Hamas is more than just an armed brigade it consists of political and civil service wings as well and targeted people specifically for their political affiliation is a war crime as well. Anything associated with Hamas isn't militarily fair game. There is no military benefits to bombing empty homes of civilian infrastructure.
It is not the same because Israelis are not welcoming people to use their homes as launch sites or bases of operation.One you do that, your home is not a home it is military complex and should be dealt with as a military target.Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, Egypt and Japan to name a few all classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. It should be treated as a terrorist organization.
Topic: Israel: Operation Protective Edge - page 30. (Read 14685 times)
Hamas is more than just an armed brigade it consists of political and civil service wings as well and targeted people specifically for their political affiliation is a war crime as well. Anything associated with Hamas isn't militarily fair game. There is no military benefits to bombing empty homes of civilian infrastructure.
It is not the same because Israelis are not welcoming people to use their homes as launch sites or bases of operation.One you do that, your home is not a home it is military complex and should be dealt with as a military target.Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, Egypt and Japan to name a few all classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. It should be treated as a terrorist organization.
Hamas is more than just an armed brigade it consists of political and civil service wings as well and targeted people specifically for their political affiliation is a war crime as well. Anything associated with Hamas isn't militarily fair game. There is no military benefits to bombing empty homes of civilian infrastructure.
Normal wartime strategy and policy does not work and does not apply when your opponent does not care to follow them either.
Hamas maybe the ones holding the guns, but Gaza sat idly by and didn't do a thing to stop it. They were complicit in the attacks.
Finally, if someone invites Hamas into their home and argues that they have women and children, so they cannot or should not be bombed, they have no right to cry when they are.
Israel absolutely strikes back at rocket launch sites and has done so consistently outside of this operation. Hamas maybe the ones holding the guns, but Gaza sat idly by and didn't do a thing to stop it. They were complicit in the attacks.
Finally, if someone invites Hamas into their home and argues that they have women and children, so they cannot or should not be bombed, they have no right to cry when they are.
That is the same justification that Hamas used for the targeting of Israeli civilians. Congratulations you support terrorism.
Normal wartime strategy and policy does not work and does not apply when your opponent does not care to follow them either.
Hamas maybe the ones holding the guns, but Gaza sat idly by and didn't do a thing to stop it. They were complicit in the attacks.
Finally, if someone invites Hamas into their home and argues that they have women and children, so they cannot or should not be bombed, they have no right to cry when they are.
Israel absolutely strikes back at rocket launch sites and has done so consistently outside of this operation. Hamas maybe the ones holding the guns, but Gaza sat idly by and didn't do a thing to stop it. They were complicit in the attacks.
Finally, if someone invites Hamas into their home and argues that they have women and children, so they cannot or should not be bombed, they have no right to cry when they are.
Normal wartime strategy and policy does not work and does not apply when your opponent does not care to follow them either.
Hamas maybe the ones holding the guns, but Gaza sat idly by and didn't do a thing to stop it. They were complicit in the attacks.
Finally, if someone invites Hamas into their home and argues that they have women and children, so they cannot or should not be bombed, they have no right to cry when they are.
Israel absolutely strikes back at rocket launch sites and has done so consistently outside of this operation. Hamas maybe the ones holding the guns, but Gaza sat idly by and didn't do a thing to stop it. They were complicit in the attacks.
Finally, if someone invites Hamas into their home and argues that they have women and children, so they cannot or should not be bombed, they have no right to cry when they are.
Normal wartime strategy and policy does not work and does not apply when your opponent does not care to follow them either.
Hamas maybe the ones holding the guns, but Gaza sat idly by and didn't do a thing to stop it. They were complicit in the attacks.
Finally, if someone invites Hamas into their home and argues that they have women and children, so they cannot or should not be bombed, they have no right to cry when they are.
Hamas maybe the ones holding the guns, but Gaza sat idly by and didn't do a thing to stop it. They were complicit in the attacks.
Finally, if someone invites Hamas into their home and argues that they have women and children, so they cannot or should not be bombed, they have no right to cry when they are.
The thing is, Israel attacks terrorist/military targets while Hamas attacks civilian targets. And Israel's military doesn't hide behind civilians when conducting their operations the way Hamas does.
No one is suggesting that Hamas doesn't use weapons that target indiscriminately, or that the Al-Qassam Brigade is a terrorist organization. But Israel absolutely does deliberately target civilian targets such as the bombing of civilian homes and civilian infrastructure. It also routinely violates the laws of war through some of its military tactics such as using cluster munitions in high population areas. Also, when it comes to human shields I'd suggest that you look up the IDF's neighbor policy. It was even ruled illegal by the Israeli high court in 2005 but is still used off and on in the field.
I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.
This.Gaza had fired over 150+ rockets into Israel for over the course of a month. Israel did something that surprised and disappointed me. They didn't shoot back.
I applaud them for trying to keep peaceful. But I do not like the idea of ignoring a bully. If someone keeps pushing you, you should stand up and push back. Yet Israel sat on their hands.
This conflict should have happen sooner. It could have been avoided, but it wasn't and so it should have happen sooner.
The thing is, Israel attacks terrorist/military targets while Hamas attacks civilian targets. And Israel's military doesn't hide behind civilians when conducting their operations the way Hamas does.
