Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Schools are not viable infrastructure targets to be shelled. Something which you defended in your initial post. Infrastructure targets are factories, refineries, bridges, trainyards, and anything else that directly supports the war effort. They are not schools, they are not churches/mosques/temples, and they are not peoples homes. Something Isreal doesn't understand.

If there are combatants in them, they are all viable target! Really!

ShumaGorath wrote:
You're grandfather would have singlehandedly destroyed all of tokyo? He would have killed thousands upon thousands at hiroshima and nagasaki? A US invasion would not have done the things the bombings did, and we would have taken a fraction of the casualties in our invasion that we caused through the two nukes and the firebombing. An armed invasion would have been costly, but the human deathtoll would have been much less than the cowardly (but expediant) actions taken to put them down quickly. The president of the era is renowned for agonizing over the decision.

Talk about the casualties in Iwo Jima. How did that work out for us? A few Japanese soldiers killed how many of ours? Imaging all of Japan like that. And in war- which is ugly- you try to not kill you own guys. It is better to kill more of theirs than to kill some of yours.

When you have better tools you use them. If you are in a fight and the other guys is trying to kill you witha knife you don't use a stick if you have a gun. You use the gun.

Yeah, but didn't they kill more children in the campaign then they have lost total ever to rocket firings? Thats not using the tools available to you. Thats disproportionate and poorly directed force without sufficient cause or aim.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hear Hear Shuma!

And Israel did kill Children...rather a lot of them.

If your opponent insists on Guerilla tactics, I fail to see how levelling entire streets and blocks helps that any, unless of course you plan to eradicate civilian casualties by incensing the general populace enough that they all take up arms!

What are the numbers on those children?
How many 'children' were 16 and had AK-47s?
How many of them were the living wall that the rockets were launched behind?
Give me some numbers and then we can talk about 'the poor innocent children' that died.

Us Brits must of been watching left wing news broadcasts over here, because they showed a hell of a lot of children wounded and dead. In fairness I couldn't be sure if they had AK47's when they were wounded/killed, but did see they were very small and probably innocent. Israel can't be allowed to make sweeping attacks like this, it's not the civilians fault that Hamas uses these tactics and I'm pretty certain the civies will do their best to bug out. As mentioned already, Israel is supposed to some kind of uber anti terrorist expert, it should of used surgical strikes to sort this out.

If there are combatants in them, they are all viable target! Really!

Not from indiscriminate shellings or missile strikes.

Talk about the casualties in Iwo Jima. How did that work out for us? A few Japanese soldiers killed how many of ours? Imaging all of Japan like that. And in war- which is ugly- you try to not kill you own guys. It is better to kill more of theirs than to kill some of yours.

If you look at the war from a realistic standpoint and actually use the overall statistics we basically mopped the floor with the japanese military in virtually every engagement. There were a few upsets, but overall our kill to casualty rates were very disproportionate. The hard fought battles are glorified now half a century later, but most of the war was not fought that hard (on our side at least). The japanese military was really just outclassed.

Wolfstan wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hear Hear Shuma!

And Israel did kill Children...rather a lot of them.

If your opponent insists on Guerilla tactics, I fail to see how levelling entire streets and blocks helps that any, unless of course you plan to eradicate civilian casualties by incensing the general populace enough that they all take up arms!

What are the numbers on those children?
How many 'children' were 16 and had AK-47s?
How many of them were the living wall that the rockets were launched behind?
Give me some numbers and then we can talk about 'the poor innocent children' that died.

Us Brits must of been watching left wing news broadcasts over here, because they showed a hell of a lot of children wounded and dead. In fairness I couldn't be sure if they had AK47's when they were wounded/killed, but did see they were very small and probably innocent. Israel can't be allowed to make sweeping attacks like this, it's not the civilians fault that Hamas uses these tactics and I'm pretty certain the civies will do their best to bug out. As mentioned already, Israel is supposed to some kind of uber anti terrorist expert, it should of used surgical strikes to sort this out.

okay, that is fair to say. The children shown do not desrve it. That is true.
But you said earlier that Isreal killed alot. What numbers? A few sad photos does not make the whole campaign evil!
And the Gazans are the ones who elected Hamas. They are the ones manning the rocket launchers. And thesse casualties were all from surgical strikes. There were no random bombs. These were people who read the flyers and did not leave. You can lead a horse to water...

1,000+ according to UN and Red Cross numbers, the vast majoriy of which are reported as being unarmed civilians..

And Hamas are indeed a legally, democratically elected Political Party. This is different from Hamas Militants.

For example, I daresay that many members of the KKK would consider themselves Republicans, but that does not mean that the Republicans are members of the KKK....

Over 300 years ago we took control of Ireland. At that time in history this was acceptable as might was right, if you could take it and hold on to it, it was yours. We all know in the modern age that this isn't right, but we are left with the legacy of those times. There is no way that you can remove the Protestant Irish and say "sorry we were wrong, off you go", too much time has passed. All we can do is acknowledge the mistakes of the past and move forward. Israel on the other hand wants to reclaim it's lost land and expect the Muslims who've lived there all that time to ok with that.

Too much time has passed for Israel to have the right to claim all it's lost land back, it has to accept that the Muslims there call it home in the same way as they do. In saying that, the Muslims have to accept that Israelis also have a right to live there. I don't think you'd be too impressed if we decided to come back over and try and claim back the US from you or the French would be too impressed if we popped over and restated our historical claims. So why are people so shocked that the Arabs are more than abit hacked off with the whole concept of Israel as a nation?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:With regards to the Atomic Bomb....

Just because it works, doesn't make it right. I've always wondered why it was a civilian centre targetted, rather than a Military Installation. At least for the first one.

But that is done and in the past. Almost unbelievably, Mankind has grown a lot since then (first and second ones ever used in anger...) and I don't think we'll see them used again in our lifetimes.

So what was right?
The Korean 8 year old girls being dragged around by japanese soldiers to rape? (officers first, so they dont get any STDs!)
Forced labor and beating and starvation of the British POWs?
Telling the civilians to kill themselves to avoid capture form the barbaric westerns? (and husbands slitting the throats of their wives and children?)

War is ugly! It is always ugly! We have this misconception that we can have 'clean' wars. It is always dirty! I can sleep with the use of A-Bombs. Could you sleep with rape and murder? The US wins in that argument!

I hate to sound deliberately obtuse, and a part of me agrees that the dropping of the Bomb might well have been the lesser of two evils...but....

You say about Murder? Despite being an Act of War, the nuking of 2 cities could very well be construed as wholesale murder. Woman, Man, Child, Old, Young, Soldier, Politician, Pacifist...those naughty little blast waves care little who they are obliterating you know.

But as I said, that is done and in the past, and humanity learnt a helluva lot from that incident.

But we are meant to be discussing Obama's Presidency and I fear we have diverged somewhat from topic!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:1,000+ according to UN and Red Cross numbers, the vast majoriy of which are reported as being unarmed civilians.

How many of those were children? And of that number, how many died in building that had been dropped warnings first?
You cant be upset at Isreal for killing children if the pareents diliberatly stayed in the building dispite warnings!

How about bombing buildings Israeli Soliders had herded Civilians into?

Surely thats at least slightly naughty...surely?

Proof of that MDG?

ShumaGorath wrote:The president of the era is renowned for agonizing over the decision.

And he is even more renowned and venerated for making that decision. I am glad he agonized over it, and even more glad he made it.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I think what I am saying makes sense if you have the ability to differentiate between war and terrorism. In WWII we bombed the carp out of factories. Those factories were not full of soldiers! We bombed railroad stations. Again, not operated by soldiers.

Oh, I fully take the point here, and would point out further that the situation in WWII and anything in Israel today are vastly different. I don't like what we had to do to beat the germans but I can see how, especially given the resources and technology available, there was really no viable alternative.

But I don't think the Israeli situation is in anyway comparable, and I don't think they are recognising the difference between fighting a conventional/old fashioned war and what is really counter terrorism actions.

You don't actually save the village by burning it do you ?

But we have not, and Israel has not, specifically targeted civilians. It gets fuzzy for Israel as "civilians" are the ones firing rockets. If Hamas would put uniforms on, then we would not have this disagreement.

I agree that it is despicable of the militants to hide amongst the civilian population, and if they were any sort of genuine soldiers then they would be doing their damnedest to avoid civilian casualties. Like 99.9% of out troops in Iraq, Afghanistan etc do.

But they are targeting civilians. And not all of their bombing raids are preceded by leaflets and for a lot of people they don't have anywhere to go.

story 1

story 2

3 -- don't know if the video bit will work for you there as you're overseas. But the still pics are still pretty damning.

