Thanks a lot Israel!

[Јas]

The Israeli government is primarily (and actually, only) responsible for the safety of it's own citizens. As is the government of any country. If the Israeli government believes this method is the way to protect their own citizens, they have to go ahead with it, disproportionate or not.

The Israeli Government  (and indeed every national Government) has responsibilities under international law which extend to all persons effected by their actions.

I'm British, and I'd expect my government to protect it's citizens in this manner too, if necessery.

And yet, the British Government found that the solution to one particular set of terrorists wasn't through inflicting mass civilian casualties and fatalities on the streets of Belfast.

[Јas]

Because citizens in belfast were as british as the victims of the terrorists. Anyway, it's completely different, since the British had control in Northern Ireland, and policed it, unlike Israel in Gaza.

Of course, the situations are completely different, but nonetheless parallels can be drawn and lessons can be learned. And as I've stated already Governments have responsibilities to persons affected by their actions, whatever their nationality. Many living in Belfast had and have Irish citizenship, not British (though of course they may have been so entitled). The Government's responsibility not to cause undue injury was the same to both. The reasons the British Government didn't pound Belfast wasn't because of the citizenship of the probable victims.

I'd also dispute that though the British may have policed NI, they did not have real control over large parts of NI for many years. I'd also disagree that Israel doesn't exercise a significant amount of control over Gaza today.
 

Your point about israel having responsibility for non-israelis affected by their actions is true, but not at the expense of the safety of their own subjects.

Indeed. Nobody disputes the right of all nations to defend themselves. Nobody disputes the right of Israel to retaliate against Hamas. However, the rights of citizenry not be targeted are well established and cannot be justified in the name of self-defence.

[Јas]

They are not targetting the civilian population - the UN estimates only 25% of the casualties are civilians.

My understanding is that the UN has estimates on the number of women/children casualties, but that they are not prepared as yet to say how many of the male casualties they believe are also civilians. There's not enough information yet to determine just how many civilians have been injured/killed, but we can presumably take the 62 women/children fatalities confirmed by the UN as of last Monday to be the starting point of such a calculation.

Considering all strikes are from the air, and considering how densely populated Gaza is, I'd say it pretty much shows that Israel are definitely not targetting the civilians, although of course a huge number are sadly getting killed and injured.

If Israeli operatives fire weapons in the knowledge that Palistianian civilians will be injured/killed, then yes, they are targeting those people.

Also, remember it is a tactic of these terrorist groups to deliberately hide among the civilian population.

Indeed. It doesn't though, IMO, justify targeting the civilians in order to take out the terrorist.

Considering Northern Ireland, I think you missed my main point somewhat. I meant that it would not make sense for the UK to bomb part of it's own country because of terrorism there. Like the UK wouldn't bomb, I don't know, Manchester, for example, because some terrorists come from there. And anyway, like I'm sure you'd agree, the situation in Northern Ireland was so completely different, that it wouldn't have made sense to just bomb the place.

Of course it made no sense for the British Government to bomb Belfast.
Similarly the same reasons apply as to why it makes no sense for Israel to bomb Gaza.

[Јas]

I think the bombing does make sense. They are targetting leading Hamas figures, properties, and smuggling tunnels. Why are they not legitimate targets?

I'm not aware of anyone saying that these are not legitimate targets.
Please try not to distort what I'm saying.

The only concern anyone has, is the civilians in the way, but the targets Israel are aiming are definitely legitimate.

The targets you described are legitimate. However, bombing them when one knows (as much as one can) that there will be civilian casualties/fatalities, is in fact targeting civilians.

Remember, its Hamas organising and sending the rockets.

Israel can legitimately target Hamas.
Nobody disputes this.

I do not agree that Israel are targetting civilians. They are most certainly targetting only Hamas operatives. The fact that civilians are there is very sad, and I'd say the onus is on the civilians to realise that it's extremely dangerous to be in the vicinity of terrorists.

Your last statement would be funny were it not also tragic, dangerous and enormously disrespectful to innocent human lives.

How are ordinary Gazan residents to know whether they live in the same tenement as a terrorist? That they worship at the same Mosque as a terrorist? That they work in the same building as one? That they live/work/worship/shop close enough to a terrorist that they may suffer from the fallout of Israeli bombing of same?

The idea that the onus is on civilians in your scenario is unrealistic, unfair and unacceptable under legal norms. I doubt even the Israeli Government would be brazen enough to make such a declaration.

The figures of the UN may be only women and children, but everyone agrees, even Hamas themselves, that a big majority of the victims are Hamas members.

Actually, as I said and as of yet, nobody knows for sure just what the breakdown of numbers is.
But if I may, what in your view is an acceptable ratio of innocent dead:Hamas dead?

[Јas]

No civilian deaths are acceptable, and I never meant to say that. All I was saying is that Israel are definitely 'targetting' Hamas as can be seen by the tact that a big majority of casualties are Hamas. And as I said, Israel's primary responsibility is to it's citizens, not to Palestinian civilians, so when rockets are landing every day in Israel, I believe the Israeli bombing is legitimate.

Nobody disputes that Israel is targeting Hamas and nobody denies that Israel has the right to do so.

Considering your problem with me saying the onus is on the Palestinian civilians to get away from civilians, I disagree. If Israel knows where to target, you can be sure the civilians in the vicinity in virtually all cases will know too.

I really don't know how you can come to that conclusion. The idea that persons on the ground can readily identify their proximity to Hamas operatives defies credulity. And even if it were so, one can't reasonably expect it of the many children caught up in this who have no real control over where they live/worship/etc..

Anyway, as I said, targetting Hamas to defend Israeli citizens, in my opinion is legitimate, even if Palestinian civilians get hurt and killed too.

Well, then we must agree to disagree. Such targeting, IMO, may be legitimate where it is determined to be sufficiently improbable that there will be innocent casualties/fatalities.

[Јas]

I'd agree with you if not for the fact that the Israeli government and army commanders obviously truely believe that these attacks will help Israeli citizens (i.e. stop the rockets), and since they're on the ground and know the facts, for now I bow to their opinion.

I doubt they will be able to stop the rockets. But even if they do at what cost will it be achieved? Both (1) in terms of the immediate casualties and fatalities to innocent Palestinians and (2) in terms of Israel's future security. Regarding the latter, I would submit that this sort of action will only engender support among Palestinians for those who advocate violent responses to Israel (this is most certainly a lesson which Israel should have learned by now and one which is evident in comparable conflicts, e.g. NI). In the medium-long run, surely this is only increasing the number of terrorists Israel must deal with?

Violence begets violence is ancient wisdom from this very region and is still true today.

Also, I do agree of course that we can't expect Palestinian children to get away from terrorists, however the onus is definitely on the Palestinian people to root out the terrorists from their midst.
Concerning how they'd know on the ground, to me it seems obvious that since Israel are targetting Hamas buildings and rocket launching sites that people on the ground will definitely know they're among terrorists.

Unless things have very much changed recently, it is far from unknown that members of the immediate family of suicide bombers and other terrorists only became aware of such activities after the death of the particular person. This is common to terrorist groups worldwide.

While of course some people may know, the level of knowledge you suppose strikes me as an unreasonable and I must say, quite ridiculous assumption.

[Јas]

Why? Most of the Israeli targets have been Hamas government buildings, security compounds, houses with high-ranking Hamas members, places where rockets have been launched from, smuggling tunnels, and a Hamas university. All of these would be well known on the ground. I don't dispute there are probably some targets where the people around don't know, but not the vast, vast majority.

Most targets do indeed appear to be legitimate, however not all the targets are anywhere near so clearcut and in one of the most densely populated areas on earth the risks posed by bombing to innocent persons are huge and inevitably lead to devastating tragedies affecting innocent men, women and children.

[Јas]

We're not talking about indiscriminate bombings here. The Israelis are using highly advanced technology which actually causes minimal damage to surrounding areas. Of course, if you live next door to a top Hamas top official, or your school is next to a mosque used by Hamas extremists, then this won't help you much. But it's not like there is nowhere to go.

The Balousha family lived in the Jabalia refugee camp near a mosque in Gaza. The mosque was a target of the Israeilis. The force of the blast caused the collapse of numerous other buildings including the Balousha's home. Today they are homeless and 5 of their daughters are dead.
- Guardian article

Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth and it's infrastructure was not built to withstand bombardment. No matter how precise the bomb (and I don't believe they are as accurate as the manufacturers and users claim) they have knock-on effects which must also be taken into account.

And when you're unemployed and living in a refugee camp in Gaza (a land which is blockaded by sea and with closed land borders) with your family, there really isn't anywhere to go.

I believe the onus is on the Palestinian people to stop supporting Hamas, and to realise that because of their support of Hamas, Israel will be targeting Hamas.

This isn't a viable solution - not so long, at any rate, as Israeli actions continue to have much wider ramifications than simply removing the threat of Hamas.

The Palestinian population will almost inevitably respond to the Israeli actions (the attacks and the economic/humanitarian blockade) with strongly anti-Israeli sentiments. Violently anti-Israeli elements will gain support from these actions, not lose it.

Basically, in the current fighting, I think the Palestinian civilian casualties are more the fault of the Palestinians themselves, then the Israelis, who have to protect their own citizens.

You've said this already and it's still prepostorous and dangerous.

In simplest terms, Israel pulls the trigger, Israel is responsible for the consequences thereof. Any other conclusion is a terrible derogation of responsibility.

This does not in itself mean Israel have a right to target civilians, or even Hamas, if it means heavy civilian casualities. The reason they have a right to do that is simply because Israel has a duty to protect it's citizens.

It is possible that if the Israeli actions reduce or stop Hamas rocket attacks then they will very temporarily have protected the lives of some of their citizens (at the expense of unknown number of Palestinian lives).

However, Israel's actions are ensuring that their citizens will continue to be threatened with violence in the medium-long run. I have no doubt that recent developments are recruitment gold to Hamas.

[Јas]

In simplest terms, Israel pulls the trigger, Israel is responsible for the consequences thereof. Any other conclusion is a terrible derogation of responsibility.

Does Hamas not too face the consequences of pulling the trigger?

Of course. Nobody says otherwise.

Should Israel wait around with their thumbs up their butt while Hamas fires hundreds of rockets a day at civilian targets? 

Nobody suggested that either.

Not responding wasn't making the rockets stop.

Have these sort of Israeli assaults ever really worked?

[Јas]

What has caused Hamas to stop in the past?  (honest, non-loaded question)

The only Hamas ceasefire I'm aware of was declared unilaterally under pressure from Abbas and Egypt and collapsed after some weeks.

I don't have an answer to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, but I don't see how any real long-term solution can be based solely on military action without regard to seeking a reasonable political solution that addresses both sides critical issues.