Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

The British systematically knocked on doors and raided houses in Northern Ireland. It was harsh for the innocent and infringed their rights, but it was a lot more humane than indiscriminate killing.

Israel has not been knocking on Gazan doors for ages, because it doesn't control Gaza anymore. Since 2005. Now what in the Irish conflict would be analogues to the firing of 1000's of rockets and mortars from Gaza to Israel?
 
What gives Israel the right to bomb Gaza and kill hundreds/thousands of innocent civilians then?

International law.

In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. However, forces occupying near densely populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near or in densely populated areas and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Failure to do so would cause a higher civilian death toll resulting from bombardment by the attacking force and the defenders would be held responsible, even criminally liable, for these deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law
 
If I follow you around on a night out flicking you for several hours, and you in retaliation punch me so many times that I get brain damage, there's only one person who committed a crime. The old 'but he deserved it because he was flicking me' argument would not get you very far with the judge.

Yes, only that launching 100's of Grad is far from "licking".
 
Yes, only that launching 100's of Grad is far from "licking".

And shelling an undefended, small, densely populated area causing hundreds of (largely civilian) deaths is equally as far removed from punching someone until they get brain damage, if not more so.
 
International law.

In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. However, forces occupying near densely populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near or in densely populated areas and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Failure to do so would cause a higher civilian death toll resulting from bombardment by the attacking force and the defenders would be held responsible, even criminally liable, for these deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law

Do you honestly believe that the Israel army didn't have optical devices capable of checking to see who they were firing at in incidents like the one on Gaza beach? Not all the IDF actions can be neatly explained away.
 
International law.

In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. However, forces occupying near densely populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near or in densely populated areas and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Failure to do so would cause a higher civilian death toll resulting from bombardment by the attacking force and the defenders would be held responsible, even criminally liable, for these deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law

Now when did Israel start following the Geneva Convention? :lol:

Get over mate. We are all dirt living in a land, whichever that may be in this small life of ours. Grow a heart. Stop being so bitter. Kids have died for feck sake whilst playing.

There is one oppressed people in this and it is not Israel. There is one people which the civilian death counter is rising on a daily basis and it is not Israel. One country has all the money in the world it could ever need, the best defence system in the world, the best tech, the best weapons, and has spent billions and billions of pounds on it. The other is being told to move out of their homes, leave everything, eventho they already have nothing and have been cornered and live in what is virtually a prison, or they get blown up with their homes. It is Ramadan too which is even more brutal. And yep, you guessed it, it is not Israel. I could go on.

There is no analogy needed. It is there in black and white for all to see. Whether you are blinded by pride, patriotism, or just numb to your fellow man. Whether Palestinian or Israel, no one deserves to live in fear and get bombed on a daily basis, especially woman and kids. There is nothing, absolutely nothing you can say with all your petty 'well they did that, so we do this' arguments. Seeing those kids blown up, and the reaction from Israel to it is sickening.

The sad thing is, if this was the other way around, the retaliation and the world wide media press coverage it would get. I just fear for the people out there.
 
International law.

In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. However, forces occupying near densely populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near or in densely populated areas and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Failure to do so would cause a higher civilian death toll resulting from bombardment by the attacking force and the defenders would be held responsible, even criminally liable, for these deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law

Since you have started bringing International Laws, please care us to show how many UN Sanctions Israel have broken till date.
 
Israel has not been knocking on Gazan doors for ages, because it doesn't control Gaza anymore. Since 2005. Now what in the Irish conflict would be analogues to the firing of 1000's of rockets and mortars from Gaza to Israel?

Nothing would rival the mortars, but likewise the bomb attacks conducted by the IRA are unrivalled. Gaza, Northern Ireland or wherever, the policies of Israel are not actions befitting a member of the UN, you are playing tit for tat with a terrorist organisation. And gladly, because every conflict further cripples the Palestinians. It's a sad situation which will go on and on, because neither has anything to lose. Palestine causes no real threat to Israel in conflict, and Israel has already taken the land and rights and quality of life from the Palestinians. It's very sad.
 
