1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Serenity Now!

taconnol wrote: »

So is your story that Hamas were using them as human shields concur with Israel's current line? What is the definition of a "human shield"? WHat distance do they have to be?

From Irish Times Jan 15th:
"Hamas has also been shown to be launching rockets from the environs of schools, mosques and other civilian locales. Such attacks are clear breaches of the fourth protocol of the Geneva Conventions and represent war crimes.
By deploying among the civilian population, Hamas is using innocent Palestinian civilians as “human shields” against IDF retaliation.
By default or design, Hamas’s combat posture is in direct contravention of article 51 (7) of the Geneva Conventions"
Whole article including the other side's breaches can be seen HERE

paulaa

Thanks for the link Serenity.
If that article is correct and as we know from the UN, Israel had the co-ordinates of all their premises in Gaza including the school where over 40 people were killed, then they should not have been firing anything at the area.

Quote from article,

"It appears that the IDF is using the full spectrum of its conventional combat capabilities indiscriminately. Under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, the use of such weapons systems in this manner among civilian population centres is interpreted as “indiscriminate”. In other words, the IDF can legitimately be accused of “wanton destruction” and “wilful killing” within Gaza.

Specifically, IDF attacks in recent days are in direct contravention of protocol one, article 51, sections four and 5a of the Geneva Conventions. They prohibit the use of weapons systems, or a “method of attack that cannot be directed at or limited to a specific military objective” or “where there is a concentration of civilians or civilian objects”.

The Geneva Conventions proscribe such attacks in urban environments where civilians reside and state that, when an attack “could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off”.

Nodin

concussion wrote: »

Take into account the fact that a bullet can travel for miles, way past the range at which it can fired accurately, but still remain capable of killing someone. Those incidents with multiple wounds make that more improbable though
.

Theres only so many times you can read "in the head" and believe its an accident. Gaza was a place where human life had zero value when it was occupied, hence my earlier disquiet about the though of Israel entering urban areas in force. As it is, their actions are much in accordance with their behaviour from three years ago and earlier.

Jack Bauer999

does this look familar to anyone!!
israel should really try rotate thier excuses every now and then,


Hizbollah 'did not use civilians as cover'

By Mark Lavie in Jerusalem
Friday, 7 September 2007

In its strongest condemnation of Israel since last summer's war, Human Rights Watch said yesterday that most Lebanese civilian casualties were caused by "indiscriminate Israeli air strikes".


The international human rights organisation said there was no basis to the Israeli claim that civilian casualties resulted from Hizbollah guerrillas using civilians for cover. Israel has said that it attacked civilian areas because Hizbollah set up rocket launchers in villages and towns. More than 1,000 Lebanese were killed in the 34-day conflict, which began after Hizbollah staged a cross-border raid, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two others.

Israeli aircraft targeted Lebanese infrastructure, including bridges and Beirut airport, and heavily damaged a district of Beirut known as a Hizbollah stronghold, as well as attacking Hizbollah centres in villages near the border. Hizbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets at northern Israel, killing 119 soldiers. In the fighting, 40 Israeli civilians were killed.

Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watch executive director, said there were only "rare" cases of Hizbollah operating in civilian villages.

"To the contrary, once the war started, most Hizbollah military officials and even many political officials left the villages," he said. "Most Hizbollah military activity was conducted from prepared positions outside Lebanese villages in the hills and valleys around."

TThe Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, rejected the findings. "Hizbollah adopted a deliberate strategy of shielding itself behind the civilian population and turning the civilians in Lebanon into a human shield," he said.

BlaasForRafa

concussion wrote: »

Maybe it's not me with my head in my ass - one of the news articles states it. I'm also not that naive to think that every time Israeli soldiers came across Palestinians they shot them down. If that was the case I'd expect to see much much more than 1500 reported deaths.

Indeed, the IDF are not bloodthirsty like the more hysterical posters here seem to think. http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=rZOnUG3TIWg , do these guys look like maniacs?, no they're just normal guys doing their jobs and protecting their country.

Apparently this Gaza tv station got a warning from Hamas that a rocket was being fired from nearby. http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=6dEdjWnZq8o

This video shows Hamas terrorists swerving TOWARDS civilians knowing that the terrorist vehicles were being targeted by the IAF and knowing the pilot hit the Hamas vehicle civilians would be killed. If this isn't irresponsible behaviour by Hamas then what is? http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=JUeSE3WWX_M

Sand

Nah, everyone knows Hamas are heroes fighting desperately against the evil, blood drinking Israelis. The Israeli pilot didnt divert the missile from a Hamas target, he spotted some kids out for a stroll and his evil bloodlust took over and he decided to bomb them instead.

Offy

Ive yet to hear anyone say Hamas are guilt free but to look at things from the outside as we here in Ireland do one cannot refuse to accept that the death toll from Hamas compared to the death toll from the IDF is very different. I do not defend Hamas for their actions but I have yet to hear of Hamas using chemical weapons and thats what WP is, its a chemical that is very dangerous. Anyone that knows me will know I spent several years working in the chemical industry so I have a bit more than mosts peoples knowledge about chemicals. Burning WP on human skin is worse than sulphuric acid on a humans skin, it least acid can be washed of whereas WP has to be scraped of. Once phosphorous starts to burn it is very difficult to extinguish, water does not put it out. Imagine spilling boiling water on your arm and the only way to stop the burning is to scrape the burnt flesh off. That is what the Israelis inflicted on the Palestinians. For that I condem them more so than Hamas. Sadam used nerve gas, do I hear you defend him?
For the record I totally disagree with Hamas launching rockets into Israel, I am not defending Hamas by condeming Isreal but I do condem Isreal.

concussion

Just a quick reply offy - Hamas have fired rockets equipped with WP into Israel, I linked to a news report a few days ago. It's also not a chemical weapon. Lead is a chemical but bullets are not chemical weapons. Water is a chemical too. Phosphorus cannot burn in the absence of oxygen so completly immersing it in water will stop it. And yes, it is dangerous but so are most things used warfare.

tallus

concussion wrote: »

Just a quick reply offy - Hamas have fired rockets equipped with WP into Israel, I linked to a news report a few days ago. It's also not a chemical weapon. Lead is a chemical but bullets are not chemical weapons. Water is a chemical too. Phosphorus cannot burn in the absence of oxygen so completly immersing it in water will stop it. And yes, it is dangerous but so are most things used warfare.

Oxygen is a chemical too but it doesn't melt your skin to the bone on contact.

Whats your point ?

Offy

concussion wrote: »

Just a quick reply offy - Hamas have fired rockets equipped with WP into Israel, I linked to a news report a few days ago. It's also not a chemical weapon. Lead is a chemical but bullets are not chemical weapons. Water is a chemical too. Phosphorus cannot burn in the absence of oxygen so completly immersing it in water will stop it. And yes, it is dangerous but so are most things used warfare.

Its a raw chemical made from red phosphorous, if it catches fire water will not put it out, water contains both bonded O2 and dissolved O2 (fish breath it and theres enough there for several chemicals to burn in it), it burns skin like acid, it smokes heavily and it ignites at around 30-32 degrees C, it might not fall into the category of chemical weapon but thats what it is. Its pure WP warped around a small bomb. When the bomb explodes it bursts the case exposing the WP to air and igniting it while being hurled in all directions from the explosion. If you wrap chemicals around a bomb then I class that as a chemical weapon.
Didnt know Hamas were using it though. Using that stuff is as bad as using cyanide in its place. What kind of sick people design, build, use crap like that? The whole concept of war is stupid and we've being doing it longer than we've being recording history. Who said he didnt know what WW3 would be fought with but WW4 would be fought with sticks and stones?
Israelis response is disproportionate. If (when) Iran get the bomb what will Israel do? If, god forbid, Iran launch on Israel what response can the world expect based on Israel's record and her nuclear arsenal? WW3 Israel has the nuke, Hamas does not. Israel need to be held accountable far more so than Hamas.

paulaa

concussion wrote: »

Just a quick reply offy - Hamas have fired rockets equipped with WP into Israel, I linked to a news report a few days ago. It's also not a chemical weapon. Lead is a chemical but bullets are not chemical weapons. Water is a chemical too. Phosphorus cannot burn in the absence of oxygen so completly immersing it in water will stop it. And yes, it is dangerous but so are most things used warfare.

I've looked for your post and I can't find it concussion. Can you post it again please if it's not too much trouble ?

concussion

Offy - it's the other way around, the more stable red phosphorous is created by heating white phosphorous. White phosphorus can be stored safely underwater. Standard first aid for these burns is to pour water over the particles and scrape/dig them out. If they can't be removed, continue to pour water over of place a wet cloth to exclude oxygen

paulaa wrote: »

I've looked for your post and I can't find it concussion. Can you post it again please if it's not too much trouble ?

Sorry, I'm busy out this evening. I'm not sure if these are the same articles but they say the same....rocket/mortar with WP warhead. Landed in a field and did no damage or injuries. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055561.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656311,00.html

paulaa

concussion wrote: »

Offy - it's the other way around, the more stable red phosphorous is created by heating white phosphorous. White phosphorus can be stored safely underwater. Standard first aid for these burns is to pour water over the particles and scrape/dig them out. If they can't be removed, continue to pour water over of place a wet cloth to exclude oxygen

Sorry, I'm busy out this evening. I'm not sure if these are the same articles but they say the same....rocket/mortar with WP warhead. Landed in a field and did no damage or injuries. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055561.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656311,00.html

From what I can remember that statement originally came from Mark Regev so I will take it with a pinch of salt.
If Hammas had WP do you think they would have only launched 1 rocket, I don't think so.

This is the kind of damage a Hammas rocket does. I've dug bigger holes in my garden that that.

wes

concussion wrote: »

If, after a large air attack, I knew troops would be coming through my city I would get out of there pronto. Gaza city for example wasn't surrounded for two weeks. If I couldn't, the last thing I would do is move around at night where I can't be identified. One of the articles linked above says, despite all the reports of civilians being killed, the IDF actually respects a white flag...

The reports seem to show that the article you speak of is nonsense.

They have no where to go and when they do find, that the IDF will probably bomb there as well. The IDF have shot at civilians targets, e.g Police stations. There are numerous links on here showing exactly that.

The IDF have been caught lieing and changing there story several times. The links have been posted on this thread. They have made themselves look bad and no one else.

concussion

paulaa wrote: »

From what I can remember that statement originally came from Mark Regev so I will take it with a pinch of salt.
If Hammas had WP do you think they would have only launched 1 rocket, I don't think so.

This is the kind of damage a Hammas rocket does. I've dug bigger holes in my garden that that.

There probably wouldn't be much damage if it was a WP round - there wont be much blast damage as there isn't much high explosive, just enough to spread the the framents. The photo is pretty crap alright - it may be grass burned by the WP. As for them launching rockets, that goes back to a previous question I had - why did they continue to fire them at Israel when there were plenty of troops in Gaza. It doesn't make sense.

Manic Moran

In my case MM I have been following the Palestine situation for 30 years or so. I have watched documentaries, read books, listened and looked at the news from both sides. I have been to several countries in the Middle East including both Israel and Gaza, both on business and on holiday. That is what has formed my opinions , not a 3 minute news flash.

Fair enough. I acknowledge that your knowledge of the area and its history are probably better then mine. However, I'm paid to know how to conduct military operations particularly these days in assymetric conditions such as Gaza and as such I am no armchair quarterback in my department either. I am making no statements as regards the overall history of the area in which I acknowledge that the IDF's actions have not always been the epitomy of model behaviour, and suggest that you equally stay within your lane and not attempt to draw expansive inferences about specific military incidents without a full awareness of the incidents in question.

Quote from article,
<snip>
Specifically, IDF attacks in recent days are in direct contravention of protocol one, article 51, sections four and 5a of the Geneva Conventions. They prohibit the use of weapons systems, or a “method of attack that cannot be directed at or limited to a specific military objective” or “where there is a concentration of civilians or civilian objects”.

Perhaps the article needs to actually read the protocol it cites. I can very much argue that any incident which has as yet been reported in Gaza does not fall under sections 4 or 5. For example, a mortar team is a definite specific military objective, and as long as they are targetting the individual locations of mortar teams they do not fall afoul of the restrictions, regardless of how close to a school, hospital or whatever, they may happen to be or how many civilians were killed as long as the actions taken were appropriate to the target being engaged. A dozen artillery rounds is perfectly acceptable and routine for a counter-fire mission.

NTM

paulaa

concussion wrote: »

There probably wouldn't be much damage if it was a WP round - there wont be much blast damage as there isn't much high explosive, just enough to spread the the framents. The photo is pretty crap alright - it may be grass burned by the WP. As for them launching rockets, that goes back to a previous question I had - why did they continue to fire them at Israel when there were plenty of troops in Gaza. It doesn't make sense.

Oh come on ! If there were fragments of WP they would be in the photo and plastered all over the web rather than that mouse hole. The only damage done by that rocket were a few battered cabbage plants by the look of it.
It's more likely if WP was found that it was from Israel, maybe an unexploded shell or 1 gone astray.

I agree it doesn't make sense, that's why I have come to the conclusion that perhaps Hammas weren't as active in Gaza to the extent we are led to believe. Where are the bodies of the dead Hammas militants ? How do they know how many they killed ?

Israel would be plastering photos of them all over the place if it happened, one, because they are never shy about their triumphalism and two, as a deterrent to intimidate the Palestinians.

Something is not right about any of this.

Another thing, Hammas are talking about a truce with the Egyptians atm while Livni is blustering about more strikes on Gaza.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058556.html

And then we have them bragging about their influence in "stymieing French push to lift Hammas boycott"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059097.html

Who wants peace, not Israel it seems.

paulaa

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fair enough. I acknowledge that your knowledge of the area and its history are probably better then mine. However, I'm paid to know how to conduct military operations particularly these days in assymetric conditions such as Gaza and as such I am no armchair quarterback in my department either. I am making no statements as regards the overall history of the area in which I acknowledge that the IDF's actions have not always been the epitomy of model behaviour, and suggest that you equally stay within your lane and not attempt to draw expansive inferences about specific military incidents without a full awareness of the incidents in question.

Perhaps the article needs to actually read the protocol it cites. I can very much argue that any incident which has as yet been reported in Gaza does not fall under sections 4 or 5. For example, a mortar team is a definite specific military objective, and as long as they are targetting the individual locations of mortar teams they do not fall afoul of the restrictions, regardless of how close to a school, hospital or whatever, they may happen to be or how many civilians were killed as long as the actions taken were appropriate to the target being engaged. A dozen artillery rounds is perfectly acceptable and routine for a counter-fire mission.

NTM

I take your point and I don't claim to have military knowledge nor do I want to. I am commenting on my own impressions of what has been happening and I'm never too proud to be proved wrong :P

Manic Moran

And peace has been declared!

NTM

Offy

concussion wrote: »

There probably wouldn't be much damage if it was a WP round - there wont be much blast damage as there isn't much high explosive, just enough to spread the the framents. The photo is pretty crap alright - it may be grass burned by the WP. As for them launching rockets, that goes back to a previous question I had - why did they continue to fire them at Israel when there were plenty of troops in Gaza. It doesn't make sense.

Is that photo all the proof you have that Hamas used WP? Its not enough to convince me Im afraid.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

And peace has been declared!

NTM

They don't bury hatchets and mark the spot, they just leave them on the shelf.

Macha

concussion wrote: »

A human shield would be the use of non-combatants to deter an enemy from attacking you. If you do use human shields you are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Ditto if you use protected areas for military use (plus protected areas lose their protected status if this happens). As for distance, the convention states that you have to use all reasonable precautions - the Israelis said they fired mortars, the article says 'shells' landed outside. From this one could propose that they didn't use heavy artillery as it was so close and chose to use smaller mortars instead.

OK I see. So if Hamas fighters ran into the crowd, as reported, then they were using human shields. Such a disgrance.

concussion wrote: »

UNRWA alone has 221 schools and 50 safe zones (source UNRWA website) - those are some places to go, not to mention hospitals etc. Of the 250 odd UN areas, only three seem to be hit by shells.

Mmm.."only three"? I wouldn't be inclined to look at it like that.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

From Irish Times Jan 15th:
"Hamas has also been shown to be launching rockets from the environs of schools, mosques and other civilian locales. Such attacks are clear breaches of the fourth protocol of the Geneva Conventions and represent war crimes.
By deploying among the civilian population, Hamas is using innocent Palestinian civilians as “human shields” against IDF retaliation.
By default or design, Hamas’s combat posture is in direct contravention of article 51 (7) of the Geneva Conventions"
Whole article including the other side's breaches can be seen HERE

OK, but Hamas are by their very nature a guerilla army - they don't have the heavy artillery to wage an open-air battle. What are they to do?

bk

taconnol wrote: »

OK, but Hamas are by their very nature a guerilla army - they don't have the heavy artillery to wage an open-air battle. What are they to do?

Get sensible, give up their unachievable goal for the destruction of Israel and start negotiating with Israel.

The reality is Hamas will never be able to defeat Israel, all their achieving is to create great suffering for their own people.

paulaa

bk wrote: »

Get sensible, give up their unachievable goal for the destruction of Israel and start negotiating with Israel.

The reality is Hamas will never be able to defeat Israel, all their achieving is to create great suffering for their own people.

Any fool knows that Hammas are no match for the IDF, that is why so many people find all the bluster about the threat from Gaza so laughable.

Israel won't talk to Hammas and now Hammas and Fatah are having reconciliation talks in Egypt. Hammas's stated goal over the last few weeks is the lifting of the seige of Gaza and for Israeli incursions into the area to stop.

