Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

When human shields are used, who is more guilty... Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Okay, just to clear up this point about Israel protecting itself from rocket attacks: they have arguably the most advanced, most effective missile interception system the world has ever seen. This system is far more effective at preventing specific attacks on Israel than firing rockets into Gaza will ever be, and it does so at zero cost of life to Palestinian civilians. Why, then, does Israel need so desperately to flatten entire districts of Gaza in 'defending itself', and indiscriminately killing hundreds of Palestinians in the process?

    The existence of Hamas in Gaza is simply a convenient excuse for Israel to commit war crimes. I'm not picking sides - I'm not condoning Hamas at all - but you seem set on defending the indefensible here.
    So they just sit back and defend theirselves in a decades long war which will not stop. That is unfair. Like telling a man to accept abuse from a women and never act. I suggest you look into the financial costs of maintaining the iron dome and other anti-missile systems. Israel cannot simply pouring money into it. I know for a fact if someone smaller than me kept attacking me after a while I will hit back of they did not stop which is exactly what Palestine are doing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Okay, just to clear up this point about Israel protecting itself from rocket attacks: they have arguably the most advanced, most effective missile interception system the world has ever seen. This system is far more effective at preventing specific attacks on Israel than firing rockets into Gaza will ever be, and it does so at zero cost of life to Palestinian civilians. Why, then, does Israel need so desperately to flatten entire districts of Gaza in 'defending itself', and indiscriminately killing hundreds of Palestinians in the process?

    The existence of Hamas in Gaza is simply a convenient excuse for Israel to commit war crimes. I'm not picking sides - I'm not condoning Hamas at all - but you seem set on defending the indefensible here.
    If somebody started lobbing missiles at Beijing or Moscow, what do you think the response would be? Regardless of if they were intercepted or not.

    And they aren't all intercepted. One landed less than a mile from the main airport the other day, shutting down most international traffic in the process. How would the UK react if a rocket landed a mile from Heathrow?

    Just because they can intercept the majority does not remove the need to search and destroy the source.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    You are correct, the reason so few israelis are dying is down to iron dome, but also the fact that they scurry into shelters when ever there is attacks, which lately is pretty constantly. We are talking hundreds of rockets launched at them.
    So what are they to do? Live their life in constant fear/ running to shelters, while hamas and palastinians go about their business freely?
    If it wasnt for iron dome and the shelters palastinians would be dying in even greater numbers, as more Israelis would be dying but hamas would still be happily attacking.
    Israel is over reacting and is wrong to do so, but how many countries do you think would live under the constant threat and reality of daily rocket attacks without reacting with counter violence.
    Kerry condemed them, but what do you thinkAmericas response would be, after years of negotiations, ceasefires,then more attacks etc leading to constant rocket attacks from Mexico, hitting the southern cities of the USA?
    How would you feel having to constantly be ready to run for a shelter here in the uk. Imagine having had 40 yrs of the IRA terror here, but much worse, IRA on steroids with the backing of Dublin.
    Hundreds of rockets, most of which dont get through, but still have you stressed out, living in fear all the time.
    How long until you and your neighbours were clamering for the British government to attack back to put a stop to it?
    Israel are over reacting, but it is far from one sided.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    In law there is no question: the force that actually controls a piece of territory is responsible for evacuating civilians, not the force that wants to attack military targets in that territory. It's kind of obvious to do it that way, to avoid rewarding the use of human shields everywhere.

    However, in a later bid to extend nice protections even more broadly, bringing us closer to making war a fun experience for all, all penalties for breaching the laws of war were removed in the 1977 Geneva Protocols. As a result, we're effectively back in the 19th century state of total lawlessness, minus even the good manners of that time, and Hamas is therefore responding to the incentives propagated by the Western press, not by the actual law.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Okay, just to clear up this point about Israel protecting itself from rocket attacks: they have arguably the most advanced, most effective missile interception system the world has ever seen. This system is far more effective at preventing specific attacks on Israel than firing rockets into Gaza will ever be, and it does so at zero cost of life to Palestinian civilians. Why, then, does Israel need so desperately to flatten entire districts of Gaza in 'defending itself', and indiscriminately killing hundreds of Palestinians in the process?
    While you may be aware of this, words still have meanings, and "indiscriminately" means "without discrimination" which is old-fashioned speak for "without regard for target". Do you really believe that Israel is bombing completely random districts, with absolutely no target in mind? And if it is, what does it hope to achieve by killing just 500 people, a uselessly small number relative to the 1,800,000 people who live in Gaza. In fact if wikipedia is to be believed more than 1,300 new Gazans are born every day. I remind you that in 1939-1945 we killed more than half a million Germans by bombing, and even that wasn't quite indiscriminate.

    So is it not more likely that Israel is bombing sites where rockets are build, stored, or controlled, in order to prevent a future attack that could not be intercepted?

    The existence of Hamas in Gaza is simply a convenient excuse for Israel to commit war crimes. I'm not picking sides - I'm not condoning Hamas at all - but you seem set on defending the indefensible here.
    If it's true that Hamas - the democratically elected government of Gaza - is militarily irrelevant and cannot hope to win, but invites retaliation, then the obvious way out for Gaza is for Hamas to unconditionally surrender to Israel, or else for Gazans to elect a new party that will. Unless, of course, Hamas and its electorate have violent aims of their own which they still hope to see realised.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Human shield allegations are simply Zionist propoganda. The Israelis are bombing and hence killing civilians. That is it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MASTER265)
    So they just sit back and defend theirselves in a decades long war which will not stop. That is unfair. Like telling a man to accept abuse from a women and never act. I suggest you look into the financial costs of maintaining the iron dome and other anti-missile systems. Israel cannot simply pouring money into it. I know for a fact if someone smaller than me kept attacking me after a while I will hit back of they did not stop which is exactly what Palestine are doing.
    Iron Dome cost a couple hundred million. Israel gets $3bn dollars per annum from the US, and has done since 1985.

    This isn't like eventually hitting someone smaller who's hitting you constantly. This is like waiting for them to hit you so you have the excuse to pummel them until their teeth come loose.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    If somebody started lobbing missiles at Beijing or Moscow, what do you think the response would be? Regardless of if they were intercepted or not.

    And they aren't all intercepted. One landed less than a mile from the main airport the other day, shutting down most international traffic in the process. How would the UK react if a rocket landed a mile from Heathrow?

    Just because they can intercept the majority does not remove the need to search and destroy the source.
    Let's say Ukraine was firing missiles at Moscow. Chances are Russia could respond by destroying the launching sites with minimal civilian casualties, since Ukraine' population density is about 200 per square mile. Gaza's population density is about 13,000 per square mile. That would be like if Hong Kong were firing missiles at Guangzhou, and China responded by bringing the rain on Hong Kong, regardless of civilian life.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    While you may be aware of this, words still have meanings, and "indiscriminately" means "without discrimination" which is old-fashioned speak for "without regard for target". Do you really believe that Israel is bombing completely random districts, with absolutely no target in mind? And if it is, what does it hope to achieve by killing just 500 people, a uselessly small number relative to the 1,800,000 people who live in Gaza. In fact if wikipedia is to be believed more than 1,300 new Gazans are born every day. I remind you that in 1939-1945 we killed more than half a million Germans by bombing, and even that wasn't quite indiscriminate.

    So is it not more likely that Israel is bombing sites where rockets are build, stored, or controlled, in order to prevent a future attack that could not be intercepted?


    If it's true that Hamas - the democratically elected government of Gaza - is militarily irrelevant and cannot hope to win, but invites retaliation, then the obvious way out for Gaza is for Hamas to unconditionally surrender to Israel, or else for Gazans to elect a new party that will. Unless, of course, Hamas and its electorate have violent aims of their own which they still hope to see realised.
    Sorry, you're right. I can't be sure that they're bombing without target. The below article suggests that they may actually be aiming at schools, hospitals and ambulances.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9627173.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Sorry, you're right. I can't be sure that they're bombing without target. The below article suggests that they may actually be aiming at schools, hospitals and ambulances.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9627173.html
    Of course, it makes complete sense!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    What would be your excuse if (or when) they start firing rockets from the mostly uninhabited West Bank? that's if Israel is foolish enough to withdraw from there.
    Pardon?

    I don't know what you mean by 'excuse'. What I am opposed to is Israel's disregard (possibly even contempt) for Palestinian civilian lives. If Israel could and did target missile launching sites with minimal risk of civilian casualties, then the concerns I've expressed in this thread would no longer apply.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure what to think about this whole thing anymore. Initially, I thought that Israel were worse, but Hamas were still guilty.
    But, some people have made very good points in this thread. Hamas are definitely using their civilians as shields, which is far worse. Do Israel really have a choice? Should they simply let Hamas keep firing so that they don't kill civilians being used by Hamas?

    It's horrible that all these innocent people are being killed, but it seems like Hamas are the ones happiest about it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Of course, it makes complete sense!
    When the UN is questioning Israel's targeting policy, I think that gives the rest of us some licence to do the same, don't you think? The israelis directly bombed a UN school which they were given the specific coordinates for, then refused to allow the school to evacuate. The BBC are also covering this if you'd like another news source - includes footage.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28478792
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    When the UN is questioning Israel's targeting policy, I think that gives the rest of us some licence to do the same, don't you think? The israelis directly bombed a UN school which they were given the specific coordinates for, then refused to allow the school to evacuate. The BBC are also covering this if you'd like another news source - includes footage.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28478792
    For what reason do you believe that Israel is intentionally attacking targets it knows to be of no military value, in a way that weakens its ability to continue its campaign?

    Does it make more sense that Israel is doing that for the fun of it, or because their opponents deliberately hide military targets in civilian areas to maximise the PR blowback of any Israeli action, and that the Independent and BBC are selectively presenting only those targets which turn out to be mistaken, or can be presented that way?

    Alternatively do you believe, as the real crazies do, that Israel is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza by killing 0.02% of its population every few years?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    For what reason do you believe that Israel is intentionally attacking targets it knows to be of no military value, in a way that weakens its ability to continue its campaign?

    Does it make more sense that Israel is doing that for the fun of it, or because their opponents deliberately hide military targets in civilian areas to maximise the PR blowback of any Israeli action, and that the Independent and BBC are selectively presenting only those targets which turn out to be mistaken, or can be presented that way?

    Alternatively do you believe, as the real crazies do, that Israel is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza by killing 0.02% of its population every few years?
    If I ever said that I believe Israel to be intentionally attacking civilians, I misspoke. What I think I said is that I can't be sure that they're not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    If I ever said that I believe Israel to be intentionally attacking civilians, I misspoke. What I think I said is that I can't be sure that they're not.
    This sounds clear and unequivocal: "The fact of the matter is that Israel is committing crimes against humanity, and has been doing so for the last 70 years.".

    So since you now believe it is a matter of probability rather than fact, do you consider the probability that Israel is intentionally attacking civilians for no military or political purpose to be high, moderate, low, very low, or negligible? And why?


    edit: This statement in the quote in the above post also seems to have been written by you, "Israeli leaders dream of mass genocide and cleansing of Palestine and it's non-Jewish population.". While on its own it could be viewed as sarcastic, I'm not sure it can be when paired with the second statement about crimes against humanity.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    This sounds clear and unequivocal: "The fact of the matter is that Israel is committing crimes against humanity, and has been doing so for the last 70 years.".

    So since you now believe it is a matter of probability rather than fact, do you consider the probability that Israel is intentionally attacking civilians for no military or political purpose to be high, moderate, low, very low, or negligible? And why?
    Israel has been the subject of numerous resolutions by the UN - 28 by the Security Council and about 100 by the General Assembly, last time I checked. That statement was based on those UN resolutions, not my personal feelings about what Israel may be intending to accomplish.

    How can I possibly evaluate the probability of Israel having intended to attack civilians for no military purpose? Would that even be a coherent application of probability?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Israel has been the subject of numerous resolutions by the UN - 28 by the Security Council and about 100 by the General Assembly, last time I checked. That statement was based on those UN resolutions, not my personal feelings about what Israel may be intending to accomplish.
    Please reproduce the text of the UN resolution that shows that Israel is committing crimes against humanity, and has been doing so for the last 70 years. I am not sure that the UN Security Council or General Assembly are able to indict or convict states of war crimes, but let us see what happens.

    How can I possibly evaluate the probability of Israel having intended to attack civilians for no military purpose? Would that even be a coherent application of probability?
    How indeed.

    Earlier in the thread you evaluated it as 1.0, now, something between 1.0 and 0.0. So I am asking if this is a real concession (e.g. 0.01), or just a semantic dodge (e.g. 0.99).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    This sounds clear and unequivocal: "The fact of the matter is that Israel is committing crimes against humanity, and has been doing so for the last 70 years.".

    So since you now believe it is a matter of probability rather than fact, do you consider the probability that Israel is intentionally attacking civilians for no military or political purpose to be high, moderate, low, very low, or negligible? And why?
    I'd consider it rather high considering that targeting civilians is part of official Israeli military doctrine.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    I'd consider it rather high considering that targeting civilians is part of official Israeli military doctrine.
    This says the idea was suggested by a General. Can you cite the original source, ideally on the IDF website?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.