Since you have started bringing International Laws, please care us to show how many UN Sanctions Israel have broken till date.

None.

Israel has not violated any Security Council resolutions and the Council has never sanctioned Israel for noncompliance.

The myth you and other are referring to is the wishy washy Chapter 6 recommendations.
 
None.

Israel has not violated any Security Council resolutions and the Council has never sanctioned Israel for noncompliance.

The myth you and other are referring to is the wishy washy Chapter 6 recommendations.

Your location. Change it. There is no need for that. I won't allow the boards be used for displays of hate.
 
I saw that whole Clinton interview on Indian TV channel (NDTV) here. Spoke a lot of sense even though you could sense he was trying not to give any sound bite against Israel that could be used against Hillary.
 
Those are the lowest of the low. No matter how hard Israel tries to turn Christians and Muslims against each other inside of Israel itself, it won't work, we're all Palestinian, and this is not purely a matter of religion for most. I've talked to some of these lowlifes while working on a campaign against this notion, they have absolutely no knowledge of the struggle's history, most of them are doing it for money, many of them are selfish in wanting to side with the stronger.

I don't know why I'm arguing here though, nothing to be gained.

You call yourself what you like, and let others identify themselves as they wish. Should be basic stuff for someone wishing to upgrade Israeli democracy. Muhammad Zouabi represents yet another viewpoint. There is still hope, despite your current poor choice of representatives.
 
No they wouldn't. The British learned their lesson in the 1920s.

Even the King of England came out and condemned the crown forces for using heavy handed tactics in the 1920s.

Which might explain why the British slaughtered thousands of Palestinian in the 1936-39 Arab revolt.
 
And shelling an undefended, small, densely populated area causing hundreds of (largely civilian) deaths is equally as far removed from punching someone until they get brain damage, if not more so.

An even better analogy would be that you have a shotgun and someone is pointing a knife at you aiming to cut your throat? Would you use the shotgun or not?
 
What? Cuntastine, you think that's acceptable? We wouldn't allow it in the context of any nation race or creed.

Didn't see the location probably, but these last few pages have seen much worse stuff that skipped your attention.
 
If anyone has a problem with anything in this thread, please report it and refrain from using it as justifiction for expressing reciprocal insults.
 
Nothing would rival the mortars, but likewise the bomb attacks conducted by the IRA are unrivalled. Gaza, Northern Ireland or wherever, the policies of Israel are not actions befitting a member of the UN, you are playing tit for tat with a terrorist organisation. And gladly, because every conflict further cripples the Palestinians. It's a sad situation which will go on and on, because neither has anything to lose. Palestine causes no real threat to Israel in conflict, and Israel has already taken the land and rights and quality of life from the Palestinians. It's very sad.

When the Palestinians fight for the creation of a neighbouring state rather than one which would replace ours we will be able to be more creative.
 
Well I've told you what it was, do you feel it's acceptable?

And report stuff that is worse, please.

I have experienced much worse stuff here. This is an internet board which reflects a wide array of opinions, often coupled with cheap shots and personal insults. Personally, I have no issue with either.
 
An even better analogy would be that you have a shotgun and someone is pointing a knife at you aiming to cut your throat? Would you use the shotgun or not?

No it wouldn't. Change knife to toothpick and then you're about there.
 
I have experienced much worse stuff here. This is an internet board which reflects a wide array of opinions, often coupled with cheap shots and personal insults. Personally, I have no issue with either.

That wasn't really an opinion, a cheap shot or personal insult, and it wasn't in the heat of the moment or in context of a discussion. It was crass and uncalled for. And visible outside this thread and discussion. You have no issue, but find me having an issue laughable. Fair enough.
 
Why don't you go further and change the toothpick to a current bun.