Ultimately if I was attacked, I'm not going to sit and debate the finer moral points of what I'm doing, I'm going to respond in kind.

Sure, of course you are. It's the level of intensity and brutality which you use to respond that determines if your actions are correct.

If I throw something at you/your loved ones %^&* then you're fine to shout back or get angry, you're not alright to shoot me, bulldozer my home and knock down my church are you ?

Widely reported on the BBC, and seemingly backed up by other sources.

I'll try to find a link for you.

In case I can't, I am 90% sure that the other sources (that I can't remember so won't name for accuracies sake) did indeed back up that a house hit during a bombing run was stuffed full of Civilians. Suffice to say when this has been independantly verified, I fully demand resignations in the Israeli Military and Government, and War Crimes trials for the sods who authorised the attack.

Linky Linky! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7812290.stm

9th January. Very interesting article overall.

Oh, and don't get me wrong, Israel has *every* right and indeed obligation to protect it's borders and it's populace, I just fear they use far too heavy handed tactics in general.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:1,000+ according to UN and Red Cross numbers, the vast majoriy of which are reported as being unarmed civilians.

How many of those were children? And of that number, how many died in building that had been dropped warnings first?
You cant be upset at Isreal for killing children if the pareents diliberatly stayed in the building dispite warnings!

BBC News Website wrote:One of the most alarming features of the conflict in Gaza is the number of child casualties. More than 400 were killed. Many had shrapnel or blast injuries sustained as the Israeli army battled Hamas militants in Gaza's densely populated civilian areas.

So only 40% Child Casualties. But thats fine isn't in. I mean, they are only filthy Arabs after all.

An excellent article concerning the use of White Phosphorus in Gaza.
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/what_is_white_phosphorous_and_is_israel_using_it_in_gaza_/Content?oid=683936
The key quote:

In 1980, the civilized world decided that maybe burning civilians alive during warfare was not such a good idea. That year, a new section was added to the Geneva Convention banning the use of incendiaries on or near civilians.

Hence, if Israel is proven to have used White Phosphorus in Gaza, they have committed a war crime. Their are rules, even in war. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: If you sacrifice your values when they your values are tested, then they are not values. They are hobbies.

You cant be upset at Isreal for killing children if the pareents diliberatly stayed in the building dispite warnings!

What warning did these people get? Israel likely used white phosphorus on the school, which would be a war crime. Did the Israeli military tell these people "hey, we're going to spray a powder which ignites ate 86 degrees and cannot be put out by water on your kids, school will be let out early today?" Seriously, exactly what notice was given? How far in advance was this notice given? Can you prove that any notice was given at all? Links/ sources would be appreciated.

Very good point Bloodoforks.

Gen Lee has made a lot of pointing out the warnings...I didn't hear about anything of the sort. Not saying you are lying my friend, just that we clearly heard differing reports of things. And I hasten to point out that I have heard/read/seen nothing to suggest Israel *didn't* send warnings either!

If you have someone shooting at you from a building and you have the means, you bomb the building. if there are civilians in it, I'm sorry but any casualties are the faults of the guy shooting at you.

The simple fact is Hamas uses women and children as shields when attacked. Israel's military tries to shield its women and children when it is attacked. You cannot say Israel has done such and such, when Hamas had daily attacked Israel FOR YEARS. The day Israel left Gaza Hamas moved in and began shooting rockets. Any other nation would have firebombed the whole area and been done with it.

Not sure what this has to do with George Bush though.

reds8n wrote:

Ultimately if I was attacked, I'm not going to sit and debate the finer moral points of what I'm doing, I'm going to respond in kind.

Sure, of course you are. It's the level of intensity and brutality which you use to respond that determines if your actions are correct.

If I throw something at you/your loved ones %^&* then you're fine to shout back or get angry, you're not alright to shoot me, bulldozer my home and knock down my church are you ?

BloodofOrks wrote:An excellent article concerning the use of White Phosphorus in Gaza.
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/what_is_white_phosphorous_and_is_israel_using_it_in_gaza_/Content?oid=683936
The key quote:

In 1980, the civilized world decided that maybe burning civilians alive during warfare was not such a good idea. That year, a new section was added to the Geneva Convention banning the use of incendiaries on or near civilians.

