UN report on Gaza war crimes

[DexterTCN]

Killing children by blindly firing an uncontrolled missile or bombing a UN shelter? Yes or no?

It's not where you want it to be.

 

[CyberRose]

Killing children by blindly firing an uncontrolled missile or bombing a UN shelter? Yes or no?

Already made my thoughts perfectly clear on that. Obviously I don't agree with killing children (or any innocents for that matter) whatsoever. No fucking excuse

Now, killing children - yes or no? (third time of asking)

 

[DexterTCN]

Already made my thoughts perfectly clear on that. Obviously I don't agree with killing children (or any innocents for that matter) whatsoever. No fucking excuse

Now, killing children - yes or no? (third time of asking)

Seeing as you've called others who disagree with you scum.....call me scum.

 

[ymu]

Killing children - yes or no?

This is a shitty debating tactic. You're comparing the actions of a number of groups of desperate individuals with the actions of a sovereign state. A sovereign state which has killed 12 times as many children with far more sophisticated weaponry and targeting systems.

This pretence at neutrality, actually an attempt to draw equivalency, is morally very dubious. Any attempt at neutrality is difficult. It's like feeling sympathy for the school bully who is beating up on a little kid and then complains that the kid stamped on his foot. It's not just trying to ignore the numbers - they both kill kids so they're both bad, m'kay - it's also ignoring the power relations. Palestine cannot bring this conflict to an end without agreeing to serfdom and exile for its people. Ceasefires have never brought them concessions, only ever greater provocation from Israel to break them.

It's a very cheap tactic.

Neutrality in any conflict in which there is a gross imbalance of power is probably an impossibility and certainly immoral. Treading a middle path between one utterly powerless party and another party with total power, effectively removes all restraints on behavior by the powerful party. Yet this is the posture of those American peace groups that put themselves forward as advocates for Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation. They take no position between the Palestinians and Israel, but only promote peace plans such as the unofficial Geneva Accord. without also taking action or even speaking out forcefully against Israel's occupation. The consequence is that these groups have given Israel the time and the license to devastate the land, begin its ethnic cleansing, and destroy any prospect for Palestinian independence. Their refusal to take a clear stand against Israel's oppressive policies is a statement that might makes right, that oppressive policies are acceptable, and most particularly that justice for Palestinians is less important than power for Israel.

But when in history have decent people seriously accepted balance and neutrality as a proper response in moral conflicts or national conflicts that pit one very powerful party against a powerless party?

Consider this analogy: a group of well-meaning activists in late 1850s America hope to bring an end to the horrors of slavery without war. They propose that the two sides strive for reconciliation, that slaves sit down at the negotiating table with slave owners and attempt to work out their differences through negotiation. The activists believe that the institution of slavery is oppressive, a violation of human rights, and that it must end, but they also recognize the property rights of owners to their slaves, as well as the owners' right to their lives and their livelihoods * their right to exist and not be murdered in a slave uprising. The activists propose a middle way between the two sides, recognizing that both are responsible for the conflict (slaves have shown a propensity to rebel, causing the slave owners to tighten their oppressive grip) but believing that both slaves and owners have a right to free, peaceful, and secure lives and that the only way to achieve this is to avoid blaming either side.

http://www.counterpunch.org/christison07102004.html

 

[DeadJoe]

Is it OK to call people scum here?

Of course the point remains that regardless of the rights or wrongs of targeting children, in the real world only one side is doing so.

It can't be the Palestinians, because they make their rockets on kitchen tables out of weed-killer and scrap metal, and these simple devices contain no guidance mechanism whatsoever. No-one could describe what goes on with these things as 'targeted', and if they hit anything at all, it can't be much more than sheer fluke.

So that leaves the Israelis, who use the latest high-tech weaponry all the way from the US. Now, if they hit a child, you can be pretty sure it was meant. And they've meant it 1500 times in the last nine years.

 

[Knotted]

They've been trying for 60 years. Israel cannot and never will be defeated by force. It's just tit for tat and if you think it's ok for Hamas to kill children why is it not ok for Israel to kill children?

They weren't trying to defeat Israel. Just make it costly for Israel to carry out it's aggression. Something tells me you aren't trying to give Hamas tactical advise.

The violence of the oppressed is not morally equivalent to the violence of the oppressor in my opinion - even if it were on a similar scale.

Whatever their effects, we both know the intention - to indiscriminately kill as many innocents as possible.

Yes it was. It was a war crime. Compared to Israel's war crimes it is peanuts, but it was a war crime nevertheless. It should be pointed out that it does not in any justify Israel's actions nor does it even explain Israel's actions.

 

[CyberRose]

They weren't trying to defeat Israel. Just make it costly for Israel to carry out it's aggression. Something tells me you aren't trying to give Hamas tactical advise.

Not killing children would be an excellent tactic for Hamas to pursue...

The violence of the oppressed is not morally equivalent to the violence of the oppressor in my opinion - even if it were on a similar scale.

That depends on the violence, doesn't it? Killing innocent children is killing innocent children. The Palestinian children have done nothing wrong but live in Palestine. Likewise, the Israeli children targeted by Hamas have done nothing wrong but happen to live in Israel.

Yes it was. It was a war crime. Compared to Israel's war crimes it is peanuts, but it was a war crime nevertheless. It should be pointed out that it does not in any justify Israel's actions nor does it even explain Israel's actions.

Who the fuck is justifying anything Israel has done?

 

[CyberRose]

This is a shitty debating tactic. You're comparing the actions of a number of groups of desperate individuals with the actions of a sovereign state. A sovereign state which has killed 12 times as many children with far more sophisticated weaponry and targeting systems.

So this is simply a numbers game? One side kills a child the other side has the right to also kill a child? Tell me, how many Israeli children do you think Hamas has the right to kill?

Any attempt at neutrality is difficult.

No it's not. All it takes is a logical and rational mind...

 

[CyberRose]

Seeing as you've called others who disagree with you scum.....call me scum.

I've called people who support killing innocent children scum, you have a problem with that?

I also notice that despite numerous requests, you still refuse to answer a simple question over whether or not you support Hamas targeting and killing innocent children (or any innocent for that matter)...why is that?

Is it OK to call people scum here?

People who actually say they would kill an innocent child in order to achieve a political or military objective (as you did earlier) ARE scum, there's no two ways about it

 

[Blagsta]

Didn't the IDF deliberately target a school?

 

[CyberRose]

Didn't the IDF deliberately target a school?

Is it ok for them to do so?

 

[Blagsta]

Is it ok for them to do so?

Yep, I hate kids, me.

 

[ymu]

So this is simply a numbers game? One side kills a child the other side has the right to also kill a child? Tell me, how many Israeli children do you think Hamas has the right to kill?

Well. they've got to nab over a thousand to catch up with Israel's total for the decade. But you don't seem so willing to condemn Israel for killing children, which is odd.

And no, it's not a numbers game, even if Palestine appears saintly by comparison when we play it that way. Israelis can go about their daily lives in relative peace, and lead luxuriously normal lives by most standards. Palestinians cannot even travel to the next village without harrassment. Millions are put under arbitrary, and brutally enforced, curfew for months on end. Their exports are left to rot at the checkpoints and their imports aren't allowed across the border.

It is not exactly a surprise that some take up violent resistance. The surprise is that it is not more. The extreme oppression of the Occupation makes any other response impossible. But these are the actions of desperate individuals who are enduring a living death, not the actions of a sovereign state. It is not possible to completely eliminate guerrilla attacks, although when Israel has held to its side of a ceasefire and/or eased up travel restrictions, things generally do calm down. Unsurprisingly.

Your brand of "neutrality" is deeply partial and completely ignores justice. The Palestinians have no control over their own fate, and are continually punished for the actions of those who express their anger with violence - the best possible way to ensure that more will turn to violence in response, as Israel well knows.

Israel has a well-documented policy of provocation, not to mention a stranglehold over the Western media, to ensure that the level of Palestinian response is always just enough to get ignorant hand-wringing fools drawing moral equivalency, and condemning the actions of the oppressed equally to the much greater crimes of the oppressor, and demanding that the entire population of Palestine become saintly pacifists with limitless patience before Israel is required to comply with even one of the scores of UN resolutions it has been in contravention of since its very admission to the UN.

