In a hospital. At the beach. Hamas, Israel tells us, is hiding among civilians (Guardian nails it!)

[AUz]

They hid at the El-Wafa hospital.

They hid at the Al-Aqsa hospital.

They hid at the beach, where children played football.

They hid at the yard of 75-year-old Muhammad Hamad.

They hid among the residential quarters of Shujaya.

They hid in the neighbourhoods of Zaytoun and Toffah.

They hid in Rafah and Khan Younis.

They hid in the home of the Qassan family.

They hid in the home of the poet, Othman Hussein.

They hid in the village of Khuzaa.

They hid in the thousands of houses damaged or destroyed.

They hid in 84 schools and 23 medical facilities.

They hid in a cafe, where Gazans were watching the World Cup.

They hid in the ambulances trying to retrieve the injured.

They hid themselves in 24 corpses, buried under rubble.

They hid themselves in a young woman in pink household slippers, sprawled on the pavement, taken down while fleeing.

They hid themselves in two brothers, eight and four, lying in the intensive burn care unit in Al-Shifa.

They hid themselves in the little boy whose parts were carried away by his father in a plastic shopping bag.

They hid themselves in the “incomparable chaos of bodies” arriving at Gaza hospitals.

They hid themselves in an elderly woman, lying in a pool of blood on a stone floor.

Hamas, they tell us, is cowardly and cynical.

In a hospital. At the beach. Hamas, Israel tells us, is hiding among civilians | Richard Seymour | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Guardian is independently funded news agency and is one of the most reputable newspaper of Britain. They criticize everyone equally..

This piece shows how pathetic Israeli excuse of "human shields" is.

Also, to the apologists of Israeli war-crimes,

When an area with population density of 13000 per mile is bombed with artillery, fighter jets, tanks, gunship helicopters, and naval ships for days after days..the pathetic excuse of "human shields" doesn't really work any more. Do not insult our common sense due to your own bias.

Thanks.

 

[VCheng]

So where do the rockets come from?

 

[PlanetWarrior]

So where do the rockets come from?

That response is unwarranted to the thrust of the article. Nobody is denying that rockets are being fired. Which is worse, launching rockets into Israeli territory which doesn't cause any civilian casualties or cluster bombing Palestinian areas which results in hundreds of deaths to the effect contained in the article ?

 

[VCheng]

That response is unwarranted to the thrust of the article. Nobody is denying that rockets are being fired. Which is worse, launching rockets into Israeli territory which doesn't cause any civilian casualties or cluster bombing Palestinian areas which results in hundreds of deaths to the effect contained in the article ?

Actually it is relevant:

When committing to carry out acts of war on an adversary, and certainly against one that is more powerful, one must keep in mind the inevitable response.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Actually it is relevant:

When committing to carry out acts of war on an adversary, and certainly against one that is more powerful, one must keep in mind the inevitable response.

The response must be commensurate with the threat itself. If a guy half your size and three quarter your height threw a slap at you, would you pull out your 9mm pistol and pump a few shots into his legs ? That rule applies to international issues as well

 

[imran169]

Actually it is relevant:

When committing to carry out acts of war on an adversary, and certainly against one that is more powerful, one must keep in mind the inevitable response.

And the inevitable response is killing innocent civilians...man you are sick...!

 

[VCheng]

The response must be commensurate with the threat itself. If a guy half your size and three quarter your height threw a slap at you, would you pull out your 9mm pistol and pump a few shots into his legs ? That rule applies to international issues as well

Look at it this way: Both sides are in a state of war, and therefore are entitled to respond with all the resources available to them.

And the inevitable response is killing innocent civilians...man you are sick...!

Are you also outraged by the civilian deaths being caused by the Pak Army in FATA these days? Or are you just being selective and hypocritical?

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Look at it this way: Both sides are in a state of war, and therefore are entitled to respond with all the resources available to them.

