Gaza rocket hits Israeli city, 14 hurt

[oberliner]

JERUSALEM - A rocket fired from Gaza exploded in a shopping center in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon on Wednesday, wounding at least 14 people, rescue officials said.

At least two women and one girl were seriously wounded and several other people were slightly hurt, said Leah Malul, an official at Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon.

The Magen David Adom rescue service said 14 people were wounded — three seriously — and all the casualties had been evacuated from the site of the attack.

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement on its Web site.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

[pegleg]

1. Israel should give no more thought to making concessions

until the rockets cease. And if they continue,then Israel should take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate Hamas from Gaza.

[subsuelo]

3. Should Hamas also take whatever steps to eliminate Israel's military?

[sabbat hunter]

26. if Hamas limited their attacks

to military targets then they would have a lot more sympathy from me.

But instead they attack purely civilian targets, then hide behind other civilians and claim Israel is "massacring" civilians when they try to retaliate.

[subsuelo]

6. That is the same logic Hamas has

but if you're ok with that, hey nothing stopping you but your own morality I guess

[pegleg]

16. It's becoming pretty clear they (Hamas) are what is standing in

the way of a Palestinian state.

[notfullofit]

23. Israel will not

tolerate these attacks, looks like you know what is getting ready to hit the fan.

snip.......
Olmert said at the end of the talks that Israel would not tolerate attacks from Gaza terrorists.

"We will not be able to tolerate continuous attacks on innocent civilians. We hope we will not have to act against Hamas in other ways with the military power that Israel hasn't yet started to use in a serious manner in order to stop it," said Olmert before learning of the attack on Ashkelon.

A government official was quoted by Channel Two as saying that Bush's visit "won't prevent an immediate Israeli response" to the attack.

The channel quoted another Jerusalem official as saying, "We are on a certain path of an extensive military confrontation with Hamas."

Following the rocket strike, Defense Minister Ehud Barak invited visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to accompany him on a tour of the scene of the attack.

Barak met Rice at Jerusalem's King David Hotel and the two discussed a series of regional, political and security issues.

Public Security Minister Avi Dichter and Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Eli Yishai visited Ashkelon to show solidarity with residents.

Holding a loud speaker Yishai said, "We will act with all our strength, and the required operation will take place."

A disgruntled crowd heckled the ministers, shouting "Bring down the government."

Meanwhile, two Kadima faction members called on the government to assassinate Hamas leaders.

"Hamas leaders must be assassinated. We need to prove to Bush and to the world that Israel can fight terror," said MK Shlomo Mula.

Knesset House Committee chairman David Tal, also of Kadima, said that "Israel must sever the hand that is launching rockets at Israel."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668635737&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[azurnoir]

24. delete

[Vegasaurus]

2. The militants are seeking perpetual war

there is not an iota of interest in peace.

And war they will get.

[subsuelo]

4. Both sides obviously want perpetual war

It's good for business

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

14. It certainly is not good for business...

This may be the case in countries which derive much of their economy from the 'military-industrial complex'; but this is not the case for Israel and much less so for Gaza. The two sides are locked in a spiral of conflict that keeps escalating - as tends to be the case for conflicts in general. Certainly, neither side benefits.

[notfullofit]

7. CNN just

showed footage of the attack.
Chaos with children crying in the streets and the shopping center looks destroyed.
What a mess.

[subsuelo]

8. Let's apply the logic we constantly read when the attack is on Palestinians, shall we?

It's their own fault for having a government that does not have their best interests at heart.

Furthermore, this is what they will continue to get, for as long as that government places war and hostility at a higher priority than peace.

And yes, that is the logic we constantly read about around here, when it's Palestinians being attacked.

I'm not claiming it as justification for either side - just throwing that logic back out there for contemplation.

[notfullofit]

9. How can you

apply logic to a terrorist attack upon a shopping center filled with innocent civilians, not a military target?

[subsuelo]

10. Same question I ask when the victims are Palestinians

[pelsar]

and the answer is very different.....

when the victims are Palestinians..... when was the last time israel just decide to blow up a shopping mall? an apt complex etc that had no military value or that was not in the middle of a battle?...answer none.

when was the last time hamas attempted to kill as many israeli civilians as possible by attacking homes, schools etc...today, yesterday and everyday for the last year.

i understand admitting that looking and trying to kill as many civilians as possible and trying everyday to do so is not the same as targeting a select few and limiting ones use of bombs makes things difficult for the "progressive"..which is why its better to pretend its the samething....