Hence, if Israel is proven to have used White Phosphorus in Gaza, they have committed a war crime. Their are rules, even in war. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: If you sacrifice your values when they your values are tested, then they are not values. They are hobbies.

You cant be upset at Isreal for killing children if the pareents diliberatly stayed in the building dispite warnings!

What warning did these people get? Israel likely used white phosphorus on the school, which would be a war crime. Did the Israeli military tell these people "hey, we're going to spray a powder which ignites ate 86 degrees and cannot be put out by water on your kids, school will be let out early today?" Seriously, exactly what notice was given? How far in advance was this notice given? Can you prove that any notice was given at all? Links/ sources would be appreciated.

Have any unbiased proof of that? I wouldn't put it past Israel, but I'm not sure that is unbiased.

Grignard wrote:

BloodofOrks wrote:An excellent article concerning the use of White Phosphorus in Gaza.
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/what_is_white_phosphorous_and_is_israel_using_it_in_gaza_/Content?oid=683936
The key quote:

In 1980, the civilized world decided that maybe burning civilians alive during warfare was not such a good idea. That year, a new section was added to the Geneva Convention banning the use of incendiaries on or near civilians.

Hence, if Israel is proven to have used White Phosphorus in Gaza, they have committed a war crime. Their are rules, even in war. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: If you sacrifice your values when they your values are tested, then they are not values. They are hobbies.

You cant be upset at Isreal for killing children if the pareents diliberatly stayed in the building dispite warnings!

What warning did these people get? Israel likely used white phosphorus on the school, which would be a war crime. Did the Israeli military tell these people "hey, we're going to spray a powder which ignites ate 86 degrees and cannot be put out by water on your kids, school will be let out early today?" Seriously, exactly what notice was given? How far in advance was this notice given? Can you prove that any notice was given at all? Links/ sources would be appreciated.

Have any unbiased proof of that? I wouldn't put it past Israel, but I'm not sure that is unbiased.

The author of the article cites his sources in the article

Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, and the conservative Times newspaper in London all claim Israel is using WP in Gaza. Human Rights Watch observers claim to have seen WP artillery exploding over Gaza City. In fact, countless published press photos depict WP-like white cloud bursts over populated parts of Gaza. The Times also reports finding spent shells from Israeli WP weapons in Gaza.

Frazzled wrote:If you have someone shooting at you from a building and you have the means, you bomb the building. if there are civilians in it, I'm sorry but any casualties are the faults of the guy shooting at you.

The simple fact is Hamas uses women and children as shields when attacked. Israel's military tries to shield its women and children when it is attacked. You cannot say Israel has done such and such, when Hamas had daily attacked Israel FOR YEARS. The day Israel left Gaza Hamas moved in and began shooting rockets. Any other nation would have firebombed the whole area and been done with it.

Not sure what this has to do with George Bush though.

With all genuine respect Frazz, BALLS SIR! QUITE FRANKLY, BALLS!

When the UK was under repeated Terrorist Attack from the IRA (funded by some Americans I hasten to add) we didn't 'firebomb the whole area and have done with it'. We deployed Troops on the street. Yes, we (the UK Military) were not blameless in many areas, but we did not respond in kind. We peace brokered. Now, post 9/11 the IRA have been extremely quiet, to the point of officially disarming itself (though as ever some extremists have broken away etc).

As I said, Israel has every right to defend herself. Nobody here is debating or questioning that. But bombing civilian areas because there may or may not be Hamas Militants in the area, not to mention deliberately killing *elected* officials is beyond the pale when they have the money, resources AND training to perform surgical ground strikes with special forces. I mean, most Palestinians just want to be left alone by Israel to get on with things, and have no love for the Hamas Militants. But Fear is a very active thing there. As much as I reported to this thread about Israel targetting a house with up to 100 Civvies in it, there are also reports of Hamas Militants killing fellow Palestinians for telling them to get out of the neighbourhood. Surely if Israel persevered with a more targetted campaign, there would be less ill will towards them in Palestine, making it harder for the Militants to recruit. And, provided they can provide such things (not saying they can by the way) they might even find normal, everyday Palestinians telling them where to target... But no, just take out that one fly that sat on your cake with the sledgehammer. Never mind the dozens that didn't and asked him not to.

But I agree, I fail to see how this links to Bush or Obama really in the sense of this thread.

The Irish might disagree with you a little bit MDG.

Grignard wrote:
Have any unbiased proof of that? I wouldn't put it past Israel, but I'm not sure that is unbiased.

I tried to keep my assertions from sounding as though this has been confirmed. The trouble is, in regards to bias, most of the US media is rather bias toward the Israels which makes confirmation of many facts regarding the Israel/Palestine situation difficult to confirm.

Regardless....We did not bomb back. We may have had street battles with them, but we did not bomb schools, churches, anything of the sort. Bloody Sunday was a bad, bad mistake on behalf of the Military, and I am ashamed at the virtual cover up that has followed.

BloodofOrks wrote:

Grignard wrote:
Have any unbiased proof of that? I wouldn't put it past Israel, but I'm not sure that is unbiased.

I tried to keep my assertions from sounding as though this has been confirmed. The trouble is, in regards to bias, most of the US media is rather bias toward the Israels which makes confirmation of many facts regarding the Israel/Palestine situation difficult to confirm.

Not to mention Israels blanket ban on reporting from inside Gaza. Nothing to hide eh? Utter bollocks if you ask me. Much much easier to deny things if you make sure nobody of any import was there to see it being done.

Frazzled wrote:If you have someone shooting at you from a building and you have the means, you bomb the building. if there are civilians in it, I'm sorry but any casualties are the faults of the guy shooting at you.

The simple fact is Hamas uses women and children as shields when attacked. Israel's military tries to shield its women and children when it is attacked. You cannot say Israel has done such and such, when Hamas had daily attacked Israel FOR YEARS. The day Israel left Gaza Hamas moved in and began shooting rockets. Any other nation would have firebombed the whole area and been done with it.

Not sure what this has to do with George Bush though.

This is absolutely true.

The problem for conventional armed forces is when they are up against insurgency/guerilla/terrorist movements who are not worried about hiding among civilians, coercing civilians to help them and so on.

That doesn't make it right to blow up the civilians' houses and schools.

It is a problem which has existed for centuries (The Peninsular Campaign, The Franco-Prussian War) and no-one has found a solution to it.

It has been getting worse because many western people don't like blowing up civilians and don't like sending their soldiers into places where it happens and they get shot at. Also because when the enemy are muslims, other muslims are naturally suspicious of western motives and a negative reaction arises outside the country where the fighting is taking palce.

With modern media the message gets spread much more easily than before.

In this kind of conflict there are three likely outcomes.

1. Apply overwhelming force, cause as many casualties as are necessary to completely crush the enemy and accept the public relations damage.
2. Give up and pull out.
3. Talk to the enemy in order achieve a political solution.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you have someone shooting at you from a building and you have the means, you bomb the building. if there are civilians in it, I'm sorry but any casualties are the faults of the guy shooting at you.

The simple fact is Hamas uses women and children as shields when attacked. Israel's military tries to shield its women and children when it is attacked. You cannot say Israel has done such and such, when Hamas had daily attacked Israel FOR YEARS. The day Israel left Gaza Hamas moved in and began shooting rockets. Any other nation would have firebombed the whole area and been done with it.

Not sure what this has to do with George Bush though.

With all genuine respect Frazz, BALLS SIR! QUITE FRANKLY, BALLS!

When the UK was under repeated Terrorist Attack from the IRA (funded by some Americans I hasten to add) we didn't 'firebomb the whole area and have done with it'. We deployed Troops on the street. Yes, we (the UK Military) were not blameless in many areas, but we did not respond in kind. We peace brokered. Now, post 9/11 the IRA have been extremely quiet, to the point of officially disarming itself (though as ever some extremists have broken away etc).

As I said, Israel has every right to defend herself. Nobody here is debating or questioning that. But bombing civilian areas because there may or may not be Hamas Militants in the area, not to mention deliberately killing *elected* officials is beyond the pale when they have the money, resources AND training to perform surgical ground strikes with special forces. I mean, most Palestinians just want to be left alone by Israel to get on with things, and have no love for the Hamas Militants. But Fear is a very active thing there. As much as I reported to this thread about Israel targetting a house with up to 100 Civvies in it, there are also reports of Hamas Militants killing fellow Palestinians for telling them to get out of the neighbourhood. Surely if Israel persevered with a more targetted campaign, there would be less ill will towards them in Palestine, making it harder for the Militants to recruit. And, provided they can provide such things (not saying they can by the way) they might even find normal, everyday Palestinians telling them where to target... But no, just take out that one fly that sat on your cake with the sledgehammer. Never mind the dozens that didn't and asked him not to.

But I agree, I fail to see how this links to Bush or Obama really in the sense of this thread.

Well said sir. If Frazzled would like to take a look at my post on that locked thread that ended up on a similar path, you will I stated a similar example of how we dealt with the IRA (when allowed). With hand on heart I can also back up MDG and say that we never sent in the RAF to bomb streets or lobbed arty shells into buildings. Our reponse was troop based, on foot, street to street, house to house. And yes the boys may of got heavy handed when a sniper killed one of their mates, but we didn't then turn that house, street, town into rubble.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:What has Isreal done that warrents UN involvement? A few poeple moved to a different side of town? If you ignore their race (which we should) why is that so bad? They bombed the crap out of Hamas? If they were firing rockets at me, I would kill them all to a man!

Edit - I can not spell....

Israel breached the terms of UN brokered deals in maintaining quarantines on Palestine, and entering Hamas controlled territory to assassinate a member of Jihad International. Breaching the terms of a UN brokered treaty was recently used by the US as justification for invading Iraq, therefore…

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:If the thugs were hiding in a UN school, I would bomb it. Not even an issue. Hide in a church? I will bomb it. Hide in a Milk Factory? I will bomb it.

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

All morality aside there’s the problem that this just doesn’t work. Ever. Didn’t work when the Germans tried it on London. Didn’t work when the allies responded in kind on Berlin. Didn’t work when the US tried it on Hanoi. Civilian populations under this kind of bombing do not waver, they grow more determined.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I think what I am saying makes sense if you have the ability to differentiate between war and terrorism. In WWII we bombed the carp out of factories. Those factories were not full of soldiers! We bombed railroad stations. Again, not operated by soldiers.
But we have not, and Israel has not, specifically targeted civilians. It gets fuzzy for Israel as "civilians" are the ones firing rockets. If Hamas would put uniforms on, then we would not have this disagreement.

I think the biggest problem here is that you don’t really understand what’s just happened. Israel didn’t just target rocket launching sites and kill 1,200 people along the way. They dropped unguided bombs. They fired incendiary rounds. They bulldozed whole blocks, often people were hiding in them at the time. There are fairly obvious reasons the media weren’t allowed in.

Israel policy for a long time has been to hurt Palestine so badly that continued support of Hamas becomes unacceptable. This had nothing to do with rocket sites. Anywhere can be a rocket site, trying to target them is like playing whack a mole. It had everything to do with inflicting sufficient deaths that Palestine votes in a different govt.

You yourself said above that it is about inflicting enough casualties on the civilian population that they are unwilling to support the war effort. At least be honest with yourself.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I disagree. I think Isreal was being attacked based on religious and ethnic reasons. I think Isreal does not bomb people that dont attack them first.

Israel was being attacked in response to assassinations carried out in their territory, and in response to the recommencement of quarantines that require basic food and petrol supplies to be smuggled in through underground tunnel networks.

And if you think Israel does not attack people who don’t bomb them first, you need to read up on the Six Day War.

Wolfstan wrote:Well said sir. If Frazzled would like to take a look at my post on that locked thread that ended up on a similar path, you will I stated a similar example of how we dealt with the IRA (when allowed). With hand on heart I can also back up MDG and say that we never sent in the RAF to bomb streets or lobbed arty shells into buildings. Our reponse was troop based, on foot, street to street, house to house. And yes the boys may of got heavy handed when a sniper killed one of their mates, but we didn't then turn that house, street, town into rubble.

There are some fundamental differences. Despite strong support for the IRA, Ireland was never as militarised as Palestine. I’m not certain the Israeli military could effectively police the area and provide some guarantee of safety for troops posted there.

But the big issue with Palestine is that Israel isn’t just bombing them. There’s quarantine on Palestine that prevents it operating as a functional state. Refugee camps opened 60 years are still going. And every year more settlements are put into the West Bank.

People like to think of the Palestinians as these strange nutters that are ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel. Truth is rocket and terrorist attacks are directly related to actions undertaken by Israel. If Israel freed up the quarantine to allow some level of economic development in Palestine, and stopped building settlements, steps could be taken forward.