Israel's critics don't want a proportionate response in Gaza. They want no response at all

[shira]

Over the past couple of days, as the debate over Israel’s military intervention in Gaza has raged, I’ve noticed the same phrase being repeated. It’s basically a variation on the following: “Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself. But the response must be proportionate. And what we’re seeing is anything but proportionate.” Nick Clegg has joined this chorus, accusing Israel of imposing a "disproportionate form of collective punishment" on the Palestinian people. His words were echoed on Monday by the United Nations Relief and Works agency, which warned that “Maximum restraint must be exercised and measures of distinction, proportionality and precaution must be respected.” During Monday’s House of Commons debate, a succession of MPs rose to make a similar point.

And who can argue with it? Who would want to see a disproportionate response to a crisis such as this? But if we are calling for “proportionality” from Israel, then I’d like to ask a question: what would a proportionate response actually look like? If everyone accepts the principle of Israel defending itself, how should that defence operate in practice? One way Israel is able to defend itself from the ongoing Hamas missile strikes is, of course, to send in ground troops to locate and destroy them and the terrorists who operate them. But as we’ve seen, according to Israel’s critics, this represents a terrible escalation of the conflict. An alternative is air strikes. But again, Israeli air strikes have resulted in global condemnation. Cruise missile strikes are also an option. But I can’t quite imagine the Stop the War coalition issuing a press release welcoming Israel’s use of precision munitions in central Gaza. What about a more surgical approach? Perhaps Israel could send in assassination teams to target the Hamas leadership and other key operatives? “Today the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon welcomed the news that Israeli hit squads had been deployed to the Palestinian territories. 'This represents a timely de-escalation of the conflict,' he said.”

What about no offensive action at all? What if Israel simply attempts to contain Hamas within Gaza? No, sorry, that won’t work, because then Israel will be accused of turning Gaza into “the world’s largest prison camp”. A blockade of Hamas? No, the world is demanding that the blockade be lifted. Targeted sanctions on the Palestinian authority? Are you being serious? That will just penalise innocent Palestinians. And anyway, the world should be standing in solidarity with them in their hour of need. When people say Israel’s response to Hamas aggression must be “proportionate”, they don’t mean it. What they actually mean is that Israel shouldn’t respond at all. Which is fine: everyone’s entitled to their view. But Israel’s critics should at least be honest about what they’re really proposing. And what they’re proposing is that while Israel has a right to defend itself in principle, it shouldn’t do so in practice. It should just turn the other cheek.

Which is why I’d like to ask those who claim that Israel’s response is disproportionate another question. What do you think the death toll would be if Hamas had Israel’s military capability – including its nuclear capability? Because I think in those circumstances we would see with horrifying clarity what a disproportionate use of military force really looks like. I appreciate that many – if not a majority – of those criticising Israel do so from positions of morality, rather than ideology. But it is not enough to simply scream about what Israel shouldn’t be doing. As the rockets continue to rain down, people also need to explain precisely what they think Israel is entitled to do to protect itself.

more…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100281103/israels-critics-dont-want-a-proportionate-response-in-gaza-they-want-no-response-at-all/

[shira]

1. cont'd from OP

“Withdraw from Gaza” is one frequently proffered solution. But Israel did withdraw from Gaza. They withdrew, demolished the settlements and forcibly evicted almost 10,000 Jewish settlers. Then Hamas moved in, started firing rockets and launching terrorist attacks. “They should introduce an immediate ceasefire” is another demand. Israel did. And the rockets kept on coming. “They should sit down and talk, like we did with the IRA in Northern Ireland.” Yes, we did sit down and talk. But before we sat down we asked the IRA to stop blowing things up first. And they agreed.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Benjamin Netanyahu suddenly has an epiphany. “My God,” he says to himself, “our critics are right. Our response is disproportionate.” So he goes on TV, and tells the Israeli people: “I have told our armed forces to disengage. The rockets will keep exploding. The kidnappings will keep happening. The suicide attacks will keep coming. But we will not lift a finger in response.” How long do Israel’s critics think Netanyahu would remain Prime Minister of Israel in those circumstances? A week? An hour? Like it or not, Israel is a sovereign, democratic state. Not only does it have the right to defend itself, its people expect it to defend itself. And when you’re sitting huddled in a bomb shelter, and then emerge to see the charred remnants of a Qassam rocket sticking out of the roof of your child’s school, I suspect it shapes your perception of what a “proportionate” response actually is. So what is it that we want? Do we want the troops, the bombs, the cruise missiles, the drones, the artillery, the death squads, the blockades or the sanctions? Because if we say Israel has a right to defend itself, and mean it then, then we’re going to have stop handwringing and start choosing. And if we don’t, then we’re going to have to be honest and admit we don’t want Israel to defend itself at all.

[NaturalHigh]

3. Good OP, and what I've often said.

Israel's enemies have expressed a desire to see Israelis driven into the sea, and many people, it seems, wouldn't mind that a bit.

[PCIntern]

13. Yes, exactly.

THAT is the higher-order truth. I don't care what is stated to the contrary. I've been living with this for 60+ years and know how to read between the lines.

[MFM008]

38. no where to go

for palestinians?Into the sea? Even John Stewart said it, the population of Gaza has no where to go, they cant go to Egypt they cant go into Israel. They cant even go that far off their own waters. Until they have some hope, Israel will continue without security.

[Fozzledick]

40. Why don't they go somewhere where Hamas hasn't placed offensive weapons?

[NaturalHigh]

49. Well if Jon Stewart said it...

Seriously?

[grossproffit]

104. Well, it is Jon Stewart after all.

[840high]

98. Some on DU.

[samsingh]

2. valid points

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. "what would a proportionate response actually look like?"