Do you use the same language and, more pertinently, use the same crass debating tactics, when discussing the tactics of the French Resistance, or the ANC? Were those conflicts more than just a numbers game too?

No it's not. All it takes is a logical and rational mind...

Which you do not possess.

 

[Knotted]

That depends on the violence, doesn't it? Killing innocent children is killing innocent children. The Palestinian children have done nothing wrong but live in Palestine. Likewise, the Israeli children targeted by Hamas have done nothing wrong but happen to live in Israel.

The point you miss is that it is Israel's fault that Hamas was pushed into using this desperate tactic. It was a direct responce to Israeli aggression. You can argue pacificism if you want, but I'm not particularly interested in advising Hamas. Why should they listen to you or me?

 

[CyberRose]

Well. they've got to nab over a thousand to catch up with Israel's total for the decade.

And if they bomb enough schools to match Israel's tally, what does that make them?

But you don't seem so willing to condemn Israel for killing children, which is odd.

Nobody is defending Israel's actions so there's no need to (despite the fact that I have condemned their actions)

And no, it's not a numbers game

That's not the impression you and the others have given on this thread so far...

Israelis can go about their daily lives in relative peace, and lead luxuriously normal lives by most standards. Palestinians cannot even travel to the next village without harrassment. Millions are put under arbitrary, and brutally enforced, curfew for months on end. Their exports are left to rot at the checkpoints and their imports aren't allowed across the border.

Nobody is denying the Palestinians are an oppressed people, but that's not the point, is it? The point is, will firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian populated areas help end that oppression? No. It won't. It makes it worse for them...

Your brand of "neutrality" is deeply partial and completely ignores justice.

You do know that "justice" and "revenge" are different things, don't you? You and the others on this thread seem to be hell bent on the Palestinians getting revenge in like for like murder of innocent people (some even going so far as to support Hamas killing children). Justice is about ending the oppression you claim to be against...

Israel has a well-documented policy of provocation

The Israeli right and Hamas exist because of the conflict, neither, imo, would have a great desire to see it ending as that would also mean an end to their political power. But we've been here before and I have no desire to expand on this point (again)

not to mention a stranglehold over the Western media

Well if we're playing a PR game then killing innocent people isn't going to win either side much support from outsiders, is it?

Do you use the same language and, more pertinently, use the same crass debating tactics, when discussing the tactics of the French Resistance, or the ANC? Were those conflicts more than just a numbers game too?

When innocents were killed, then yes, of course I'd use the same arguments

Which you do not possess.

The comments of myself and others in this thread would appear to contradict your comment above. I'm clear headed enough to see the absolute damage to the Palestinian cause that targeting innocent civilians does. It has completely the opposite effect on their struggle and if you refuse to see that as well I can only conclude either your emotions have completely clouded your mind beyond the realms of reality, or you don't give two shits about the Palestinians you claim to support so much, instead seeing this conflict as a fun underdog match, despite the absolute misery the Palestinians have to suffer for you to get your kicks...

 

[CyberRose]

Why should they listen to you or me?

I wouldn't advise them to listen to you

 

[Knotted]

The Israeli right and Hamas exist because of the conflict, neither, imo, would have a great desire to see it ending as that would also mean an end to their political power. But we've been here before and I have no desire to expand on this point (again)

I doubt that's true on either score. If anything, it's the Israeli left that has the greatest history of violence and torture. Likud says, Labor does.

As for Hamas I think that they are now well aware that they cannot fight and the population will not support them if they do. Besides I thought you thought it was in their best interests not to fire the rockets...

The comments of myself and others in this thread would appear to contradict your comment above. I'm clear headed enough to see the absolute damage to the Palestinian cause that targeting innocent civilians does. It has completely the opposite effect on their struggle and if you refuse to see that as well I can only conclude either your emotions have completely clouded your mind beyond the realms of reality, or you don't give two shits about the Palestinians you claim to support so much, instead seeing this conflict as a fun underdog match, despite the absolute misery the Palestinians have to suffer for you to get your kicks...

You think too much of yourself.