Well the toothpick has a very small outside chance of killing you, and will at least do some damage if you're attacked with it. The current bun ain't going to do much. But then again, I feel somehow like you're just being facetious :)
 
Toothpicks don't kill. Mortars and Grads do. Even Qassams do. There is evidence in Israeli graveyards.

Well it's more the relative nature I was getting at, which you seem to be purposely ignoring. There's no way you can argue that the military strengths of Israel and Palestine are like a gun and a knife. The Iron Dome evens out the mortars and grads largely, making them largely ineffectual, albeit not entirely useless. Whereas the widespread bombing and hundreds of defenceless Palestinian (and largely innocent) casualties are very, very much more serious.
 
Well it's more the relative nature I was getting at, which you seem to be purposely ignoring. There's no way you can argue that the military strengths of Israel and Palestine are like a gun and a knife. The Iron Dome evens out the mortars and grads largely, making them largely ineffectual, albeit not entirely useless. Whereas the widespread bombing and hundreds of defenceless Palestinian (and largely innocent) casualties are very, very much more serious.

Do you suggest Israel stops all military action and just let Iron Dome carry on forever?
 
Do you suggest Israel stops all military action and just let Iron Dome carry on forever?

Well no, of course not. But if there's a sliding scale from total inactivity to utter annihilation, Israel is getting dangerously close towards the holocaust end of the scale, whereas I feel the reasonable, sustainable solution would be vastly closer to the other end. But as others have said, Israel has a lot to gain by maintaining its ultra-aggressiveness and has little to no incentive to be reasonable which is what most people find deplorable about the situation.
 
Well no, of course not. But if there's a sliding scale from total inactivity to utter annihilation, Israel is getting dangerously close towards the holocaust end of the scale, whereas I feel the reasonable, sustainable solution would be vastly closer to the other end of the scale. But as others have said, Israel has a lot to gain by maintaining its ultra-aggressiveness and has little to no incentive to be reasonable which is what most people find deplorable about the situation.

Please do let me know what 'reasonable, sustainable solution' actually means in military terms.

Please don't tell me what you wouldn't do. Thanks.
 
Well I don't have the answers, but I would suggest that it doesn't start with carpet bombing the ghettos in the Gaza strip.
 
Well I don't have the answers, but I would suggest that it doesn't start with carpet bombing the ghettos in the Gaza strip.

The most reasonable solution would be ground movement. Difficult but efficient. Also, it would predictably result in a higher death toll for Israel, which is why it's unlikely to materialize.
 
Well it's more the relative nature I was getting at, which you seem to be purposely ignoring. There's no way you can argue that the military strengths of Israel and Palestine are like a gun and a knife. The Iron Dome evens out the mortars and grads largely, making them largely ineffectual, albeit not entirely useless. Whereas the widespread bombing and hundreds of defenceless Palestinian (and largely innocent) casualties are very, very much more serious.

Iron Dome is useless with mortars. What is it with Israel-related issues that so many ignorants have an attempt at educated opinions?
 
Well I don't have the answers, but I would suggest that it doesn't start with carpet bombing the ghettos in the Gaza strip.

Ghettos, Nazis, Gestapo... Looks like you're all trying to convey a message here.

Carpet bombings.Do you know what they are?
 
Ghettos, Nazis, Gestapo... Looks like you're all trying to convey a message here.

Carpet bombings.Do you know what they are?

Well I could have just as easily said Stasi. Or the KGB. Or the Politburo. It's the general principal rather than the Nazi idea I was getting at and it was just pot luck that it came out as Gestapo. And are you really going to try and argue with me that there is no ghettoisation in Gaza? It wouldn't be hard to find similar pics of the Warsaw Ghetto and the West Bank with a 2 minute google search.

As for the carpet bombing comment, of course it's not ACTUALLY carpet bombing, shame on me for using a little hyperbole in a discussion :rolleyes: