The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Scroll to see replies

Original post by MattBerry96
I think a problem with both the pro-Hamas and the pro-Israel groups is that neither seek a solution to the end of the conflict, just more conflict.
The distinction is that the latter are kept in check by Israel's democratic system, whereas the former are regularly praised by Palestinians. Gazans interviewed as they emerge from the rubble of their houses say idiotic things like, "I still want to see Israel destroyed, but I am tired of the conflict now". And they wonder why they are living in squalor and rubble?
Original post by MattBerry96
But the point was that the Israeli bombing in self defence doesn't stand up in my opinion, especially given the death rates of children to name one group and that 80% of the causalities in Gaza recently have been civilians. That stat poses another question
Oh right, that's in your "expert" military opinion, is it? Everyone becomes an armchair military expert on what is disproportionate in wartime since the start of this conflict. Given Hamas sites their assets and operatives in civilian areas, what would be the "correct" percentage of civilian casualties?
Original post by well in the dark
I don't know what you want, for everyone to ignore all that Israel is doing simply because others are doing it as well? As someone already pointed out, ISIS are considered terrorists by the whole world, whereas Israel is considered a legitimate government. Israel is bound by a number of international laws to not commit atrocities on any scale. 'Israel just has questionable war tactics' well, that's what you think,

No, I said they were guilty of war Crimes.

Don't cherry pick.

that isn't what the dead and dying Gazans think, nor the Palestinians who live out substandard lives simply because Israel can do that to them with impunity. Your argument is flawed and rests on the 'tu quoque' fallacy.
Ive been to Gaza back when humanitarian relief was going through in 2011, what have you done to help Palestinians?

My argument isn't pro-israli it's anti-disproportionalism.

:rofl2: at you ending your staunchly pro-Zionist, deeply flawed argument with a statement implying pride in anti-Semitism and disclaiming favouring Israel when you obviously are favouring them over other named criminals.

In what way am I favouring them?
Saying "They aren't as bad as -insert worse people-" isn't favouring them, it's just saying there are worse people out there and that the Muslims focus on them is disproportionate to other, greater issues facing the Ummah.

If it was between Israel and Palestine and I could only save one, I would save Palestine..obviously.

Allow me to hold your reigns as you dismount from your high horse my friend.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
Oh right, that's in your "expert" military opinion, is it? Everyone becomes an armchair military expert on what is disproportionate in wartime since the start of this conflict.

Who said it was his "expert" military opinion? It is a human being's opinion; one does not have to be an expert military person to come to the basic human conclusion that 1,000 civilians dead is unacceptable, that bombing schools that are KNOWN to be off limits, hospitals and marketplaces is unacceptable.
Original post by young_guns
Given Hamas sites their assets and operatives in civilian areas, what would be the "correct" percentage of civilian casualties?

'Given' your propaganda, you mean to say.
We're not going to form our opinions based on your misinformation, thank you very much.
it's really long,any abridgement ?:biggrin:
Original post by young_guns
Oh right, that's in your "expert" military opinion, is it? Everyone becomes an armchair military expert on what is disproportionate in wartime since the start of this conflict. Given Hamas sites their assets and operatives in civilian areas, what would be the "correct" percentage of civilian casualties?


Where would you like to put them given the density of that region?

Do tell. I'm sure your alternative would be fascinating to dissect...
Original post by Zen Baphomet

Hell in a perfect world, I would finish up where Hitler failed.




You would destroy everyone who is not a white Aryan, straight, healthy German?
Original post by tsr1269
Where would you like to put them given the density of that region?

Do tell. I'm sure your alternative would be fascinating to dissect...


How about in every single settlement that the Israelis gave up in 2005 when they were forced to leave Gaza?

Top Nine Gaza Media Myths

This includes an answer to all of your arguments including the land argument which you've given in this thread. Seems like someone has fallen for media propaganda.
Myth: Hamas has no choice but to place weapons and fighters in populated areas since the Gaza Strip is so crowded that is all there is.
[INDENT][Hamas has] no other choice. Gaza is the size of Detroit. And 1.5 million live here where there are no places for them to fire from them but from among the population. (Taghreed El-Khodary, New York Times Gaza reporter, on CNN, Jan. 1, 2009)
[/INDENT]Fact: There is actually plenty of open space in Gaza, including the now empty sites where Israeli settlements once stood. The Hamas claim, parroted by the Times reporter, is nonsense.
Beyond this, placing your own civilians around or near a military target to act as "human shields" is prohibited by theFourth Geneva Convention:
[INDENT]Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
[/INDENT]Article 58 of Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 (which the Palestinian Authority has accepted) goes even further in this regard, requiring that Hamas remove Palestinian civilians from the vicinity of its military facilities, which would include any place where weapons, mortars, bombs and the like are produced, stored, or fired from, and any place where its fighters train, congregate or hide. Here is the text, which calls on the parties to the conflict to:
[INDENT](a) ... endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;
(b) Avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;
(c) Take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.
[/INDENT]Even UNRWA has weighed in on this, denouncing on July 17 the "group or groups" that had hidden missiles in a UN-run school in Gaza.
Hamas, as the defacto government in Gaza, is responsible for the missiles and other weapons hidden in civilian buildings and areas, and has clearly violated all three of the above provisions
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Et Tu, Brute?
Ground force operations...like I said...you know, like in the post you just read? You know that one, the one you quoted to reply and wrote a response to? It was in there, you must have missed it.



Really. So how about all the dual nationals who are able to avoid military service then? They must have been caught at the airport trying to flee Israel maybe. As for the ones who have to travel to Israel to join, I guess the hopped on the wrong flight and the gestapo were at the airport in Tel Aviv waiting to pick them up and throw the camos on them right away right?

Don't kid yourself into thinking a large number of these soldiers are not happy to be in the military regardless of whether it is compulsory or not.

And I never said anyone joins to willingly die. I said they join up knowing they could die...they know the risks.

Please go back to the part that I said it is a 'good idea to kill and waste your own men'? wtf are you even talking about.


Basically you want more people to die via a ground invasion. So you have completely not thought your solution through. That is what I respoded to.

What about the nationals that are born Israeli? Not every Jew has dual nationally. I agree most Jews volunteer and willingly fight, I would if I was Jewish, but basic military theory agrees with me that you don't simply try to kill more of your own men. You were pretty much saying Israel should risk the deaths of more of its soldiers in order to protect a couple more civilians? What kind of logic is that?

Soldiers dont join up wanting to die. They know the risk is higher, but they are not simply sheep willingly going to slaughter. The point of a soldier is to kill and not be killed.


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Et Tu, Brute?
I'm not saying well they have the iron dome, so sit back and do nothing...not at all, so don't bother with that angle.

I'm sorry, but no, every single civilian casualty is not Hamas' fault. The people of Israel are largely safe and sound, thus the destruction they are bring to the people of Gaza is not called for whatsoever. They have a military fully capable of taking on the Al-Qassam Brigades, greatly reducing the number of civilian casualties. Yes it will increase the number of dead Israeli soldiers, but unless you value the lives of Israeli soldiers (people who signed up knowing they could die) above innocent civilians, then I don't see a problem with that.


Here. Your military theology is flawed. No military in tye world wishes to maximise casualties on its own side if alternatives are there which could get the job done for a lesser price in their side.

Ground invasion would result in more civilians and IDF soldiers dying. Therefore they used air strikes and drones. This is perfectly justified and a moral thing to do. As you said, they simply can not sit back and take the rockets. Drones are the best retort, like it or not.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by merrill
Basically you want more people to die via a ground invasion. So you have completely not thought your solution through. That is what I respoded to.

What about the nationals that are born Israeli? Not every Jew has dual nationally. I agree most Jews volunteer and willingly fight, I would if I was Jewish, but basic military theory agrees with me that you don't simply try to kill more of your own men. You were pretty much saying Israel should risk the deaths of more of its soldiers in order to protect a couple more civilians? What kind of logic is that?
Posted from TSR Mobile



The number of dead soldiers wouldn't increase dramatically. Certainly not to 1500 soldiers anyway, the majority of them being women and children.

Also, I highly doubt that it would protect a 'couple' of civilians. It would protect a couple thousand more civilians likely.

Israel tries to justify them all as human shields. But at the end of the day, even if Hamas literally wore babies as body armor as they are portrayed in Israeli propaganda, it still doesn't justify killing the 'human shield'.


Anyway, I've had enough of this rubbish
Original post by miavdbt
How about in every single settlement that the Israelis gave up in 2005 when they were forced to leave Gaza?


They already do this....
Original post by merrill
Here. Your military theology is flawed. No military in tye world wishes to maximise casualties on its own side if alternatives are there which could get the job done for a lesser price in their side.

Ground invasion would result in more civilians and IDF soldiers dying. Therefore they used air strikes and drones. This is perfectly justified and a moral thing to do. As you said, they simply can not sit back and take the rockets. Drones are the best retort, like it or not.

Posted from TSR Mobile


So why did the USA etc bother to invade Iraq? Why didn't they just bomb it back to the stone age?

Looks like the flaws are all on you.

But yeah, I agree, the moral thing to do is definitely to bomb schools and hospitals and palm the collateral off as human shields right?

I've had enough to arguing with people trying to justify the deaths of women and children. Go take your fascist talk to someone else, I'm out of this thread for good.
Original post by tsr1269
They already do this....

The ruins of two large synagogues in Gush Katif, the evacuated Jewish communities of the Gaza Strip, have been transformed into a military base used by Palestinian groups to fire rockets at Israeli cities and train for attacks against the Jewish state, according to a senior terror leader in Gaza."

If this is what you're referring to, nowhere does it say that this is where they store their rockets. Considering that the area contained 17 Israeli settlements, you'd think it would be enough to store their scarce (according to Pro-Gaza supporters) supply of rockets.

To be honest, if they have this entire military base to store their missiles, and they still prefer to do so in civilian areas, then that is a deliberate use of human shields.
Original post by miavdbt
The ruins of two large synagogues in Gush Katif, the evacuated Jewish communities of the Gaza Strip, have been transformed into a military base used by Palestinian groups to fire rockets at Israeli cities and train for attacks against the Jewish state, according to a senior terror leader in Gaza."

If this is what you're referring to, nowhere does it say that this is where they store their rockets. Considering that the area contained 17 Israeli settlements, you'd think it would be enough to store their scarce (according to Pro-Gaza supporters) supply of rockets.

To be honest, if they have this entire military base to store their missiles, and they still prefer to do so in civilian areas, then that is a deliberate use of human shields.


Gush Katif, now Asda City is a civilian area...
Original post by tsr1269
Gush Katif, now Asda City is a civilian area...


Nowhere in the wikipedia article you provided did it state that (unless I missed it) . It simply stated that it was a military base. Which,if you're right, is even worse, because if you'd read the link I posted, this ultimately means Hamas is breaking a treaty which it agreed to.
Original post by miavdbt
Nowhere in the wikipedia article you provided did it state that (unless I missed it) . It simply stated that it was a military base. Which,if you're right, is even worse, because if you'd read the link I posted, this ultimately means Hamas is breaking a treaty which it agreed to.


So you didn't know that "Gush Katif" (Asda City) is now a civilian area?

I suggest you engage in some research before deciding to issue foolish statements which you are unable to corroborate or substantiate...
Original post by tsr1269
Gush Katif, now Asda City is a civilian area...


Furthermore, Gush Katif, plus a few other settlements which were not found in Gush Katif were demolished after 2005. Ultimately, Gaza could have done anything with the empty land.

If Hamas knew it wanted to develop its military and send rockets over to Israel, why would it build on every single settlement and make it civilian? Don't tell me Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. Whereas Gaza has 8666 people per square mile, Manila has 113, 810 people per square mile (simply for comparison purposes).

Thus, if Hamas wanted there to be military bases in Gaza from which it could fire without threatening its civilian population, it could have done so. It's not like there is no room for it, it's just lack of will.
Original post by tsr1269
So you didn't know that "Gush Katif" (Asda City) is now a civilian area?

I suggest you engage in some research before deciding to issue foolish statements which you are unable to corroborate or substantiate...


See my other post in which I quoted you.
Original post by Et Tu, Brute?
The number of dead soldiers wouldn't increase dramatically. Certainly not to 1500 soldiers anyway, the majority of them being women and children.

Also, I highly doubt that it would protect a 'couple' of civilians. It would protect a couple thousand more civilians likely.

Israel tries to justify them all as human shields. But at the end of the day, even if Hamas literally wore babies as body armor as they are portrayed in Israeli propaganda, it still doesn't justify killing the 'human shield'.


Anyway, I've had enough of this rubbish


I don't know where you have been taught, but I at Sandhurst, along with many others from other institutions such as West Point in USA have always been taught and experienced that a ground invasion is always more costly in terms of life and wealth than air strikes. If Israel did have a full ground invasion (as it is considering) more soldiers and civilians would die than if they just continued with the drone strikes. Simple.

Hamas, as I am sure you know, reside in a densely populated area. Sometimes they do knowingly and willingly fire short range missiles from civilian compounds or houses. Other times they dont wish to endanger civilians but have no choice as there is nowhere else to fire them from other than a hospital parking lot (lack of launch space). Don't be absurd in suggesting that Israeli propaganda says Hamas uses babies as body armour, because they have never said anything of the sort. What they do say, is that because Hamas is so ingrained into the local community and hides amongst it, there is bound to be civilian casualties.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you