While it is disproportionate force, I agree, why would Hamas be so stubborn knowing that the palestinian people are suffering so much? Why not give the soldier back to stop the suffering?
Gaza offensive 'disproportionate'
The UN's top humanitarian official Jan Egeland has described Israel's month-long military offensive in Gaza as a "disproportionate use of force".
Mr Egeland, who is in Gaza to assess the damage, said he was shocked by the targeting of civilian infrastructure including Gaza's only power plant.
More than 100 Palestinians have died in the violence in Gaza since June.
Israel says its attacks are aimed at freeing a captured soldier and stopping militants firing rockets into Israel.
Mr Egeland said that the bombing of the power plant would affect schools and hospitals more than the militants.
"This is very clear, a disproportionate use [of power]," Mr Egeland told reporters.
"Civilian infrastructure is protected. The law is very clear. You cannot have any interpretation in any other way."
Power shortages
Israel launched its offensive in June after Cpl Gilad Shalit was abducted by militants linked to Hamas's military wing.
More than 100 Palestinians and an Israeli soldier have since died in clashes between Israeli troops and Palestinian militants.
Many of the dead have been militants, but civilians have also died under Israeli fire and air strikes.
Jerusalem says it is targeting civilian areas because militants use them as cover to launch rockets, and it is striking infrastructure to prevent militants moving Cpl Shalit around Gaza.
But human rights groups say electricity shortages and blockages are threatening medical services and causing businesses to close.
Israel's assault has prompted international calls for restraint, but a UN resolution urging Israel to stop the offensive was vetoed by the US at the Security Council earlier this month.
Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, along with the militants who seized Cpl Shalit, have been insisting that the soldier only be handed over in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has ruled out any negotiations with the Hamas-led Palestinian government, calling the militant group a "terrorist bloody organisation".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5213174.stm
While it is disproportionate force, I agree, why would Hamas be so stubborn knowing that the palestinian people are suffering so much? Why not give the soldier back to stop the suffering?
Well, since the Palestinian people voted Hamas as their government, by attacking infrastructure you are attacking Hamas. Since Hamas blatantly refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, that view is now connected to all Palestinian people, since they elected Hamas(rightly or wrongly). Israel has no interest in allowing Hamas to kidnap its soldiers and blackmail them for prisoners, while at the same time Hamas is begging for international aid. The former Palestinian government might have been corrupt under Arafat, but unless Hamas transforms itself into a true political party with intentions towards lasting peace, the Palestinian people will continue to caught up in endless conflict.
Propoganda - Everyone knows it's not true.......The UN's top humanitarian official Jan Egeland has described Israel's month-long military offensive in Gaza as a "disproportionate use of force".
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...an-deaths.html
So in other words, you believe it is permissable to target civilan infrastructure in any democratic nation, since the people elected their government? Is this not the same perverse logic used by terrorists to justify tragic events like 9/11?format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022402317.htmlSince Hamas blatantly refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist
but unless Hamas transforms itself into a true political party with intentions towards lasting peace, the Palestinian people will continue to caught up in endless conflict.If Israel were to withdraw to the 1967 borders and leave East Jerusalem, including the Islamic holy sites, to the Palestinians, would you then be willing to recognize Israel?
Haniyeh: If Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says tomorrow that Israel will fulfill these conditions, we will provide something in return - A long-term Hudna, or cease-fire, for the next 50 years.
These are hypothetical questions. So far, no Israeli leader has announced these concessions. Instead, Israel announces unilateral measures. Jerusalem is to remain united, the refugees may not return and the large settlements will not be cleared. That's the reality. We want sovereignty, we want a state and we want to live like other people in the world. If Israel recognizes our rights, we will ensure that peace and stability return to this region.
What's not true? I've provided the link from BBC.format_quote Originally Posted by root
Firstly, attacking a building full of innocent people is one thing, blowing up a power plant is something else entirely. If Israel targeted the largest building in Gaza, for example, filled with thousands of Palestinians with the intention of killing them all, that analogy might hold more fruit.format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Secondly, Hamas can't have it both ways. They can't expect Israel to leave occupied territories while Hamas fires missiles from territory that Israel just left. For there to be peace, BOTH sides have to be peaceful, not just the Israelis.
Originally Posted by root
Propoganda - Everyone knows it's not true.......
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...an-deaths.htmlI actually trust your source and do not disagree with it, I am just highlighting that the very same person also said;Ansar - What's not true? I've provided the link from BBC.
However, this was branded as "PROPOGANDA" in the thread. I find the habit of accepting criticism levied at Israel as "VAILD" and in the same breath (and the same guy) labelled as PROPOGANDA when criticism is levied against Hizbo's."Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."
Don't you agree?
It's a slippery slope - once you justify punishing civilians and targetting civilian infrastructure because it's a democratic nation, you're not as far from terrorism as you may think.format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Of course - I don't think anyone has even entertained the notion of violence continuing from one side after the other side has retreated peacefully.Secondly, Hamas can't have it both ways. They can't expect Israel to leave occupied territories while Hamas fires missiles from territory that Israel just left. For there to be peace, BOTH sides have to be peaceful, not just the Israelis.
Yes, I do agree.format_quote Originally Posted by root
Regards
blowing up a power plant is an attack on civilians and so is blocking the oil pipeline in to gaza. it means that hospitals are crippled, water can not be purified, nothing can be kept cold, including medicines.
What are Israel's options in the common event of Hamas militants firing missiles into Israel and then running back to hide in the civilian population? Should Israel just say, "Well, they ran back into the civilian population, we can't do anything about it?" No nation would accept this scenario. If you hide behind civilians it is your responsibility. I know, that sounds so cruel and so heartless. I know its easier to blame Israel for killing civilians, since Muslims don't seem to criticize the actions of another Muslim, particularly on this forum. In war there is usually not a good guy and no hero, it is just butchery. Since Hamas and Hezbollah aren't capable of actually fighting a war with Israel, they hide in the civilian population and attack from the shadows. The only response to such an act is collective punishment. It sounds harsh and it sounds counter-productive, and in most instances it is. The option I hear around here most often is that Israel should have "negotiated" with prisoners, which actually means Israel should give in to blackmail and invite other incidents just like it down the road. If Hamas wanted peace with Israel, they shouldn't have kidnapped the soldier and murdered and burned the Israeli civilian. This isn't rocket science. Tit for tat isn't an excuse, you have to deal with the reality of the situation as it exists today. The reality today is that Hamas and Hezbollah started a war that will not end in victory for them, which they well knew. It won't end with victory for Israel either, since so many civilians have been killed as a result of their military operations. This was a bad situation for everybody, especially civilians who didn't choose this conflict.
it is an interesting turn of event when known terrorists Hagana, Irgun and Stern gangs are now the ones calling the shots on whom they deem a terrorist group... Something we won't see any Hollywood 'blockbusters' about!format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Shamir himself has defended the various assassinations committed by the Irgun and Stern gangs on the grounds that "it was the only way we could operate, because we were so small. So it was more efficient and more moral to go for selected targets." The selected moral targets in those early days of the founding of the state of Israel included bombing of the King David Hotel and the massacre of Deir Yassin. A little history repeating here too... except this time around it is done brazenly in the open if you dare criticize it....
Surely this proves the point: Hamas is not interested in peace, but at most a ceasefire after which violence will, presumably, continue. A Hudna is not recognising Israel's right to exist. It is not a Treaty and it can be broken - wasn't the original Treaty of Hudaybiyya broken after two years even though it was supposed to run for ten? Now we can argue over who is to blame for breaking those sorts of Treaties but I am not interested in that. We have seen how easy it is for some people to find provokation where most people would say there is none. The question is why should Israel allow Hamas two, ten or even fifty years to build up their strength in order to attack Israel and, I assume, create a "one State, no Jews" solution? Moreover who in their right mind would trust Hamas?format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Nice. You do know that Hagana, Irgun, and Stern only operated from 1931 to 1948 and was thoroughly routed out by the British right? Sure you did but of course that don't gel with your point.format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Oh yes of course "thoroughly routed " yet somehow the legacy lives on....format_quote Originally Posted by Geronimo
Show me a Hagana, Irgun, and Stern memberformat_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Ok wait until I stick their face onto my scanner make an image and send them to ya...format_quote Originally Posted by Geronimo
I got all day, sweetheart.format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I am sure you do!format_quote Originally Posted by Geronimo
Or one can look at negotiations as the voice of reason in a sea of chaos and realize that the release of women and children or 2000 palestinian prisoners held without charge is not the end of the world. It has all come down to negotiations now anyway.format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
But you've just used 'tit-for-tat' as an excuse to justify the actions of Israel in the earlier part of your post. One could say the same thing for IsraelIf Hamas wanted peace with Israel, they shouldn't have kidnapped the soldier and murdered and burned the Israeli civilian. This isn't rocket science. Tit for tat isn't an excuse, you have to deal with the reality of the situation as it exists today.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...BA5B3D6075.htm
What is a ceasefire except peace and an opportunity for continued peace? Haniyeh is speaking about immediate plans, once you move to a ceasefire you have the opportunity for more negotiations, more discussions and a step in the direction of lasting peace. There have been many positive indications from both sides towards such an initiativeformat_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5121164.stm
A hudna is a peace agreement and no it is forbidden to break treaties. A Muslim has to uphold all his agreementsIt is not a Treaty and it can be broken - wasn't the original Treaty of Hudaybiyya broken after two years even though it was supposed to run for ten?Allah says: “Oh you who believe! Fulfill (your) obligations.” [Sûrah al-Mâ’idah: 1]
He also says: “And fulfill (every) covenant. Verily! The covenant will be questioned about.” [Sûrah al-Isrâ': 34]
He says: “And fulfill the Covenant to Allah when you have covenanted, and break not the oaths after you have confirmed them.” [Sûrah al-Nahl: 91]
A Muslim is not to break or violate oaths or promises. He will not be a true faithful Muslim if he does so. Allah Said: “It is not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throws it aside. Nay! The truth is most of them believe not.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 100]
Among the characteristics of a hypocrite is that he: “…acts treacherously toward covenants (pledges), and when entrusted he betrays.”Isn't mistrust and distrust the prelude to hostility and agression?Moreover who in their right mind would trust Hamas?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks