Gaza situation discussion

[Coyote]

As for firing on aid workers, it is hard to see what gain Israel would get out of it if they were just doing it to be difficult. Nothing is mentioned if they suspected that the UN personnel were being used as cover for an attack from Hamasniks.

As for firing at an ambulance, it could be a mistake, but there has been use of ambulances by Hamas, Hezbollah, and West Bank forces in the past to ferry troops and explosives.

Red Cross might be restricted from entering a site because the area is unsecured, and/or there may still be unexploded munitions. In such a case, the IDF is "damned if you do, damned if you don't", if they send inj aid workers who step on a unexploded bomb and it goes off, then what-- "Israel endangers the lives of aid workers!"

As usual, sketchy reports without the full story can be used to paint a picture. With many things in the MidEast, jumping the gun until you know the whole story is not recommended.

[[R_H]]

Going back to the UN school, the previous headmaster of the school was a bomb/rocketmaker for Islamic Jihad. Wonder how well they vet their employees.

If Israel's reponse had been with artillery, and not mortars, the number of fatalities would very likely be higher, as mortar shells have more trouble penetrating the type of construction in the region, and mortar shells have thinner casings than the equivalent artillery shells - meaning they produce lighter (and possibily less) fragmentation.

[bobalot]

I don't know about perfect, but I think I certainly have a better one. Let in food and medical supplies, take military action to take out the tunnels crossing the Egyptian-Gazan border, like they're doing now. Yes, some of the food and medical supplies will inevitably find their way to Hamas, but frankly, I weigh the needs of 1.5 million Gazans more important than depriving Hamas of food and medicine which they hoard already for their own members. ]

Except that humanitarian supplies were (and are being) let in, you idiot.
Humanitarian aid was let in before and during the conflict(s), UN aid, food, supplies, boat loads of volunteers, even electricity from Israel. Just this week There was a multi hour ceasefire to help the Gazans get the aid, in addition to hundreds of trucks that were let in by Israel now even while the rocket attacks are getting worse.
Read more sources you twat.

Reports of missiles fired from Lebannon into Isreal - at least 3? On TV, so no link

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130357
I already posted this in it's own thread.

Only a small number of supplies were let into Gaza for obvious PR reasons, way less than what is required for a city of 1.5 million people. 75% of the Population suffer from malnutrition and 46% of children suffer from acute anemia. Source for the malnutrition claim is Richard Falk, UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on the occupied territories.

Here is a quote from him, for every bodies convenience(my claims in bold):

Even before Israel's strike, the statistics we did have from Gaza were deeply disturbing. A recent study reports that 46 percent of all Gazan children suffer from acute anemia. There are reports that the sonic booms associated with Israeli overflights have caused widespread deafness, especially among children. Malnutrition is extremely high and affects, in varying degrees, 75 percent of Gazans.

Gaza typically spends at least 12 hours a day without power. Basic drugs and medicine are no longer available. The generators for hospitals, vital to keep seriously ill patients alive, lack fuel and often do not function. Medical staff cannot control the temperature of incubators for newborns. Those who need specialized care, including cancer patients and those in need of kidney dialysis, often cannot leave Gaza for care. There were an estimated 230 Gazans believed to have died last year because they were denied proper medical care. Several of these patients spent their last hours at Israeli crossing points where they were refused entry into Israel.

For six months the truce was observed, Israel continued its blockade regardless. I have never heard of a truce where one side is allowed to starve the other sides civilian men, women and children. It's a wonderful plan, really. Turn an area into a ghetto, starve the entire civilian population,wait for enviable attacks and have a convenient war just before an election (which they have been planning for 6 months, just about the time they signed the truce).

[[R_H]]

How many calories are they getting a day? The reason why there's widespread malnutrition is because most of the food aid they get is just carbohydrates, with very little meat and vegetables.

[Gil Hamilton]

It could also be simple incompetence on the part of the IDF troopers in question. The IDF is only a "good" army with respect to the fact that they are surrounded by even worse armies than them and frankly, they have a history of accidentally blowing stuff up that they really shouldn't have that have largely boiled down to poor discipline or a grievous mistake.

It's one thing that makes IvP discussions very hard. Say some Israeli pilot or tank blows up something accidentally or out of confusion/panic or miscommunication or incompetence;

The pro-Israeli side immediately goes through the inevitable cycle of first denying anything actually happened, then accusing whatever got blown up of really secretly being terrorists, and finally arriving at quietly going "Well, war's hard and this doesn't reflect badly on the IDF. Everyone blows up an ambulance or two by mistake".

The, ummhmm, anti-Israeli? Pro-Palestinean? Whatever side immediately ignores Napoleon and says the Israelis really did it out of malice, and not incompetence.

It's all kind of useless.

[CJvR]

I wonder what sort of confusion could lead to a UN ambulance getting shot by a tank.

If it actually is a UN ambulance or a Hamas APC, carbomb or weapons transport. It is this kind of shit that happens when the protected status of medical and humanitarian organizations isn't respected.

[Gil Hamilton]

If it actually is a UN ambulance or a Hamas APC, carbomb or weapons transport. It is this kind of shit that happens when the protected status of medical and humanitarian organizations isn't respected.

If it looks like and is marked a UN ambulance, don't you have to start with the assumption that it is what it looks like? You seem to be making a leap in logic to suggesting it was really Hamas and that's why the Israelis shot at it.

[[R_H]]

How many calories are they getting a day? The reason why there's widespread malnutrition is because most of the food aid they get is just carbohydrates, with very little meat and vegetables.

From BBC

The family's diet is heavy in bread, rice and vegetable oil. Earlier this month, a leaked report from the International Committee of the Red Cross found that this kind of diet - carbohydrate-rich, but lacking in vitamins - was causing malnutrition among Gaza's children.

[Coyote]

For six months the truce was observed, Israel continued its blockade regardless. I have never heard of a truce where one side is allowed to starve the other sides civilian men, women and children. It's a wonderful plan, really. Turn an area into a ghetto, starve the entire civilian population,wait for enviable attacks and have a convenient war just before an election (which they have been planning for 6 months, just about the time they signed the truce).

It depends on the truce. The Israelis have turned down truces before --which, of course, is loudly trumpeted as proof of their barbarism-- but if the "truce" offered was referred to as a "Hudna", then that is specifically a truce with infidels that Muslims can enter into for the specific purpose of re-arming and preparing for a more vigorous round of combat later. It came from Mohommed's early attempt to overrun Mecca after his exile, and destoy the Quraysh tribe that had driven him out earlier. When he and his followers got there, they fought but they didn't have enough troops or weapons, so he asked for a truce, which the Quraysh agreed to.

During the truce, he made plans for renewed hostilities as soon as the Muslims were stronger. When asked if this was ethical, Mohommed supposedly said that a 'truce with an infidel is a truce written on sand' or something like that. It took him 6 months to muster his forces, and he launched his attack, which succeeded. So a "Hudna" is a truce with infidels used to fortify your position, and it can be broken --traditionally after 6 months, because that is what Mohommed did-- without being considered breaking an oath.

I don't know if the Hamas truce was referred to as a "Hudna" or not, but if it was, then the Israelis knew it was only a matter of time before Hamas got squirrely again.

Someone over there needs to negotiate in good faith, and quick. But I don't think it'll be Hamas, since they benefit by being in a state of war with Israel-- it is their reason for existance. If there were peace, what would Hamasniks do? Pump gas? Mow lawns? As it is, they get to be "heroes".

[Serafina]

You would support a garrison in Gaza, what creating a buffer zone that extends, let's say 5km (wide enough that it would be extremely difficult to dig smuggling tunnels into Egypt) from the Gazan-Egyptian border into the Gaza Strip? Open the border a few hours a day to let people through, and the rest of the time Hamas would be busy attacking the garrison there, instead of targets in Israel (hopefully). Only problem would be suicide bombers on the border crossing checkpoints.

I did NOT say that i would support such a solution. Yes, my statement was misleading due to bad formating, but i do in NO WAY support an occupation of Gaza. I merely said that Israel could keep the rockets away if they did so - if only for the insurgents attacking military forces on their streets than shooting rockets and hoping they hit.