1. Iron Dome. This is an actual first line of 'Defense'. It actually does 'defend' Israel.
2. Police and SWAT teams working with the PLO to root out Hamas militants who are committing crimes in firing off the missiles, without killing Palestinian civilians and destroying property not owned by Hamas militants.

'Proportionate' does not mean 'use only the same weapons and same number of people' as those with whom you are fighting. It means ONLY fighting the people you are fighting, not carelessly killing hundreds of civilians through being too willing to use indiscriminate weaponry.

And that's nowhere near 'no response at all'. It's a response to the people you're fighting. Not everyone trapped in Gaza.

[shira]

5. Unrealistic.

1. Iron Dome isn't stopping Israelis from running to bomb shelters day and night. It's also not 100% full proof and has caused damage.

2. Police and SWAT teams with the PLO would be quickly overmatched by Hamas. Think 2007 coup.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. I have to admit I don't know about theo 2007 coup.

But second off military units to the police. If you think 'regular police' would be overmatched, militarize them like the American police have done - give them military grade equipment, have military personnel serving with/under them. But leave any crimes not related to Hamas to Palestinian police, and focus that 'special force' of police solely on digging out the militants, finding and capturing rockets and so on.

(Edit: and, btw, I see nothing 'realistic' about how Israel has been attempting to 'deal' with Hamas for decades now. 'Mowing the grass' every few years does nothing but create more hatred for Israel, and needs to be replaced with tactics that do work, even if they're more dangerous for Israeli personnel in the short run.)

[shira]

8. Gaza would have to be conquered, Hamas defeated for Palestinian (PA) Police….

….to realistically control things. Israel has its hands full with its troops in Gaza now and it's hard to imagine any other force doing as well or better. The Palestinian Police wouldn't stand a chance. They'd be going into a slaughterhouse & they know it, so they wouldn't even try.

I agree that doing this every 2-4 years isn't a good solution.

[azurnoir]

61. Here: names involved George W Bush Condoleezza Rice and Mohammad Dahlan

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

62. Oh good Gods.

Is there nothing in the world that George W Bush didn't make even worse than it was before?

[Aerows]

150. I'm pretty sure

the answer is a no that resounds out into space. Bankrupted companies, attacked the wrong country and is generally regarded so poorly even among conservatives that no one will admit to voting for him.

How is that for a legacy?

[King_David]

7. Very true

Thanks for posting .

Israel's critics prefer no response and also don't mind retribution against Jews worldwide .
Or excuse it anyway.

[rateyes]

12. Hamas' critics

don't mind retribution against innocent Palestinians. Or excuse it anyway. See how that sounds? Oh, btw, interesting you use the word "retribution," which means punishment one deserves. What in the world has Israel done that merits retribution?

Oh yeah, the Nakba. Sabra and Shatila. The occupation. The illegal settlements. Making Gaza an open-air prison. ... ...

[King_David]

41. Retribution against Jews

[rateyes]

76. You make a good point. Innocent Jews should not suffer for the

wrongful action of the Jewish state of Israel. Neither should Innocent Palestinians suffer for the wrongful actions of Hamas. And, please spare me the bullshit that the Israeli govt is blameless.

[PCIntern]

60. All this pearl-clutching for Israel and Israel alone...

where were you for the Tibetans, for the poor people in Darfour, for the rampant murders in Syria? Where were all the OMG! threads for these people from these posters with the "appropriate" adjectives like 'vile', 'disgusting', 'repulsive', 'like the Nazis'?

Fact is, most don't give a tinker's dam about these countries or regins...because it does not involve the Jews. If the Syrian conflict ever included Israel once again, then it would involve the "seizing and occupation of the Golan Heights - OMG!" Those Syrians were only shelling the settlers and kibbutzim for decades because they "seized lands which belonged to someone we think used to live there...as soon as we can remember the name, we will get back to you."

I can see the posts now...

So I have to give my house her in Penn's Woods, formerly Native American land back to the Leni Lenape's, right? Tell you what: you first.

[rateyes]

78. Number one, I have been an activist for the causes you mentioned, especially

Darfur and the apartheid in SA. Number 2. I am not living in a house built by native Americans from whom I stole it, unlike many Israelis who are living in homes stolen from the Palestinians during the Nakba. Many of those Palestinians are still alive, and unable to return to their own homeland.

And, is that how you justify Israel's injustice? "Well, we aren't the only ones!"

[PCIntern]

85. Oooh. An activist.

Well then you as an activist will appreciate the scale: hundreds of thousands dead in Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Algeria, not one killed by Israel.

Fewer than 1000 dead here: look at the bandwidth.

Some activists you are. A bit selective right? But hey, it plays well amongst your friends. Go for it: Israel will be here when we've turned to dust.

[rateyes]

86. The thread is about Israel. And, yes,

An activist. Now you are excusing Israel by saying "its bad, but not nearly as bad as others."

How many innocent children have to die in Gaza before its bad enough for you to start holding Israel accountable?

[PCIntern]

87. Accountable for waging a war against those who wage war against them...

and believe me, or not, that if Israel really wanted to go to town, Gaza would look like a barren wasteland in 24 hours. Israel has no intent, never did, to annihilate civilians. that intent is that of Hamas and others who place civilians in jeopardy. But you know that...you won't admit it because it would decimate your argument. You won't...you will attempt to divert the conversation utilizing adjectives to prove your point. But the facts are that Israel is going to win this battle, destroy the tunnels and impede the flow of terrorist into Israel. Whatever you post here, that is what is gonna happen.

[rateyes]

91. Gotcha!

Bye.

[shira]

90. Your activism benefits whom? It doesn't benefit Palestinians or Israelis

Hamas is holding the former hostage while shooting at the latter. Hamas is committing grave war crimes against its own people and against Israelis, and yet aren't being held accountable by those who want all the blame shifted onto Israel.

