I don’t know if you get the whole “war” concept. For example, the United States had no legal authority over Nazi Germany, and yet, we seemed to drop an awful lot of bombs on them.
again, I’ve posted the relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions–if you have some specifics to address, cool. Otherwise, you’re just name-calling.
But today, Palestine has proposed a 10 year truce in return for Israel’s agreement to 10 demands, most of which seem reasonable enough to me. And all of which would be reasonable outside of Israeli demonization of Hamas.
A lot of them are obviously intended to help assuage the crippling unemployment in Gaza, though of course I can already hear the response that will claim that allowing larger fishing ships would lead to smuggling, and that moving back IDF tanks so farmers can work their land would…what? Provide freer access for suicide bombers? Allow stone throwing Palestinian children too much access? Fill in the blank. There are endless memes and you can pick one of them out of the air.
Meantime, take a look at the full list and see how it strikes you. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/07/16/Report-Hamas-Offers-10-Year-Truce-with-10-Demands
Again, you really have trouble with this “war” idea don’t you? I’ll try and simplify–when some governing authority–in this case, Hamas, shoots rockets at the population of another governing authority–in this case, Israel–what exists between them is a state of war.
So here’s the thing–you have an organization, Hamas, which is pledged to the destruction of Israel. To reiterate, its charger specifically calls for the destruction of Israel, not because of any particular policy, but because a Jewish state may not exist in the world of Islam.
So when they say they want a 10-year truce, what they are basically saying is “We, who are pledged to destroy you, would like 10 years in which we are able to import whatever we want to. At the end of those ten years, we may begin attacking again, with our ten years of preparation.”
So does that seem reasonable? Does that seem more reasonable then, say, the PA taking over Gaza, or Hamas declaring a willingness to negotiate for a two-state solution, or Hamas disarming and international security forces taking over Gaza to prevent the importation of weapons and military material?
To simplify, would you think it was reasonable if a guy who was in a gunfight with you, and getting the worst of it, asked to take a break for a couple of days to get a better gun and bullet-proof vest, after which he’d come back and start shooting again.
+1
Speaking of the IDF, their guns sure did murder a lot of children today.
Says the Hamas Amen corner.
Why would the classification of the information matter?
The US committed numerous war crimes in Germany.
Really? They target children? the explicitly attempted to kill children? Or did you mean they accidentally killed children, which, as I understand the word, is different from “murder.”
Yes, they explicitly intended to murder those children.
It’s the whole Zionist Terror-thing, remember?
Not with the bombings, however–that was before the relevant conventions.
But you raise an important point–in every war, there will be war crimes. That doesn’t justify them, but it does mean that some of the shrill screeching over Israel should be placed in a context.
And nobody here has actually made much of a case for war crimes other than “Israel is committing war crimes!”
So you’re saying that somewhere in Israel, somebody said, in the midst of this campaign which has resulted in Israel avoiding fatalities in at least 90 percent of its strikes, some Israeli officer was sitting there saying “We have intel of some kids playing on a beach, right next to a hotel full of foreign journalists. Let’s launch a missile at them.”
Where did you get that information from? Did your neighbor’s dog tell you?
I’m not sure to what you were referring to with your comment about classification.
Why would anyone need to prove to you that the sky is up?
Blatant obviousness shows that the large percentage of civilians murdered by the IDF is proof of war crimes.
SO when I sprayed 100 bullets into your house, only 10 of them killed some little baby, right. It’s ok. It could have 100 little babies.
“do you have access to some other classified source of information? Didn’t think so.”
Was your quote . . . .
What was mine again?
And with that circular reasoning we have the genesis of every genocide in history. They hate us, they have the potential to do us harm at some point in the untold future, so we are within our rights to wipe them out in the present here and now. Disgusting beyond words.
And also telling, is how you seem to have had the better part of 12 hours to day to post your pro-Israeli messages in here. So tell us, what Israeli-affiliated NGO do you actually work for?
The headline should have read: “Hamas refuses truce, 4 children die.”
actually, just the opposite. There have been fatalities in fewer than 90 percent of Israel’s strikes during this campaign. They’ve had, what, about 1700 or so sorties? and 200 fatalities, many of them from multiple deaths in individual attacks. so while you can scream about Israeli warcrimes all you want to, the actual statistics show that in fact there has not been a “large percentage” of civilians killed, much less murdered.
I didn’t make up the Geneva Conventions, they exist. And not only is Israel fulfilling it’s obligations, it has been fairly successful in doing so.
But let me ask you–you think Israel is genocidal beast with a powerful military and no moral compass, correct? And it is launching attacks into densely populated areas, correct? So can you explain how it is that in 90 percent of the airstrikes, there have been no fatalities.
I’ll simplify, and give you two choices
Israel, a genocidal beast with powerful military and no moral compass is launching airstrikes into densely populated regions and killing people in less than 10 percent of those strikes. the reason is:
A. Despite it’s best efforts, despite the densely populated Gaza urban areas, despite it’s advanced weapons systems, it seems that Israel is actually really, really bad at killing Palestinians.
B. Israel’s document efforts to avoid civilians casualties are working.
A or B, it’s easy.