No one is suggesting that Hamas doesn't use weapons that target indiscriminately, or that the Al-Qassam Brigade is a terrorist organization. But Israel absolutely does deliberately target civilian targets such as the bombing of civilian homes and civilian infrastructure. It also routinely violates the laws of war through some of its military tactics such as using cluster munitions in high population areas. Also, when it comes to human shields I'd suggest that you look up the IDF's neighbor policy. It was even ruled illegal by the Israeli high court in 2005 but is still used off and on in the field.
The thing is, Israel attacks terrorist/military targets while Hamas attacks civilian targets. And Israel's military doesn't hide behind civilians when conducting their operations the way Hamas does.
No one is suggesting that Hamas doesn't use weapons that target indiscriminately, or that the Al-Qassam Brigade is a terrorist organization. But Israel absolutely does deliberately target civilian targets such as the bombing of civilian homes and civilian infrastructure. It also routinely violates the laws of war through some of its military tactics such as using cluster munitions in high population areas. Also, when it comes to human shields I'd suggest that you look up the IDF's neighbor policy. It was even ruled illegal by the Israeli high court in 2005 but is still used off and on in the field.
The thing is, Israel attacks terrorist/military targets while Hamas attacks civilian targets. And Israel's military doesn't hide behind civilians when conducting their operations the way Hamas does.
Zolace,Starscream,a lot of people think that. That's why its part of the Geneva Conventions. Our own society doesn't legally support it either. I, and generally speaking much of the Israeli army would assert that such responses to violence tend to be counter productive and instead promote further escalations and cycles of violence.
That's the key here. If anyone could come up with a way to end the cycles of violence, a lot of things could be solved.You mentioned earlier that Israel is main obstacle to peace. I disagree. I do think they are an equal partner in obstructionism, though. I know, and the Israelis know that so long as children are taught to hate Israelis from day 1 at school, there is another generation coming that will hate Jews, and continue fighting over historical wrongs. That path leads to never-ending war. Anything the Israelis do at this point is going to be negated by the next generation of kids growing up with hatred.
Please bear in mind I am well aware that Israel has a vested interested in not allowing peace. Peace doesn't really work for them at this point. But the Palestinians are making it easy for them to make it look all defensive, and not giving the US any reason to force Israel to back down. War works against the Palestinians, and they are being dumb enough to keep going. Such is the stupidity in the area. I guess I would say it depends on what other people are using as definitions of counter productivity. Motive is key .
Is there any reason in particular why you don't find the PA under Abbas to be a realistic partner for peace?
I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.
What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment? Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
Seems relatively straight forward, and I don't see how collateral damage would apply normally. If the intent was to destroy property in the vicinity as punishment for something the people didn't actually do, then yes.
Collective punishment would be what I mentioned: demolishing the houses of family members accused of crimes. The family didn't do anything, the criminal did. Flying sonic booms over Gaza in order to instill terror into the general population is collective punishment as well, as is the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure such as water systems. When the kids went missing one of the first things that Israel did was cut the fishing rights of Palestinians in Gaza and cut off medical and electricity resupply to the strip which has precipitated shortages of medicine more severe than any that have been seen since 2007. That is collective punishment as well and illegal.
I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.
What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment? Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
Seems relatively straight forward, and I don't see how collateral damage would apply normally. If the intent was to destroy property in the vicinity as punishment for something the people didn't actually do, then yes.
I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.
What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment? Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
Seems relatively straight forward, and I don't see how collateral damage would apply normally. If the intent was to destroy property in the vicinity as punishment for something the people didn't actually do, then yes.
I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.
What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment? http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule97
International and non-international armed conflicts
In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).[1] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[2]
Zolace,Starscream,a lot of people think that. That's why its part of the Geneva Conventions. Our own society doesn't legally support it either. I, and generally speaking much of the Israeli army would assert that such responses to violence tend to be counter productive and instead promote further escalations and cycles of violence.
That's the key here. If anyone could come up with a way to end the cycles of violence, a lot of things could be solved.You mentioned earlier that Israel is main obstacle to peace. I disagree. I do think they are an equal partner in obstructionism, though. I know, and the Israelis know that so long as children are taught to hate Israelis from day 1 at school, there is another generation coming that will hate Jews, and continue fighting over historical wrongs. That path leads to never-ending war. Anything the Israelis do at this point is going to be negated by the next generation of kids growing up with hatred.
Please bear in mind I am well aware that Israel has a vested interested in not allowing peace. Peace doesn't really work for them at this point. But the Palestinians are making it easy for them to make it look all defensive, and not giving the US any reason to force Israel to back down. War works against the Palestinians, and they are being dumb enough to keep going. Such is the stupidity in the area. I guess I would say it depends on what other people are using as definitions of counter productivity. Motive is key .
I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.
What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment? http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule97
International and non-international armed conflicts
In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).[1] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[2]
I would suggest most people in first world countries have a problem with the concept of collective punishment. I certainly do. Israel has no blame here. They have a right to exist, and be where they are at. The Palestinians choose war over peace.
What I mean is, the concept of collective punishment is too ill-defined to really have a black and white opinion about it. I'm not sure how the geneva conventions defines it. E.g. does collateral damage count as collective punishment? Jump to: