Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

FAO those who think Israel's actions have been justified & proportioned

11618202122

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Luke-this is an interesting table.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

    Lebanon has actually killed more Israeli military figures than it has Israeli civillians. Whereas the complete opposite can be said the other way round.

    Yes, Israeli actions are unjustified and disproportionate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :D
    Aladdin wrote:
    And then you complain when people accuse of of trolling. :rolleyes:

    What about the pictures I posted a few pages back, the pictures that YOU saw and commented about?

    What a surprise...
    I'll do be the good guy and leave as it's going round in circles. I've already answered all of this before. Right need clean my room and sort out all the crap I got because this guy's going university in September wohooooooo and guess what? I'm studying politics. :love: :yippe:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, Luke, by all means do not leave (though you will like you always do when you find yourself cornered).

    You asked for proof (as if you didn't know about it) and I reminded you: plenty of photographic evidence of entire civilian neighbourhoods being destroyed.

    Now would you kindly post your evidence that Israel is not targetting civilians on purpose, or that Hezbollah is "hiding amongst civilians" (LOL!)?

    ETA: Oh look what a surprise. He's left... :D



    Okay Helen, he who in no way is a troll has unexpectedly departed so the thread should return to normality now. Apologies for the shambles of the last few pages.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good article by Monbiot (he often talks rubbish but this is decent) in the Guardian.

    Rightly questions why the israeli response was so different to previous times in recent years despite a running history of trouble on that border.

    Some of his supporting evidence for the invasion being planned is rather sketchy however......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Are AI privy to information the rest of us aren't?

    Now there's no doubt that civilians have been killed, but unless AI have got people inside the IDF feeding them classified information there's no way to know whether the killing of civilians is deliberate, recklessness, faulty intelligence or just poor targetting.

    I think the historical record stands for itself. The IDF have been observed many many times targetting civilians in Palestine. They have been observed many times shooting children for throwing stones. They are currently bombing civilian houses and infrastructure. Yes, I think AI are privy to information that you or I aren't. They have observers, they receive info that you or I don't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5246790.stm

    Look at these nutters. Marching away, throwing shoes... the majority don't even support a Israel. Hypocrites. Imagine the British people marching the streets in outrage of muslims of the 7/7attacks, stating we want all muslims out as they are all terrorists.

    So much hypocrisy it makes me angry. Why don't they get on their feet and go and help those in Africa? Those dying in Sudan because of Islamic militants? How about those in southern Africa, those children that die because they don't have anything to eat or drink? No didn't think they'd bother giving those children a second though. And why is that? because it is boring for them. It doesn't promote their anti israel, their anti jewish stance. their anti semitismwhich is a form of racism.

    Were you there? Have you spoken to anyone who was at that demo? Until you do, I'd suggest you keep your assumptions to yourself about what people do and do not do or believe.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Of course they actknowledge that civilians will die but this is war unfortunately.

    What do you want? 0 civilian casulties? Well I've got news for you, a war is where people die, innocents and non innocents alike, ust like WW2.

    Israel has an aim of ridding Hezbollah, dismantling them, killing them with as little civilian death as possible.
    On the other hand, Hezbollah has a different agenda. It wants to destroy Israel, Jewish people, innocents, westerners and implement Islamic law.

    Where exactly is killing civilians going to get Israel?

    Hezbollah needs to be destroyed for the sake of Lebanon and Israel and for peace in the middle east.

    Israel could have avoided all this if they'd negotiated prisoner releases and territory.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    I am not prepared to go into the IRA conflict but I believe this is a different issue. the IRA does not want to destroy the UK, on theother hand, Hezbollah seeks to destroy Israel. Furthermore, IRA did not intentionally kill British citizens, hezbollah does.

    The IRA wanted to destroy the state of Northern Ireland. As for your assertion that they didn't target British citizens...well, I think the Birmingham pub bombings, the Harrods bomb, the Ealing bomb etc all prove you wrong on that score.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    **Helen** wrote:
    What's this obsession with shopping? Hardly relevant to this thread - but perhaps the two of you should go together and settle this argument over a romantic dinner for two :love: Then everyone else wouldn't have to witness this relentless arguing.

    Why should I be punished?

    If anything I reckon that Clandestine should have a good shopping trip and go out on the pull, and maybe then he'll calm down a bit. Friendly suggestion :)
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    ROFL at this thread. Mainly at Luke. He has as much grasp of reality as... well... eehh...

    Let me get back to you on that one.

    I am sure the IRA never targeted civilians though.:lol: Hehehe... poor fellow. He really needs to wake up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The destruction of an entire Beirut neighbourhood can only be one thing: a deliberate action to kill civilians.

    There is absolutely no other explanation for it. Whatsoever.

    Notice how even the Israel government apologists have failed to come up with an explanation every time it's mentioned to them.

    We know two things - 1) some civilians have died 2) they died because they were hit by Israeli weaponary.

    Now, its probably worth mentioning inherihent military probability before I continue. This was invented by Colonel Alfred Burne, a historian and veteran of WW1 and WW2. Because many historical battles are confusing and the full facts will never be known in cases of confusion he applied IMP, ie what a trained staff officer would do in the same situation. Now IMP has its faults, not least that most medieval monarchs hadn't the benefit of Camberly Staff College.

    But at it heart its a good theoretical basis for reducing confusion, and if we're going to try and work out what the Israeli's were doing it makes as much sense to start with the basics that these men are trained professionals, intelligent and rational.

    Assumption 1) That the israeli high command is made up of professionals, who understand the use of force are intelligent and follow rational goals (whether you agree with them or not). There seems to be no evidence to contradict any of this - there's no evidence that the Israeli high command is mad (though bad is possible). The success of the State of Israel since its formation in beating a succession of numerically superior enemy forces suggest at least an above average level of professional competence.

    Assumption 2) the goal of israel is the military destruction (or least heavy damage) of percieved threats on its border. Again nothing contradicts this - its the Israel's stated aim and whether you agree that Israel was right in its intelligence assessment is irrelevant.

    Assumption 3) Follows on from 1 & 2 and that whatever tactics Israel follows are rational, based on sound military professionalism and are ones they believe have the best chance of meeting their war aims.

    Assumption 4) That bombing of civilians is an ineffective way to wage war in the short term, the German Blitz on London killed a lot of people, as did the V1 and V2 campaigns, but they made fuck all difference to British ability to wage war. The British and US devestated most of Germany, its main result after five years was the diversion of resources - Germans were still fighting in the ruins of Berlin and still able to produce tanks (not of the highest quality and they didn't have enough fuel, but that's a different issue). the best that can be said of bombing of civilian populations is that it can reduce your enemies ability to fight in the long term.

    Assumption 5) The Israeli's know this - virtually every other airforce has studied the bombing campaigns in WW2 and come to the same conclusion (interestly one of the big critics of strategic bombing is Martin van Creveld an extremely influential Israeli military historian).

    Assumption 6) Israel needs to fight short wars. The majority of Israeli soldiers are reservist cosncripts, who are called up from their proper job when needed. This has a direct cost, the reservists need to be paid, fed etc and an indirect cost - soldiers aren't producing any wealth. So the economy suffers - short term this can be made up to a certain extent by US funding, long term, even the US is going to balk at the costs not only subsidising Israeli weapons, but subsidising it keeping up it standard of living. Also a long war has several other impacts

    a) it increases the number of casualties and for a relatively small country such as israel long term casualties can't be tolerated.
    b) it increases the pressure for a pull-out - as Vietnam shows this is regarded as defeat (probably rightly) and encourages your enemies to 'have a go'
    c) more and more Israeli Jews will be less enthusiastic for their children to fall in Lebanon and will look at emigrating somewhere quiter. Common sense suggests that a Jewish state needs Jews, which is a bit of a prob if they're all leaving the country.

    Assumption 7) Given that the Israeli's are professional, deliberate bombing of civilians is ineffective in the short term, the Israeli's know this and that they need to fight short wars deliberate bombing of civilians for the sake of bombing civilians is not likely to be real reason Israeli bombs are hitting Lebanonese civilians.


    OK so what is happening. Onto a new set of assumptions

    Assumption 1) Even precision guided weapons miss - yep despite the manufacturers claims even the best weapon system doesn't always hit, sometimes its slightly faulty, sometimes its user error, sometimes it just plain bad luck.

    Assumption 2) Intelligence is not always right (actually you can change that too often in many cases) - what your ariel intelligence thought was a rocket launcher was a track carrying some lumber, two and two are added to make five, assumptions can be wrong.

    Assumption 3) The israeli's are not supermen - human error is a fact of war. already there's been some examples of friendly fire in this war. Tired, stressed men make mistakes. There is a common belief that israeli's are super soldiers, tbh after seeing some of their weapon handling skills on TV some of them woudln't have been allowed within ten feet of a rifle in the British Army. They're above average, but they're not exceptional super soldiers (no conscript army is).

    Assumption 4) Following the earlier assumption about the Israeli's not wanting long war with lots of casualties, they tend to use firepower rather than soldiers lives to deal with the enemy whenver possible. This does that if they think a position is held by enemies they tend to call in an airstrike, rather than send in the infantry.

