Olmert: Israel has no interest in a prolonged war in Gaza

[suenoga]

Fact: Hamas fires rockets at civilians in an attempt to kill innocent people.
Fact: Israel (rightly or wrongly) attacked Gaza and more specifically Hamas in an attempt to stop rocket attacks on her citizens. Every country has the right and duty to protect its citizens. The strategy and tactics of the Israeli government will always be questionable but it's simply ignorance to compare Israel to hamas.
Futhermore, Hamas does not represent the Palestinians as a whole, and therefore it is wrong to say that the current conflict is between Palestine and Israel

How do I know that these are facts? 

you don't fire rockets at people in order to attack the army or defend your populations. Rockets a innocent people serve one purpose. To scare, maime and kill. Common sense says that

[TrueLight]

fact: israel fired those ahh what ya call it scatter rockets? with white phosphorus and burnt and killed thousands of palestinian innocent children and women and men

[suenoga]

May instead of Palestine, Gaza would be the better replacement.

I don't think Hamas represents Gazans either. They took the city in a coup after all.

[suenoga]

fact: israel fired those ahh what ya call it scatter rockets? with white phosphorus and burnt and killed thousands of palestinian innocent children and women and men

Everyone of those deaths is shocking. I truly believe that these deaths were not ordered. They came about as tragic consequence of Israel's hits on military targets. 

It is worth noting that Hamas use their population as human shields, hiding weapons in hospitals and schools.

[brendan]

Like I pointed out previously, people do not ordinarily "intend" or to wear down their shoes when they go to shops to buy milk, but it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of going to the shops to buy milk, that a reasonable person ought to have foreseen.

Likewise civilian death's might not have been "ordered" per se but it is nevertheless a reasonably foreseeable consequence of actions that the Israeli government did order.

So this argument that is often made that Israeli Govt didn't "order" or "intend" to scare, maime and kill civilians whilst Hamas did, is one that I find highly problematic.

[suenoga]

what is your point? it's highly problematic yes, but what were Israel's other options. People keep questioning the legitimacy of the war but can't provide an example of a clear alternative.   Brendan, what should Israel do? don't they have a duty to protect their citizens? 

[excal]

May instead of Palestine, Gaza would be the better replacement.

I don't think Hamas represents Gazans either. They took the city in a coup after all.

They were democratically voted in.

Like I pointed out previously, people do not ordinarily "intend" or to wear down their shoes when they go to shops to buy milk, but it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of going to the shops to buy milk, that a reasonable person ought to have foreseen.

Likewise civilian death's might not have been "ordered" per se but it is nevertheless a reasonably foreseeable consequence of actions that the Israeli government did order.

So this argument that is often made that Israeli Govt didn't "order" or "intend" to scare, maime and kill civilians whilst Hamas did, is one that I find highly problematic.

There is a distinct difference between collateral damage (in what is a dense civilian environment where the militants are garrisoned) and deliberate targeting of civilians - intention is somewhat relevant in differentiating these two (much like manslaughter vs. murder).

I think there's just a lot of spin doctoring going on.

[enwiabe]

Hamas was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Israel. Israel has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.

I think that, if you replaced Hamas with the Israeli Govt and Israel with Palestine in the above statement, you will find a lot of people who will hold that view:

The Israeli Government was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Palestine. Palestine has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.

This viewpoint is ill-considered and naive.

Hamas' charter calls for the genocide of all Israeli people.
The Israeli government's policy on Hamas is for it (the organisation, not necessary *all* the fighers) to be wiped out and/or to be crippled to the point of inability to fire at Israel.

... You do the logic on that one, genius.

[costargh]

There is a distinct difference between collateral damage (in what is a dense civilian environment where the militants are garrisoned) and deliberate targeting of civilians - intention is somewhat relevant in differentiating these two (much like manslaughter vs. murder).

Yes but that's of no satisfaction to the dead civilians now is it.

[TrueLight]

all i want to say now is when israel started killing all these ppl ... they are just pushing more ppl towards Hamas and the resistance and more fighting... their not actually reversing this trend like they say they want to...

[brendan]

what is your point? it's highly problematic yes, but what were Israel's other options. People keep questioning the legitimacy of the war but can't provide an example of a clear alternative.   Brendan, what should Israel do? don't they have a duty to protect their citizens? 

My point is that it is highly problematic, that is really the main thing. I don't know what they should or shouldn't do. I don't make any statement as to what they should do. I haven't seen a view either way that has really convinced me and consistent with other values that I hold dear.

When it comes to self-defense see the op-ed by Richard Epstein, a self-described libertarian. Maybe my view might be closest to his. I am attracted to the principle of proportionality for occasions when the self-defensive action risks harming innocent 3rd parties. I am not so concerned about proportionality in self-defense when it when there is no risk of harming innocent 3rd parties.

I just find the argument that one civilian death can be less bad than another civilian death by no other reason than one party "ordered" it, problematic. Not least because of the difficulty and/or desirability of drawing a distinction between what was the ordinarily "intended" consequences of an action and the reasonably foreseeable consequences of an action, for the purpose of judging the actions morality.

[suenoga]

"They were democratically voted in".


Although Hamas were democraticly voted in to a majority in the Parliament, their actual millitary control of Gaza comes from a coup in 2006/2007

[suenoga]

Yes but that's of no satisfaction to the dead civilians now is it.
[/quote]


No there's no satisfaction for any civilians in war.  This  is why War should be used as a last resort.  Since Israel's disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Hamas have launched thousands of rockets into the south of the Jewish state.  Israel was forced to take some action in order to damage the capabilities of Hamas.  No state would be expected to sit back and do nothing if rockets were hitting its civilian population.  Hamas left Israel with no other choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks

[costargh]

I dont understand why you've quoted me.

[TrueLight]

watch this 11 part documentary, it will explain why and how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE3Zp4hE5fs

That's not a documentary and I would thank you to not attempt to swindle the people of this forum. That video is posted by an anti-government, anarchic conspiracy theorist who expresses a clearly biased view through that video. To claim that this video is a documentary is a downright lie. You are subversively attempting to convince viewers of a viewpoint by your guarantee that it is fact.

This was an underhanded, sneaky assault on truth. You should be ashamed.

i just found out what this documentary which it is, is called....

Occupation 101: Voice of the Silenced Majority is a 2006 documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict directed by Sufyan Omeish and Abdallah Omeish, and narrated by If Americans Knew founder Alison Weir.
The film focuses on the reality and the effects of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and discusses events from the rise of Zionism to the Second Intifada and Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, presenting its case through dozens of interviews. It questions the nature of Israeli-American relations — in particular, the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and whether American taxpayers should help pay for it.[1] Occupation 101 includes interviews with mostly American and Israeli scholars, religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO representatives — more than half of whom are Jewish — who are critical of the injustices and human rights abuses that stem from Israeli policy in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

and this is the official site
http://www.occupation101.com/about.html

and its won a couple of awards as well


so in conclusion it is a credible documentary