About the ambulance being hit: Accidents happen.
The isreali forces ar considered somewhat triggerhappy.
But even if it was an accident (i do not think that they woudl deliberatly fire on a UN-marked vehicle), it still shows that they are bombing indiscrimately. If they can not even check if there is a huge, blue "UN" marking on top of a vehicle, how do they know if they are bombing civillians or not?

[Elfdart]

It depends on the truce. The Israelis have turned down truces before --which, of course, is loudly trumpeted as proof of their barbarism-- but if the "truce" offered was referred to as a "Hudna", then that is specifically a truce with infidels that Muslims can enter into for the specific purpose of re-arming and preparing for a more vigorous round of combat later. It came from Mohommed's early attempt to overrun Mecca after his exile, and destoy the Quraysh tribe that had driven him out earlier. When he and his followers got there, they fought but they didn't have enough troops or weapons, so he asked for a truce, which the Quraysh agreed to.

During the truce, he made plans for renewed hostilities as soon as the Muslims were stronger. When asked if this was ethical, Mohommed supposedly said that a 'truce with an infidel is a truce written on sand' or something like that. It took him 6 months to muster his forces, and he launched his attack, which succeeded. So a "Hudna" is a truce with infidels used to fortify your position, and it can be broken --traditionally after 6 months, because that is what Mohommed did-- without being considered breaking an oath.

I don't know if the Hamas truce was referred to as a "Hudna" or not, but if it was, then the Israelis knew it was only a matter of time before Hamas got squirrely again.

Someone over there needs to negotiate in good faith, and quick. But I don't think it'll be Hamas, since they benefit by being in a state of war with Israel-- it is their reason for existance. If there were peace, what would Hamasniks do? Pump gas? Mow lawns? As it is, they get to be "heroes".

So because Mohammed broke truces in the Koran, the Palestinians can't be trusted in 2009?

[MagnusTheReD]

For six months the truce was observed, Israel continued its blockade regardless.

The truce has been repeatedly violated by both sides for it's entire duration.

Consider this: the ceasefire went into effect on July 19.
On July 22, Ynet reports that the siege is being partially lifted:

Israel lets more goods into Gaza as truce holds

Published: 06.22.08, 11:57 / Israel News

Israel increased the number of trucks bearing badly needed supplies into the Gaza Strip on Sunday as a truce with Hamas militants entered its fourth day, a military spokesman said.

Ihab Ghussen, a spokesman for the Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry in Gaza, said the increase was in keeping with the terms of the truce brokered by Egypt. The goods include milk, fruits and vegetables and other food products. Other goods, like cement, are supposed to be allowed in 10 days after the beginning of the truce, Ghussen said. (AP)

Two days later, a report about the first ceasefire breach comes along:

Shell fired by Palestinian in Gaza lands near Israeli community in first breach of agreed upon truce

Shmulik Hadad
Published: 06.24.08, 00:21 / Israel News

A mortar fired by Palestinian gunmen in Gaza early Monday morning landed in Israel's western Negev region.

The shell landed in an open area in close proximity to a community, but no injuries or damage were reported.
The incident was the first breach of the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and armed Palestinian groups in the Strip, which went into effect Thursday morning.

According to the Egyptian-mediated deal, after a few days of calm Israel is supposed to begin easing restrictions and allow the transfer of large amounts of food, gas, construction materials and other goods into Gaza through the Karni and Sufa crossings.

Residents of the western Negev were skeptical of the ceasefire's chances to succeed. "We are familiar with these ceasefires; the fear (of rocket and mortar fire) still exists," Aryeh Cohen of Sderot told Ynet.

"We sense that the truce was declared more for the benefit of the politicians than for the Negev residents."

On Sunday, Sderot residents awoke to the sounds of the Color Red alert system that ended up being a false alarm. Police thought at first that the system identified a Qassam rocket launched towards the city. The night before, the system mistakenly identified a launch from the Kibbutz Be’eri area.

The Palestinians were the first to breach the ceasefire. I didn't care to keep on looking at the subsequent reports, but I bet Israel responded somehow, either with fire or with tightening the siege, for which the terrorists responded with some more shit flinging, and so on and on (and on) for the entire duration of the truce.