    Assumption 5) They're reckless about civilian life. this isn;t the same as deliberately trying to kill them, (though its probably not a moral virtue either), taken with the assumptions above mistakes, weapon system missing, poor intelligence etc it does mean that civilians will be killed.

    Assumption 6) Hezbollah are based in civilian areas. It what Israel claims and i see no reason to dispute it. if we assume Israel is a rational actor, it only seems fair to say Hezbollah are the same. If your going to take a position somewhere its nice to have one with roads to get you and supplies in and out quickly, which have some nice cover and which is a killer for the enemy to attack. Villages, towns and cities fulfill these criteria quite nicely - a field miles from civilisation doesn't do so well. Now it may be possible that Hezbollah are standing in the open with a big sign up saying shoot me, but if they'd be the first army in history to do so.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Yes, I think AI are privy to information that you or I aren't. They have observers, they receive info that you or I don't.

    Actually all their observers can tell is that an Israeli bomb killed civilians. Unless they are in the IDF HQ when the decision to bomb an area is made they have no more idea than anyone else why it was done - possibly deliberate murder, also possibly a misidentified target, recklessness etc. That's my point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Actually all their observers can tell is that an Israeli bomb killed civilians. Unless they are in the IDF HQ when the decision to bomb an area is made they have no more idea than anyone else why it was done - possibly deliberate murder, also possibly a misidentified target, recklessness etc. That's my point.

    Observers can tell when Israeli soldiers take aim and fire at children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're assuming that the Israeli response is rational. I don't think it is. A rational response would be to not inflame the situation further, not to take action that will only increase support for Hizbollah and hatred for Israel. A rational response would be to negotiate prisoner release.

    Israel is not behaving rationally.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Observers can tell when Israeli soldiers take aim and fire at children.

    But we're not talking about that are we? Or at least I'm not; I'm talking about claims that the Israeli Government as a matter of policy is embarked on a campaign to deliberately murder civilians in artillery and air attacks, rather than whether individual IDF soldiers have deliberately shot children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its all part and parcel of the same thing. Dis, luke and Mat claim that the IDF never deliberately target civilians. I'm pointing out that this is just not true. There is plenty of evidence that they do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Its all part and parcel of the same thing. Dis, luke and Mat claim that the IDF never deliberately target civilians. I'm pointing out that this is just not true. There is plenty of evidence that they do.

    In that case I'd agree to point. My argument is not that the IDF are paragons of virtue who play by the rules. They're reckless with civilian lives, some individuals deliberately target civilians and the IDF has shown an unwillingness to properly investigate or deal with cases of murder, assault etc. None of this however prooves a deliberate policy to murder civilians.

    Now that may be their policy, but at best that seems unprooven
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You're assuming that the Israeli response is rational. I don't think it is. A rational response would be to not inflame the situation further, not to take action that will only increase support for Hizbollah and hatred for Israel. A rational response would be to negotiate prisoner release.

    Israel is not behaving rationally.

    Rational doesn't mean the right response, or evn one you agree with. It just means they're not insane and doing things on a whim - which they're clearly not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    A rational response would be to not inflame the situation further, not to take action that will only increase support for Hizbollah and hatred for Israel. A rational response would be to negotiate prisoner release.

    Israel is not behaving rationally.

    I'm afraid we're going to disagree on something again. :p

    Israel has negotiated prisoner releases before and it withdrew from Lebanon six years ago. Past experiences of negotiations with Hezbollah haven't been good, Israel has exchanged scores of fit and well prisoners simply to get dead Israeli soldiers back to bury in Israel. And Israel's enemies have never agreed to exchange one prisoner held by Israel for one prisoner they're holding...And anyway the withdrawal from Lebanon and previous negotiations haven't disarmed Hezbollah or stopped Hezbollah waging war upon Israel. Hezbollah has blossomed since Israel withdrew. I'm also unsure as to how Israel can negotiate with a group committed to the destruction of the State of Israel. I do believe though that Israel should try and strengthen relations with Russia and France (which is a two way street...) as either could perhaps form an intermediary between Israel and her enemies - but negotiating directly with Hezbollah on anything is unlikely to produce any results.

    - Interesting post btw NQA, worthwhile reading although I won't hold my breath for a constructive response to it from certain posters.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Rational doesn't mean the right response, or evn one you agree with. It just means they're not insane and doing things on a whim - which they're clearly not.

    I'd disagree. I think they are a bit insane. What they are doing is not rational.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dis - I'm guessing you're Jewish, right? So admitting that Israel are in fact in the wrong is going to cause you some psychological discomfort.

    I'm wondering whether luke is also Jewish.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Israel has negotiated prisoner releases before and it withdrew from Lebanon six years ago

    Another oft repeated dis regurgitation of Israeli state propaganda.

    Truth: Israel continues to hold some 9000 illegally abducted Lebanese women and children from its protracted period of occupation and has to date refused to negotiate on any of them.

    Truth: Israel did not "withdraw" from all of Southern Lebanon, but has continued to maintain its hold on the Shebaa Farms region thus demonstrating its adamant intent to ignore international law as it has for generations.
    And anyway the withdrawal from Lebanon and previous negotiations haven't disarmed Hezbollah or stopped Hezbollah waging war upon Israel.

    As has already been thoroughly shown, even HRW regards such standard State propagandistic claims as without evidence. That Hezbollah has continued to fight back as a rightful resistance to long-ongoing Israeli initiated acts of cross border aggression, abduction and illegal imprisonment without charge or due process is undeniable. However, it is Israel which consistently initiates the aggression and intentionally "targets" civilians in these cases whilst subsequently falsifying its PR to villify those who rightfully retaliate against such tyranny.

    Indeed, our resident apologist for crimes against humanity has again shown us his ability to excuse his ideological extremist brothers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm afraid we're going to disagree on something again. :p

    Israel has negotiated prisoner releases before and it withdrew from Lebanon six years ago. Past experiences of negotiations with Hezbollah haven't been good, Israel has exchanged scores of fit and well prisoners simply to get dead Israeli soldiers back to bury in Israel. And Israel's enemies have never agreed to exchange one prisoner held by Israel for one prisoner they're holding...And anyway the withdrawal from Lebanon and previous negotiations haven't disarmed Hezbollah or stopped Hezbollah waging war upon Israel.

    You know full well that Israel has been holding Hezbollah prisoners for years. You should also know that Israel has been provoking Hezbollah by frequently violating Lebanese airspace. Israel are not blameless.
    Hezbollah has blossomed since Israel withdrew. I'm also unsure as to how Israel can negotiate with a group committed to the destruction of the State of Israel.

    The way they see it, Israel was created on stolen land. From their pov, they have a point.

    How much longer can you continue to defend the indefensible dis?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I'd disagree. I think they are a bit insane. What they are doing is not rational.

    But going in and attacking an Israeli tank, killing several of its crew and capturing the other knowing that Israel will respond isn't going to calm down the situation either. Arguably its not rational either, given that you know that militarily you can't beat them. However the rational isn't to beat Israel militarily, but wear them down in a long struggle and bring in sympathetic neighbours, to the point where Israel ceases to be a viable state.

    Israel's response is rational in that they believe that you can degrade Hezbollah's military capability so that they can't become a military threat.

    Now these positions may or not actually be right (time will tell). They may or may not be nice positions to hold. But they are both perfectly rational decisions, made by intelligent people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not saying Hezbollah are rational either. But any fool can tell you that flattening Lebanon is only going to increase people's hatred for Israel.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I'm not saying Hezbollah are rational either. But any fool can tell you that flattening Lebanon is only going to increase people's hatred for Israel.
    TBH I don't think Israel cares. It thinks it hated anyway, so being a little bit more hated isn't really here nor there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Dis - I'm guessing you're Jewish, right? So admitting that Israel are in fact in the wrong is going to cause you some psychological discomfort.

    I'm not Jewish and I haven't really made my mind up about any religious identity. I do have some Jewish heritage although I suspect a lot of people with family originating in East London do. But I'm not influenced by distant Jewish ancestry, I certainly do not support Israel for any 'psychological comfort.' Although I'm sure a Freudian might try and somehow argue so.

    I broadly support Israel because I believe Israel is generally deserving of my support. I admit having a few Jewish and Israeli friends perhaps influences me but I do not support Israel out of any blind loyalty. My support for Israel is pretty much based on my understanding of the situation.

    Read some stuff from the US, I agree with the general US line.. The Washington Post and NY Times seem on the right track to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Read some stuff from the US, I agree with the general US line.. The Washington Post and NY Times seem on the right track to me.

    It's funny, a lot of their columnists are Jews. Hardly not going to be biased like.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not Jewish and I haven't really made my mind up about any religious identity. I do have some Jewish heritage although I suspect a lot of people with family originating in East London do. But I'm not influenced by distant Jewish ancestry, I certainly do not support Israel for any 'psychological comfort.' Although I'm sure a Freudian might try and somehow argue so.

    I broadly support Israel because I believe Israel is generally deserving of my support. I admit having a few Jewish and Israeli friends perhaps influences me but I do not support Israel out of any blind loyalty. My support for Israel is pretty much based on my understanding of the situation.

    Read some stuff from the US, I agree with the general US line.. The Washington Post and NY Times seem on the right track to me.

    I really don't understand then why you seem so blind to what's happening. :confused:
Sign In or Register to comment.