Israel: Operation Protective Edge

[Starscream]

We have seen such reports (which Israel generally refuses to partake in) such as the Goldstein Report from Operation Cast Lead.

Actually Goldstone went back on his report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Goldstone.27s_retraction_of_civilian_targeting_claim

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone published a piece in The Washington Post titled 'Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes'. Goldstone noted that the subsequent investigations by Israel and recognized in the U.N. committee's report "indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy" while "the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying."

[johnathan32]

Israel can leave in peace with the Palestinians left Gaza on terrorism. That the majority of Palestinians there suffer from Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And because citizens do not know to stop them then there is no choice but to attack the State of Israel and weaken them. That terrorist groups constantly trying to harm the citizens of Israel. Think how it is to live every day you hear alarms that can hurt you. I say again living areas of the civilians in Gaza it is because terrorist organizations!, And talk about war crimes must be remembered that each started because Hamas kidnapped three boys of 16 and killed them, and from that moment began the war. So who committed war crimes?

[bryant.coleman]

That the majority of Palestinians there suffer from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The Hamas government in Gaza was democratically elected with overwhelming support (if I am not wrong, more than two-third of the population voted for Hamas). So you can't say that the Hamas is harassing the Gazans.

[umair127]

We have seen such reports (which Israel generally refuses to partake in) such as the Goldstein Report from Operation Cast Lead.

Actually Goldstone went back on his report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Goldstone.27s_retraction_of_civilian_targeting_claim

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone published a piece in The Washington Post titled 'Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes'. Goldstone noted that the subsequent investigations by Israel and recognized in the U.N. committee's report "indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy" while "the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying."

this shit is complicated and it seems hard to know whats true and whats not sometimes

important to add:
Hina Jilani, one of the four writers of the "Goldstone Report", noted when asked if the report should allegedly be changed: "Absolutely not; no process or acceptable procedure would invalidate the UN Report; if it does happen, it would be seen as a 'suspect move'." Also another of the four co-writers, Irish international criminal investigations expert Desmond Travers, noted: 'the tenor of the report in its entirety, in my opinion, stands'. Also Goldstone maintained that, although the one correction should be made, he had "no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time" and that he didn't plan to pursue nullifying the report.

[sana8410]

We have seen such reports (which Israel generally refuses to partake in) such as the Goldstein Report from Operation Cast Lead.

Actually Goldstone went back on his report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Goldstone.27s_retraction_of_civilian_targeting_claim

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone published a piece in The Washington Post titled 'Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes'. Goldstone noted that the subsequent investigations by Israel and recognized in the U.N. committee's report "indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy" while "the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying."

this shit is complicated and it seems hard to know whats true and whats not sometimes

important to add:
Hina Jilani, one of the four writers of the "Goldstone Report", noted when asked if the report should allegedly be changed: "Absolutely not; no process or acceptable procedure would invalidate the UN Report; if it does happen, it would be seen as a 'suspect move'." Also another of the four co-writers, Irish international criminal investigations expert Desmond Travers, noted: 'the tenor of the report in its entirety, in my opinion, stands'. Also Goldstone maintained that, although the one correction should be made, he had "no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time" and that he didn't plan to pursue nullifying the report.

I read it back when it first came out, I would encourage you to do the same, they were certainly limited in some areas due to the lack of Israeli cooperation, but they came to several definitive conclusions as well about some specific incidents / aspects of the operation. The fletchings and targeting of civilian infrastructure such as water dykes for example.

[zolace]

We have seen such reports (which Israel generally refuses to partake in) such as the Goldstein Report from Operation Cast Lead.

Actually Goldstone went back on his report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Goldstone.27s_retraction_of_civilian_targeting_claim

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone published a piece in The Washington Post titled 'Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes'. Goldstone noted that the subsequent investigations by Israel and recognized in the U.N. committee's report "indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy" while "the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying."

this shit is complicated and it seems hard to know whats true and whats not sometimes

important to add:
Hina Jilani, one of the four writers of the "Goldstone Report", noted when asked if the report should allegedly be changed: "Absolutely not; no process or acceptable procedure would invalidate the UN Report; if it does happen, it would be seen as a 'suspect move'." Also another of the four co-writers, Irish international criminal investigations expert Desmond Travers, noted: 'the tenor of the report in its entirety, in my opinion, stands'. Also Goldstone maintained that, although the one correction should be made, he had "no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time" and that he didn't plan to pursue nullifying the report.

