Palestinian rocket kills Israeli

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whitecity, Nov 15, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm openly, and quite mischieviously, playing Devil's Advocate here. Nevertheless, I believe that only a serious re-evaluation about the rights and wrongs of the situation will provide a genuine move towards peace in the region.

    From a BBC news report today (I recommend that all read the full article, which I would like to post in full, but respect the ARRSE policy on copyright etc.),


    First, I suspect there maybe a typo error with the dates. I summise that the BBC is trying to draw a comparison and that they should both be 2005 or 2006. If not, then the insane figures become even more horrendous.

    The figure seems quite stark. 400:1 Over the (same) time frame, Israel has killed "almost 400 Palestinians, many of them civilians", the Palestinian rocket attacks to which they are responding, just one confirmed.

    Is this proportionate? At what point is it acceptable to use the word disproportianate? How wide must the ratio become before the consensus becomes, 'enough is enough - stop!'

    Second, it is common knowledge that Israel considers itself to be, 'at war' with Hamas and others. It uses this as the basis for, and justification of, its robust defence. As in any war, 'regrettable (civilian) collateral damage' can be expected. On this very forum, there are plenty of posters willing to justify or condone, to some degree or other, IDF 'mistakes' and 'crimes' as part of a wider, legitimate action. But, for Israel to be 'at war', it requires an enemy that can also be considered to be 'at war', not so? Thus, it is only fair, to consider that Hamas will also effect some 'regrettable (civilian) collateral damage' in pursuit of its war aims.

    Until now, Hamas has been described as a purely terrorist organisation: suicide bombers walking onto buses and into cafes. Nevertheless, the majority of their offensive actions now appear to be rudimentary cross-border artillery exchanges. Israeli tactics include, but are not limited to, selective aerial strikes against Hamas leadership targets. Has Hamas now adopted similar tactics? Is Hamas now targetting Sderot with the express intent of striking the Israeli Defence Minister: Peretz? Sadly, because of their jerry-built weaponary, they are more likely to miss than hit. Although this latest attack seems to have got a wee bit closer.

    If it's OK for the IDF to go after specific Hamas targets - and sometimes make mistakes in the process, is it OK for Hamas to go after specific Israeli military/political targets - and sometimes make mistakes in the process?

    In the 1990's, the US openely proposed a policy of arming the Bosnian Muslims with the express intent of evening up the balance in firepower with the Bosnian Serbs. Is now the time to propose providing sophisticated weaponary to Hamas to allow them more precision targetting and thus to reduce the collateral damage they inflict?
     
  2. Are they drawing any distinction between Palistinian and Hamas?
     
  3. :? That noise you just heard was Sven blowing his top... :x

    sm.
     
  4. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3328341,00.html

    How would the Palestinians comment it? May be this way (mirroring a typical Israeli comment):

    Amir Peretz is a minister of defense. So his bodyguard (apparently a military man) used a populated area as a human shield. As for the poor woman then her death is a collateral damage.
     
  5. When will they both realise that the killing will not stop until they both stop trying to kill each other.

    From memory each of the recent ceasefires between the Israeli and Palestinians has ended because Israel has insisted on continuing to atack the Hamas hierarchy through the cease fire.

    At times I do feal they both deserve each other.

    Peter
     
  6. Peter, Israel hasn't singed even one formal agreement about cease-fire with the Palestinians and always rejects this possibility. Indeed the Palestinians declared few unilateral cease-fires that ended by Israeli bombings and raids. So the situation is rather asymmetrical.
     
  7. From observation over the past few years one coud easily form the opinion that who ever ruls Israel for some perverse reason they see a permanent state of war as preferable to peace.



    Peter
     
  8. Disproportionate??? so its ok for the Palestinians to hoof rockets across en-masse which they have been doing, and just 'cos theres only one death, Israel should stand by and do nothing, dont you think that if no rockets were fired into Israel then no rockets/Artillery would be fired back in response.

    It's like me chucking bricks at my neighbours house and smashing a window, and he comes across and puts all of my windows and doors in...would I have a right to whine about overkill? would it not have been better for me to have not chucked bricks at his house in the first place?
     
  9. It is a democracy btw. The majority of Israelis don't want a fair peace and they vote for politicians that reflect their opinions.
     
  10. Was lobbing a few missiles over a disproportionate response to the killing of all those women and children last week?


    This tit for tat killing has been going on for longer that the state of israel has existed, and can any one remeber actually who started it. Are you suggesting that the Palestinians do nothing whilst Israel murders those palestinians they don't like (and as often as not killing many innocents at the ame time or instead)?




    Peter
     
  11. so the pals homemade rockets finally kill someone
    look fwd to israel blowing somebody in the chain of command away and whoever happens to be around at the time.
    bit like using vulcans to bomb the south and the bogside everytime a bomb went off in london :(
    OK I KNOW EVEYONE ON ARSE WOULD PAY BIG BUCKS TO SEE THAT HAPPEN :twisted:
    but realisticaly was'nt going to stop the bombs which is the aim .
    don't think either pals or
     
  12. Yes it has been going on for years, but as far back as I can remember at the grand old age of 41 Israel has only ever responded to attacks on its soveriegn soil (I may be wrong but its as far as I myself can remember),

    If hamas hezbollah et al stopped the suicide bombs, and the rockets or the Lebanese and Palestinian governments did something to stop the attacks on Israel then I think Israel will stay within its borders.

    Being a nation surrounded by enemy or potential enemy states as Israel is I dont think they can afford to be squeemish about palestinian or Lebanese civilian casualties, and I dont think they are... if you dont want to get killed move away from the border and or stop Hamas/hezbollah using your village to fire rockets into Israel.

    However if all civilians moved out of a potential kill zone away from the border these brave palestinian freedom fighters would move their rockets out to where the civilians are and carry on firing, so moving isnt the answer. stop rocketing Israel simple really isnt it!!!
     
  13. I do often wonder why , considering Hamas is accused of being backed by Syria, Iran and all those other countries, that they haven't let them have a Manpad or 2 to be getting on with. Perhaps they're not quite as well supported as they're accused of being.
     
  14. Or perhaps to do so would mean losing any measure of deniability?
     
  15. Couple of points, the Irgun and Stern Gang were terrorising Palestinians before Israel ever came into being to clear land for settlers (the partition of Palestine to create Israel was very much the result of Zionist terror), and even when Hamas in particular has called a ceasefire and held it the Israelis have continued killing in the Palestinian territories, with their usual lack of prescision, is it all that surprising there is a distinct reluctance on the part of the Palestinians to try a cease fire again. Israel is not the good guy, there is no good guy in this battle.

    Peter