Israel bombs 160 sites in Gaza overnight. Mod Warnings in First Post.

Royal Irish

That human shields claims from Israel was always bull****. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

Manic Moran

One reporter group, another reporter group.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052702303833804580019453359717126

In one of those strikes, a group of Palestinians positioned themselves on the roof of the Kaware home in the Gaza town of Khan Younis after a warning. They had hoped to act as human shields to prevent an attack, according to a family member.

The strike went ahead and eight people died, the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza said, drawing new attention to the Israeli practice.

That said, that wasn't specifically a Hamas thing, it is reported as a spontaneous act.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

That said, that wasn't specifically a Hamas thing, it is reported as a spontaneous act.

Fair enough, and completely stupid thing for the individuals involved to do, as the IDF has no issues with killing civilians, but its hard to judge people, who have no where to run to, and have been under siege for years. Not to sure people living under such conditions, will act rationally.

The fact remains that the claims made by the Israeli government of Hamas using Human Shields has no evidence to back it up, and the claims of a targeted operation is highly questionable on the basis of the facts I mentioned in my earlier post.

shedweller

Manic Moran wrote: »

For starters, it's an incendiary. Its purpose is to burn things, not poison people. Its alternate purpose is to create a smoke screen, not to poison people.

Oh, and the fumes aren't "Highly toxic". They're catergorised as an irritant. US Army Field Manual 4-02.285:

.

So, no, no laws against it with the two aforementioned exceptions: As an incendiary it may not be delivered by aircraft over an urban area, and the normal rules applicable to all munitions about having a valid primary military purpose which merits the risk to population. Oh, and, I guess you can't use it against personnel for the irritant effect, but as the irritant effect is so minor anyway, there's little point to it. Besides, the burning is far more effective.



There are, I guess, two levels. The only "Laws of War" are those created by international treaty such as the Hague or Geneva Conventions. All signatories are bound by them. That said, some unwritten laws have come about.

The next level is national policy. A number of countries which are not signatories to the conventions have declared that their position will be to abide by the regulations anyway. The general purpose for this is so that if they're engaged in operations against a signatory that various rules will be followed anyway, sortof an agreement of honor. Legal enforcement, however, is internal to the nation's military, effectively as a rule of engagement.

A rule of engagement is a limitation placed upon a military by its own chain of command, almost always for political purposes. RsOE will never be more permissive than the laws of war allow. (At least, they shouldn't be. If they are, adherence to RsOE cannot be relied upon as a defense to a charge of a violation of the laws of war). RsOE can be changed by any commander of sufficient granted authority, usually a theatre commander. For example, US Army RsOE in Afghanistan were set by the senior US Commander in Afghanistan. Violation of an ROE is not a war crime, but it may be a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Queen's Regulations, or similar, as disobedience of a direct order at the very least, possibly more depending on the situation. However, RsOE almost always have a loophole at the end, along the lines of "Nothing in the above restrictions should be considered as preventing a soldier from taking any actions he deems necessary to preserve his life, that of a colleague, or an innocent third party"

For further reading on the US side of things, see The Law of War Handbook ( http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law-war-handbook-2005.pdf ) which is a reference book put out by the JAG school (military lawyer school), and for what the average soldier needs to know, look for US Army manual FM 27-10, "The Law of Land Warfare", http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law_warfare-1956.pdf , and the Cliff's Notes version, FM 27-2 "Your conduct in combat under the laws of war"
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/conduct-in-combat-1984.pdf

The US military has taken the position of "If we issue it to you, you can use it however you like as long as it doesn't violate the above handbooks". As a result, a soldier need not concern himself with the technicalities of if he is actually authorised to use the exploding 20mm round from his AA gun against infantry if he happens to come across them, or if he can legally fire his Smoke-WP against the enemy in that building over there to burn them out. It is unreasonable to expect a soldier to know every single detail, and the Army simply takes the approach of trying to avoid the problem in the first place.

You have seen the cavernous burned holes in people from a few years ago over Christmas?
I was under the impression that it was a little bit more than a minor irritant!
All your other words dont mean so much with that in mind.

Manic Moran

shedweller wrote: »

I was under the impression that it was a little bit more than a minor irritant!
All your other words dont mean so much with that in mind.

As I said, it's an incendiary, its job is to burn. And, whether you like it or not, burning people is a legitimate way of killing and wounding people in warfare and is not prohibited. It's horrible, it's terrifying, it is the most fearsome sort of weapon and death likely found on today's battlefield until you get to chemical/biological/radiological weapons. But it's legal.

The gas/smoke/fumes produced by WP are the irritant and, as I mentioned, not exactly the most significant thing about the munition.

The bottom line is that unless one sees an airplane or helicopter dropping WP munitions over Gaza, one cannot point to any instance of its use in Gaza and immediately declare it a war crime, no matter how impressive the smoke, flame, and burning craters in bodies happen to be. It is the simple legal reality. More information is required, and for those of us commenting on it on the Internet, that information is not available to us.

WakeUp

Manic Moran wrote: »

As I said, it's an incendiary, its job is to burn. And, whether you like it or not, burning people is a legitimate way of killing and wounding people in warfare and is not prohibited. It's horrible, it's terrifying, it is the most fearsome sort of weapon and death likely found on today's battlefield until you get to chemical/biological/radiological weapons. But it's legal.

The gas/smoke/fumes produced by WP are the irritant and, as I mentioned, not exactly the most significant thing about the munition.

The bottom line is that unless one sees an airplane or helicopter dropping WP munitions over Gaza, one cannot point to any instance of its use in Gaza and immediately declare it a war crime, no matter how impressive the smoke, flame, and burning craters in bodies happen to be. It is the simple legal reality. More information is required, and for those of us commenting on it on the Internet, that information is not available to us.

Shelling the 2nd and 3rd floor of a hospital - the intensive care unit (two patients killed in their beds) that can be immediately declared a war crime right? I mean you're not even going to attempt to explain that away or dress it up. it's a warcrime?... thank you for those links you posted for me and taking the time to do that.

BlaasForRafa

WakeUp wrote: »

Shelling the 2nd and 3rd floor of a hospital - the intensive care unit (two patients killed in their beds) that can be immediately declared a war crime right? I mean you're not even going to attempt to explain that away or dress it up. it's a warcrime?... thank you for those links you posted for me and taking the time to do that.

I know you like easy answers but in a warzone there rarely are any. There are a number of factors involved, did the IDF intend to hit the hospital? If so, were Hamas launching rockets or mortars from the vicinity of the hospital? If the IDF intentionally hit the hospital then there must have been a reason, it seems unlikely that they would do so just for the laugh or whatever you seem to think.

If Hamas were launching rockets or mortars they're hardly going to admit it. Do you think that Hamas wouldn't put civilians in danger?

WakeUp

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I know you like easy answers but in a warzone there rarely are any. There are a number of factors involved, did the IDF intend to hit the hospital? If so, were Hamas launching rockets or mortars from the vicinity of the hospital? If the IDF intentionally hit the hospital then there must have been a reason, it seems unlikely that they would do so just for the laugh or whatever you seem to think.

If Hamas were launching rockets or mortars they're hardly going to admit it. Do you think that Hamas wouldn't put civilians in danger?

Well I'll be damned. even for IDF apologists the attempted defending of a hospital being deliberately targeted is a new low though not surprising. So once again Israeli soldiers kill civilians - they pulled the trigger they are to blame for the killings -and once again it's the fault of Hamas?. It matters not why they bombed a hospital the fact is they bombed a hospital an intensive care unit. the more I talk and listen to some of you people the more I'm convinced that a lot of you suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance. and the more my views on this particular conflict become entrenched. Bibi is a sociopath that much is certain though I am beginning to wonder about the wider Israeli public/supporters at large at least some of them. the concept of even the most basic moral responsibility just doesn't exist it's absent a blank void like the vastness of space - never their fault always someone else's. unbelievable.

Manic Moran

The BBC report I saw last night indicated that the target was a building next to the hospital, injuries were caused mainly by secondary effects. The international aid worker there who was interviewed wasn't decrying the attack, but instead was advocating for an evacuation of wounded and sick people out of Gaza so that they were no longer at risk from the crossfire.

The Israelis, PR be damned, have made it clear that they will hit any target of military value. If it happens to be near or in a hospital, that's not Israel's problem legally. Only for PR.

Manic Moran

WakeUp wrote: »

Shelling the 2nd and 3rd floor of a hospital - the intensive care unit (two patients killed in their beds) that can be immediately declared a war crime right? I mean you're not even going to attempt to explain that away or dress it up. it's a warcrime?... thank you for those links you posted for me and taking the time to do that.

If they actually shot at the hospital and had no reason to, yes, it would be.

R P McMurphy

Manic Moran wrote: »

The BBC report I saw last night indicated that the target was a building next to the hospital, injuries were caused mainly by secondary effects. The international aid worker there who was interviewed wasn't decrying the attack, but instead was advocating for an evacuation of wounded and sick people out of Gaza so that they were no longer at risk from the crossfire.