I read it back when it first came out, I would encourage you to do the same, they were certainly limited in some areas due to the lack of Israeli cooperation, but they came to several definitive conclusions as well about some specific incidents / aspects of the operation. The fletchings and targeting of civilian infrastructure such as water dykes for example.

After reading this, I have to say again that Netanyahu should unilaterally withdraw settlers from the West Bank and then ask Abbas to cut all ties with Hamas. This is the best solution. It is better for both parties involved. I think it will give Israel the moral high ground when they are being fired upon from areas without settlers and it gives Abbas more moral standing when he no longer associates with Hamas.

[umair127]

I'd read it but it sounds like its long and i'm not THAT interested in the whole thing. whatever my opinion is, it has exactly zero effect on how the situation play out in the real world. all i can do is trust certain peoples opinions and what they say over others, and question things when they seem suspect.

[noviapriani]

Hamas is more than just an armed brigade it consists of political and civil service wings as well and targeted people specifically for their political affiliation is a war crime as well. Anything associated with Hamas isn't militarily fair game. There is no military benefits to bombing empty homes of civilian infrastructure.

It is not the same because Israelis are not welcoming people to use their homes as launch sites or bases of operation.One you do that, your home is not a home it is military complex and should be dealt with as a military target.Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, Egypt and Japan to name a few all classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. It should be treated as a terrorist organization.

Civilians are civilians, just because Israel has compulsory military duty for many of its citizens doesn't open those citizens up to being targeted with violence when they aren't actively serving. That isn't a good excuse for Hamas and it isn't a good excuse for Israel. And yet it is still a recognized war crime to bomb a Hamas soup kitchen .

There is a difference between an service member sitting peacefully in his home with his wife and kids, watching the sunday game and having cookouts in the backyard VS someone who has his family sit around kitchen table and help load and plan the next rocket firing.

One is civilian and the other is a military target.

Let me know when you have evidence that everyone in Gaza is secretly an armed revolutionary that engages in terrorist activities.
Let me know when you have evidence that every home in Gaza is loaded with weapons and bombs.

Most aren't. I understand that. Most Gazans want peace. But it becomes harder to achieve peace when Hamas is continually committing war crimes by launching attacks from civilian population areas and then hiding behind civilians for cover.

[sana8410]

Hamas is more than just an armed brigade it consists of political and civil service wings as well and targeted people specifically for their political affiliation is a war crime as well. Anything associated with Hamas isn't militarily fair game. There is no military benefits to bombing empty homes of civilian infrastructure.

It is not the same because Israelis are not welcoming people to use their homes as launch sites or bases of operation.One you do that, your home is not a home it is military complex and should be dealt with as a military target.Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, Egypt and Japan to name a few all classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. It should be treated as a terrorist organization.

Civilians are civilians, just because Israel has compulsory military duty for many of its citizens doesn't open those citizens up to being targeted with violence when they aren't actively serving. That isn't a good excuse for Hamas and it isn't a good excuse for Israel. And yet it is still a recognized war crime to bomb a Hamas soup kitchen .

There is a difference between an service member sitting peacefully in his home with his wife and kids, watching the sunday game and having cookouts in the backyard VS someone who has his family sit around kitchen table and help load and plan the next rocket firing.

One is civilian and the other is a military target.

Let me know when you have evidence that everyone in Gaza is secretly an armed revolutionary that engages in terrorist activities.
Let me know when you have evidence that every home in Gaza is loaded with weapons and bombs.

Most aren't. I understand that. Most Gazans want peace. But it becomes harder to achieve peace when Hamas is continually committing war crimes by launching attacks from civilian population areas and then hiding behind civilians for cover.

I agree. It also makes it harder when Israel engages in war crimes and violations of the Fourth Geneva Conventions as well. It would also help if Netanyahu was willing to halt settlement expansion at all.

[noviapriani]

Israel has responded to aggression with aggression for almost eight decades. Prior to that unofficial policy of reciprocal violence, Jewish extremists deliberately terrorized and murdered many within the British Empire which precipitated the foundation for the current Israel state. Illegitimate as it is, even for a highly organized and educated sovereignty, Israelis are appallingly incapable of accomplishing peaceful resolutions.

Unfortunately, the United States validates Israel's existence simply as an insurance policy against Islamic states attempting to transition to nuclear power, Hezbollah, and Russian interests in the vicinity.

[zolace]

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.

Easy. Because these Salafist groups are operating because of either the incompetence of Hamas, or their weakness, and because of the acquiescence or support of the civilian population.
Collective responsibility merits collective punishment. Gaza's population supported Hamas, and acquiesces to, if not outright supports the Salafists. It makes absolute sense to hold them collectively responsible for allowing terrorists to operate amongst them.

There's never been a good example of an occupying force succeeding with a population-centric counter insurgency strategy. The most successful examples of crushing insurgencies, like Sri Lanka, involved a willingness to use violence and force to achieve victory.

[zolace]

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.

That's because they're not rational and have a poor historical perspective.

The US has been unsuccessful in most of its military engagements since World War II precisely because it has a strong insistence on avoiding use of collective punishment and a tendency to adopt overly strict rules of engagement.

What would you call the Allied campaigns of firebombing German and Japanese cities, or using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki if not collective punishment? This war was remarkably successful precisely because the US showed a willingness to escalate violence to an unlimited level in order to win. Something which has not been done in any conflict since.

[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.

That's because they're not rational and have a poor historical perspective.

The US has been unsuccessful in most of its military engagements since World War II precisely because it has a strong insistence on avoiding use of collective punishment and a tendency to adopt overly strict rules of engagement.

What would you call the Allied campaigns of firebombing German and Japanese cities, or using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki if not collective punishment? This war was remarkably successful precisely because the US showed a willingness to escalate violence to an unlimited level in order to win. Something which has not been done in any conflict since.

Irrational is continuing a policy of collective punishment despite the historical fact that it never succeeds long term, and tends to lead to genocide. I suppose if you're sociopathic, you might be ok with that.

The US has had no need and no particular interest in being successful with foreign engagements. It's been unnecessary or too dangerous depending on the time frame in question.

It became impossible to use that sort of all out war after WW2, simply because the repercussions were too hard to control. And generally speaking, US presidents haven't been interested in global annihilation.

[sana8410]

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.

Easy. Because these Salafist groups are operating because of either the incompetence of Hamas, or their weakness, and because of the acquiescence or support of the civilian population.
Collective responsibility merits collective punishment. Gaza's population supported Hamas, and acquiesces to, if not outright supports the Salafists. It makes absolute sense to hold them collectively responsible for allowing terrorists to operate amongst them.

There's never been a good example of an occupying force succeeding with a population-centric counter insurgency strategy. The most successful examples of crushing insurgencies, like Sri Lanka, involved a willingness to use violence and force to achieve victory.

You're contradicting yourself here, Salafists tend to hate the Muslim Brotherhood. Claiming that the Gazan population loves both the Salafists and Hamas doesn't make any sense. It's also dumb to assume that just because a group operates within a territory that 1.) the government likes them and 2.) that the population likes them. I'm pretty sure that the people who suffer from Mayi Mayi attacks in the DRC don't do so with smiles. Nor does it make sense to bomb government forces that are aligned against them if your goal is to see them destroyed. It's pretty dumb to bomb Kinshasa and kill their soldiers while asking them why they aren't able to kill off the M23 rebels.

[Rigon]

The Arabs hate the Jews. That will never change. Israel is going to do whatever is necessary to secure it's sovereignty.

[sana8410]

There's never been a good example of an occupying force succeeding with a population-centric counter insurgency strategy. The most successful examples of crushing insurgencies, like Sri Lanka, involved a willingness to use violence and force to achieve victory.

Hasn't worked too well in over 50 years, seems like a new tactic should be called for.

And your grand strategy for conflict has already been utilized over the course of decades in the Sudan, probably to the best that anyone could hope to realistically utilize it. Bashir literally got away with genocide and ethnic cleansing and has been since 1989. And it has completely failed him. Sure he has been able to stay in power, but he lost the southern half of his country, and is losing control of a half dozen other internal states as well.

It simply doesn't work; and now when Bashir has tried to backtrack he's found the SPLM-N announce today that it is joining forced with the Janjaweed against Khartoum. He ended up losing control of his own monsters.

You also mentioned Sri Lanka? That ended, but it took 26 years. Not really a big win, and even now the harshness of how it ended is causing domestic problems. In fact there were warnings of rising extremism just today within Sri Lanka over clashes which have threatened the country with renewed instability.

[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.

That's because they're not rational and have a poor historical perspective.

The US has been unsuccessful in most of its military engagements since World War II precisely because it has a strong insistence on avoiding use of collective punishment and a tendency to adopt overly strict rules of engagement.

What would you call the Allied campaigns of firebombing German and Japanese cities, or using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki if not collective punishment? This war was remarkably successful precisely because the US showed a willingness to escalate violence to an unlimited level in order to win. Something which has not been done in any conflict since.

I would call those campaigns the continuation of politics by other means. The American and British attack sorties were unequivocally coordinated solely to eviscerate the morale of the enemy and expedite governmental submission. Period. Unfortunately, Imperial Japan's military leadership rejected unconditional surrender and all subsequent demands of the Postdam Declaration, prolonging an already exhausting and lethal conflict. Some persons familiar with the war would cite the success of naval blockade. However, naval blockade did not render other occupied countries and their respective prisoners impervious to Japanese massacre.

Retrospectively, the area bombing and firebombing campaign manifested against Imperial Japan and Germany were enacted as a direct result of the ineffectiveness of precision bombing by radar. There are a myriad of analytical reports pre-dating the area bombing-firebombing incursions which corroborate the technological limitations long-range bombing attacks at the time. Low-altitude thermal, explosive, and incendiary munition attacks on cities were the best means of inflicting significant devastation on an enemy's industrial capabilities.

Common subject literature affirms the malicious and hateful sentiments shared by many in regard to Axis aggression, especially against Imperial Japanese inhumane treatment of combatants and noncombatants alike. Consequently, many unintentionally confuse the fundamental executions of warfare as collective punishment. Max Hastings, the British author of "Retribution, The Battle for Japan 1944-1945" published an archived quote from the mastermind of the Japanese firebombing campaign which solidified America's true intention, "bomb and burn 'em til they quit".

My response is intended to clarify the actions of countries engaged in official declarations of war. These actions should not be diluted or referenced with the actions of one illegitimate state attacking non-state aggressors residing in another illegitimate state.

[sana8410]

What would you call the Allied campaigns of firebombing German and Japanese cities, or using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki if not collective punishment? This war was remarkably successful precisely because the US showed a willingness to escalate violence to an unlimited level in order to win. Something which has not been done in any conflict since.

Seems a bit disingenuous to compare a formal war with an insurgency and terrorist related violence. The two aren't fought in the same way. Nor are they fought with the same weapons. You're stuck on WWII but it isn't the 40's anymore.

[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.

That's because they're not rational and have a poor historical perspective.

The US has been unsuccessful in most of its military engagements since World War II precisely because it has a strong insistence on avoiding use of collective punishment and a tendency to adopt overly strict rules of engagement.

What would you call the Allied campaigns of firebombing German and Japanese cities, or using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki if not collective punishment? This war was remarkably successful precisely because the US showed a willingness to escalate violence to an unlimited level in order to win. Something which has not been done in any conflict since.

The US has had no need and no particular interest in being successful with foreign engagements. It's been unnecessary or too dangerous depending on the time frame in question.

What the fuck are you talking about?Would you be so glad to point me in the direction of an armed conflict which the participating US government had "no particular interest in"?

[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.

That's because they're not rational and have a poor historical perspective.

The US has been unsuccessful in most of its military engagements since World War II precisely because it has a strong insistence on avoiding use of collective punishment and a tendency to adopt overly strict rules of engagement.

What would you call the Allied campaigns of firebombing German and Japanese cities, or using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki if not collective punishment? This war was remarkably successful precisely because the US showed a willingness to escalate violence to an unlimited level in order to win. Something which has not been done in any conflict since.

The US has had no need and no particular interest in being successful with foreign engagements. It's been unnecessary or too dangerous depending on the time frame in question.

What the fuck are you talking about?Would you be so glad to point me in the direction of an armed conflict which the participating US government had "no particular interest in"?

First you need to learn to read. Parsing part of a sentence has no value, and in this case, no meaning either. Ask whatever question you want to ask based on what I said, not part of a sentence, and I may answer it. I may not if it's stupid enough, though.