So this activism benefits_______whom? Certainly not the Palestinians or Israelis.

[BillZBubb]

10. The dishonesty of Israeli apologists knows no bounds.

[Fozzledick]

11. The hypocrisy of Hamas apologists knows no bounds.

[rateyes]

14. The hatred/racism on both sides knows no bounds. nt

[Fozzledick]

15. "Both sides are bad so hate Israel" doesn't cut it.

There seems to be a lot of it going around all of a sudden though from people who are finding it harder and harder to justify Hamas' naked aggression.

[rateyes]

17. How about we don't hate Israel or Palestine?

How about we start hating the killing of innocents from both sides, and not excuse it from either side?

[Fozzledick]

18. Good idea - why don't you try it instead of posting this kind of hateful incitement?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=72405

[rateyes]

22. Ah, you failed to recognize the purpose of that post.

It was designed to show the hatefulness present in the post to which I replied. To deny that the Palestinians have no grievances against Israel just exacerbates the problem.

There was nothing hateful about my post. This war going on is not being conducted in a vacuum.

[King_David]

43. Actually the post you were talking about was talking about Jews worldwide not Israelis

Nothing hateful there except the reply.

[rateyes]

80. You obviously haven't read the conversation in another thread between myself and the king.

I took his statement and simply changed the target, and all of a sudden my statement sounds hateful, and his doesn't, in your opinion.

Here is the difference. You do not believe Palestinians have any justification for their violence toward Israel, but that Israel is justified in their violence toward Palestinians.

I believe both sides are justifiably angry, and neither side is justifiably murderous.

But, not to be disingenuous, I do believe that Israel was the instigator, and is more the oppressor than the oppressed in this fight.

[Jefferson23]

16. Revealed: the Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces

More children than Palestinian fighters are being killed in Israel's offensive on Gaza, according to the UN. Shown here are the name, age, and sex of 132 of those children, recorded by the Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights


Since the start of Israel's Operation Protective Edge, and the ground assault on the Gaza Strip since last Thursday, at least 580 Palestinians have been killed.

Of these more than a quarter have been children.

The Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, a Gaza-based human rights organisation which works with the UN, has verified the deaths of 132 children between July 7 and July 21 via its field workers.

The above graphic gives the name, age, sex and location - as well as the date on which they were killed - of all of these.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10984259/Revealed-the-Palestinian-children-killed-by-Israeli-forces.html

[Fozzledick]

19. I think you prove her point well.

[Jefferson23]

20. I'm not surprised you would feel that way..after seeing the OP you listed and supported:

Hamas's Civilian Death Strategy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113471416

snip*On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets. . . .

Surely there are civilians who have been killed in this conflict who have taken every step to distance themselves from this fast-moving war zone, and children whose parents are not card-carrying Hamas loyalists. These are the true innocents of Gaza. It is they for whom our sympathy should be reserved. The impossibility of identifying them, and saving them, is Israel's deepest moral dilemma.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/thane-rosenbaum-civilian-casualties-in-gaza-1405970362

A review of Prof. Rosenbaum's OP:

July 22 2014
Wall Street Journal Op-Ed’s Defense of Civilian Deaths in Gaza “Has No Basis In Existing Law”

With hundreds of largely civilian Palestinians dead, Israel’s attempts at crippling Hamas in the Gaza Strip have resulted in grim headlines and news broadcasts around the world. Regardless of whether or not Israel is winning on the ground in Gaza, it is slipping in its worldwide battle for hearts and minds.

It stands to reason, then, that friendly intellectuals are stepping forward to present their justifications for Israel’s actions. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, for example, toured a Hamas tunnel and dined with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu before describing him as “a reluctant warrior,” echoing Israel’s official position that Hamas is forcing the Israeli Defense Forces to bomb civilian areas.

Unfortunately, some of these defenses invite rather unflattering comparisons.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Thane Rosenbaum, a senior fellow at New York University’s law school, outlines what he sees as Israel’s “moral dilemma” of whether or not to strike suspected Hamas targets also populated by civilians.

Rosenbaum goes on to question the very idea of what a “civilian” means. It’s worth quoting him at length, to avoid running the risk of misrepresenting his position:

On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets. . . .

Surely there are civilians who have been killed in this conflict who have taken every step to distance themselves from this fast-moving war zone, and children whose parents are not card-carrying Hamas loyalists. These are the true innocents of Gaza. It is they for whom our sympathy should be reserved. The impossibility of identifying them, and saving them, is Israel's deepest moral dilemma.

Rosenbaum presumably didn’t realize that his words in defense of Israel echo those of none other than Osama bin Laden. In his 2002 “Letter to America,” bin Laden laid out his justifications for targeting American civilians.

“The American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies,” bin Laden wrote, arguing that American voters thus “have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for” what he saw as American crimes. Bin Laden continued:

“Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. . . . And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.”

VF Daily asked Ryan Goodman, a colleague of Rosenbaum at New York University School of Law, and the editor-in-chief of Just Security, whether Rosenbaum’s position was defensible under international law. “Controversial puts it mildly,” Goodman wrote via e-mail. “It is a radical, outlier position.”

“The implications of such a theory would be enormously dangerous in the hands of states across the world,” Goodman wrote. “Mr. Rosenbaum’s argument has no basis in existing law. His vision is anathema to the existing structure of the Geneva Conventions and utterly unrecognizable from the perspective of international humanitarian law.”

in full: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/07/wall-street-journal-oped-civilian-deaths-gaza-no-basis-in-existing-law

[Fozzledick]

21. You choose to ignore the crucial point.

On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations.

Not at all what Bin Laden said, and totally dishonest to claim otherwise.

