could lead to something, and as evident, the situation of the palestinians who lives there is far superior to those who live in the gaza strip, and both are bordered with Israel. Furthermore, the Fatah territory is surrounded by Israel, the gaza strip on the other hand has a border with Egypt who decided to close the border to gaza as well.

Trying to reason with an unreasonable person (or party) is futile.

As far as your comment about the overzealous attack on hamas, it's pretty obvious, isn't it? They are the ruling party there, they automatically assume all responsibility for whatever that is fired from their autonomy.
If a group of American soldiers go rogue and murder Russian people in Russia than USA is responsible for their actions. If USA won't execute a punishment I am pretty sure the Russian will push towards one, in what ways they see fit.
Imagine if those soldiers wouldn't get punished by the American government, what repercussions their actions would have.
Same goes for hamas the the islamic jihad.
By not doing anything to prevent or punish the jihad after the action, hamas essentially gave its consent to the actions.

The fact that you over-complicated it by saying "its a group who opposes hamas" (which btw isn't true, they don't oppose hamas, they wish to take their ideology to the extreme), shows that in fact, you support terrorism.

And Zolace is correct, it is a restrained response all things considered. We all know that if hamas would have done the same to the US or the Russians, than the gaza strip would have been flattened long time ago.

[zolace]

In a conflict so long blaming any one party would be naive, as far as current politics go, Israel is the main obstacle to peace. Hamas doesn't help of course, but Israel could easily marginalize them through dealings with Fatah if they had wanted to cede to a two state solution. The conflict has continued over the past several years because there hasn't been the political will for a settlement in Israel under Olmert or Netanyahu.

Even now the Netanyahu administration is largely using this incident as an excuse to throw a tantrum over the unity government construction and target Hamas like they have in the past in hopes that they can break up the new government. It has been a fairly standard (and unfortunately effective) tactic. Most of the rockets coming into Israel haven't even been fired by Hamas, yet it has been primarily Hamas' infrastructure and activists that have thus far been bombed in the operation and it was primarily Hamas sympathizers that were arbitrarily detained without charge in the West Bank during the search.

Seems like a fairly restrained response considering Hamas's penchant for firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Even if they respond with home demolitions, I'd call it totally reasonable and justified since Hamas's tactics are essentially collective punishment to begin with. Really, all terrorism is just collective punishment committed by a weak force against a stronger one and can only be deterred by the stronger party being willing to escalate to a much more extreme level of violence.

You can start calling the Israeli response disproportionate when Gaza looks like Grozny.

It is largely Jihadi Salafi groups firing the rockets, groups that are actually opposed to Hamas, which is why it is easier to recognize the overzealous targeting of Hamas in the campaign. the same was true of their search for and accusations surrounding the missing students which third party groups claimed responsibility for, but which Netanyahu took the opportunity to blame on Hamas instead and used it as a justification to illegally harass and target Hamas affiliates. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its persistence is simply proof that your ideologies are pretty poor tactics when it comes to ending cycles of violence. So in other words, you are a supporter of terrorism. Not surprised.

Certainly no one really thinks that collective punishment in and of itself is bad. it matters what the alternatives are, and what the effects and side-effects of those alternatives are. If it is the case (I don't know if it is or not) that Israel can't make the punishment for shooting rockets into Israel less collective without putting themselves in MUCH greater risk, than what is there to say? There's another alternative of doing nothing, but seems unrealistic for a number of reasons.

[sana8410]

Zolace,Starscream,a lot of people think that. That's why its part of the Geneva Conventions. Our own society doesn't legally support it either. I, and generally speaking much of the Israeli army would assert that such responses to violence tend to be counter productive and instead promote further escalations and cycles of violence.

[Smack That Ace]

I am guessing all you poster and people who replied live in a VERY VERY SAFE country ??

Where do you guys come off giving such suggestions with knowing very well that in the real world this is not possible.

[Paya]

We all know that if hamas would have done the same to the US or the Russians, than the gaza strip would have been flattened long time ago.

Indeed. I am not saying that everything Israelis are/were doing is right, but they are using only a tiny fraction of their military might. I mean if they wanted to they could completely wipe out Palestinians in few days. It's quite hard to imagine USA, Russia or (why not) China being placed there instead of Israel without the consequent picture of total destruction and permanent takeover of Gaza.

[niothor]

I am guessing all you poster and people who replied live in a VERY VERY SAFE country ??

Where do you guys come off giving such suggestions with knowing very well that in the real world this is not possible.

And what is your problem with our opinion?

It's your people fault for not coming to an agreement.
Do you have a clue how many have died in Europe in the last millennium ?
Yet with al that blood spilled we have come to this:

[Starscream]

I am guessing all you poster and people who replied live in a VERY VERY SAFE country ??

Where do you guys come off giving such suggestions with knowing very well that in the real world this is not possible.

You know that yesterday alone 400 (give or take, but who cares, they weren't killed by Israelis) people were killed in Syria, right? a few donzen from them were kids and thousands were injured.
Are you collecting donations for them? are you bleeding for them? Losing sleep? (or w/e nonsense you were typing in the other thread) I think not.

Where were you when the islamic jihad kidnapped and murdered 3 Israeli teenagers? Or when hamas fired a rocket a school bus (and proudly published it everywhere) and killed a few kids? Oh, I know where you were  

So go back to your little propaganda thread, but remember, over 95% of all muslims killed this year were killed by muslims.

[Starscream]

Zolace,Starscream,a lot of people think that. That's why its part of the Geneva Conventions. Our own society doesn't legally support it either. I, and generally speaking much of the Israeli army would assert that such responses to violence tend to be counter productive and instead promote further escalations and cycles of violence.

