How should Israel defend itself?

MakeEmLaugh

Much has been written in the past few weeks on the deaths of Palestinians by Israeli forces. I find it extremely distressing to see the footage of children being treated after Israeli strikes.

Nevertheless, I consider myself pro-Israel in that I am pro the continued existence of Israel as a democratic state in the Middle East, with much better treatment of LGBT people and woman than they would have in the Palestinian territories.

I do think the response of Israel has been excessive and calamitous for their international reputation.

However, how best is Israel to defend itself against huge numbers of rockets that have been fired at it from Gaza (13,000 since 2001, which amounts to about $10.4 million US)?

I ask this sincerely. How best is Israel to deal with the rockets that are fired at it, for the sake of peace?

MarkR

Force of arms doesn't seem to be working, and there doesn't seem to be the political will on the ground for any sort of lasting peace deal. I don't think a neutral third party could police it either.

I think there should be some form of sanctions against both the governments of Israel and Palestine, while fighting continues. And some form of incentive, like infrastructure or loans to raise the living standards and education of the people.

Phill Ewinn

They should talk about a settlement of the cause of the conflict, shouldn't they? I would wonder what you yourself would recommend OP.

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Much has been written in the past few weeks on the deaths of Palestinians by Israeli forces. I find it extremely distressing to see the footage of children being treated after Israeli strikes.

Nevertheless, I consider myself pro-Israel in that I am pro the continued existence of Israel as a democratic state in the Middle East, with much better treatment of LGBT people and woman than they would have in the Palestinian territories.

I do think the response of Israel has been excessive and calamitous for their international reputation.

However, how best is Israel to defend itself against huge numbers of rockets that have been fired at it from Gaza (13,000 since 2001, which amounts to about $10.4 million US)?

I ask this sincerely. How best is Israel to deal with the rockets that are fired at it, for the sake of peace?

Deal with the Hamas/Fatah government and disengage from as much of the occupied territory as possible. Otherwise its irrelevant what they do, as a younger even angrier generation will continue on.

donaghb

Seriously?
You don't see the crap in all the media??
USA pumps 3,billion a year supporting them,
Two soldiers compared to 307 men,women and children
Not one rocket has gotten by Iron Dome.
Gaza is being torn apart by Israel.

comongethappy

donaghb wrote: »

Seriously?
You don't see the crap in all the media??
USA pumps 3,billion a year supporting them,
Two soldiers compared to 307 men,women and children
Not one rocket has gotten by Iron Dome.
Gaza is being torn apart by Israel.

So... How does Israel defend itself?

P_1

I'd start with ending the blockade on Gaza. All that serves to do is to force the moderates out in favour of the hardliners. People are less inclined to support armed movements if they are actually treated like people.

dissed doc

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Much has been written in the past few weeks on the deaths of Palestinians by Israeli forces. I find it extremely distressing to see the footage of children being treated after Israeli strikes.

Nevertheless, I consider myself pro-Israel in that I am pro the continued existence of Israel as a democratic state in the Middle East, with much better treatment of LGBT people and woman than they would have in the Palestinian territories.

I do think the response of Israel has been excessive and calamitous for their international reputation.

However, how best is Israel to defend itself against huge numbers of rockets that have been fired at it from Gaza (13,000 since 2001, which amounts to about $10.4 million US)?

I ask this sincerely. How best is Israel to deal with the rockets that are fired at it, for the sake of peace?

The defense is temporary and they can and will do whatever they wish.

The aim is ultimately to exterminate the Palestinian people entirely from the region. This has been achieved by the concentration of the entire population in a corralled area and then controlling the food and water supplies. The supplies are below population requirements. Within 3 generations there will be few Palestinians left to throw rocks or whatever at Israel.

So what you are really asking I think, and what Israel is now asking, is how to continue this mission while also having a more publicly acceptable system (i.e., instead of killing 4 kids on a beach) to defend against the intermittent and temporary escalations.

It is completely natural for an organisation like Hamas to exist. Call it Hamas, IRA, RAF, ISIS, whoever. There will always be a resistance to any external authority, and that can and does lead to violence and is a consistent feature of every population on the planet.

Hamas will continue, as they represent the violent counterforce to the IDF violence. Unless both sides agree non aggression in perpetuity and can control every one of their population, it will never happen. Israel can stop the IDF but at the same time locals might be setting a Palestinian on fire, etc., a.etc., .

There is no publicly, human, way of exterminating people, in my opinion, as a means to defend yourself.

