Absaloutely, but lets not forget that nuearly 40,000 are dead in syria. Iran supports Syria and Hamas. It’s Iran that
pull the string. It’s not about land – its about TERROR!

If it’s not about land then are Israel going to start dismantling illegal settlements?

Israel doesn’t want peace or it would recognise the Palestinian State. It wants Palestine, not Peace.

So why is Israel still no retaliating after Hamas sent 12 rockets over during the ceasefire so far? Which side isn’t keeping the peace?

thanks for the link petr.interesting reading.

of they are if you grab a tiger by the tail you’ll always come off worse the egyptian, jordanian syrian, iraqi armies all learned this some had to relearn it several times hamas just wont believe it

Why don’t they just ask the Iranians to smuggle in humanitarian aid instead of all the arms they are able to smuggle in?

C’mon Paul. Think about what you are saying. You have to be more mature than those slogans.

As someone who used to be very sympathetic towards Israel, I’ve thought long and hard about it. Maybe you’re not getting the information you need to make a proper judgement Reginald.

And no casualties, unlike the Israeli bomb on Sunday that killed 10 members of one family (the al-Dalou family). You’re not bothered about though, are you?

“IDF rockets and missiles have killed more innocent civilians in the last three days than all the Hamas rockets combined in the last eight years!” ~ Jerry Haber.

Talk about misplaced outrage, Allen.

Just wondering Petr … do you believe it’s ok for rockets to be fired from Gaza after the “ceasefire”?

Jenni, it’s never ok for rockets to be fired at civilians.

It’s never ok for civilians to be targeted, or treated with reckless disregard by military forces.

“Human shield” platitudes don’t cut it. Israel has shamed itself yet again in the past three days. I don’t have words for the disgust I’m feeling towards the people responsible for this:

http://inagist.com/all/271270764974571520/

I’m more than happy to answer that, Jenni.

I’m opposed to the firing of munitions into civilian areas. Full stop.

Can you say the same?

Sorry to butt in, Petr, but it would do a lot of good for my faith in humanity, also, to hear some of Israel’s supporters on here admit that firing on civilian targets, with reckless disregard for human life, is just as wrong as letting off a rocket that may potentially harm civilian targets.

Petr & Voodoo, as I have stated on numerous occasions I believe that Israel has a right to exist. However I also want peace in the whole region & firmly believe that the only way this will happen is with a 2 state solution where both states are given equal respect by the region & wider international community. I do not agree with any unnecessary deaths of civilians be they Israeli or Palestinian. What I find absolutely sickening is the fact that AFTER the ceasefire, some idiots have fired 12+ rockets from Gaza into Israel. I assume you agree that this is just nonsensical?

What I find absolutely sickening is the fact that AFTER the ceasefire, some idiots have fired 12+ rockets from Gaza into Israel. I assume you agree that this is just nonsensical?

Oh I’d agree with that, Absolutely nonsensical.

I’m curious though, what would sicken you more: 12+ rockets that didn’t kill or injure anyone, or the fact that Israeli bombs have killed 27 Palestinian children over the past eight days?

Also, I’m not clear on your position re firing into civilian areas. I’m against it no matter who’s doing it. But you seem to support it when Israel does it, or am I picking that up wrong?

How can anyone red thumb this?? Please clarify … do those who red thumbed not want a peaceful 2 state solution or do u think its ok to ignore the ceasefire or is it both?

I don’t know what part of “it’s never ok for rockets to be fired at civilians” is unclear, but I’m saying it again.

I just think there’s a shockingly cavalier attitude from some quarters – you know who you are – towards civilian casualties in Gaza in the past days, and IDF actions that unnecessarily endanger civilians.

I sometimes suffer a bit from outrage fatigue, but Abdulrahman Naim story really got to me today – bombing international press offices, for the second time, clearly a civilian target, and killing a two year old in an adjoining building is just inexcusable.

There are a lot of people in the government and military of both sides who should be going on trial for war crimes, that might be a good first step in sorting things out.

@Voodoo

As Jerry Haber wrote:
-

“Bombs fired discriminately that kill large numbers of civilians are worse than rockets fired indiscriminately that have little chance of hitting anybody.”

I thought your post was great Jenni – red thumbs may have been reflex reaction by people who skim read.