Over the last few days Livni has been blustering in the press trying to boost her falling ratings for the upcoming elections. She has been threatening to have the Hammas government leaders assassinated and more strikes in Gaza.

Doesn't sound like peace-making to me!!

Nodin

bk wrote: »

Get sensible, give up their unachievable goal for the destruction of Israel and start negotiating with Israel.
.

...that would require Israel to negotiate with them.....

paulaa

Israeli tanks are now moving into Southern Gaza again and her war planes are over Gaza after an incident on the border where a soldier was killed. A palestinian farmer was also killed. Seems like Livni got her way after all.

BlaasForRafa

paulaa wrote: »

From what I can remember that statement originally came from Mark Regev so I will take it with a pinch of salt.
If Hammas had WP do you think they would have only launched 1 rocket, I don't think so.

This is the kind of damage a Hammas rocket does. I've dug bigger holes in my garden that that.

It only hit a field because Hamas fire unguided rockets, so they are completely indiscriminate. There was a case during war of a rocket hitting a kindergarten in southern Israel, luckily it was empty at the time because of the early warning sirens. But if that had hit would your view of Hamas being harmless still hold?

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

The reports seem to show that the article you speak of is nonsense.

They have no where to go and when they do find, that the IDF will probably bomb there as well. The IDF have shot at civilians targets, e.g Police stations. There are numerous links on here showing exactly that.

The IDF have been caught lieing and changing there story several times. The links have been posted on this thread. They have made themselves look bad and no one else.

The police are part of the Hamas organisation and infrastructure so they are not innocent parties.

concussion

wes wrote: »

The reports seem to show that the article you speak of is nonsense.

They have no where to go and when they do find, that the IDF will probably bomb there as well. The IDF have shot at civilians targets, e.g Police stations. There are numerous links on here showing exactly that.

The IDF have been caught lieing and changing there story several times. The links have been posted on this thread. They have made themselves look bad and no one else.

If the Israelis were shooting up everything in sight on their way through Gaza city I have no doubt there would be many, many more dead than has been reported. I don't argue there are a lot of bad stories coming out but who's going to write about how, everytime they saw civilians, they didn't shoot them?
Completely agree about the stories they're coming out with, maybe saying nothing would work out better for them

paulaa wrote: »

Oh come on ! If there were fragments of WP they would be in the photo and plastered all over the web rather than that mouse hole. The only damage done by that rocket were a few battered cabbage plants by the look of it.
It's more likely if WP was found that it was from Israel, maybe an unexploded shell or 1 gone astray.

Maybe it was just a c**p rocket. The only news reports I can find are from Israeli newpapers, nothing else. I don't disbelieve it as WP shells are common but there's nothing I can find bar those reports.

paulaa wrote: »

I agree it doesn't make sense, that's why I have come to the conclusion that perhaps Hammas weren't as active in Gaza to the extent we are led to believe. Where are the bodies of the dead Hammas militants ? How do they know how many they killed ?

I think they said they killed around 900 fighters but I don't really believe that myself. Independant investigation will tell us I suppose.

Offy wrote: »

Is that photo all the proof you have that Hamas used WP? Its not enough to convince me Im afraid.

The photo? No, there's feck all to see in it. I believe the news reports though, if you don't that's fair enough. If they said it hit in the city and injured people, and was only carried by Israeli newspapers, then I'd be suspicious but 'rocket lands in field, grass burnt' doesn't exactly scream propaganda at me.

taconnol wrote: »

Mmm..only three? I wouldn't be inclined to look at it like that.

Neither would I. But neither do I agree that they get bombed at every safe zone they go to as you inferred.
One is too many in any case.

paulaa wrote: »

Israeli tanks are now moving into Southern Gaza again and her war planes are over Gaza after an incident on the border where a soldier was killed. A palestinian farmer was also killed. Seems like Livni got her way after all.

Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC727754.htm

"I don't care who fired" said Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who is leading the ruling party in the campaign for the Feb. 10 ballot. "Hamas controls Gaza and is responsible for everything that happens. Whenever they fire at me from Gaza, set off a bomb or launch a missile or smuggle (weapons), Israel will respond"

Although not claiming responsibility, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri praised the bomb attack on the troops as "a natural response to the crimes of the occupier"

Uh-oh

BlaasForRafa

paulaa wrote: »

Israeli tanks are now moving into Southern Gaza again and her war planes are over Gaza after an incident on the border where a soldier was killed. A palestinian farmer was also killed. Seems like Livni got her way after all.

What way, HAMAS breaking the ceasefire? Did Livni plant the bomb that killed the IDF soldier?