Scores dead as Israel attacks Gaza

[GenSeneca]

I still think that the response by Israel is non-proportionate to the offence

I don't understand this line of reasoning and don't find it at all logical...

If a Palestinian suicide bomber blows up a bus and kills 25 innocent civilians, should Israel respond by killing 25 innocent Palestinian civilians and destroying a bus? Or should they ignore body counts and go after terrorist meeting places and hot spots to kill as many future bombers as possible?

My choice would be the latter.

 

[BigRob]

Do you think that maybe this "crisis" has been manufactured? I mean to say 50 rockets launched and a couple of Israelis dead neccessitates the killing of 250 ragheads? Does that not strike one as being a bit disproportionate!

Anyway the approval for the strikes would have had to come from the White House which again begs the question of why now? Is this intended to send a message to Mr. Obama and his relationship with Israel........ with an economic crisis at home and Obama spending billions on propping up the domestic economy don't you think Israel would be getting more than slightly worried! Israel only exists because of the money donated by the US so my take on this whole affair is quite simple. Israel is sending a message to Obama using a few pipe rockets launched by raghead nutters as leverage to secure its share of the US tax dollar in order to maintain its own existance.

This is a load of bunk (respectfully). Israel can carry out this action without explicit approval from Washington. At best they probably gave the US notice that this was happening.

 

[BigRob]

Israel has every right to defend itself. The Palestinians should crack down on themselves if they want to stop getting invaded.

 

[numinus]

The reason why collateral damage is so disproportionate is the fact that mobile rockets are launched and stored in populated neighborhoods. So, the number of civilian deaths is actually hamas' fault.

 

[Segep]

The reason why collateral damage is so disproportionate is the fact that mobile rockets are launched and stored in populated neighborhoods. So, the number of civilian deaths is actually hamas' fault.

OK, I can see that point. However, Israel, with its military superiority, has a moral obligation to take that into account and go to extremes to avoid as many civilian deaths as possible, IMO. When a two year old kicks you in the shins, you don't punch him in the face.

 

[Bunz]

I would like to re-interate my call for a major pork roast in the region. Any religion who denies its followers the glory such as the deliciousness of pork is bound to erupt in continious violence.

I would call it the bacon treaty!

 

[Bunz]

OK, on a more serious note here, but without discounting my previous ideas concerning a peaceful settlement of a very complex issue, I dont think either side is innocent.

It is quite easy for us in America and elsewhere to sit back and choose sides as if this was some sort of sports contest based on who we want to win. Unless we are there or have been there to fully understand the scale and issue of what is going on, is to say the least difficult.

That being said, in this case, Israel does have the right to defend itself. Hamas has been behaving badly by firing rockets into Israel. IIRC they started this, nearly immediately after the existing cease fire had expired.

So now, Israel replies in kind. That is the crux of this story for the last 60 years. A tit for tat over not much land. It is difficult for me to understand being from Alaska, where land is in abundance, and being more or less agnostic. I do plead ignorance on many of the issues that are the ground floor of this conflict.

But Palestine would be wise to rethink thier entire strategy because it has been utterly ineffective for the most part against Israel.

 

[Segep]

OK, on a more serious note here, but without discounting my previous ideas concerning a peaceful settlement of a very complex issue, I dont think either side is innocent.

It is quite easy for us in America and elsewhere to sit back and choose sides as if this was some sort of sports contest based on who we want to win. Unless we are there or have been there to fully understand the scale and issue of what is going on, is to say the least difficult.

Very well said, Bunz.

 

[The Scotsman]

If a Palestinian suicide bomber blows up a bus and kills 25 innocent civilians, should Israel respond by killing 25 innocent Palestinian civilians and destroying a bus? Or should they ignore body counts and go after terrorist meeting places and hot spots to kill as many future bombers as possible?

My choice would be the latter.

....I thought the position of the US was one of mediator in this region? If this is representative of the views then you should have no further say in the future negotiations and just add your weight behind Israel and join in the conflict.

 

[The Scotsman]

This is a load of bunk (respectfully).

And of course you will explain why........

 

[The Scotsman]

Apropos peace keeping.........

Commander in charge U.S.Navy Europe(CINCUSNAVEUR) has ordered Vice Admiral James Winnefeld, Commander Sixth Fleet(COMSIXTHFLEET) based in Gaeta Italy, to "deploy with haste" U.S. Naval forces from CTF60(Battle Force),CCTF61(Amphibious Force), CTF62(Landing Force),CTF63(Logistics),CTF67(Maritime Surveillance)CTF68 and CTF69(subs) to the Eastern Mediterranean for "Peace Keeping" under the auspices of UN Resolution 1701.

 

[Pandora]

There really shouldn't be any confusion regarding the land issue because almost everyone is using the regalian doctrine in one form or another.

He who wields sovereign power owns the land.

Even in the us, it is a valid principle since the people wield sovereign power. Private ownership of land exists at the sufferance of the state. And the state reserves the right of eminent domain if and when one's private ownership opposes the public good.

Take note that in israel's declaration of statehood, palestinian arabs where offered citizenship in the new nation -- an offer that was largely rejected. Now, they are being given a chance to forge a nation of their own, side by side with israel. They still can't seem to accept it -- insisting on land ownership based on the political realities of the ottoman empire.

Tell me, how should any rational individual proceed to negotiate with goat-herder logic?

I am not sure I agree that it is goat herder logic that is the problem. I think the land they fight over is more about Judaism/Islam. I think if that particular land was not so important to both faiths there would not be such a problem.

 

[BigRob]

And of course you will explain why........

Your claim that every Israel action must be sanctioned by Washington is simply false. That is why it is bunk in my opinion. The Israeli government will worry what Washington thinks about a situation yes, and will sometimes ask for permission, however, in every situation this is not the case. Israel does not ask for permission to defend themselves, nor would Washington expect them to.

 

[The Scotsman]

Your claim that every Israel action must be sanctioned by Washington is simply false. That is why it is bunk in my opinion. The Israeli government will worry what Washington thinks about a situation yes, and will sometimes ask for permission, however, in every situation this is not the case. Israel does not ask for permission to defend themselves, nor would Washington expect them to.

Washington is consulted and approval is sought for aggresive action taken in that theater of operations. Egypt, Syria and Jordan have to be informed so that their forces are not ramped up to a state of alert when triggers get itchy and actions mis-interpreted.

and the rest of my post.......?

 

[GenSeneca]

....I thought the position of the US was one of mediator in this region? If this is representative of the views then you should have no further say in the future negotiations and just add your weight behind Israel and join in the conflict.

I was refuting the absurd idea that Israel's strikes against Palestine should be proportional. Hamas targets civilians, Israel targets Hamas. Hamas tries to kill as many civilians as possible in their strikes, Israel tries to kill as many Hamas as possible in theirs... Is that proportional?

Now as for the US position, I don't know that we've ever taken the position of saying it was perfectly fine for Hamas (or any other group) to target civilians and I'm pretty sure that if the Israeli's used the same tactic, our support of Israel would fold.

So... do you think targeting civilians is a legitimate tactic? Seems like thats something you feel we should accept as legitimate before trying to act as a mediator between the two states, which doesn't make sense to me.