Voodoo, this might restore your faith in humanity –
http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2012/11/israels-turkey-shoot-and-hamas-weapons.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jeremiahhaber%2FPcEx+%28The+Magnes+Zionist%29

You’re picking me up wrong … I don’t agree with ANY innocent civilian deaths on either side but I’m a realist and recognise that in wars innocent people die. It’s not a nice fact but it is sadly fact.
Do I think sophisticated weaponry better or worse than rockets? I hate all forms if weaponry as the only thing it is intended for is death. It saddens me that there is such a need for it in the region. The fact is that Israel has more advanced weaponry with which they could do a lot more damage than they have done. I think if Hamas (not the ordinary peace wanting palestinian) had the same weaponry they’d show zero restraint and would happily wipe Israel out.

Voodoo … I understand your position but so far 5 people have red thumbed it but only you & Petr are willing to discuss why my comments are disagreeable. I think the 3 of us agree we want peace even if we are coming at it from different angles. I just find the red thumbers who never comment really odd! It’s like hiding behind mummy’s skirts! Anyway please god it’ll be a peaceful night for all in the region. Good night all…

You’re picking me up wrong … I don’t agree with ANY innocent civilian deaths

But, with respect, that’s not what I asked.

I said:

“I’m opposed to the firing of munitions into civilian areas. Full stop. Can you say the same?”

I don’t think we’re on the same page here.

You said:

“… but I’m a realist and recognise that in wars innocent people die. It’s not a nice fact but it is sadly fact.”

Israel has spent the last eight days firing into civilian areas, looking for particular targets, but knowing that because of how densely populated the areas are, they would certainly kill many innocent people. I’m against Israel doing this, you appear not to be.

Jenni, wouldn’t worry unduly about the thumbometer. People are of course going to look at this differently, what I object to is people trying to pretend that one side, or the other, is totally justified in everything they’re doing. That’s not discussion or persuasion, that’s propaganda – not suggesting for one second that you’re one of these people, though, in case there was any doubt.

The comments here on firing into civilian areas reflect the morality of seven-year-olds. Child psychologists know that children rate the morality of acts (partly) in terms of how much physical damage they cause — so stealing a cookie from the jar is wrong, but stealing a cookie and in the process knocking over and breaking the cookie jar is more wrong.
In this conflict, there is, on the one hand, the firing of thousands of rockets deliberately and indiscriminately into civilian Israeli populations that, though they make the daily life of a community intolerable, cause few deaths and injuries (no thanks to those launching them, but to the elaborate protection measures of the target population). On the other hand, there are air strikes that are aimed specifically at eliminating the sites where rockets are made, stored and launched, sites that are deliberately located by Hamas in the midst of civilian areas. The air strikes have a high degree of accuracy but sometimes hit and kill civilians thus placed in harm’s way by the rocket squads.
Adults do not judge the relative morality of the two actions simply by the damage they cause, but by the intentions involved and the inherent justifications for the actions. Provided that Israel takes every step possible to minimise civilian casualties — by dropping warning leaflets, sending mass text messages and phone calls to the affected population etc — and because it has no alternative in carrying out the first duty of every state — to protect its citizens — its action is on a totally different moral plane from that of Hamas, regardless of there being more civilian casualties as a result.
Without this morality, it would never have been possible to liberate western Europe from Nazism, to take one example of a just war. Using technology far more primitive than today’s, the Allies caused huge and deeply regrettable civilian casualties during the bombing, for example, of cities such as Caen in Nazi-occupied France — and these were Allied civilians, not enemy ones! Mistakes were made and not all the bombings may have been strictly necessary, but the overall goal, the expulsion of the occupiers, justified them. It would have been ludicrous to suggest then that the Allies should aim to kill only as many of the enemy as would equal their own death toll, and then stop. Rather, their legitimate goal was to do what it took to wipe put the enemy’s capabliity to wage war.
Nobody has yet taken up the thought experiment I’ve previously suggested. Suppose Israel, worried about the proportionality of its response to rockets, decided to fire back just one rocket of exactly the same type as each one fired from Gaza, with the same indiscriminate disregard for its target. Few Hamas activists or rocket facilities would be hit, but there’s no doubt the Gaza civilian death toll would be far higher than it is, yet those who obsess about numbers-proportionality could hardly complain .

Thank you.

I seem to have had a comment deleted? In the parlance of our times, wtf? Here it is again, if anyone has a problem with it, I’ll be glad to address any queries:

“Thank you for the lecture, Mel, most learned. These child psychologists of yours obviously never studied ethical consequentialism in undergraduate philosophy, but there you are. Consequentialism, being the foundation of utilitarianism, being the foundation of much the liberal model of governance and economics. Obviously some bright seven year olds they were dealing with, but there you are.

If we want to talk about morality, some of you seem to be displaying the ethics of a psychopath, totally lacking in basic human empathy. Others seem to have adopted the morals of fascism, where the well-being of the body national is of paramount concern, and the interests of those outside that grouping are irrelevant. Essentially treating those inconvenient to the interests of the nation with which the subject identifies as sub-human, and their suffering not only unproblematic, but positively desirable.”

Sorry Petr, I was replying via iphone which is a pain in the behind so to clarify (I didn’t meant to be vague):

“I’m opposed to the firing of munitions into civilian areas. Full stop. Can you say the same?”
Of course I don’t agree with this … I would have assumed that this was implied when I stated that I don;t agree with ANY civilian deaths.

You said:
“Israel has spent the last eight days firing into civilian areas, looking for particular targets, but knowing that because of how densely populated the areas are, they would certainly kill many innocent people. I’m against Israel doing this, you appear not to be.”
Again I don’t agree with the sad deaths caused by Israel firing into civilian areas & wish that they did not have the need to do so but answer me this please … Why do Hamas (who are the governing body supposed to be in charge of the people of Gaza’s welfare) enable & allow terrorists that they KNOW are targets to reside / hide out in civilian areas. Again … nonsensical in my opinion…

Sorry I’m being ambiguous again!

I don’t agree with the firing of munitions into civilian areas

And how many isreali CIVILIANS were killed Robert Allen??? Should this be a justification for Israel to go and murder another 162 Palestinian CIVILIANS???

Voodoo

Thanks for your reply. I’m not sure how many pro-Israel commenters on this site you are trying to portray as having the ‘ethics of a psychopath… lacking in basic human empathy… [seeing] those inconvenient to the interests of the nation as sub-human etc etc.” There is a small proportion of psychopaths (in the sense of people who lack empathy for their fellow-humans) in every population and I presume the Israeli population is no exception. Horror at civilian casualties is a normal human response but a judgement as to the rightness of an action cannot rest solely on emotion and empathy.

Every state, especially a democratic one, is based on a social contract between the governors and the governed. One of the first duties of the governors is to organise the defence of the governed when attacked. This may involve doing everything possible to remove the threat to them by disabling the capability of the attackers. Doing this may accidentally cause the deaths of non-combatants on the attacking side, especially since Islamist terror groups have in the past decade developed the techniques of asymmetric warfare, fighting against better-equipped armies using civilians as human shields. One may feel great human sympathy for the victims in these cases, one may try to do the utmost to minimise such deaths (as Israel has been doing by dropping warning leaflets and sending mass text messages — ‘We are going to bomb Area X, please go to Area Y and you will be safe’ — yes, you can mock this if you like but why would they do it if their only interest were to slaughter indiscriminately as they are accused of?).

Basing a discussion on the morality of the two sides in this conflict, as so many do on this site, solely on the relative numbers of victims on each side gets us nowhere. It is not a choice between defending one’s own people and regarding another people as ‘sub-human’. We need to use all of our brain, not just the emotional part. We are faced with a terrible dilemma between the right (no, the duty) to defend our own citizens and basic human concern for the uninvolved victims of our self-defensive actions among the enemy population. In this dilemma, there can be only one moral choice, tough and uncomfortable as it is.

Now, if you call yourself a pacifist who abhors all conflict, I could have great respect for your position though disagreeing with it. My only criticisms would be that you are too good for this world and naive in thinking that your own safety does not depend on others — police, soldiers — being willing to put their own lives at risk and maybe do violence for your sake. But I can only respect a genuine pacifist, one who really condemns all violence, from every side — no excuses about Hamas’ legitimate resistance to oppression or the rockets only being ‘firecrackers’ etc. Otherwise, in the flawed world we inhabit, the morality of self-defense coupled with every attempt to avoid unnecessary collateral casualties is the best we can manage.

Ok, so I’m naive in thinking that the best thing would be for the UN to insist upon the State of Israel’s submitting to the International Criminal Court, and to make any settlement with Palestine contingent on a future Palestinian state doing the same?

One thing of which I’m certain is that both Israeli and Hamas leaders, both military and civilian, have consistently played fast and loose with civilian lives, and these people should be made to pay.

If I’m naive in thinking that the global mechanisms for bringing war criminals to justice should be supported, strengthened and used for their stated purpose in every conflict around the world, then I’m happy to be naive.

I’ve heard that naive pacifism dismissal before, btw, please don’t try to put my position into a preconceived category, with a preconceived answer, it’s far more nuanced than that.

“Horror at civilian casualties is a normal human response but a judgement as to the rightness of an action cannot rest solely on emotion and empathy.”

If that’s the case, Mel, then you should rightly condemn any invocation of “Pallywood”, the gross slur that Palestinians are “play-acting for the cameras”, when you know full well that civilians are were being killed and maimed every day that Israel attacked Gaza.

Except you invoked that very concept in a post on Monday. So, tell me, which category of “normal human response” does that fall in to?

One last thing, I never called myself a “pacifist who abhors conflict”, my problem is with civilians being targeted.

I had assumed they’d run out of missiles, guess they found some more. If only they put as much effort into smuggling food & medicine through their tunnels as they do weapons, the innocent Palestinan people would be so much better off. Hopefully Fatah can retake power in Gaza & start negotiations towards a real peace with Israel.

Reports circulating on twitter that the West Bank is now under attack from IDF forces.

… which, thankfully, seem to have been overstated.

What viscious comments…

David, not quite stupidest, but maybe top 10……….8th???

Michael………. I would not call the Israeli politicians smooth talkers at all…… They quite openly despise Hamas and the people’s of gaza. Most of there speeches are quite aggressive and threatening

What restraint

“IDF rockets and missiles have killed more innocent civilians in the last three days than all the Hamas rockets combined in the last eight years!” ~ Jerry Haber.

Mel — I can’t but conclude that your sympathy for bomb victims depends on their ethnicity?

See my post above and you’ll see the issue has nothing to do with ethnicity — and while sympathy for all innocent victims must be indiscriminate, we must discriminate as to the rightness of the two sets of actions involved.

Mel, why don’t you find yourself something worth a while to do instead of sitting there counting rockets on the screens of Robert Murdock’s tv stations. Why don’t you try and learn the correct meaning of Arabic words before you go on pontificating? That might be something of value to your future!

Ten years ago, the Arab League offered Israel full recognition in exchange for its withdrawing to its legal borders and agreeing a just solution for the Palestinian refugees. The formula was agreed by the Palestinian leadership but rejected by Israel.

Rory, your quite wrong. There will be peace when Hamas stop firing rockets and mortars, but that won’t happen until Israel stop allowing its citizens from occupying private property and then building houses on it……… simples

What about Palestine being recognised? Israel is neo- fascist state

Petr, that is simply not true.

You’re entitled to your own opinion, Mr. Tower, but not to your own facts.

Arab Peace Initiative

Thanks for the link Petr – interesting reading. For the sake of balance though its only fair to say that it also states that the initiative was also rejected by the majority of factions within Hamas.

@Mattoid

Sure! I posted this in response to Rory saying:

“All this can be avoided if Israel were recognised , in the region, as a State.”

The Arab Peace Initiative exposes that position as BS. All the Arab states offered Israel recognition if they returned to 1967 borders and agreed a solution to the refugee problem but Israel flatly refused.

An interesting sidebar: it’s amazing how little known all this is. I suspect there’s an effort to keep it mum. It really does demolish the common narrative of Israel being in a ‘tough neighbourhood’ of intransigent Arabs who won’t recognise them.

Israel is recognized as a state, just not by its surrounding enemy states. It would serve a lot of people on here some good to recognize that.

Evie

Read it s l o w l y:

Ten years ago, the Arab League offered Israel full recognition in exchange for its withdrawing to its legal borders and agreeing a just solution for the Palestinian refugees. The formula was agreed by the Palestinian leadership but rejected by Israel.