I agree that it's counter productive and promotes further escalations, but I know that there's 1 side that instigates the aggression and 1 side that doesn't.
You might argue that Israel doesn't want peace with the Palestinians, but I'm sure they want at the very least, quiet.

[Paya]

I am guessing all you poster and people who replied live in a VERY VERY SAFE country ??

Where do you guys come off giving such suggestions with knowing very well that in the real world this is not possible.

Sure it's possible. Everything is. Country in which I was born has passed through horrible civil war, total UN blockade and NATO bombing campaign. Ultimately, it ceased to exist. All this events learned me that there is no such thing as international justice and that the brute force is only rule which everyone respect. And what is that dream lala land you're coming from to be such an idealist?

[Rigon]

I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.

[sana8410]

I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.

What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment?

[niothor]

I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.

What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment?

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule97

International and non-international armed conflicts
In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).[1]  Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[2]

[noviapriani]

Zolace,Starscream,a lot of people think that. That's why its part of the Geneva Conventions. Our own society doesn't legally support it either. I, and generally speaking much of the Israeli army would assert that such responses to violence tend to be counter productive and instead promote further escalations and cycles of violence.

That's the key here. If anyone could come up with a way to end the cycles of violence, a lot of things could be solved.

You mentioned earlier that Israel is main obstacle to peace. I disagree. I do think they are an equal partner in obstructionism, though. I know, and the Israelis know that so long as children are taught to hate Israelis from day 1 at school, there is another generation coming that will hate Jews, and continue fighting over historical wrongs. That path leads to never-ending war. Anything the Israelis do at this point is going to be negated by the next generation of kids growing up with hatred.

Please bear in mind I am well aware that Israel has a vested interested in not allowing peace. Peace doesn't really work for them at this point. But the Palestinians are making it easy for them to make it look all defensive, and not giving the US any reason to force Israel to back down. War works against the Palestinians, and they are being dumb enough to keep going. Such is the stupidity in the area. I guess I would say it depends on what other people are using as definitions of counter productivity. Motive is key .

[Starscream]

I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.

What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment?

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule97

International and non-international armed conflicts
In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).[1]  Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[2]

Excellent quote and a good answer.

[Rigon]

I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.

What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment?

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.


Seems relatively straight forward, and I don't see how collateral damage would apply normally. If the intent was to destroy property in the vicinity as punishment for something the people didn't actually do, then yes.

[sana8410]

I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.

What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment?

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.


Seems relatively straight forward, and I don't see how collateral damage would apply normally. If the intent was to destroy property in the vicinity as punishment for something the people didn't actually do, then yes.

Where does intent come in from what you posted above? collateral damage (e.g. a civilian getting killed when you were targeting a terrorist) is a pretty big punishment for something they didnt do, even if it was unintentional.

[umair127]

I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.

What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment?

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.


Seems relatively straight forward, and I don't see how collateral damage would apply normally. If the intent was to destroy property in the vicinity as punishment for something the people didn't actually do, then yes.

Where does intent come in from what you posted above? collateral damage (e.g. a civilian getting killed when you were targeting a terrorist) is a pretty big punishment for something they didnt do, even if it was unintentional.

The accusations of collective punishment have nothing to do with the scenario that you are talking about. (Though Israel is also legally required to minimize collateral damage when they can and they don't always meet those standards).

Collective punishment would be what I mentioned: demolishing the houses of family members accused of crimes. The family didn't do anything, the criminal did. Flying sonic booms over Gaza in order to instill terror into the general population is collective punishment as well, as is the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure such as water systems. When the kids went missing one of the first things that Israel did was cut the fishing rights of Palestinians in Gaza and cut off medical and electricity resupply to the strip which has precipitated shortages of medicine more severe than any that have been seen since 2007. That is collective punishment as well and illegal.

[sana8410]

Zolace,Starscream,a lot of people think that. That's why its part of the Geneva Conventions. Our own society doesn't legally support it either. I, and generally speaking much of the Israeli army would assert that such responses to violence tend to be counter productive and instead promote further escalations and cycles of violence.

That's the key here. If anyone could come up with a way to end the cycles of violence, a lot of things could be solved.

You mentioned earlier that Israel is main obstacle to peace. I disagree. I do think they are an equal partner in obstructionism, though. I know, and the Israelis know that so long as children are taught to hate Israelis from day 1 at school, there is another generation coming that will hate Jews, and continue fighting over historical wrongs. That path leads to never-ending war. Anything the Israelis do at this point is going to be negated by the next generation of kids growing up with hatred.

Please bear in mind I am well aware that Israel has a vested interested in not allowing peace. Peace doesn't really work for them at this point. But the Palestinians are making it easy for them to make it look all defensive, and not giving the US any reason to force Israel to back down. War works against the Palestinians, and they are being dumb enough to keep going. Such is the stupidity in the area. I guess I would say it depends on what other people are using as definitions of counter productivity. Motive is key .

I think that would be true of say the Netanyahu administration, Hamas, Palestinian Jihad and salafi Palestinian organizations, but I honestly see the Abbas government as one that is willing to sit at the peace table, and one that has been utterly ignored by Netanyahu and Olmert. When the Road Map was put into place the Palestinian Authority was the only party that honored it while Sharon and later Olmert didn't even halt settlement expansion or reopen the Orient House. Abbas has been willing at times to make some pretty large concessions (like only a symbolic right of return), and has been sitting at the peace table waiting for dialogue for years.

Is there any reason in particular why you don't find the PA under Abbas to be a realistic partner for peace?

[Rigon]

The thing is, Israel attacks terrorist/military targets while Hamas attacks civilian targets. And Israel's military doesn't hide behind civilians when conducting their operations the way Hamas does.