In the usual circumstances I would be inclined to agree with you. If for example India and Pakistan went to war, the bombing of cities etc would be acceptable in wartime conditions even though that has never happened and God willing will never happen. The Gaza - Israel conflict is however a different scenario. Nobody is questioning Israel's right to defend itself against rocket launches etc. Israel has virtual control over the Gaza strip. It decides who enters or leaves and can shut down the Gaza strip within 24 hours. It can and has militarily entered the Gaza area at will. The cluster bombing of civilians is therefore tantamount to the scenario I gave you earlier about the weaker guy giving you a slap. Israel is simply being unneccassarily brutal in its reaction for the simple reason that it has the military power to do so. Their collective punishment policy is a crime against humanity

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Man, now i know why this guy Vcheng was stripped from TT level. His views and credentials are really too negative and ordinary.

 

[imran169]

Look at it this way: Both sides are in a state of war, and therefore are entitled to respond with all the resources available to them.



Are you also outraged by the civilian deaths being caused by the Pak Army in FATA these days? Or are you just being selective and hypocritical?

Always a typical stupid response from guys like you...for instance if their are civilians casualties in FATA (which is condemnable n dont forget Pak army gives 15 days to evacuate not 58 sec), then this gives license to coward IDF to Kill innocent Civilians in Gaza? As i already said you n your logic is sick...!

 

[VCheng]

In the usual circumstances I would be inclined to agree with you. If for example India and Pakistan went to war, the bombing of cities etc would be acceptable in wartime conditions even though that has never happened and God willing will never happen. The Gaza - Israel conflict is however a different scenario. Nobody is questioning Israel's right to defend itself against rocket launches etc. Israel has virtual control over the Gaza strip. It decides who enters or leaves and can shut down the Gaza strip within 24 hours. It can and has militarily entered the Gaza area at will. The cluster bombing of civilians is therefore tantamount to the scenario I gave you earlier about the weaker guy giving you a slap. Israel is simply being unneccassarily brutal in its reaction for the simple reason that it has the military power to do so. Their collective punishment policy is a crime against humanity

War is war. One side being weak does not impose any requirement not to take action that is regarded as effective by the other side.

Always a typical stupid response from guys like you...for instance if their are civilians casualties in FATA (which is condemnable n dont forget Pak army gives 15 days to evacuate not 58 sec), then this gives license to coward IDF to Kill innocent Civilians in Gaza? As i already said you n your logic is sick...!

My logic is impeccable and fair. Yours is emotional and hypocritical.

Obviously it is proper to try to reduce civilian casualties as much as is possible, but not always achievable, whether in FATA or in Gaza. Same thing.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

War is war. One side being weak does not impose any requirement not to take action that is regarded as effective by the other side.

Well then let's just agree to disagree. I cannot condone nor understand the brutal reaction by Israel. Warfare has changed since the medieval ages when collective punishment was acceptable. In the modern world and with the precision materials available for warfare, collective punishment is simply a brutal and unacceptable policy by any nation

 

[imran169]

War is war. One side being weak does not impose any requirement not to take action that is regarded as effective by the other side.

Ok Idiot...you will never Understand as you have never understand a single thing in JF-17s thread...so am not gonna waste my time..bye

 

[SBD-3]

Hammas has two big weakness
1- It is weak.
2- It is unforgiving.
Hammas isn't willing to back down for the sake of lives of Palestinians, show some flexibility. There's really no point in expecting anything flexible from Israel because they have the upper hand both militarily as well as politically. They're gonna pounce upon every opportunity to inflict casualties on Gaza. Its not in Israel's interest to back down,calm down things, they never care about it; Its Hammas's.

 

[VCheng]

Well then let's just agree to disagree. I cannot condone nor understand the brutal reaction by Israel. Warfare has changed since the medieval ages when collective punishment was acceptable. In the modern world and with the precision materials available for warfare, collective punishment is simply a brutal and unacceptable policy by any nation

Sure, we can agree to disagree.

If India attacks Pakistan with a much larger Army, does that impose any restriction on Pakistan not to be the first to use nuclear weapons to defend itself? Who gets to decide? Pakistan Army or the world press?

Same analogy.

Hammas has two big weakness
1- It is weak.
2- It is unforgiving.
Hammas isn't willing to back down for the sake of lives of Palestinians, show some flexibility. There's really no point in excepting anything flexible from Israel because they have the upper hand both militarily as well as politically. They're gonna pounce upon every opportunity to inflict casualties on Gaza. Its not in Israel's interest to back down,calm down things, they never care about it; Its Hammas's.

Both sides should be willing to show flexibility, but proportionate to the relative strengths of the bargaining positions.