[Jefferson23]

23. Unreal and you still support that OP. Good to know where you stand,,outside the law.

Crucial point is Rosenbaum's lawless ideas are dangerous.

[Fozzledick]

24. You know that's not true, I know you don't care.

Nothing more to say except that you continue to demonstrate Shira's initial point.

[Jefferson23]

25. What is not true..that the OP is off the charts horrific or that you do not support what he

said?

Correct what I got wrong about your opinion of the OP you posted .

[Fozzledick]

26. Your mischaracterization of both.

[Jefferson23]

27. You can have it both ways? You support his description of what constitutes a civilian

or not..and by what measure do you agree or disagree?

How did I misrepresent his opinion..as the review noted, his opinion has no
basis in law..so again, what did they get wrong and according to who, other
than him, that he is correct?

[Fozzledick]

32. Why should I repeat myself when you're too lazy to read it the first time?

Why do you repeat questions that have already been answered? Why do you ignore what people say and argue with your own strawmen? Why do you think you can demand endless justifications from people for things they didn't say when you don't listen to what they do say? Why are you afraid to address the point of the OP? Why don't you stop trying to change the subject and answer my questions?

Yeah, I've had enough of your nonsense for one day. Shira's point stands, and your diversions only confirm it.

[Jefferson23]

33. You have no answers, no defense of your OP nor does Shira's. You merely state

you're and or your Professor are misrepresented by don't say in what way.

The fact remains, there is no basis in law...and that is an understatement of his
opinion.

[Fozzledick]

37. I see you haven't answered any of my questions, and still ignore what I said.

[Jefferson23]

42. I haven't ignored you, and your questions are not answerable..because you have

not clarified your support of the OP you posted. You said you were misrepresented,
but not how so. I did not ask you for a yes or no answer..I asked you what you
agreed with and to what degree.Your response was a list of questions.

You highlighted what you seem to believe gives legal precedent to the authors
claim to describe civilians..what constitutes one and what does not..based
on his opinion of said behavior.

The review and that legal opinion does not stand alone, finds his opinions
with no legal standing.

[Fozzledick]

44. I see you haven't answered any of my questions, and still ignore what I said.

But it is fun to see how you degenerate into incoherent babbling when I don't take your bait.

[Jefferson23]

48. Avoidance game..you're not good at it. What bait would that be, pointing out an

OP that has no legal basis in law, and is reprehensible to boot?

That bait? Well, I suggest you rethink what you support if you do not
wish to be asked any questions about it.

[Fozzledick]

54. I see you haven't answered any of my questions, and still ignore what I said.

But you still want to play the avoidance game. Some people never learn.

[Jefferson23]

55. Indefensible OP you put up..I get that. n/t

[Fozzledick]

58. I see you haven't answered any of my questions, and still ignore what I said.

I also see how you dragged in a post from another thread to try to change the subject while ignoring the OP of this thread.

[Jefferson23]

63. No, I added the OP to your comment to my post regarding all the dead children.

You seemed to believe Shira's OP proved something or other. I added the
stats on the children as her OP claimed to know all about proportionality.

I think her OP and yours failed, terribly.

[shira]

65. Not a great fisking of Thane Rosenbaum's article

A civilian who invites a terrorist militia to set up weaponry or terror tunnels in his/her house is not an innocent civilian (even though his/her kids are). If civilians are FORCED by Hamas to make their home a military target, that's a war crime on Hamas' part and they remain innocent. It's a war crime on Hamas' part either way, even if the civilian volunteers his/her home, as it's probably within a greater civilian population.

Rosenbaum stated there's a big difference b/w the 2 civilians. He sympathized with real innocents and hopes that Israel is successful distinguishing b/w the 2 types.

But it's totally dishonest to compare Rosenbaum to Bin Laden. Piss-poor fisking.

[Jefferson23]

66. This post does not surprise me, but I am going to bookmark it, regardless. n/t

[shira]

68. IOW you have nothing but a poorly written fisking. n/t

[Jefferson23]

69. You might want to read the review of your professor in Vanity Fair before you

proceed..just to give you a heads up. It is linked to in this thread.

[shira]

70. You lost the argument. Lemme know how you equate....

....a truly innocent civilian to a civilian who invites a terror org. to set up shop within his house. I'd be interested in that argument. Your Vanity Fair article punted on that one.

[Jefferson23]

71. Holy cow..you're amazing..truly. Read the law, from an international law expert, at some point. n/t

[shira]

73. FTR, why don't you point to this non-existent law....

....that equates totally innocent civilians to civilians who invite terror orgs. to militarize their homes?

I'll wait.

[Jefferson23]

74. It's all in the Vanity Fair piece, the one you claimed to have read. n/t

[shira]

75. No it's not. The lawyer says he disagrees but he doesn't point....

....to the relevant IHL.

[Jefferson23]

77. You know, to someone with your mindset, there is no evidence.

Good luck, shira...you win. Enjoy the last word and take a bow.

[shira]

79. Well that's b/c there is no evidence. You've got nothing....

...but a poorly written Vanity Fair article that disingenuously misleads its readers into thinking Rosenbaum made the same argument Bin Laden did.

[Aerows]

149. Which Vanity Fair article did you read? n/t

[HooptieWagon]

28. Defending the murder of children now, I see.

Well, I guess the self- exposure of DU supporters of RW genocidal thugs is a good thing.

[shira]

29. So Israel has no right to self-defense against Hamas. Got it.

Israelis should just take the rockets, tunnel terror attacks, and die.

[HooptieWagon]

30. Children are a threat to Israel?

Children are only a threat if Israel's policy is total genocide. That appears to be the case.

[shira]

31. No, that's why Israel has sent its troops into Gaza, house to house….

Israel is actually sacrificing its troops (32 now) in order to minimize civilian casualties. Otherwise, they could just bomb from the skies like all Western nations do.

