|
Anaxagoras -> RE: Propaganda and Israel (12/4/2010 11:25:55 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
We must thank luckydawg in particular and hippiekinkster for the descent into name calling.
These mindless claims of 'anti-Semite' seemed to intensify just after:
- rulemylife introduced evidence of the IDF continuing to use Palestinians as human shields;
- Anerin introduced more evidence of Israeli bombing of civilian areas of South Lebanon; and
- I introduced evidence of deliberate targeting of a crowded mosque by the IDF in Gaza.
All are war crimes of course. No adequate or meaningful response to any of these charges yet. Instead we get accusations of anti-Semitism.
Muck accumulates at the bottom of the barrel. Does the muck-throwing indicate that the Israeli apologists have run out of evidence and/or arguments? That the evidence is overwhelming them? That they are scraping the bottom of the barrel?
I would to say your failure to engage with any argument I make other than ones you continue with because you think you can win smacks of opportunism. Rather than concede anything you drop arguments that clearly are not going your way such as the failure to engage with the points I made about the dramatic differences between the IRA and Hamas. By contrast I conceded a few points for the sake of honesty. Thus it is impossible to have a proper dialogue with you. Your only motive is to win an argument where you unrelentingly push the accusation of "war crimes". You are just as much a propagandist here as Hertz as your support of the rather disgusting outburst by Hertz indicates. Hertz is by no means a good guy on here with misguided opinions. He even misrepresented the character of the Holocaust, and for you to take his side only proves that nothing matters to you except winning an argument which TBH is sad since I am just some guy posting on the other side of the world. Maybe your hate of Israel would be put to better use by joining the UN and you'll get no argument there.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
anaxagoras I also refer you to post 74: "The point is that the IDF has conflicting needs like any army. It has a responsibility not to excessively endanger their own troops so it can't send them into a hornets nest without preparing the ground first by weakening Hamas' position, especially since Hamas also has heavy armaments." Aerial bombardment is a standard tactic of war and not inherently a war crime. Despite what you say there is not necessarily other simple option available.
Your defence of Israel's aerial bombing tactics doesn't include any consideration of civilian casualties . Indeed civilian casualties don't even get a mention. let a alone consideration. Which is, to large extent, confirmation of my point. And, I suspect, and an accurate reflection of Israeli military planning re the Palestinians - Palestinian civilian lives and/or casualties just don't matter to the Israelis.
Tweakabelle your criticism of my failure to mention civilian casualties is not fair so it can’t confirm your point whatever it may be. If you read post 74 you would see that I mentioned that civilians should also be protected. In the sentences immediately following the last I said: “It also has a responsibility to minimise the probable death of civilians especially in high population areas where there is a lot of conflict. Thus if it can get the civilians out of an area first before resorting to the use of heavy weaponry to seriously weaken Hamas then I think that sounds like a sensible compromise.” I also mentioned the need for the IDF repeatedly in other posts to be concerned about this issue. Again I say how can it be that civilian casualties do not matter to the Israeli’s when they have the lowest civilian to combatant death ratio in the world by a very large margin. You are on your demonisation buzz again.
quote:
So let's look at how this pans out in practice:
"Main article: 2009 Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque strike
The report stated that the strike on the al-Maqadmah mosque on the outskirts of Jabilyah occurred when between 200 and 300 men and women attended for their evening prayer, with 15 people being killed and 40 wounded as a result of the attack. The Mission has established that the Israeli armed forces fired a missile that struck near the doorway of the mosque. The Mission found that the mosque was damaged and lodged in its interior walls with "small metal cubes", several of which were retrieved by the Mission when it inspected the site. The Mission concluded that the mosque had been hit by an air-to-ground missile fitted with a shrapnel fragmentation sleeve, fired from an aircraft. The Mission based its findings on investigation of the site, photographs and interviewing witnesses. The Mission found no indications that the mosque was used to launch rockets, store munitions or shelter combatants. The Mission also found that no other damage was done in the area at the time, making the attack an isolated incident. The Mission concluded that the Israelis intentionally bombed the mosque.[4][79] Judge Goldstone said: "Assuming that weapons were stored in the mosque, it would not be a war crime to bomb it at night... It would be a war crime to bomb it during the day when 350 people are praying". He further added that there is no other possible interpretation for what could have occurred other than a deliberate targeting of civilians.[71] The report also reproduces a statement from the Israeli government concerning the attack, where the Israeli government both denies that the mosque was attacked and states that the casualties of the attack were Hamas operatives. The report says that the position of the Israeli government contains "apparent contradictions" and is "unsatisfactory" and "demonstrably false".[4]" *
Here we have a case of a fragmentation (anti-personnel)^ bomb fired from air (ie aerial bombing) targetting a mosque during Friday prayers ie. the mosque's peak usage time when it was full with 200-300 worshippers.
For an analysis of how the Goldstone team conducted itself check out a very detailed article which refers in detail to how they treated the testimony over the attack on the Ibrahim al-Maqadma mosque http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=45797 – not only did Goldstone ask a lot of incidental questions that were irrelevant but never once were witnesses challenged in any way. This was the same conduct for the other testimony too. Basically everything was taken at face value and all evidence sourced by the small number giving testimonials on the opposite side was pretty much discounted. The piece then goes on to note a number of those killed were involved in combat or were members of terror groups based on Palestinian sources. The assertions are referenced. Thus it seems not all was innocent at the mosque.
quote:
Here’s another “simple option” instead of aerial bombing:
Send in a column of tanks, surround the mosque, evacuate it, search it, video any munitions found and then destroy the mosque. Israel deployed these exact tactics in the West Bank during the offensive that ended up surrounding Yasser Arafat in Ramallah. So there’s no doubt it can be done, that it is a viable option and the Israelis can do it and have experience of doing it. This option would have achieved any legitimate military objectives while minimising risks and dangers to Gaza residents or civilians.
No doubt, any experienced military person could devise many other “simple options" that would have achieved the same results.
Instead, the Israelis chose to use aerial bombing, a strategy that maximised dangers to civilians. Instead of doing it at night, when the mosque would have been empty, they chose to bomb the mosque at the very time when it was guaranteed to be packed with worshippers. Indeed the timing, and the choice of an fragmentation bomb suggests that it was deliberately chosen in order to maximise civilian casualties.
One could speculate that if the mosque had in fact been used to store munitions, and the missile attack ignited those munitions, the carnage would have all too easily been much worse - which begs the question: Was that the outcome the Israelis were hoping for?
Even in the unlikely event of there being some truth in the Israeli claim
that ‘all the dead’ were 'Hamas operatives’ (how could they possibly know this?), is it appropriate to risk 200-300 civilian lives to kill 15 or so ‘Hamas operatives’ ? Of course not.
Result: 15 dead and 40 wounded civilians.
Military advantage obtained: none/minimal.
I thought the Yasser Arafat 2002 Ramallah incident did involve some level of bombing AFAIK. I am not a military strategist so don’t know definitively why some situations should involve aerial bombing and others do not. I will hazard a guess and say though that it seems probable that Hamas had heavier armaments than the PA did at the time which would probably have made a ground invasion harder in Gaza than it was with the PA who were not as heavily armed. Thirdly, and yes I am sick of saying it to you but you just refuse to acknowledge it - Israel has the lowest civilian to combatant death toll in the whole wide world by a huge margin so regardless of whether they use air strikes or not, they achieve that standard.
It is wrong to say in the “unlikely event” what the Israeli’s were saying was true when you know for a fact that much of what Hamas says is fabricated. Not only do you discount Israel’s version of events but you accept Hamas’ events which were pretty much replicated in the report. It shows on your part a need to think the worst in Israel. Even if you hate the place surely you can see such bias is bad in itself.
|
|
|
|