 

[CyberRose]

Besides I thought you thought it was in their best interests not to fire the rockets...

You think too much of yourself.

Not such a difficult task considering the "arguments" I see from some posters on here...

 

[Spion]

the Israeli children targeted by Hamas

When did this happen? Evidence please

 

[CyberRose]

When did this happen? Evidence please

Do children not live in populated areas of Israel?

And I don't make a distinction between innocent people over or above a certain age. They're all innocent and none of them deserve to die (likefish and DeadJoe were the ones that specifically brought up children)

 

[Spion]

(likefish and DeadJoe were the ones that specifically brought up children)

And you seem to have made it the pivot point of your trollery, demanding people condemn a so-called 'targetting' that barely deserves the name. You're fetishising the killing of children and missing the big picture of the power relations invlolved. And when you put as much effort into condemning the Israeli blockada and siege as you do into using the issue of 'innocent children' to needle clear opponents of that then I'll believe you're not a thick troll.

And when I see you condemn the commemoration or glossing over of the Allies' bombing of German cities in WW2 I'll believe you're morally consistent. Any kind of bombing kills indiscriminately and I just don't believe you're against bombing per se but have in this case found a stick to beat those you disagree with in it.

 

[DeadJoe]

Do children not live in populated areas of Israel?

And I don't make a distinction between innocent people over or above a certain age. They're all innocent and none of them deserve to die (likefish and DeadJoe were the ones that specifically brought up children)

Actually, no. You were the one who specifically bought up children, in post #16 - go take a look.

What I was talking about, and I notice you have still not made any effort to address it, is that the innocent Palestinians seem to be screwed whatever they do. Fight, or not fight, the Israelis will continue to steal their land and bomb them into oblivion. My point is very simple. Faced with an evil enemy that has designs on your home, what do you do? Do you sit back and let them take it? Do you protest a bit, and take a bullet in the eye for your trouble? Or do you fight for your way of life, regardless of your chances of success?

And that's the point. The people who make the rockets and launch them at Israel are acting perfectly rationally and in a way which is very easy to understand. Any of us might do the same in the same situation. What Israel is doing is not the same. Israel is not fighting for its life. Israel is not preventing the Holocaust. Israel is simply out to steal a bit of someone else's land.

 

[ymu]

It wasn't until I was 15 years old that I learned of the occupation. It was during the first intifada, because before the first intifada Palestinians, the occupation, simply didn't exist to us. The first intifada made it impossible for Israelis to ignore Palestinians. But I was raised on Jewish history, a history of oppression, dispossession, suffering ethnic cleansing, of being forced out of community after community. Could we really be doing these things to another people?

I couldn't believe it because I was a part of the consensus opinion in Israel, that we are morally superior. They are violent. We have purity of arms. If we do kill a civilian or an innocent, it's by mistake. Even if these mistakes happen every single day. I didn't believe it until I saw it with my own eyes. I refused to believe that a soldier would open fire on an innocent child, but I saw it. Unfortunately in Nablus where I live, I see it too often. When I would hear about a child being killed by a soldier, I would think-no, he must have thrown a stone, he must have been doing something that endangered the soldier and forced the soldier to shoot back. I wanted to believe that the children were throwing stones. But when you are in the West Bank, and you see a child throw a stone at a tank, you understand that if that child is killed, that is murder. And very recently, 5 internationals were with Baha, one of the children who we knew well, and soldiers in an armoured personnel carrier picked him out from among the internationals, shot him twice in the chest, and killed him.

As a child I wouldn't have been able to believe this. I would say-the proof of their violence is suicide bombing! We would never do something like that. One of my classmates asked me: what's the difference between a suicide bombing and a Phantom jet bombing a refugee camp? I said-we don't bomb refugee camps. I couldn't believe the only difference between us and them was that we had better weapons. But I went home and asked my father.

"Is it true that we bomb refugee camps with Phantom Jets?"
"Yes. The terrorists think they can hide in the refugee camps, so we prove that they cannot" he told me.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11292

 

[CyberRose]

And you seem to have made it the pivot point of your trollery, demanding people condemn a so-called 'targetting' that barely deserves the name. You're fetishising the killing of children and missing the big picture of the power relations invlolved.