Someone punches you and you kill them in response? Or punch them? Or turn the other cheek? Any human being can answer this question but for 1% the population the response of aggression *is* the appropriate response. As long as they are in positions of power in government, peace is never possible.

comongethappy

dissed doc wrote: »

This has been achieved by the concentration of the entire population in a corralled area and then controlling the food and water supplies. The supplies are below population requirements. Within 3 generations there will be few Palestinians left to throw rocks or whatever at Israel.

Curious choice of past tense.
How is the population of gaza only on the rise then?

If its an extermination (as the hysteria suggests) its a pretty poor attempt.

riffmongous

Stop actively pushing people towards Hamas is the first step

wes

I disagree with your premise. Israel is the aggressor, what with there settlement project and the siege on Gaza.

Then, there is the inconvenient fact that the most recent ceasefire was broken by Netanyahu, for his own political purpose, when he started arresting members of Hamas.

The best way for Israel to avoid conflict is rather simple, stop breaking ceasefires, and end the collective punishment of the people of Gaza.

seanaway

donaghb wrote: »

Seriously?
You don't see the crap in all the media??
USA pumps 3,billion a year supporting them,
Two soldiers compared to 307 men,women and children
Not one rocket has gotten by Iron Dome.
Gaza is being torn apart by Israel.

To the OP.

I would put myself pretty much in your camp here.

However, posts such as the one I quote show the kind of problem faced - even in simple discussion terms. Let alone real life and death terms.

Rockets do frequently get past the iron dome. It is not infallible.


However, The answer to your question is sitting there waiting to be grabbed.

Leave Israel in peace and Israel will not need to defend itself.

However, again there will be a barrage of all sorts of answers to what I have said by people who read lots and lots and go to demo's etc.. but who have never actually lived in the land that is holy to three of the great world faiths.

Let those who shout - shout. Let those who scream - scream.

It is those who listen and listen will defend and win for all.

Israel has proven to be peaceful when let in peace.

Camp David is proof of this.

Let those who would like to see the end of Israel disprove this.

Nodin

seanaway wrote: »

.....................
Israel has proven to be peaceful when let in peace.

Camp David is proof of this.

............

Vague waffle which ignores the expansion of Israel and its colonies in the West Bank, Golan and Arab East Jerusalem, and its control of Gaza.

Manach

To the OP, my own yardstick is the treatment of Christians ofwhich there are fairly wide variations in that region, who only garner as small percentage of the Progressive types protestations of the Gaza or LGBTqwerty types.
So in response, within the remit of International law is how the Israeli's response should be - there is a clear doctrine of proportionality and they have the right to a limited self-defence, but to use such a disproportionate amount of force and not the overwhelming firepower that has breach the human rights of civilians caught up in this.

seanaway

Nodin wrote: »

Vague waffle which ignores the expansion of Israel and its colonies in the West Bank, Golan and Arab East Jerusalem, and its control of Gaza.

Vague waffle what?

Please do not clip and quote to suit a poor argument.

It lets down the discussion you are in and also - from other forums in which we have met - lets down the people you argue for.

This forum's point is about how Israel should/can defend itself - not about Palestinian issues - however valid they may be.

Nodin

seanaway wrote: »

Vague waffle what?

Please do not clip and quote to suit a poor argument.

It lets down the discussion you are in and also - from other forums in which we have met - lets down the people you argue for.

This forum's point is about how Israel should/can defend itself - not about Palestinian issues - however valid they may be.

Israel has to defend itself largely from symptoms of a problem it created.

wes

seanaway wrote: »

To the OP.

I would put myself pretty much in your camp here.

However, posts such as the one I quote show the kind of problem faced - even in simple discussion terms. Let alone real life and death terms.

Rockets do frequently get past the iron dome. It is not infallible.

The post is a perfectly valid, its shows the asymmetry of the conflict. The Palestinians are the ones being occupied by Israel, and far to often supporters of Israel, have a habit of ignoring the occupation, or minimizing and making various excuses, anything that high lights the disparity between the 2 sides, helps the discussion.

seanaway wrote: »

However, The answer to your question is sitting there waiting to be grabbed.

Leave Israel in peace and Israel will not need to defend itself.

That statement is factually untrue, and quite frankly it has 0 basis in reality.

The IDF murdered 2 Palestinians teenagers, before the 3 settler teenagers were kidnapped and murdered for example. Netanyahu, then blamed Hamas without proof, and knowing they were not responsible, gagged his own media from reporting this, and then attacked Hamas by arresting its members.

The occupation in the West Bank, and continued settlement expansion still going on, despite the PA security forces working with Israel to prevent attacks.

The Arab League since 2002 has offered peace, with all of them (OIC also supported this, meaning recognition for Israel from every Muslim majority state as well), which they have completely ignored for the last decade for some reason.

In light of the above facts, your statement is factually untrue.

seanaway wrote: »

However, again there will be a barrage of all sorts of answers to what I have said by people who read lots and lots and go to demo's etc.. but who have never actually lived in the land that is holy to three of the great world faiths.

Let those who shout - shout. Let those who scream - scream.

It is those who listen and listen will defend and win for all.

I fail to see how someone having lived or not lived in a certain place, has any bearing on the facts of the conflict. Having lived somewhere doesn't change the facts.

seanaway wrote: »

Israel has proven to be peaceful when let in peace.

Camp David is proof of this.

Over half a million settlers, prove you wrong. Interesting how you fail to mention the settlers or the occupation once. For all intents and purposes you pretend they don't exist, as they prove you wrong.

seanaway wrote: »

Let those who would like to see the end of Israel disprove this.

So anyone who disagrees, wants to see the end of Israel? Wow, that some proper nonsense, and typical of supporters of Israel.

I could easily claim that people who ignore the occupation and the settlers have similar sentiments in the opposite direction, but that really wouldn't be helpful to the discussion.

seanaway

wes wrote: »

The post is a perfectly valid, its shows the asymmetry of the conflict. The Palestinians are the ones being occupied by Israel, and far to often supporters of Israel, have a habit of ignoring the occupation, or minimizing and making various excuses, anything that high lights the disparity between the 2 sides, helps the discussion.



That statement is factually untrue, and quite frankly it has 0 basis in reality.

The IDF murdered 2 Palestinians teenagers, before the 3 settler teenagers were kidnapped and murdered for example. Netanyahu, then blamed Hamas without proof, and knowing they were not responsible, gagged his own media from reporting this, and then attacked Hamas by arresting its members.

The occupation in the West Bank, and continued settlement expansion still going on, despite the PA security forces working with Israel to prevent attacks.

The Arab League since 2002 has offered peace, with all of them (OIC also supported this, meaning recognition for Israel from every Muslim majority state as well), which they have completely ignored for the last decade for some reason.

In light of the above facts, your statement is factually untrue.



I fail to see how someone having lived or not lived in a certain place, has any bearing on the facts of the conflict. Having lived somewhere doesn't change the facts.



Over half a million settlers, prove you wrong. Interesting how you fail to mention the settlers or the occupation once. For all intents and purposes you pretend they don't exist, as they prove you wrong.



So anyone who disagrees, wants to see the end of Israel? Wow, that some proper nonsense, and typical of supporters of Israel.

I could easily claim that people who ignore the occupation and the settlers have similar sentiments in the opposite direction, but that really wouldn't be helpful to the discussion.

With all due respect WES we had /have this discussion on the other forum.
I have answered your points there.

Why try to rehash here?

sin_city

How did Europeans defend themselves against the native Americans?

Will Israel survive if the US can't support them?

French Algerians and White Zimbabweans....that may be the future for them.

It is unfortunate but you won't find many supporting them...Basically they took a large chunk of Palestinian land are continuing the process as of now.

I would like if they first said where belongs to the Palestinians and where belongs to Israel....after that I guess they could defend that area....building more and more settlements is not the answer

wes

seanaway wrote: »

With all due respect WES we had /have this discussion on the other forum.
I have answered your points there.

Why try to rehash here?

You stated the same thing again, and I pointed why your assertion was factually incorrect again. I have yet to see you prove your point, and you most certainly haven't been able to dispute the facts, that I have raised to defend you assertion. I see no reason, why I should not point out that you are wrong, if you repeat yourself.

...__...

For the sake of debate should we be separating Gaza from the West Bank? Gaza is not occupied nor are the Palestinians working with Israel in preventing attacks.

The West bank is not controlled by Hamas who have killed more of there own then they would like us all to know about.
Does Hamas refusal to hold elections and relinquish power to Fatah (well or Abbas as he is prime minister) mean that Gaza is under dictatorship?

Would the world be better off looking at a 3 state solution one of Israel, Palestine (in the West Bank) and a third in Gaza under the rule of Hamas and from there whoever starts shooting first would suffer the consequences?

I see lots of examples being thrown around that would only apply to the West Bank yet are used to justify Hamas ongoing "campaign" things like settlements (Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005).

If the world focused on having a look at internal palestinian politics first and were able to have a single voice for thier people perhaps the chance of peace might be a little closer then it is now.

wes

...__... wrote: »

For the sake of debate should we be separating Gaza from the West Bank? Gaza is not occupied nor are the Palestinians working with Israel in preventing attacks.

Palestinians are one people, and Gaza is under siege, which is an illegal act of collective punishment. Hamas also have members in the West Bank, as do Fatah in the West Bank, who were arrested by Israel. So there is no separating the 2.

...__... wrote: »

The West bank is not controlled by Hamas who have killed more of there own then they would like us all to know about.

So? Israel continued settlement expansion and violence in the West Bank, when there is cooperation, clearly shows, that Hamas being violent or not, won't change the fact that Israel will continue to engage in violence regardless of what the Palestinians do.

Its a useful example to show, that Israels violence have nothing to do any violence from Hamas. It would happen in anyways.

...__... wrote: »

Does Hamas refusal to hold elections and relinquish power to Fatah (well or Abbas as he is prime minister) mean that Gaza is under dictatorship?

Hamas, joined a unity government recently, with Fatah. One of the reasons Netanyahu is attacking Hamas now.

It should be noted that Fatah, are no democrats either, seeing as they tried to overthrow Hamas, when they won the election, with the help of the US and Israel. Sadly it seems that all involved have 0 respect for democracy.

...__... wrote: »

Would the world be better off looking at a 3 state solution one of Israel, Palestine (in the West Bank) and a third in Gaza under the rule of Hamas and from there whoever starts shooting first would suffer the consequences?

Why? Before Netanyahu kicked off the latest round of violence, the Palestinians were in the process of forming a unity government. Also, Gaza wouldn't be a viable state on its own, without the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. There is also 0 desire of a 3 state solution from anyone.

...__... wrote: »

I see lots of examples being thrown around that would only apply to the West Bank yet are used to justify Hamas ongoing "campaign" things like settlements (Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005).

Yes, and then grabbed a whole bunch of land in the West Bank right after. Israel didn't give up anything at all.

Secondly, again the Palestinians are one nation. There are supported of both main factions in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

...__... wrote: »

If the world focused on having a look at internal palestinian politics first and were able to have a single voice for thier people perhaps the chance of peace might be a little closer then it is now.

You mean like the unity government, that Netanyahu was against, and then launched a violent campaign to prevent, that were are currently seeing?

Nodin

...__... wrote: »

..............

If the world focused on having a look at internal palestinian politics first and were able to have a single voice for thier people perhaps the chance of peace might be a little closer then it is now.

You seem singularly uninformed. There is now an agreement between Fatah and Hamas. The timing of the current onslaught is not uncoincidental. Israel has vehemently opposed attempts at a unified Government again and again.

Secondly when there was a single large Palestinian body, Israel carried out much as it does now - this has been going on for 47 years.

dissed doc

sin_city wrote: »

How did Europeans defend themselves against the native Americans?

Will Israel survive if the US can't support them?

French Algerians and White Zimbabweans....that may be the future for them.

It is unfortunate but you won't find many supporting them...Basically they took a large chunk of Palestinian land are continuing the process as of now.

I would like if they first said where belongs to the Palestinians and where belongs to Israel....after that I guess they could defend that area....building more and more settlements is not the answer

It was already decided and agreed in the 60s with regard to which is Israel and which is Palestine....and Israel decided they wanted more.

Even if borders are agreed, history says they will not last long ans Israel will take more territory by force.

They will then defend that extra territory.

biko

How should Israel defend itself?

I assume now you mean against rockets and not suicide bombers etc?
Well, general bombardment isn't a good idea so that will have to stop.

I think what needs to be done is to support the moderate Palestinians who would want a 2 state solution.

Gringo180

I see the BBC are reporting that Cameron wants more sanctions against the Russians meanwhile staying silent about the genocide is Gaza. What ****iing world are we living in??

walshb

Israel is doing a mighty fine job of defending itself. Look at the power and influence and money it has available to defend itself, and compare that to the opponent that it is defending itself against. It's partly defence on Israel's part, but the defence is being used as a reason to inflict real damage on human beings. OTT damage!

tbradman

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I ask this sincerely. How best is Israel to deal with the rockets that are fired at it, for the sake of peace?

Interesting question. Unfortunately as you can see from the answers of the Fanboys and Fangirls, all the problems are caused by the other side (whichever one they aren't cheerleading for). I believe the only way to stop the rockets going in either direction is by a peace accord. The chances of this happening? I would give it a big fat zero. But here’s my suggestion.

Immediate unconditional cease fire by both sides.
International peace talks under the auspices of the UN, but chaired by two or three unaligned nations.
Agreement before talks begin, that both sides will have to give concessions to certain demands from the other side.
Agreement from both sides that once agreement is signed they will be subject to international sanctions/punishments (economic, military, social, financial and travel) by all international guarantors for any breaches of the agreement.
International guarantors would consist of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, The EU, BRICS nations, the Arab League and Iran.


Notice I haven't suggested what needs to be conceded by either side? That’s because only Israel and Palestine can decide what the concessions will be. I really, really hate to draw on Northern Ireland as an example, mainly because people then start arguing about NI and this isn't an NI thread. But basically an outside party chaired talks with both sides. Each side had to compromise and each side had gains and losses. The ultimate winner and the only important winner are the civilians and civic society. Unfortunately, war only requires one side to want it, peace requires both sides to want it so badly that they are willing to compromise to achieve it.

The Israeli's and Palestinians seem happier with war, a pox on both of them I say.

laoch na mona

te best way to establish peace would be for israel to stop its occupation of palestine and to work towards a two state solution like they should have in the first place

comongethappy

laoch na mona wrote: »

te best way to establish peace would be for israel to stop its occupation of palestine and to work towards a two state solution like they should have in the first place

That's not the question though.

Imagine a hypothesis where Israel never left its 1967 borders.

Palestinian terrorists attack with a 500+ rocket barrage.

What level of defence do those supporting Hamas deem acceptable?

Nodin

comongethappy wrote: »

That's not the question though.

Imagine a hypothesis where Israel never left its 1967 borders.

Why? That's fantasy.

comongethappy

Nodin wrote: »

Why? That's fantasy.

That's the OPs question though..... Like it or not.

If the pro-Hamas side decry the effectiveness & competency of the IDF vs the relative weakness of Hamas, what do you deem appropriate for Israel to execute militarily in its nations defence?

The_Captain

Remove settlers from Gaza and the West Bank, end the illegal blockade, allow displaced Palestinians the right to return to their own country, pull the IDF out.

Engage with Fatah and the PLO to stop cross-border terrorism

If dealing with Hamas terrorists, attack and kill them to your hearts content, just don't kill civilians or raze hospitals to try to get to them

Nodin

comongethappy wrote: »

That's the OPs question though..... Like it or not.

He never mentioned "Imagine a hypothesis where Israel never left its 1967 borders" or anything like it.

comongethappy

Nodin wrote: »

He never mentioned "Imagine a hypothesis where Israel never left its 1967 borders" or anything like it.

Either way..... You must have some ideas as to how Israel can defend itself militarily?

There are different ways to go about defence.... The question remains unanswered by the pro-Hamas posters....

Nodin

comongethappy wrote: »

Either way..... You must have some ideas as to how Israel can defend itself militarily?

There are different ways to go about defence.... The question remains unanswered by the pro-Hamas posters....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91360451&postcount=4

What "pro-hamas" posters?

wes

comongethappy wrote: »

That's not the question though.

Imagine a hypothesis where Israel never left its 1967 borders.

Palestinian terrorists attack with a 500+ rocket barrage.

What level of defence do those supporting Hamas deem acceptable?

Hamas doesn't exist in that scenario, seeing as they came into existence due to the Israeli occupation in the 1980's.........

Sorry, trying to remove the occupation, even in a hypothetical, to justify the premise that Israel is somehow engaged in defense is just silly. Hamas doesn't exist without the occupation. The PLO doesn't exist either without the occupation btw. The Palestinians groups that currently exist, exist due to the current occupation.

Also, again the premise that Israel is engaged in self defense is a faulty one. Israel is the aggressor, and not the people there occupying.

comongethappy

Nodin wrote: »

What "pro-hamas" posters?

Those who support Hamas's attacks on Israel.
(You have posted in support of that in the past).

Its fine to take that position...
But its no harm discussing what Israel can do militarily to the satisfaction of the supporters of Hamas.

Nodin

comongethappy wrote: »

Those who support Hamas's attacks on Israel.
(You have posted in support of that in the past).

...........

I have? Where?

comongethappy

wes wrote: »

Hamas doesn't exist in that scenario, seeing as they came into existence due to the Israeli occupation in the 1980's.........

