I'd say that's fairly accurate. Considering the 400+ civilians, mostly women and children, dead. And even further enhanced by the attacks on U.N. run schools and known sanctuaries.
In which case, here's a question. Given that Israel has the ability to do this at any time, if its real goal was to kill as many Palestinians as possible, why did it wait so long? And, given Israel's overwhelming military superiority, if Israel's goal was to kill civilians, how in the world could they have only killed 400 thus far? Unless you're implying that Israel has overwhelming military superiority but lacks anyone with targeting ability?
The Palestinian supporters knwon the the IDF have the capacity to wipe out Gaza but are upset that they aren't using it.
Yeah that's about the level of response I expected out of you. Nothing to prove the map is false, nothing to refute the reality of the situation. Just a crappy response minus the rhetoric that other pro-terrorists here spew.
The strategy for a long time has been "deterrence" through punishment of the civilian population. The Israelis don't want to kill every single Palestinian, simply because they will no longer be able to count on the support of the regimes which help to sustain them. Therefore they only want to kill every single Palestinian (or Arab) that they can get away with. They want to drive a wedge between the people and their representatives. In order to do so they target civilian structures which have even the faintest whiff of "plausible deniability". Let's not beat about the bush here - they have killed people in schools, in mosques, in civic buildings, in holding areas which their own forces designated for the civilian population, in police stations, in UN aid trucks, in family homes. Each time they do it, they trot out the same old excuses without any evidence. The article that Perndog posted from 2004, when a 10-year old was killed, illustrates my point about the sheer disregard for civilian deaths by the IAF, suggesting a tolerance (and therefore tacit acceptance) for killing civilians at the highest echelons. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/24/israel. The dude emptied ten bullets into a thirteen year old girl at near point blank range and killed her (she was shot at least seventeen times). The initial investigation concluded that the officer had "not acted unethically". After further evidence came to light clearly showing that the girl was killed in cold blood, the charges which were brought against the officer were for "illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and other relatively minor infractions". There are many other instances where civilians were killed in cold blood with the victims being blamed or no fault being accepted by the IAF. It is clear to me today that the Israelis wish to kill as many civilians as they can possibly get away with in order to teach "the people" a lesson. The tactic hasn't worked in the past, isn't working now and will not work in the future.
That paragraph is internally inconsistent. If the strategy is "deterrence", the strategy is not genocide. You lose all credibility when you imply that the Israelis would kill every single Palestinian if they thought no one was looking. As for your point about IDF soldiers killing people - yes, it happens. And, in my view, those solders should be strenuously prosecuted. But, of course, US soldiers in Iraq have done some of the similar things (and of course they were wrong too). And some have gotten short sentences. Does that mean the US strategy in Iraq is to kill all the Arabs it can? I find this conversation difficult to continue when one side explicitly targets civilian populations but then blames the other side for wanting genocide. I disagree with quite a few of Israel's actions (and I think this current escalation is borderline retarded), but the notion that Israel is full of blood thirsty Jews just dyin' for some Arab blood leaves me pretty disgusted at the entire "neo-left" establishment. I also find it amazing that while countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt do far more to oppress Arabs in the Middle East than Israel, Arabs aren't choosing to boycott them. Odd, eh?
hamas war crimes: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dershowitz10-2009jan10,0,4232460.story A bit of history to show just how the people in gaza treat each other: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/06/12/gaza-armed-palestinian-groups-commit-grave-crimes
That's something that's often said but, tbh, it's not really true. Look, the situation for most sensible people is quite straightforward. When Israel does something I agree with a say 'I agree with that'. When they do something I don't agree with I say, 'I don't agree with that'. In those sentences you could substitute Israel for almost any other country in the world and the resulting statement would be the same. In other words, most people, (not all, obviously), apply exactly the same logic and criteria to Israel as they would any other nation. According to a fella I saw on TV today Israel has lost about 40 people from the rockets that have been fired by hamas over the past 8 years from Gaza, i.e. about 5 a year. My country, Britain, lost over 3000 during the 30 years of the troubles in northern Ireland, i.e. about 100 a year. The weapons that were used against us were often brought across the corder from Southern Ireland but never, at any stage, did we consider bombing Dublin from land, sea and air. However, we did various things I didn't agree with and I wasn't shy about saying it at the time. I also supported calls for a negotiated settlement even if it meant 'negotiating with terrorists' with no conditions which is, of course, what happened in the end. Now, of course, the situations aren't the same with the IRA and Hamas as we've discussed many times before but they're similar enough to make the point, which is.... If I'm not prepared to accept extreme, (and counter-productive, IMO), actions from my OWN GOVERNMENT because we were under attack, why should I be willing to accept it from the Israelis? Like I say, I think they should be treated exactly the same as everyone else... and that cuts both ways.