The Israelis, PR be damned, have made it clear that they will hit any target of military value. If it happens to be near or in a hospital, that's not Israel's problem legally. Only for PR.

12 shells hit the hospital though, not a building beside it. The shells landed in the administration building, the intensive care unit and the surgery department.

Kev2Dee

Any more news on the Israelis using those DIME weapons? Saw on BBC news the other night they interviewed a doctor and he said the wounds hes seen so far are consistent with DIME weaponry?

tayto lover

Manic Moran wrote: »

The BBC report I saw last night indicated that the target was a building next to the hospital, injuries were caused mainly by secondary effects. The international aid worker there who was interviewed wasn't decrying the attack, but instead was advocating for an evacuation of wounded and sick people out of Gaza so that they were no longer at risk from the crossfire.

The Israelis, PR be damned, have made it clear that they will hit any target of military value. If it happens to be near or in a hospital, that's not Israel's problem legally. Only for PR.

Maybe the football the young lads on the beach were using contained a bomb :rolleyes:

NIMAN

Thing I don't understand is this
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/us-to-call-for-immediate-ceasefire-as-gaza-assault-claims-at-least-550-lives-30448777.html

USA calling for an immediate ceasefire and making public noises about the assault not being right, yet still providing $3bn of arms per year to Israel.

Why not stop giving them a single cent, or supplying them with any arms? I realise that the Jewish community are powerful in the US, but how they ignore some atrocities whilst invading due to others is just sad.

tayto lover

NIMAN wrote: »

Thing I don't understand is this
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/us-to-call-for-immediate-ceasefire-as-gaza-assault-claims-at-least-550-lives-30448777.html

USA calling for an immediate ceasefire and making public noises about the assault not being right, yet still providing $3bn of arms per year to Israel.

Why not stop giving them a single cent, or supplying them with any arms? I realise that the Jewish community are powerful in the US, but how they ignore some atrocities whilst invading due to others is just sad.

Sad AND hypocritical.

Gringo180

Manic Moran wrote: »

The BBC report I saw last night indicated
.

I stop reading after that!

walshb

The money and arms is to help Israel defend against all of its neighbors. Unfortunately it's the Palestinians who are suffering the consequences.

K-9

Gringo180 wrote: »

I stop reading after that!

You don't take anything the BBC does seriously?

wes

walshb wrote: »

The money and arms is to help Israel defend against all of its neighbors. Unfortunately it's the Palestinians who are suffering the consequences.

That reasoning doesn't hold water anymore, I am afraid. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. Secondly as of 2002 the Arab league has offered a full and comprehensive peace with all of them (also backed by the OIC), that Israel has ignored for the last decade. It seem pretty clear that money received is defacto for defending settlement expansion.

gallag

If Israel pulled out of the west bank, Golan heights etc tomorrow and paid billions in compensation they would still be under attack. Israel is surrounded by muslim countries determined to destroy them, Israel makes it obvious that they will track the trajectory of a rocked and return fire within 30sec, if Hamas choose to launch from a school then who's fault is it if that school becomes rubble 30 seconds later?

The biggest threat is the tunnels! People don't appreciate the scale of them ,Imagine a scenario where Iran, who's leadership has called for Israel to be wiped of the map and possess nuclear weapons give Hamas the ability to achieve their stated goal with a tunnel bomb, they need to destroy the tunnels at all costs.

Hamas have a pretty slick propaganda machine, you all seen the recent video of an unarmed man being shot by an Israeli sniper? Why were they all speaking English? Why no blood? Palestine is just the political hot potato of the day and you guys lap it up!! 2500 die every day through starvation! Where is their protests?

Israel are constantly under attack and nothing will change that, look at their history, in 1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan with backing and support from over a dozen muslim countries amass on Israel's boarders to literally wipe them out, this was the six day war, at the end Israel captures the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, theWest Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and theGolan Heights from Syria. These sights are from that point the spoils of war, why should Israel hand back these strategic sites to countries that will just use them to attack again? Seriously answer that?

Then in 1973 the Yom Kippur War, just look at the countries lined up to eradicate Israel again! Seriously click the link and look! How would it of went for Israel if it handed the lands back only to be attacked again?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

"The war began when the Arab coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli positions in the Israeli-occupied territories onYom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, which occurred that year during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter theSinai Peninsula and Golan Heightsrespectively, which had been captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Both the United States and the Soviet Union initiated massive resupply efforts to their respective allies during the war, and this led to a near-confrontation between the two nuclear superpowers.[44]

The war began with a massive and successful Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal. After crossing the cease-fire lines, Egyptian forces advanced virtually unopposed into the Sinai Peninsula. After three days, Israel had mobilized most of its forces and managed to halt the Egyptian offensive, settling into a stalemate. The Syrians coordinated their attack on the Golan Heights to coincide with the Egyptian offensive and initially made threatening gains into Israeli-held territory. Within three days, however, Israeli forces had managed to push the Syrians back to the pre-war ceasefire lines. They then launched a four-day counter-offensive deep into Syria. Within a week, Israeli artillery began to shell the outskirts ofDamascus. As Egyptian president Anwar Sadat began to worry about the integrity of his major ally, he believed that capturing two strategic passes located deeper in the Sinai would make his position stronger during the negotiations. He therefore ordered the Egyptians to go back on the offensive, but the attack was quickly repulsed. The Israelis then counterattacked at the seam between the two Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt, and began slowly advancing southward and westward towards Cairo in over a week of heavy fighting that inflicted heavy casualties on both sides."

Israel will never be left in piece.

wes

gallag wrote: »

If Israel pulled out of the west bank, Golan heights etc tomorrow and paid billions in compensation they would still be under attack. Israel is surrounded by muslim countries determined to destroy them

That a nice lie, one that is very easy to disprove. Last time I checked, peace with Egypt and Jordan, is working just fine.

Also, the following peace ignored by Israel for a over a decade and counting:

Text: Arab peace plan of 2002

Also, supported by the OIC:
OIC throws its weight behind Kingdom’s Mideast peace plan

So a peace plan, offered over a decade ago, that would result in full recognition by the entire Arab league, but also every single Muslim majority state, as per the OIC support for it.

So, yeah what your saying is a lie.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

That a nice lie, one that is very easy to disprove. Last time I checked, peace with Egypt and Jordan, is working just fine.

Also, the following peace ignored by Israel for a over a decade and counting:

Text: Arab peace plan of 2002

Also, supported by the OIC:
OIC throws its weight behind Kingdom’s Mideast peace plan

So a peace plan, offered over a decade ago, that would result in full recognition by the entire Arab league, but also every single Muslim majority state, as per the OIC support for it.

So, yeah what your saying is a lie.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The inclusion of this clause "Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights" could be seen as dooming it to fail before it even began. Leaving out the whole west bank mess, the Golan is just too strategic an area to give up. There was never any indication that the Syrians under Assad would commit to any kind of meaningful peace with Israel in the way that Jordan and Egypt did.

On the subject of the Israeli soldier being captured that the palestinians celebrated so wildly the other day, the current theory in Israel media is that they may have taken his corpse or part of it from the APC. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183205#.U85RGfldV8E
I had seen earlier reports already that the bodies of the dead troops were badly burned after the Hamas ambush. It seems unlikely that Hamas personnel would rescue him from a fiercely burning apc. It seems that it's taken this long to identify the bodies due to the fire after the ambush and it may be for this reason that Hamas haven't produced more concrete evidence for their claims as yet.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The inclusion of this clause "Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights" could be seen as dooming it to fail before it even began. Leaving out the whole west bank mess, the Golan is just too strategic an area to give up.

The reason its strategic is due to the lack of peace with Syria. Any peace will include a return of the Golan Heights. The fact remains that Israel has spent over 10 years ignoring the offer, and it clearly shows that Israel has path to peace with everyone in the region, and as such there is 0 justifications for military aid to them, with a peace offer like that on the table, and its still on the table btw.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There was never any indication that the Syrians under Assad would commit to any kind of meaningful peace with Israel in the way that Jordan and Egypt did.

The whole Arab League agreed to it and that included the Syrian's, last I checked. Israel as I said earlier has completely ignored it.

walshb

wes wrote: »

.

So, yeah what your saying is a lie.

No, Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries who despise their very existence. Peace for now. We live in the now, but don't think for a second that because there isn't violence or war between Israel and its (other) neighbors that the feelings of hate for Israel have abated!

wes

walshb wrote: »

No, Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries who despise their very existence. Peace for now.

The arab peace plan, and the support from the OIC for it proves you wrong. You saying that your right, is proof of nothing. The Arab league are clearly willing to accept Israel, and normalize relations.

walshb wrote: »

We live in the now, but don't think for a second that because there isn't violence or war between Israel and its (other) neighbors that the feelings of hate for Israel have abated!

I never said there were no ill feeling towards Israel and vice versa, just that there is peace offer on the table, that offer full recognition to Israel from pretty much everyone, and you instead you dismiss it, just like Israel has done for the last decade. The offer, exists in the here and now, and has since 2002, and has been ignored. I have yet to see a single reasonable explanation for this. Israel could have at least discussed the terms if they didn't like them, but it was ignored completely instead.

Its seem pretty clear to me that Israel doesn't want peace, and that seems to go for some supporters as well. Its good that we know where some people stand on this.

gallag

wes wrote: »

The arab peace plan, and the support from the OIC for it proves you wrong. You saying that your right, is proof of nothing.



I never said there were no ill feeling towards Israel and vice versa, just that there is peace offer on the table, that offer full recognition to Israel from pretty much everyone, and you instead you dismiss it, just like Israel has done for the last decade.

Its seem pretty clear to me that Israel doesn't want peace, and that seems to go for some of supporters as well.

The peace plan is just that, a plan, all these countries have tried many times in the past to wipe Israel out, why on earth would Israel surrender the strategic lands that are insuring it's survival because someone wrote words on a bit of paper? If the lives of millions were in your hands would you relinquish the Golan heights to Syria? A country that is so unstable that who knows who will be ruling it is 1 year, the only thing you can be sure of is whoever is ruling Syria they will not be Israel friendly! ! Would you hand the Golan Heights to Syria at this current time?

Gringo180

K-9 wrote: »

You don't take anything the BBC does seriously?

Not when it comes to this conflict. Not one mention did that pro Palestinian demonstration in London on Saturday get, you would think when 100,000 people line the streets in protest it would be reported on.

wes

gallag wrote: »

The peace plan is just that, a plan, all these countries have tried many times in the past to wipe Israel out, why on earth would Israel surrender the strategic lands that are insuring it's survival because someone wrote words on a bit of paper?

The Israeli's did there best to remove all the Palestinians from there homes, so there not in any position to claim innocence in the conflict. Israel has happily attacked when it has suited them as well.

You make peace with your enemies, that is how it works. The peace deals with Egypt and Jordan have worked, and people like yourself, would claim they were basically evil like you are doing now in regards to the rest of the Arab league.

gallag wrote: »

If the lives of millions were in your hands would you relinquish the Golan heights to Syria? A country that is so unstable that who knows who will be ruling it is 1 year, the only thing you can be sure of is whoever is ruling Syria they will not be Israel friendly! ! Would you hand the Golan Heights to Syria at this current time?

Yes, they should negotiate a peace, on the basis of the decade old peace offer from the Arab league.

The peace deal, is with the whole Arab League, and it offers everything Israel claims to want. BTW, the deal has been around for over a decade, and was on offer long before the most recent trouble in Syria. The deal has been ignored for a well over a decade now.

As, I said earlier, its good to know where some people stand. Still no good reason for ignoring the peace plan, other than the other guy is evil nonsense that we hear from supporters of Israel all the time.

gallag

wes wrote: »

The Israeli's did there best to remove all the Palestinians from there homes, so there not in any position to claim innocence in the conflict. Israel has happily attacked when it has suited them as well.

You make peace with your enemies, that is how it works. The peace deals with Egypt and Jordan have worked, and people like yourself, would claim they were basically evil like you are doing now in regards to the rest of the Arab league.



Yes, they should negotiate a peace, on the basis of the decade old peace offer from the Arab league.

The peace deal, is with the whole Arab League, and it offers everything Israel claims to want. BTW, the deal has been around for over a decade, and was on offer long before the most recent trouble in Syria. The deal has been ignored for a well over a decade now.

As, I said earlier, its good to know where some people stand. Still no good reason for ignoring the peace plan, other than the other guy is evil nonsense that we hear from supporters of Israel all the time.

So you really can't understand why Israel would not want to surrender the strategic Golan heights to Syria to make that peace plan workable? Surely with hindsight it was a master stroke not doing that! Imagine Syria now also had the Golan Heights! ! Please answer, if you were in charge of Israel right now would you hand the Golan Heights to Syria?

wes

gallag wrote: »

So you really can't understand why Israel would not want to surrender the strategic Golan heights to Syria to make that peace plan workable? Surely with hindsight it was a master stroke not doing that!

Extremists were saying the same thing about peace with Egypt and that worked out fine. No wars with Egypt since the peace treaty last i checked.

gallag wrote: »

Imagine Syria now also had the Golan Heights! ! Please answer, if you were in charge of Israel right now would you hand the Golan Heights to Syria?

I said yes, they should negotiate a peace deal. You are being rather obtuse about things. Also, as I said before the peace deal was on the table for 10 years.

Again, its good to know where certain people stand.