You really handpicked the references about the teenagers. Hamas has admitted it was their cell, it has been discussed in other comments. Sigh... At least be honest about well known facts. :-(
- That airplane might have been different, if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons. Now the Russian economy will only be crushed, instead. (That France might get an exception through when they'd lose a lot of money is another thing. Which you probably know.)
- North Korea is being punished as much as is possible, since that seems to be the only way to get anywhere with evil juntas.
-------
On the subject...
So, you claim the rocket artillery and terror against Israel civilians would stop if the Israelis stopped trying to stop it? (How!? The last peace gestures from Israel were seen as weakness and resulted in many more attacks.)
Or do you think that it is OK to shoot artillery at Je... Israeli civilians... for a few decades?
I appreciate this response. You have brought us to the chicken and egg situation. I do believe Israel has reason to respond to artillery. I will also admit that Israel does not have the leverage South Korea does or EU/US do in the examples I gave. The lack of leverage is however partially their doing. 60+ years of occupation can do this. They took away the option of destroying their enemies economy because they already did that. They took away the option of removing their freedom of movement and sense of self-sufficiency because they have already done that. Finally they took away their ability for basic survival as they already starve the citizens of Gaza. So it is likely all they have left is to bomb. I have issue with the false pretence and escalation and I would have expected Israel to have reserved killing human shields for some later escalation.
it is not a "human shield" if you shoot anyway.
It's just a dead body.
https://twitter.com/Tolstoved/status/493177973810294784
The stats concerning collateral damage in the previous war are astounding. Looking at only the percentage of children and women killed in comparison of the over all total, one has to be gobsmacked at any excuses. I seem to remember this number alone being more than 50% of all deaths. Considering that they were all likely not "combatants" one should also assume that a significant portion of the male deaths were also not combatant. I highly doubt Israel intended to kill so many innocent people but can't see any other explanation other than just turning a blind eye. It was, without a doubt, grotesque.
I too was surprised by the high civilian casualties given Israel's attempts at warning the population before they strike. I wondered why would people stay in that area if they knew the Israelis were going to strike?
And then I got the answer: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crime...
"Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot.
That way people had to stay in their homes, even if they were about to get bombed.
Hamas held the whole Gazan population as a human shield." — K., graduate student
My point was you do not even have to trust the UN's estimate that nearly 75% were civilians. You can use logical deduction to come to a number of more than %50 when you consider the number of women and children killed in comparison to the total, any total you find.
It is documented that Hamas shot from civilian areas. If the return fire kills civilians, it isn't the Israelis that broke the war laws.
Also, note the sex distribution: 671 dead men, 218 women.
And among older people, not of front line age, the sex distribution was much more even.
The media are planned more than the weapons in those conflicts. Note that the Israeli side have an interest in few Palestinian civilian dead, Hamas has the opposite interest...
The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank attributed the
abductions to the Qawasameh clan which is notorious for
acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach
an entente with Israel.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/qawasmeh-clan-hebron-hamas-leadership-mahmoud-abbas.html
> Or do you think that it is OK to shoot artillery at Je... Israeli civilians... for a few decades?
Absolutely not, it's wrong and ought to be immediately stopped. It's a great question I'm glad you asked, because I fully understand that it's a genuine concern so we have to take it seriously and discuss it. We can't waive it away.
But let's be very clear here, these are the statistics for rocket attacks by Hamas. Please check the link, it's a very simple chart.
Israeli civilians died in the last 10 years from rocket attacks: 28
Palestinian children died in 1 month (July 2014): 329
Palestinian civilians who died in 1 month (July 2014): 1525
Just think about that for a second. Then look at Israeli traffic casualties per WEEK, it's five. Yes, five. Every week, more people die in traffic, than civilians died from Hamas rockets in all of 2014 including this summer's bloody conflict.
Just consider that for a moment. This is not a question of merely 'defense'. It's a question of, is it okay to kill hundreds of innocent children, to prevent an annual death toll from happening that barely rivals weekly traffic casualties, when I'm not willing to stop building illegal settlements and not willing to lift illegal blockades or occupations of another land that could achieve the same goals.
Now let me be clear, every single one of those 28 Israeli deaths the past 10 years was one too many. Every single one is a tragedy I wish hadn't happened. But in my opinion it in no way can excuse such disproportionate and grotesque murdering of innocent children on such a scale.
Especially not when Israel has not exhausted all of its options yet. Under international law no country has the right to defend itself against a force that is resisting a decades long illegal occupation (now de facto annexation) of its land. This 'right to defend itself' simply does not exist. Feel free to look up the legal standard that supports it, it's not there. Israel has a right to defend itself, and it can do so by withdrawing from occupied territories, lifting an illegal blockade and engaging in genuine peace talks in support of the right to self determination of the people of Palestine. But it has continuously disrupted such talks, which isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of the entire planet, indeed including the US this last time around, hell including president of Israel Peres stating Netanyahu deliberatedly destroyed the peace deal that had already been negotiated.
Again, if someone illegally occupies part of your house, controls your doors and windows (exit/entry by land, air and water), controls your fridge (the infamous 'Palestinian diet', controls your electricity and water and energy, and announces it will build more settlements, and walks away from peace treaties or sabotages them, this country has NO right to defend itself by international law. Once it reasonably exhausts its diplomatic options (namely the lifting of illegal blockades and occupations and negotations) it has the right to use force as a final measure. You may disagree with the law, but these are the basics facts of international law. These are not controversial facts.
http://news.yahoo.com/hamas-leader--don-t-compare-us-to-isil...
About the examples:
- That airplane might have been different, if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons. Now the Russian economy will only be crushed, instead. (That France might get an exception through when they'd lose a lot of money is another thing. Which you probably know.)
- North Korea is being punished as much as is possible, since that seems to be the only way to get anywhere with evil juntas.
-------
On the subject...
So, you claim the rocket artillery and terror against Israel civilians would stop if the Israelis stopped trying to stop it? (How!? The last peace gestures from Israel were seen as weakness and resulted in many more attacks.)
Or do you think that it is OK to shoot artillery at Je... Israeli civilians... for a few decades?