Item — HN Reader

There are forms of retaliation that have far less collateral damage. Israel has employed such techniques in the past with great success. They are "dirty"? Sure they are, but they are far more selective too.

I really can't accept the justification for such a massive retaliation that's bound to have a huge cost in terms of civilian lives. This is no longer collateral damage - it's not like casualities are mostly Hamas combatants. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the planet and for evey Hamas militant they hit, they will also kill at least a dozen of civilians that, until now, didn't represent any threat to Israel.

As for the Israelis, they will have to endure the consequences of electing such a reckless government.

When someone spends the last decade firing rockets at you that kill, on average about five people per year, it's very clear they are not really good at that. By making this disproportionate reaction, the Israeli government is not caring for the safety of their citizens - they are in more danger now than they ever were.

This ugly war is going to get far uglier.

There is no end in sight.

2 comments

I am neither of Israeli nor Palestinian descent, but I have to agree that when a sovereign nation(+) is attacked, they have the right to retaliate in order to defend their nation. The risk of non-combatant casualties has to be considered, but does not have to be avoided at all costs, nor does the retaliation have to be strictly less deadly than the original attacks.

The more Isreal can turn Gaza's inhabitants against Hamas, the better it is for Isreal.

Honestly, if I was in Gaza and a non-combatant, you can bet that I'd be more likely to be anti-Hamas than anti-Isreal at this point.

+- You can debate whether Isreal "should" be sovereign, but the fact of the matter is that they are, and are defending themselves against rocket attacks.

"The more Isreal can turn Gaza's inhabitants against Hamas, the better it is for Isreal."

And that's exactly where the military action fails. It will not turn Palestinians against Hamas. It's quite natural they turn against the one who is bombing them, not the idiots that provoked the attacks. Thus, Israel is not defending itself from rocket attacks - it's only escalating the conflict. Really, it's the best thing that could happen to Hamas and the reason why they keep firing rockets into Israel.

Let's turn our attention to Iraq. How many Iraqi civilians are grateful to the US for getting rid of Saddam Hussein at the cost of being bombed back to stone age and being pretty much caught in the crossfire between radicals and American troops?

War is not where diplomacy fails. War is where diplomacy gets really ugly. Yet, it's still all about diplomacy (which is nothing more than cross-border politics).

It's a very nice slogan that 'Israel has every right to defend themselves' from the rocket attacks, but they have no legal rights to take actions outside of the constraints of International Humanitarian Law.

Reprisals against civilians and indiscriminate attacks are clearly and explicitly prohibited by both the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I. (Although, I believe Protocol I cannot be enforced against Israel since they have not ratified it).

Israel DOES NOT have the right to attack civilians as revenge or to deter or prevent future attacks. This is a war crime under international law (GC IV Art. 33, Art. 53).

Israel DOES NOT have the right to indiscriminately shell Gaza under the pretext of defending itself from terrorists no matter how carefully civilian casualties are minimized. Again, this is a war crime (Protocol I, Art. 51), you go to The Hague for this (Nuremburg Principle VI).

Look, I really don't want to argue about this on a forum, because we're not resolving anything and mostly people just make themselves angry. But you are so confident in your misconceptions that I feel obligated to say something. You are severely misunderstanding Israel's military strategy? Do you seriously think they're going around targeting civilians for revenge?

There is no possible legal justification so it doesn't matter what their motives are.

Is someone who votes for Hamas, an organization that clearly sponsors terrorism, a civilian? What about someone who willingly turns a blind eye to terrorists firing rockets at civilians from their rooftops?

When "civilians" form such a powerful support structure for terrorism, I would say collateral damage is very hard to measure.

One's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Hamas won an election because they were seen as less corrupt than the other party.

Like in the USA, there are more issues in the Palestinian elections than terrorism. Stuff like roads, water, schools, social security, etc.