[HooptieWagon]

34. Over 75% of Palestinian casualties are civilians.

Almost 40% are children. This is your definition of "minimize civilian casualties"? Targeting civilian shelters, whose GPS coordinates have been given to IDF by the UN and identified as shelters, is minimizing civilian casualties? My, what a perverted sick bubble you exist in, to defend such atrocities.

[shira]

35. That's not confirmed. Same charges were made in 2008-09...

IDF maintained it was 50/50 back then and Hamas eventually confirmed it months later. But not until the Gazan Health Ministry (Hamas) did its propaganda, as its doing now. What do u expect out of an authoritarian regime trying to maximize civilian casualties for cynical PR purposes?

Or do u deny that's their goal?

Israel's record WRT civilians is better than any other military on the planet, including all Western ones. There's no reason to believe otherwise for this conflict.

[Jefferson23]

36. According to who? The IDF. According to who? Colonel Kemp who may find himself charged in the UK

for war crimes himself.

[shira]

39. Hamas admitted it. Here's Haaretz...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-admits-600-700-of-its-men-were-killed-in-cast-lead-1.323776

[Jefferson23]

47. You know, you're a riot..you believe Hamas when it suits you..because both sides don't have

an agenda? The human rights groups see it differently..why you accept Israel's
side without conditions is unfortunate. Hamas can be trusted not to want to boost
up their figures for political gain? Do you understand recently why Israel did not want
the FAA to stop the flights? They get that is a victory for Hamas.

Rely on more reliable sources, not from those who benefit from their own reports.

I am not suggesting that either side is not ever truthful..but one needs to be cautious
about the information they release.

[shira]

50. You believe Hamas NOW when it suits THEM in their vile PR war...

Hamas can't hide this info. forever. They have to EVENTUALLY celebrate their dead martyred soldiers who died resisting; standing up to the Zionist enemy.

There's no reason to believe Hamas was lying when they acknowledged the IDF figures.

[Jefferson23]

51. I believe Hamas about what? n/t

[shira]

52. You believe the Gazan Health Ministry's figures. That's Hamas PR. n/t

[Jefferson23]

53. I do? put a link up, please. n/t

[shira]

57. All figures coming out of Gaza are carefully vetted by Hamas.

They're an authoritarian regime trying to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties for PR purposes.

You want to play games, deny, and waste time? Forget it.

[Jefferson23]

64. Why not just say you could produce no such link...silly on your part. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

56. I believe the UN Human Rights workers on the ground in Gaza.

They're up to their elbows in "telegenically dead bodies" of children targeted for killing by the IDF. And you continue to defend the war criminals, and spread their vile propaganda.

[shira]

59. If u believed them in 2008-09, they were proven to be very wrong

They were claiming 80% back then and Hamas finally confirmed IDF figures of 50% later.

========

Now let me ask you. Do you deny, excuse, minimize, or condemn Hamas' vile war crimes committed against their own people? For example, shielding themselves or storing weapons or firing them from schools, mosques, homes, and hospitals?

If you're like others, you're about to defend Hamas' war crimes.

[HooptieWagon]

45. The numbers are from the UN.

You do realize there are UN workers on the ground in Gaza, right? These are the same UN workers who provided GPS coordinates of the civilian shelters to the IDF, so they wouldn't be targeted. The IDF targeted them anyway, knowing full well the shelters were full of women and children.
Calling this Palestinian propaganda, while you yourself spew an endless vomit of Likud propaganda, takes hypocrisy to a new height. Congratulations, Goebels would be proud.

[shira]

46. IDF numbers were confirmed despite all the false reports….

…from 2008-09 that were accepted by just about every media source and NGO, including the UN. Hamas controls all information coming out of Gaza. They're the authoritarian force in charge and if they don't like your reporting, you could get hurt or worse.

Here's Hamas confirming the 1:1 ratio of the 2008-09 war...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-admits-600-700-of-its-men-were-killed-in-cast-lead-1.323776

Same false reports of 80% civilian casualties were going on then. How many times do you need to be fooled?

[PCIntern]

67. shira, calm down...you're gonna have a stroke...

these people are NOT fooled, they are useful tools for the other side. If Hamas detonated a nuclear weapon, they would have a rationale as to why it would be all right with them and better for the world. I cold make some other statements here, but DU rules prevent me from doing so. Rather than doing that, let me just say that they know EXACTLY what they are doing and there are no core beliefs here at all whatsoever. The meaningless repetition of their talking points and the taking of no quarter from our side indicates that they are here to convince the masses of their righteousness.

To digress for a moment, there is a condition called pseudotumor cerebri which is really, as its more modern name states, idiopathic intracranial pressure. This condition, cause unknown, causes blindness in some individuals due to the pressure on the optic nerve. It is often a difficult-to-manage condition which occurs often in women of child-bearing age. The reason it is called pseudotumor is that the individual shows all the characteristics of a brain tumor but in fact does not have one. But the word "tumor" inside the term, although preceded by the prefix pseudo-is the only word that people ever hear, no matter that there is NO tumor. That is what is going on here: the phrase "civilian casualties" is being used to trump any other phrase or concept. It is a useful tool for some...but transparent to many who are the intended recipients. In addition, the notion of incidental blindness has seemed to affect a good many of our "brethren" here. What Americans know, is that they have, on occasion been terrorized and fundamentally understand that Hamas is up to no good. In this case, it will be revealed when all of this is over, that is to say, this episode, that the terrorist tunnels will have been destroyed and that the balance of warfare will once again be shifted to the side of the Israelis. Israel is going to win. Period. No matter what some blogger writes here or doesn't write here. Israel wins by existing: this is sufficient to foment decades of continued hatred by the other side. I will leave you with a (parphrased) quote from King Hussein of Jordan: If Israel were to cede all of their land but for nine square inches, then those nine square inches would be that which thousands of Arabs would swear to fight and die. He knew there was no end to this: not with West Bank and Gaza pullouts, not with settlement retrenchment, not with 1967 borders, not with anything. The sum total is the attempt to eradicate the nation. Israel will simply not be eradicated. As my father of blessed memory used to say, "Tough shit to everyone else. Israel and the Jews are here to stay."