Now, of course the question whether or not tightening the siege is a valid response to rocket fire is still open,
but the claim that the truce was observed (even remotely) is just plain wrong...

[Coyote]

So because Mohammed broke truces in the Koran, the Palestinians can't be trusted in 2009?

*shrug* I dunno. Word was the Israelis asked for an extension of the truce, but Hamas said no and started firing. "Hudnas" have been arranged before. In a way, they can be trusted-- to observe a Hudna for at least 6 months. During that time, you know they're stocking up for the next round, so in a way it's really pretty above-board. The nature of the Hudna has been reported in Israeli newspapers, so it's not really a big secret.

But again, I don't recall if this recent truce that ended was a Hudna. I was guessing, since it lasted 6 months and no one seemed to surprised that things flared up again.

[Kanastrous]

So because Mohammed broke truces in the Koran, the Palestinians can't be trusted in 2009?

If the Prophet and founder of a religion has embedded the concept of breakable truces-of-convenience within the religion itself, it should certainly be considered (among other things) when dealing with practitioners of that religion, when they talk truce.

[Guardsman Bass]

It depends on the truce. The Israelis have turned down truces before --which, of course, is loudly trumpeted as proof of their barbarism-- but if the "truce" offered was referred to as a "Hudna", then that is specifically a truce with infidels that Muslims can enter into for the specific purpose of re-arming and preparing for a more vigorous round of combat later. It came from Mohommed's early attempt to overrun Mecca after his exile, and destoy the Quraysh tribe that had driven him out earlier. When he and his followers got there, they fought but they didn't have enough troops or weapons, so he asked for a truce, which the Quraysh agreed to.

During the truce, he made plans for renewed hostilities as soon as the Muslims were stronger. When asked if this was ethical, Mohommed supposedly said that a 'truce with an infidel is a truce written on sand' or something like that. It took him 6 months to muster his forces, and he launched his attack, which succeeded. So a "Hudna" is a truce with infidels used to fortify your position, and it can be broken --traditionally after 6 months, because that is what Mohommed did-- without being considered breaking an oath.

I don't know if the Hamas truce was referred to as a "Hudna" or not, but if it was, then the Israelis knew it was only a matter of time before Hamas got squirrely again.

Someone over there needs to negotiate in good faith, and quick. But I don't think it'll be Hamas, since they benefit by being in a state of war with Israel-- it is their reason for existance. If there were peace, what would Hamasniks do? Pump gas? Mow lawns? As it is, they get to be "heroes".

So because Mohammed broke truces in the Koran, the Palestinians can't be trusted in 2009?

Considering that they've got a strong muslim fundamentalist streak (Hamas, at least), and that they specifically used the word "Hudna" (it's not like there aren't other words for "truce" or "peace" in Arabic, English, or Hebrew), I'd say that if they call specifically for a "Hudna", then there's a good chance that they're just planning on collecting themselves for a breather.

You know, the time to drive out Hamas was last year, right after they drove out Fatah. They hadn't had time to really settle in yet as the ruling authority, and there would be plenty of pissed-off Fatah supporters willing to kick their asses once Israel did all the heavy lifting.

[Elfdart]

So because Mohammed broke truces in the Koran, the Palestinians can't be trusted in 2009?

If the Prophet and founder of a religion has embedded the concept of breakable truces-of-convenience within the religion itself, it should certainly be considered (among other things) when dealing with practitioners of that religion, when they talk truce.

Oh really? Does that mean the story of the Rape of Dinah (Genesis Ch 34) is proof that Israelis can't be trusted and will only use a peace offering as a ruse to rob, rape, kill and enslave non-Israelis? No one in his or her right mind would ever trust a Greek again after reading Homer.

[Kanastrous]

Modern rabbinical Judaism doesn't endorse every last bit of savagery indulged in by ancient Israelites; there's a disconnect between the ancient and modern forms of the religion.

On the other hand, Muhammad is still held up as an individual to emulate, and practices and behaviors indulged in by his followers during his lifetime are still endorsed among Muslims, today.

*edit* plus, the particular Israelites doing the raping, etc weren't the founders of the religion. Their actions therefore don't carry the patina of authority, that Muhammad's actions - as founder of Islam and Prophet of God - can be expected to carry, for Muslims.

[TheMuffinKing]

So because Mohammed broke truces in the Koran, the Palestinians can't be trusted in 2009?

If the Prophet and founder of a religion has embedded the concept of breakable truces-of-convenience within the religion itself, it should certainly be considered (among other things) when dealing with practitioners of that religion, when they talk truce.

Oh really? Does that mean the story of the Rape of Dinah (Genesis Ch 34) is proof that Israelis can't be trusted and will only use a peace offering as a ruse to rob, rape, kill and enslave non-Israelis? No one in his or her right mind would ever trust a Greek again after reading Homer.

Edited, do to being beaten to the punch.

[Kanastrous]

UN Security Council passes resolution calling for "immediate and durable cease fire," with the US abstaining.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637/

[TheMuffinKing]

UN Security Council passes resolution calling for "immediate and durable cease fire," with the US abstaining.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637/

I wonder how the U.N. expects to enforce the ceasefire. Perhaps we will see tangible actions from the U.N. this time around? On another note, even if the U.N. decides to actually...act, then IMHO they will have to be willing to engage both side diplomatically and militarily to avoid being used as pawns by Hamas or Israel.

[Gil Hamilton]

On the other hand, Muhammad is still held up as an individual to emulate, and practices and behaviors indulged in by his followers during his lifetime are still endorsed among Muslims, today.

*edit* plus, the particular Israelites doing the raping, etc weren't the founders of the religion. Their actions therefore don't carry the patina of authority, that Muhammad's actions - as founder of Islam and Prophet of God - can be expected to carry, for Muslims.

While this is a complete non-sequitor to the thread, I feel somewhat compelled to point out that Moses was the supposed founder of Judaism and his bunch raped, murdered, and pillaged their way across the Sinai and Canaan for (supposedly) 40 years. And yeah, he is considered a pretty damn big deal to modern Judaism, what with being attributed to being the original author of the Torah and God's personal lawgiver. They don't call him "Moses Our Teacher" because of his geography skills (who the hell takes 40 years to walk across the Sinai?).

However, neither Mohammad or Moses are exactly relevant to the discussion here, are they?

[hongi]

I should add that the US fully supports the ceasefire, they just abstained from voting for it.

Israel and Hamas were not parties to the vote and it will now be up to them to stop the fighting. But the text of the resolution was hammered out by the United States, Israel's chief ally, and by Arab nations that have ties to Hamas and the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States "fully supports" the resolution but abstained because it "thought it important to see the outcomes of the Egyptian mediation" with Israel and Hamas, aimed at achieving a cease-fire.

[CJvR]

Another UN mediated Bosnian ceasefire?

Yeah that will work miracles, then the rest of the world can go back to sleep again.

[CJvR]

Hamas apparently have rejected the UN proposal, anyone surprised?

Oslo had a nice little riot yesterday when pro-Palestinian activists, many of palestinian origin, attacked a pro-Israeli meeting. 34 arrested, 10 for violence against the police.

Also some disturbing rumors of IDF bombing a house they themselves had packed with refugees.

[hongi]

Hamas apparently have rejected the UN proposal, anyone surprised?

They want the blockade gone before agreeing to any ceasefire. Israel doesn't. No ceasefire is forthcoming obviously.

Amnesty International accused both parties involved in the conflict of using civilians as human shields?

How, and since when is Israel using civilians as human shields?

Amnesty says:

“Our sources in Gaza report that Israeli soldiers have entered and taken up positions in a number of Palestinian homes, forcing families to stay in a ground floor room while they use the rest of their house as a military base and sniper position,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme. “This clearly increases the risk to the Palestinian families concerned and means they are effectively being used as human shields.”

I don't see how that constitutes using human shields. Although, Human Rights Watch states:

"Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. "Shielding" refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack. Taking over a family's home and not permitting the family to leave for safety so as to deter the enemy from attacking is a simple example of using "human shields."

So maybe I'm working from too loose a definition. Certainly, forcing the family to stay within the home sounds quite bizarre to me.