"Ret." wrote in message
news:lIWdnT0iT8R27P7UnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> The Todal wrote:
>> "Ret." wrote in message
>> news:QYSdndRl2cM39P7UnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>> The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Most bounday disputes in the UK do not involve one side firing
>>> missiles over the fence because they are angry the dispute is
>>> dragging on!
>>
>> Many involve acts of vandalism and violence, which the authorities
>> quite rightly punish.
>
> And it could be argued that that is what the Israeli's are doing - because
> there is no-one else with any authority over Hamas who can do that. The
> situation is not helped, of course, by the fact that Hamas are being
> supported and equipped by other Arab nations.
There is a world of a difference between catching a terrorist who has been
launching rockets and punishing him, and what Israel is doing which is
imposing a collective punishment on a community who live in a narrow band of
land, with nowhere to take shelter.
>
>>
>>> Do you believe that the Israeli's would have gone in to Gaza, or
>>> even begun their aerial bombardment, if it hadn't been for the
>>> thousands of rockets that Hamas have sent over the border? I don't
>>> believe that the Israeli's wanted this war at all.
>>
>> I think the Israeli government was under pressure from its citizens
>> to stop the Hamas rockets, even though they were rather less of a
>> menace than the IRA attacks we have put up with over the years.
>
> Although only a few Israelis have lost their lives to Hamas rockets - this
> is more to do with the fact that the Israelis have spent a lot of money in
> providing shelters and means of advanced warnings to protect their
> citizens
Also the fact that the rockets are very primitive in design and generally
land in open spaces, not that this is any excuse at all for those who are
firing them.
- as opposed to Hamas who deliberately put their fellow citizens in
> danger by storing munitions in Mosques, schools, etc. and by deliberately
> firing rockets from residential areas. They know the propaganda value of
> civilian deaths.
That's as may be. Hamas terrorists are probably ruthless bastards. Still
doesn't excuse dropping bombs on innocent civilians.
> And
>> to win votes in the forthcoming Israeli elections, they decided to
>> bomb the people of Gaza because they regarded them as expendable and
>> they calculated that the world would not raise any serious obstacles.
>
> Well, this is where we part in our thinking. The Israeli elections may
> well have had something to do with timing - but I don't really believe
> that the Israelis consider that ordinary Palestinian men,women and
> children are expendable.
They must believe that. Would they bomb Tel Aviv to root out any terrorists
who might be hiding there? No, because they know that however "surgical" and
"precise" their bombs are, it is inevitable that if you drop bombs you kill
men women and children who are non-combatants and innocent.
You can of course re-define "innocent" and say that everyone who voted for
Hamas is guilty and must live under a sentence of death. But that would be
unreasonable. I daresay many of the people of Gaza would say to Israel: stop
bombing us, let us live, and give us a list of the candidates you want us to
vote for, because yes, we'll put our cross anywhere you like.
> Their fight is with Hamas - but Hamas, by their policies, ensures that it
> is almost impossible to attack them without harming some civilians. You
> have to accept that so far the precision guided munitions used by Israel
> have caused more deaths amongst Hamas than amongst the civilian population
No, I don't. I suppose it depends to some extent on when you compile your
statistics (assuming it is possible to compile accurate statistics which it
probably isn't) but I believe if you define Hamas as the terrorists who want
to fire rockets, rather than the elected officials and police officers and
civil servants, then Israel has killed more innocent people than terrorists.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7811386.stm
"The bloodied children are clearly civilians; men killed as they launch
rockets are undisputedly not. But what about the 40 or so young Hamas police
recruits on parade who died in the first wave of Israel's bombing campaign
in Gaza? And weapons caches are clearly military sites - but what about the
interior ministry, hit in a strike that killed two medical workers; or the
money changer's office, destroyed last week injuring a boy living on the
floor above? As the death toll mounts in Gaza, the thorny question is
arising of who and what can be considered a legitimate military target in a
territory effectively governed by a group that many in the international
community consider a terrorist organisation."
and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7812286.stm
"Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, one of two foreign doctors working at Gaza's
biggest hospital, al-Shifa, said they had received a "new wave" of very
serious injuries on Monday. .... Israel has insisted that it is not
targeting civilians and accuses Hamas of using civilians as human shields by
operating in populated areas.
But Dr Gilbert said the overwhelming majority of casualties he had treated
were civilians. "Among all the hundreds we have seen so far, we have seen
two fighters," he said, adding that women and children alone made up 25% of
the death toll, and 45% of the wounded. "
Even if it was 25% innocent and 75% guilty, it would be unacceptable to me.
To use an analogy it would be like killing a Jean-Charles de Menezes every
week and justifying it by killing three al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan
or Iraq every week.
And see also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7814054.stm
"At least 40 people have been killed in an Israeli air strike on an United
Nations-run school in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian medical sources have said.
A number of children were among those who died when the al-Falluj school in
the Jabaliya refugee camp took a direct hit, doctors at nearby hospitals
said. People inside had been taking refuge from the Israeli ground
offensive. ... "
> and, as Melanie Philips points out, this is proof that the Israelis are
> doing their best to avoid civilian casualties where they can.
I wish Melanie Phillips could be sent on active service to Gaza as the
Mail's front-line reporter. I wish she could experience living under fire,
and then the cowardly ignorant bitch could be qualified to give an opinion
on whether the Israelis are doing their best to avoid civilian casualties.
>
>>
>> I suppose if the British army in the 1970s had attacked Catholic
>> strongholds in Belfast with machine guns and artillery, killing many
>> innocent people, there might well have been a groundswell of support
>> among Daily Mail readers. We have put up with enough, our patience is
>> exhausted, etc. With a smattering of: the Micks don't even contribute
>> to society, they are no better than gypsies, they never build
>> anything, they're thieves, never trust a Mick to keep to his word....
>
> But, again, the analogy is wrong because it was not the Irish government
> who were bombing us. If it had have been - then I believe there would have
> been widespread support for military action against them.
>
It wasn't the "government of Hamas" that was attacking Israel, either.
|