[shira]

72. You're right. Just love seeing the hypocrisy & sanctimony. No shame. n/t

[GoneFishin]

81. Cheesy strawman bogus argument. Stop fabricating excuses for israel to steal more land.

Because all the rest is smoke and mirrors to distract from the long game being played by israel which is extensive land theft, and their plans to wipe the Palestinians off the land to make way for new shiny settlements with nice green lawns.

You can stuff all of your fake posturing about defending themselves. If israel wants peace then they should stop stealing other peoples' land and killing their children. That, of course, is not what they want. They want their land, and any excuse to blow the shit out of one more home of an innocent Palestinian is that much less bulldozing that will need to be done later to make way for another settlement.

[shira]

82. Hamas is attacking despite Israel ending its occupation/settlements....

....there back in 2005. Every last Jew was pulled from Gaza, so Palestinians could have a land of their own. We see now what they've done with it. Rather than build a state and work with Israel they chose terror.

Only phony humanitarians would deny this.

[GoneFishin]

83. Israel killed people on flotilla boats for trying to bring in civillian supplies. Don't pretend

there was anything else on those boats because everyone knew israel would crawl up their asses with microscopes and would not have dared to bring anything of a military nature. Any assertion that israel is allowing them to live a slightly humane existence is totally proven to be a lie by the manner in which they are imprisoned and blockaded in Gaza.

Now they are shooting at homes for the disabled, hospitals, and ambulances.

[840high]

84. I would suggest Hamas stops

hiding weapons in hospitals, schools and ambulances.

[shira]

89. What makes you think Israel bashers want Hamas to stop that?

Committing these war crimes vs Palestinians is working out well for Hamas & making Israel look bad.

The Israel bashers don't want Hamas to stop. They will deny, ignore, minimize, and explain away what Hamas is doing.

Hamas cannot do this without their help.

[GoneFishin]

93. Projection. Everything you wrote is a reflection of your behavior not mine.

I simply want the slaughter of innocent people to stop.

You obviously don't because you are making excuses for those doing the slaughtering.

[GoneFishin]

92. Now you are just making shit up to justify the unjustifiable.

Or maybe you just believe everything you hear on Fox News.

[shira]

88. There's video showing Islamist extremists attacking IDF soldiers...

Video that can be easily accessed online shows them preparing weapons in advance & singing songs about death to Jews. Yet here you are supporting that shit.

Israel would have allowed humanitarian supplies in and guaranteed that they get to the right places. That's NOT what the activists wanted. They wanted a confrontation and PR.

[GoneFishin]

94. Stop making shit up.

[intaglio]

95. OP title is garbage, are you including Haredi and Jewish critics of Israel?

Are you including all the countries that have condemned this ethnic cleansing?

[Spider Jerusalem]

96. Israel's response is not only disproportionate but overtly provocative

here recently, what have we had? A bit of contrived theatre in the hunt for three boys known to already be dead; the blaming of Hamas for the crime in the absence of any evidence; the use of this as justification for breaking the cease-fire by Israel; the retaliatory attacks by Hamas after the Israeli breach of the cease-fire taken as justification for Operation Molten Lead or Pillar of Fire or Fist of God or whatever they're calling it.

It's also shockingly disingenuous to ask "what would a proportionate response look like" and then claim Israel withdrew from Gaza--while maintaining an illegal blockade, let's not forget, and completely controlling all land, sea, and air access, external trade routes, etc; Israel is under international law still occupying Gaza, by virtue of that--and ignore the issue of continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (also illegal, and not at all irrelevant to the situation).

[Jefferson23]

99. I appreciate your summary. n/t

[GoneFishin]

101. Thanks.

[Aerows]

100. No offense, but I honestly believe

there is no response that you will consider disproportionate.

[shira]

110. So what is a proportionate response? Still waiting. n/t

[Aerows]

112. Not killing over 400 children.

Let's start there.

[shira]

113. You didn't answer the question. What IS a proportionate response....

Define that one in terms of what Israel is allowed to do legally, NOT what's it's not allowed to do.

[Aerows]

114. Uh, not killing children?

Because the solution, in my crazy mind is simple.

Stop killing children. People will stop defending the killers of children and that completely includes the US.

[shira]

115. Name a war in which no children were killed. n/t

[Aerows]

116. Immaterial to the matter at hand

Dead children and dead civilians are always tragic.

It doesn't matter to me whose children they are, they have value.

[shira]

117. If there was a way to get Hamas w/o harming any innocents...

....Israel would do it.

They'd still be bashed by the usual suspects.

[Aerows]

119. I also believe that if Israeli forces are so resouceful enough

that if they didn't want to destroy children, hospitals, civilians, water treatment plants, power plants ... they could have avoided doing so.

[shira]

121. Sure. And if the US and UK were resourceful enuff....

....they'd have never killed any innocents or made any mistakes in their wars overseas either.

[shira]

118. What you're really saying is Israel has no right to self-defense

Because any military response, even if one child is killed, is disproportionate.

Better that hundreds or thousands of Israelis die rather than the IDF sully its reputation by daring to defend its citizens.

[Aerows]

120. :Smacks self in the forehead:

Not this again.