I'm glad to know that not only myself but those i serve with understand the difference and dont just kill as many Palestinians as we can when given the chance

[subsuelo]

13. Ah so that explains the 10 to 1 ratio of dead Palestinian to Israeli civilians

It's because the Israeli side is not as vicious and is holding back!

:crazy:

[notfullofit]

22. It certainly is not

for the want of trying. Their aim is not very good that's all.
There would be thousands more Israeli dead if the rockets were accurate and hit their intended civilian targets.

[pelsar]

25. do you have any idea...

what a squad of infantry man can do to an arab village if desired?......let alone a single tank or single F16......

either you have absolutely no knowledge of weapons today or you dont want to.....because it makes your view of the world work.
_______

so if you dont think we're "holding back" please explain to me why we dont simply literally remove/bomb beit chanon or gaza city until its no more than ruins?

[Dick Dastardly]

Can you back up what you said

or is this just another driveby invent facts to demonize Israel and ignore responses type post.




Can you show me where it is 10-1?

How does the ratio prove Israel is not holding back or is the bad guy?

Where is the rule that says a country must make sure there is an even amount of deaths on both sides in order to be in the right? Did that mean the US was wrong and Japan was right in WW2?

Are you saying that Israel should not defend itself until more Israelis are killed to even out the deaths?

Are you saying that Israel should not defend itself if the terrorists hide behind civilians because it means Palestinians civilians will die?


Why have you not answered Pelsars response to your post? Show us your proof of not holding back. It actually seems most of your responses here have been complete hyperbole not honest debate.





This was to post 13. I hit the won button

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. I suspect the answer is "2006"

In the Lebanon war, the IDF deliberately targetted civilian infrastructure to terrorise the civilian populace.

It may be more recent, though.

The argument that Israel could kill even more Palestinians than it already does is not a persuasive one, given that it's already killed several hundred this year, most of them civilians (as against Israeli 6 soldiers and 6 civilians killed by Palestinians, the last I heard).

[Shaktimaan]

33. So you think that Israel is probably

killing far too many Palestinian civilians for anyone to believe that it is attempting to limit collateral damage?

Let me ask you, what number do you think would reflect an effort on Israel's part? Is it a static number or does it have to do with the amount of Israelis killed?
I'll admit to not understanding this methodology. I would think you would look at Israel's policies and actions to determine whether it is trying to limit casualties or actively trying to terrorize civilians instead of just looking at numbers, especially since you don't seem to have any point of reference to compare those numbers to. (For example, has Israel killed more or less Palestinians in the past 4 months than the US and England has Iraqis?)

[pelsar]

11. dupe

[pelsar]

12. dupe

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Israel will have peace

when Israelis love their own children more than they hate the Arabs. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. That's an outright lie from beginning to end.

Palestinians could have had peace for Israel any time they chose. The Israelis still wouldn't have given the Palestinians peace, though - the occupation and oppression would have continued and expanded.

"So they live like paupers in squalid refugee camps"

Have you no shame? No shame at all? Israel has deliberately impoverished the Palestinian civilian populace in an attempt to terrorise them into giving up armed resistance, and then you turn round and accuse them of choosing it?

"Israelis do not suicide bomb,"

No, they don't need to, they can kill Palestinians without needing to die themselves.

"and they do not make killing Palestnians their national goal"

No, just stealing their land, forcing them to live in poverty.


*Israel* could have had peace for both sides any time it wants, and still could - all it would have to do is end the occupation; unfortunately, it continues to elect governments who prefer stolen land to peace. The Palestinians have no chance for peace - their only options are armed resistance or acquiescance. Either way, they have no chance of ending Israel's occupation or oppression of them.

[Shaktimaan]

29. question...

*Israel* could have had peace for both sides any time it wants, and still could - all it would have to do is end the occupation;

I've seem you say this same thing many times. If this is true though, then how come Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups have consistently said the exact opposite?

I can show you countless official statements they've made confirming that ending the occupation will not bring peace. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that it will?

[notfullofit]

32. Israel has

tried to send in supplies, over and over again but they keep getting shot at and trucks blown up.

'Israel has deliberately impoverished the Palestinian civilian populace in an attempt to terrorise them into giving up armed resistance, and then you turn round and accuse them of choosing it?'

If they want fuel, electricity etc., then they are the ones who should chose to quit with the terrorising of innocent civilians in schools and shopping centers.


Do you really think the Israelis will try to help them at the risk of their own civilian lives?

Hamas is a blight on the Palestinian people, they care as much about them as they do the Israelis, in fact I'll wager the Israelis care more.

