Those cries are made because IDF has killed THOUSANDS of Palestinians (the vast majority of which were NOT hezbollah or hamas fighters) in direct response to attacks that kill far fewer Israelis. As a sovereign state, you have responsibilities to uphold international rules of engagement. Just because your adversary doesn't uphold those rules doesn't mean you have carte blanche. Sorry, that's not how it works. Continued acceptance of the international community. This is what I mean by you can't have it both ways. If you think it's ok to play by the terrorist rather than sovereign nation handbook, then guess what... you don't get to play the sovereign nation protecting itself card anymore. a) Israel gets called out on shit. And you know it. As long as you have the backing of the US, the SecCouncil isn't going to call you to task for the very un-nation-like tactics you use. Oh, come on. Show me a single case where a hezbollah rocket killing civilians was considered "no biggie". They're a terrorist organization. You don't need a frickin UN resolution condemning their behavior. Why? Because they are terrorist, not a nation. By definition they don't play by the rules. It's not the color/style of the uniforms. It's the fact that they were killed without trial. If IDF was so sure that all 6 of those men were involved in that murder, then they should have arrested them and shown a civilian court the evidence and let them decide. The less a military is subject to the rule of law, they have less reason to be "sure" about their targets.
Hey, so when the U.S. bombs Al Qaeda in Afghanista/Yemen/Pakistan, is that against the law because they weren't given a trial? Here's what Hamas looks like when they're fighting [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGv8ylbfatU"]YouTube- Hamas human shields[/ame] They run around in Jeans and T-shirts, their AK-47s aren't even strapped on their backs. When their bodies get taken to the hospital, they are all counted as civilians. Even Nizar Rayyan, who was a general of Hamas, was counted as a civilian.
I missed the treaty that made Afghanistan a US protectorate under US law. When was that signed again? By whom? The PA? Who cares? Certainly not Israel, the US or most of the rest of the international community. If the international community condemns Israel for killing an innocent civilian named Nizar Rayyan, then you're aloud to bitch, ok? Even if 90% of casualties (a completely made up and impossible #) were terrorists mislabeled as civilians, it would still be true that Israel has killed a lot more innocent Palestinians than Hamas/Hezbollah has killed innocent Israelis.
If every other country kills terrorists who threaten it, then it is the epitome of hypocrisy to single out Israel and say they can not. They do, the PCHR numbers are the primary ones used. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml "The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan"
Why do you have a problem with counting Hamas members killed in non-combat situations as non-combatants? Or are you saying that it is legitimate to kill off-duty enemies outside of the warzone when they are going about their normal day-to-day life?
That completely makes no sense, why would the Palestinians create a country on other peoples land? They want their land back based on historical Palestine.
I'm sorry, but that should be totally irrelevant. Just b/c IDF has better weapons, it doesn't mean they should use RPGs to go after Hamas or IJ.
The US has nukes. That doesn't mean they should nuke Parachinar, Pakistan if they find out that Osama bin Laden is there. The quality/power of your weapons systems does not free you from the moral obligation of avoiding civilian casualties.
Its not the quality of weapons, it's the indiscriminate use of such weapons. Hamas, for instance killed far fewer people than Israel in the recent conflict, which is to be expected. But, despite their contraventions of the rules of war, their ratio of military to civilian deaths (even with their less sophisticated weaponry) was far more acceptable than israel's (Hamas killed ten soldiers to three civilians, IIRC).
What the hell does that mean? If you are a member of a terrorist group like Hamas, there are no weekends, this is not a part-time job now is it?
The only moral obligation Israel has is to protect HER citizens. Any other friggin army in the world faced with the same challenges that Israel is facing would kill thousands more if not tens of thousands, but becasue Israel is scrutinized more than anyone else, it has its hands tied half of the time to do what is necessary.
When members of Hamas or Hezbollah choose to hide and store their ammo, in mosques or schools, when they booby trap houses, apartments, when they USE UNIFIL and UN ambulances as their own transport - WTF do you expect?
So if nuking Tehran prevented the death of a single Israeli, that would be morally acceptable? Come on, be serious. You have no evidence to back up this statement. It is entirely your opinion.
While Israel has surely killed innocent civilians, I am a strong believer (as I said on multiple occasions before and will only say it once b/c I don't think my mind will change) that for the most part, IDF does its best to avoid such casualties. It's pointless to debate this point as such issue is very subjective. My point was Hamas doesn't try to minimize the civilian casualty, they just happen to have shitty weapons and are fighting a much more advanced army. Civilian casualties are a part of this horrible conflict. Nothing anyone can do about that, as Hamas won't stop using human shields and IDF won't stop bombing civilian structures to get to Hamas. I have no idea what makes a use of weapons indiscriminate. You had a debate on this issue with scarecrow and it got to nowhere. Again, what is acceptable? Who decides that? Also, how does anyone really know the difference b/w a civilian and Hamas fighter?
Hmm, check Russia and Chechnya. Well, they are fair game to Hamas now, all Israelis are, no? Specifically those "future" soldiers that are riding buses and enjoying discos. Sure, as long as it does not put their soldiers and civilians at more risk.
So you mean fantasy land? There has NEVER been a Palestine. And when Israel was created, the partition included a nation for Palestine, but it was your arab brothers who stole the land from you, go take it up with Jordan and Egypt about lost land. And while we are at it, during all those intervening years when "historical palestine" existed as you claim and now, what happened to that land? Who controlled it after the Romans?
Who gives a shit what the place was called? People have been fighting over your little piece of the world for a long long time. Fact is, when the Jewish diaspora managed to convince the British and other western powers to grant it a country there, there were most definitely people (who we call Palestinians) living there. How about both sides stop pointing to the past for why they're the victim? How about you start dealing with the fact that you're both there now and in spite of the wishes of extremists on both sides, that's likely going to remain the case for the foreseeable future?
'Apartheid Road' opened to Palestinians - Israelis-only highway through West Bank declared illegal in landmark case http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...heid-road-opened-to-palestinians-1852827.html Respect to the israeli Supreme Court in this instance. Doubts remain as to whether the road will actually be opened to Palestinians in five months time, but these policies of "settler only" facilities only fuel resentment and hatred. Props to the Association for Civil Rights in israel, and to Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch for getting this one right.
Again you are incorrect, based on historical accords today's Israel is historical Palestine. You can argue and twist every fact you want, but if you look at it in an unbiased way you'll see that the whole area was called Palestine. But the main point here is that the Palestinians don't agree with your opinion. They base their claim based on their beliefs.
Thus the problem. They base it on claims from their beliefs not from facts. Jews have always lived in that area, you can try to deny that, but it won't change the facts. The area was called Judea.
My little piece of the world? Strange, the US hasn't had fighting like this in quite some time. Keep on assuming you know where I am from based on my username. There were arabs living there, and there were Jews living there. Both groups have always had a presence there. And looking at the area, and the number of people, I fail to see how anyone can say that having that small sliver of land that Israel has is stopping yet another arab nation from having room to exist. And as I said before, the palis should be directing their anger at the countries that took away the land deigned for them, Egypt and Jordan. But instead they focus it on the Jews. Gee I wonder why?
Guys. It's the 21st century. Pretend you live in it, ok? Calling "dibs", especially when both sides have a legitimate point, doesn't help the problem. "3000 years of beautiful tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax... you're god damned right I'm living in the past!" (sorry, i live my life in movie quotes. that one seemed appropriate...)
Beliefs are sourced from facts, again stop twisting words, something you're very good at. Like it or not, it was called Palestine based on maps, the bible etc..