Sorry, trying to remove the occupation, even in a hypothetical, to justify the premise that Israel is somehow engaged in defense is just silly. Hamas doesn't exist without the occupation. The PLO doesn't exist either without the occupation btw. The Palestinians groups that currently exist, exist due to the current occupation.

Also, again the premise that Israel is engaged in self defense is a faulty one. Israel is the aggressor, and not the people there occupying.

So there is no level of military engagement you deem satisfactory?

Nino Brown

The_Captain wrote: »

If dealing with Hamas terrorists, attack and kill them to your hearts content, just don't kill civilians or raze hospitals to try to get to them

It's not really as simple as that, if Israel never bomb a school or a hospital, then where do you think Hamas will put the rocket launchers?

wes

comongethappy wrote: »

So there is no level of military engagement you deem satisfactory?

Netanyahu, shouldn't have kicked off the most recent violence, that would have been the best defense for Israel. As it stands its Israel who is the aggressor, and not Hamas, as deplorable as Hamas maybe, there not at fault in this instance.

P_1

The way I see it Israel can opt for either a long term or a short term defence strategy.

The long term strategy involves a bit of a loss of face for Israel to put it mildly but ultimately it will end up with a better standard of life for both the 'normal' Israeli and the 'normal' Palestinian. The Israelis won't have to fear suicide bomber or rocket attacks and the Palestinians can have a regular life without fearing the IDF or Hamas.

The short term strategy makes arms manufacturers and the people at the top of the Israeli and Hamas pyramids happy but not many others.

comongethappy

Nodin wrote: »

I have? Where?

Nodin wrote: »

Any resistance to such is entirely justified

(Quoting this post as it was in the context of Palestinian military action).

wes

comongethappy wrote: »

(Quoting this post as it was in the context of Palestinian military action).

An occupied people are legally allowed to resist an occupation, that goes for any occupied people. Resistance however, doesn't cover indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and I find it strange that you automatically conflate the 2.

comongethappy

wes wrote: »

Netanyahu, shouldn't have kicked off the most recent violence, that would have been the best defense for Israel. As it stands its Israel who is the aggressor, and not Hamas, as deplorable as Hamas maybe, there not at fault in this instance.

I actually agree with you..... But you are still missing the point....

What military engagement is acceptable?

I'll get the ball rolling with an opinion (limited as it is)....

- Naval strikes:..... No way.
Naval guns are pretty good, but the ammo is unguided & lobbed rather crudely at its target.
They need line of sight.
Naval guided missiles are too big & cause too much damage.

Air.....
Fast jets are essential, anything slower is shot down

The munitions are critical.

Israel should never ever use incendiary or cluster munitions.
As well as that, never ever use claymore like munitions.

Standard missiles seem too powerful for the job & cause too much damage.

Better they use smaller warheads or kinetic energy missiles to destroy targets.

.... Discuss.

Nodin

comongethappy wrote: »

(Quoting this post as it was in the context of Palestinian military action).

Resistance to occupation is entirely justified. Rather a different thing to 'supporting hamas'.

comongethappy

Nodin wrote: »

Resistance to occupation is entirely justified. Rather a different thing to 'supporting hamas'.

I'm unsure what parts of Gaza are under occupation?
Is there Israeli settlements there?

The_Captain

Nino Brown wrote: »

It's not really as simple as that, if Israel never bomb a school or a hospital, then where do you think Hamas will put the rocket launchers?

They'll put them in hospitals and schools as they are already.

The fact that there's rocket launchers in a hospital doesn't make it okay to bomb a hospital and kill everyone inside it

comongethappy

The_Captain wrote: »

They'll put them in hospitals and schools as they are already.

The fact that there's rocket launchers in a hospital doesn't make it okay to bomb a hospital and kill everyone inside it

Which is exactly the point.

Can a truck with rocket launchers on the back just park at a school & operate with impunity?
No.... of course not.

The question is, how does the IDF engage it without excessive destruction?

Nino Brown

The_Captain wrote: »

They'll put them in hospitals and schools as they are already.

The fact that there's rocket launchers in a hospital doesn't make it okay to bomb a hospital and kill everyone inside it

I disagree. I think if a building is used as a launch pad to attack another country, it should be expected that the building will be flattened in retaliation. if a building has rocket launcher on the roof it is a military target.
Obviously nobody wants to see a hospital bombed, but war is war, it's naive to expect that anything should be off limits.