[shira]

122. That's really what you're saying. If as much as one child dies...

....in the entire Gaza conflict this summer, that's murder, a war crime, and Israel needs to go before the ICC.

Thus, Israel has no right to a military response against Hamas fascists.

Not one child, right?

[Aerows]

123. If you are SO eager to justify the murder of children

educate the forum as to why it is okay to do so.

That is what the entire discourse comes down to - What legacy do you propagate when the justification of killing children is part of that portfolio.

I will *never* shy away from the fact that the US is horrific in this regard. I don't excuse it, I rant about it, and try to get people that are against such things elected.

[shira]

124. I'm not justifying murder. Never have...

If I understand you correctly, Israel could have carried out its operations vs Hamas this summer and killed 1000 Hamasniks. But if they had killed just one child, you'd accuse them of murder, war crimes, and a disproportionate response.

Yes?

[Aerows]

125. Laughing and loving in the

DU Lounge comparing our cats is a far better conversation, to be honest.

If you wonder why you just don't get to people

It might not be the person.

It might be that the idea and the argument is faulty.

I'm going back to my cat pictures.

[shira]

127. Sorry, just trying to understand what you're arguing. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

102. Killing hundreds of Palstinians is not proportionate.

It is a malicious thing to do.

Killing hundreds of Palestinian children does not make Netanyahu look like he wants a proportionate response.

It makes him look like a baby killer.

[shira]

103. 6 weeks later & still no Israel bashers stating Israelis have a right to defend....

....themselves from Hamas fascists trying to kill them and their families.

No explanation of what a proportionate military response would look like.

[Aerows]

105. Wow

Interesting thread necromancy.

[whosinpower1]

106. The exact same type, make and inefficiency

Of home made cheap rockets that Hamas fires into Israel. The same number.

[shira]

107. So u believe Israel should've responded to Hamas in exactly....

...the same way, indiscriminate rockets at civilian populations?

Except that Gaza wouldn't have had Iron Dome or bomb shelters.

Really?

[whosinpower1]

108. Is that not proportionate?

Sure. Homemade, crude, ineffective, unreliable, unguided except generally pointing in a direction that most often falls into fields, or falls far short.....yep-exactly that. The same number -the exact same number too.

[shira]

111. Not allowed by IHL & immoral to boot. All crude rockets fired at Gaza...

...would be war crimes. And no Iron Dome, early warning sirens, no bunkers or safe-houses.

Why would you be in favor of that?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

126. Well, it would do a hell of a lot less damage and kill far fewer people

than the response Israel did make.

It's simply a weird legal twist that would make doing LESS damage, and killing FEWER people 'war crimes' if killing more and destroying more are not war crimes.

So from a 'total death and devastation caused' viewpoint, it makes a lot more sense to be willing to accept that sort of response.

[shira]

128. I don't agree. Without Iron Dome, shelters, sirens.....

....I'm betting more than 2000 would have been killed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

131. That's a lousy bet.

In the decade before Iron Dome went into play, and a few years after, Hamas rockets killed 28 Israelis according to what I've seen online. (Feel free to provide evidence that these numbers are off, and that far more Israelis have been killed since 2000 by Palestinian rockets, if you've got a better source.)

Now admittedly, Palestine wouldn't have the shelters and sirens, but 'Iron Dome' really didn't change the totals of dead Israelis all that much. I'm sure the Palestinians would prefer to have a couple dozen dead a decade, rather than thousands every time Israel decides to launch an 'operation'.

[whosinpower1]

144. I am not convinced of your position

Israel firing back the same type, model, and number of crude rockets would be categorized as defense.

Of course, the obvious issue is why abandon a highly developed superior weapons and military prowess in favour of homemade rockets macgyvered out of spare bits and garbage.

I can offer you several reasons-
1. Israeli damage to Gaza would be greatly reduced.
2. There would be far less civilians killed.
3. It would be verifiably proportionate.
4. Hamas would not be victorious simply by surviving.
5. On a scale of multiple billions-it would be far far far cheaper, and would not threaten Israel's economic well being.
6. The current strategy of "mowing the lawn", does not work to eradicate Hamas, find a peace settlement-or anything other than further radicalize the local populace and alienate would be allies.

[shira]

146. You're advocating for Israel to commit war crimes in "defense".

Yeah, it may be "proportionate" in the strictest sense, but morally and legally indefensible.

[whosinpower1]

152. Are you suggesting

That rockets which have poor to zero guidence are war crimes-when advanced precision weaponry is not?

You really want to go there?

[whosinpower1]

153. Oh wait- I get it

Advanced weaponry is big business.
(barf)

[shira]

109. So what WOULD a proportional response look like from Israel?

Or will Israel's most hostile critics just be honest and state for the record Israel has absolutely NO right to respond to Hamas fascists trying to massacre its civilians?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

129. Why should anyone 'state for the record'

a position that exists only in your imagination when you completely ignore any other solution offered other than 'slaughter a bunch of random Palestinians'?

[shira]

130. Israel's 1:1 ratio of civilians to combatants killed demonstrates....

...they are not just slaughtering a bunch of random Palestinians. That ratio is better than any other nation at war for the past century. When Hamas terrorists are considered to be less than 2% of the Gazan population but 50% of those killed, it's not random.

Enough of the blood libels. That shit is way past its medieval expiration date.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

132. blood libels?

you're just slinging whatever poo you can scoop up and throw, aren't you?

[shira]

133. Accusing Jews of being baby-killers, murdering children is centuries old hate speech. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

134. I'm sorry, did you see the word 'baby' or 'child' anywhere in my post?

Cause if so, you need to buy new glasses.

Again with attacking strawmen out of your own fantasies.