Wanna bet Hamas is not suffering but the civilians are.
It is sickening what they put these poor people through.

You want to lay blame then blame Hamas not Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Dunno about you, but the way Israel shows it cares about Palestinians leaves me all warm and fuzzy!

Yep, bombing them, shooting them, destroying their homes and livelihoods. I really think Israel has shown it's caring and compassion for Palestinian civilians so well we should all get together and beg Israel to get even more full on with the way it shows it cares! <end of sarcasm>

Israel has tried to send in supplies, over and over again but they keep getting shot at and trucks blown up.

A few corrections here. Israel doesn't supply the humanitarian aid. It's NGO's and the UN that supply it. What Israel does is let it get through or not. And Israel has stopped all aid getting through at times. As for 'they keep getting shot at and trucks blown up', seeing as how it's not Israel supplying the aid, how is Israel getting shot at? And I recall only one or at the most two incidents of trucks being taken by militants. You seem to be attempting to make out that it's a regular thing.

How about we do something novel when it comes to blame? How about we try laying blame on both Israel and Hamas for what's happening in Gaza?

[Vegasaurus]

30. Donald, we have already established that all of this violence and terrorism

is not because of occupation, unless you agree with other posters here that ALL of Israel is occupied.

The leadership in Palestine says that it doens't matter what the Jews do or don't do, whether they negotiate or don't.

They will continue armed resistance until all of "greater Palestine" is theirs again.

Get your facts straight.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. How about you get yr facts straight for a change?

Donald, we have already established that all of this violence and terrorism is not because of occupation, unless you agree with other posters here that ALL of Israel is occupied.

*We* have established nothing of the sort, because to insist that violence isn't related to the occupation is, to put it mildly, incredibly stupid and simplistic. What do you think the reason for the violence is?

Secondly, stop making false accusations about other posters in this forum. There's not one single regular here that believes that ALL of Israel is occcupied territory. If you think there is, point out who they are....

[sabbat hunter]

36. If Israel could have had peace

at any time, why wasn't a Palestine created at the same time Israel was founded in 1948?

[Vegasaurus]

37. Since 1948, the only people who have accepted peace agreements

are the Israelis.

Did the Palestinians accept the partition plan? No. Did the Israelis? yes.

Had the Palestinians once accepted Israel, or any peace agreement, they could be living in a state now, instead of misery.

Bad choices for them, that continue to make their lives more miserable.

They have chosen war and not peace, for sixty (or more) years.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Wrong again. Yr neglecting the Oslo Accords n/t

[LeftishBrit]

15. This is awful,

To put it bluntly, fuck Islamic Jihad. Likud are a bunch of crazy warmongering RW bastards; Hamas are even more so; but at least the other groups than IJ tend to have SOME functions and goals other than just being as violent as possible. Islamic Jihad seem to be interested in nothing *but* violence, combined with their own very twisted brand of Islam.

[msmcghee]

17. That statement seems so incongruous.

" . . but at least the other groups than IJ tend to have SOME functions and goals other than just being as violent as possible."

That's like saying that the child molester who abused his and his neighbors kids for 15 years is really not as bad as some think . . because he paid for their medical bills whenever he injured them.

I'm sorry, but I can't see anything good about people who fire missiles indiscriminately at civilian population centers . . no matter how many hot lunch programs they sponsor. Besides, it's just part of their plan to keep their population in the perpetual state of an abused wife who returns after each beating and tells the cops "But he really loves me."

I suspect the reason IJ does not provide hot lunches and such is because they would be seen by Hamas as usurping their position as chief abuser. I suspect Hamas sees to it they don't have the resources to do anything but what Hamas allows them to do.

I know what you were saying. You were not forgiving Hamas' violence. But that's how it came off.

[LeftishBrit]

20. I am not forgiving anyone's violence...

that's not the point.

The point is that Islamic Jihad are unusual even among violent groups in having no seeming aim or purpose than destruction. It doesn't mean that the others are good or acceptable (and some have much more power than IJ). Part of the difference is perhaps even that most other groups are more selfish - they may be sometimes restrained (or for that matter egged on) by self-interest. Islamic Jihad don't even seem to have much self-interest in the ordinary sense.

Of course, the same *could* be said of Al Quaeda, who are bigger and more powerful and have committed more extreme atrocities. But they are perhaps less well-defined as a single group.

Anyway, fuck ALL violent groups. Everywhere.

[msmcghee]

21. Agreed . . as long as it is offensive violence we are . .

. . fucking and not the lawful defense against that violence.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!