I'll happily admit I picked up on it (and carried on with it) when it seemed that people actually supported killing children. I was expecting those posters to see the error of their ways but I was actually shocked to hear posters confirming they did support the killing of children (and those that didn't, including yourself, justify killing children)

And when you put as much effort into condemning the Israeli blockada and siege as you do into using the issue of 'innocent children' to needle clear opponents of that then I'll believe you're not a thick troll.

Nobody here defends Israel so there is no need to actively condemn Israel (ie argue against someone justifying Israel's actions). But you of all people know full well my view of this conflict and to call me a "thick troll" is disingenuous at best, an outright lie at worst

And when I see you condemn the commemoration or glossing over of the Allies' bombing of German cities in WW2 I'll believe you're morally consistent. Any kind of bombing kills indiscriminately and I just don't believe you're against bombing per se but have in this case found a stick to beat those you disagree with in it.

That depends who the intended targets are and where they bomb. If the area is heavily populated with civilians, or if the actual targets were those civilians then of course I would be against it because I don't believe in targeting innocent people and I don't believe that bombing populated areas serves any military purpose.

There appears to be a misguided belief that indiscriminately killing civilians lowers morale and makes it harder for the attacked to continue their attacks. The London Blitz proved that was bollocks, as does the Israel-Palestine conflict. All it does is strengthen resolve on either side and ensure an end to the conflict is less likely.

The Palestinian terrorist groups deliberately target Israeli civilians (that children happen to be among them proves they target children despite your protests and justifications for such sick acts). Likewise, I do not believe Israel bombs civilian population centres "because terrorists hide there", I believe they do that in line with the mistaken belief I mention above, or collective punishment as it is now known, therefore they also target innocent people (and therefore children) and that's fucking sick as well.

 

[CyberRose]

Actually, no. You were the one who specifically bought up children, in post #16 - go take a look.

Well maths isn't my strong point but I could've sworn 12 and 13 come before 16?

My point is very simple. Faced with an evil enemy that has designs on your home, what do you do? Do you sit back and let them take it? Do you protest a bit, and take a bullet in the eye for your trouble? Or do you fight for your way of life, regardless of your chances of success?

Fighting knowing for a fact I will lose is not an option a sane person would choose. Of course, in that region, emotions rule the actions they take, and no it is not surprising they are pushed to take such actions. That doesn't make them right. It doesn't justify what they do. You want to know what "they" should do? Work on their image and present their case to Obama. Nothing else will work (unless Europe can be convinced to bring trade sanctions against Israel, and even that will not happen unless Hamas changes its image)

 

[DeadJoe]

Fighting knowing for a fact I will lose is not an option a sane person would choose.

That isn't what I said (I said: 'regardless of your chances of success' - if I had meant 'regardless of the fact you will lose', then that's what I would have said), but nonetheless you are in error. People fight in the sure and certain knowledge that they cannot win all the time. That's what people do when there are no other options available to them. And somehow, I don't think appealing to St.Obama is going to seem like a very convincing alternative.

Re: Children, yes, I can see that you were not the first to mention them.

 

[Spion]

Of course, in that region, emotions rule the actions they take

Y'see, when you come out with shit like this, I know I'm dealing with an idiot. You souns like some racist colonial-era throwback

 

[CyberRose]

Y'see, when you come out with shit like this, I know I'm dealing with an idiot. You souns like some racist colonial-era throwback

So your only argument boils down to calling someone a racist idiot?

Have you actually ever posted a reasoned argument on U75 yet?

 

[ymu]

You want to know what "they" should do? Work on their image and present their case to Obama.

D'oh! Why didn't they think of that!

 

[dylans]

Fighting knowing for a fact I will lose is not an option a sane person would choose.

By this logic you would condemn the resistance of the Warsaw Ghetto.

You would preach the status quo and ask the Jewish residents to walk into the gas chamber.

You would tell them that resistance was immoral.

You would condemn any and all violence of the jews and make excuses for the Nazi's. That is the logic of your position.

They were wiped out to a man you know. The jewish resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto.

you are an arrogant cock if you think you can tell a people faced with obliteration that they have no right to resist.