great op-ed from the Guardian a few days ago http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine if its been posted, I apologize, but I have not read through the whole thread
The worst thing about that was that initial investigation was a whitewash. However, it has to be said that it was the actions of the soldiers there at the time that caused the further investigation, something I doubt Hamas would be likely to do. Well I agree with you about the second part but regarding the first, I think it's more a matter of it simply not being possible to fight 'clinically', (for want of a better word), in a geographical situation like Gaza without risking large casualties among your own troops. Now, obviously, some people might think that an argument not to pursue this sort of action in the first place but they haven't got an election to win and an incoming US presidential election victor of unknown hue in the next fortnight, have they
Maybe I'm borderline retarded, too, but on reflection it makes some sense to me. I figure that when they left Gaza, they knew that they'd have to go in someday to clean it up, and that was less painful than staying there. And they figure that cleaning it up now might be better than waiting for the new regime to weigh in in Washington. And they probably figure that this adventure isn't the last time that they'll have to do this. It will be a miracle if they don't have to do it again and again.
It is really not hard logic. The international community would not let them do mass civilian killings, so they strategically target hamas members located in civilian populated areas to fall back on the illusion that they were only intending to kill the hamas member not the dozens of civilians surrounding them. Israel has no intention in just targetting 'terrorists' otherwise their intelligence is full aware that this offensive has created and fueled many more terrorists around the world ready to fight against them then the ones they are killing.
I have been reading these sorts of posts for years now - never anything new, not before, not after. We have been trough ALL of this many times, why keep adressing new people with same thing. When something worth discussing will appear, I will reply. But when people insist that Israel is committing genocide, I can't take that seriously as it diminishes all other genocides that happened and are happening for real.
Maybe if Israel stops killing innocent civilian maybe then you wont read any of these. what are the real genocides that are happening right now? It seems to me your pointing fingers on a specific race. You cant take it seriously because you dont feel the suffering the Palestinians are suffering.
I guess you missed out on Darfur. Or Rwanda in the 90's, not to mention Bosnia where serbs were attempting genocide on muslims. And you act as though Israel are the only ones killing innocents in this war. I guess when hamas fires there rockets into Israel and manage to kill someone that is ok because those Israeli's aren't innocents right? Here, this should help you understand what genocide is: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007043
Glad someone has brought up Darfur, as a meeting of Arab and African foreign ministers set aside dealing with the real Massacre and Genoside going on there and are trying to resolve this current conflict. ~worm~
Exactly, Darfur is where a real Genocide has, and is taking place and yet it gets less then a percent of coverage that the fighting in Gaza has received.
Darfur is one for starters, Rwanda, Uganda, Congo, Somlaia for starters. It's good to read sometimes. As for what I feel, please don't say things you have no clue about.
Gaza is a front page story as you see the Arab nations being dragged in, when Darfur is Arab hypocrisy at it best. Well with Iran's and Hamas's solidarity with Sudan President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and disclaiming his war crimes he may be facing and are supporting him..All while the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court asked judges to issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. ~worm~
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/world/middleeast/11hamas.html?hp "Hamas rocket and weapons caches, including rocket launchers, have been discovered in and under mosques, schools and civilian homes, the army says. The Israeli intelligence chief, Yuval Diskin, in a report to the Israeli cabinet, said that the Gaza-based leadership of Hamas was in underground housing beneath the No. 2 building of Shifa Hospital, the largest in Gaza. That allegation cannot be confirmed." Short of attacking & occupying mosques & hospitals, I don't know how Israel can prove this.