[shira]

135. I've seen those very words uttered here repeatedly....

It's implied in every post in which the Jewish state is accused of murdering children.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

136. Uh huh.

Well, I only think they murdered children in that they used indiscriminate weaponry - missiles, mortars, flechette bombs. I don't think they 'targeted' children, just that they got murdered alongside the adults in your 'acceptable 50% civilian casualty rate'.

[shira]

137. Well here's the thing. That 1:1 ratio is better than any other military...

....going back a century. If Israel's that "bad", then everyone else - including every western nation at war - is worse comparatively.

Agree?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

138. If your numbers are correct, sure.

Worse on those terms, certainly.

Which is why I'm pretty much anti-war.

But that still doesn't excuse the war crimes committed by either Hamas or the IDF. The problem with your argument is that you can't say 'We do evil things, but other people do more evil things!' (Well, you can and do.) It's still evil.

It's evil when america does that sort of crap, it's evil when Hamas does that sort of crap, it's evil when the IDF does that sort of crap.

And it's simply inexcusable to turn around and tell people how evil the other side is and make excuses for the evil done by your own side in a conflict.

[shira]

139. Well I look at this way...

I see Israel is under attack UNLIKE the USA or UK, and I see that their response is NOWHERE near as disproportionate as that of the US and UK who fight wars thousands of miles from their mainland. The fact is that Israel fights cleaner than any other nation. The US and UK would arguably perform FAR worse if their citizens were being bombed. I don't see any other nation that would be MORE restrained in its response to terror than Israel.

But then I see how Israel is maligned and bashed WAY out of proportion to other nations that wage war and I see THAT as what is truly disproportionate. What's really fascinating is WHY that happens. And it isn't about the world caring about Palestinians, because they don't. They don't care what happens to Palestinians in Syria or in Gaza under the Hamas boot.

Now I know why Israel's neighbors around the mideast cry crocodile tears and accuse Israel of the worst. The interesting question is why westerners follow suit.

Why do some westerners go out of their way making excuses for Hamas while denying Israel the right to defend its citizens from terror? And let's not pretend that's not the case b/c it's CLEAR that Israel's most hostile critics enable Hamas and are unable to articulate just what a proportionate military response to Hamas would look like. They're against ANY Israeli response, though they are loathe to admit it.

I want answers to that one.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

140. There's one giant gorilla in the room with IP that doesn't exist elsewhere.

Palestinians live and die under the thumb of Israel. When the US or the UK does these sorts of things, they're not doing them to a captive population, who can't even import building materials without the US or UK allowing them to do so, and whose land can simply be annexed at any point in time by the US or UK.

Eliminate the blockade, allow Palestinians to simply be another country, and stop 'settling', and you'll see support for Palestine drop by an order of magnitude or two.

And, of course, you've been offered several different possible proportionate responses. You simply dismiss them. Hell, you could also simply put the Mossad on a Hamas assassination program, where you kill individuals, rather than destroy entire neighbourhoods, and most of the people who criticize Israel would probably go quiet on that.

[shira]

141. That doesn't explain why westerners cover for Hamas war crimes....

...going to bat for Hamas, denying their war crimes committed against their own people (human shields) while at the same time being AGAINST any military response by Israel. Years ago, Israel tried targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders (Rantissi, Yassin) and they were roundly condemned for that too. Again, Israel's most hostile critics do not believe Israel has a right to protect its civilians in any meaningful way.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

142. Probably because we don't see 'human shields' in the same way you do.

To me, a 'human shield' is where you physically restrain someone, or threaten them with death if they try to leave a location where they're serving as a 'shield'. Merely launching a weapon from nearby has no 'shielding' effect anyway - Israel still simply fires - usually AFTER giving the actual terrorists a chance to leave.

So if I hold a bunch of kids at gunpoint in the room with me to prevent police from simply firing blindly into the room, they're 'human shields'. If the police fire anyway, then obviously the police didn't consider them to be 'shields'.

Does Hamas commit war crimes? Sure. But 'human shield' doesn't mean the same to you as it does to a lot of folks here in the west.

[shira]

143. Here's Hamas sending children up to rooftops as human shields

This has been going on for years. If Israel didn't care, this tactic wouldn't work. They do this because they count on Israel NOT attacking. A win for Hamas. But if Israel does attack, that's also a win for Hamas.

The International community doesn't give a shit about Palestinians. Their disproportionate, hostile criticism of the Jewish state isn't taken seriously by any rational actors. They're pretty much ignored and marginalized. You'll notice there are no elected Dems in Congress who sound anything like Israel's most hostile critics. Good thing too, or else the Republicans would hold a vast majority of seats in both the House and Senate.

[azurnoir]

145. no where are children sent on to the roof in this 2008 vid the word in the translation is citizens

they were sent to the roof in an attempt to stop the house from being bombed and in fact we really do not know whether or not the house was bombed as the video is cut very short, it was posted by someone called Israeligirl67 the word children is used only once in the added disclaimer in the very beginning that tells us what we're supposed to see

[shira]

147. Let's assume they were all adults. You condemn this illegal war crime, right? n/t

[azurnoir]

148. ya heard here - people protecting their or their neighbors home from bombing is a war crime

no one was forced to do anything but I do understand why it would be frustrating, unless of course the presence of civilians was ignored and the house was bombed anyway then there may have been a war crime

[shira]

151. You're defending a war crime. Hamas cannot by law call on civilians...

....to put their lives on the line by shielding a military target.

[azurnoir]

154. there was no one forcing civilians to protect their homes or those of their neighbors

and that no matter how it's parsed is the bottom line, you do understand they were protecting private homes

[shira]

155. Hamas doesn't have to force them. They are not allowed by IHL....

....to encourage civilians to act as human shields, putting their lives on the line protecting military targets.

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule97

Nothing there about forcing the civilian population to do anything.