Gaza Crisis: Un's Ban Calls For Ceasefire After Israeli Airstrike Kills Civilians

[Steely Dan]

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=293324

'Sunday Times' cites Israeli official claiming Tehran shipping Fajr-5 rockets through Sudan to the Gaza Strip.

Now there's a surprise, though I have no doubt's Egypt will stop this from happening.

[mania]

Know what/ Neither baby would have died had.....

Spoken like someone who has never had a baby....Correct?

You can insert many chicken & egg scenarios as you like.

The end result would be no less heartless.

Sometimes I really wonder where the limits are.

[Steely Dan]

Another home run for truth versus political correctness from Pat.

[awayego]

Know what/ Neither baby would have died had.....

Spoken like someone who has never had a baby....Correct?

You can insert many chicken & egg scenarios as you like.

The end result would be no less heartless.

Sometimes I really wonder where the limits are.

Agreed!

[kblaze]

Another heartbreaking story! http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20466027

More heartbreaking is the story of baby Mohammed Sadallah. As was reported by the Sunday Telegraph; "not all the Palestinian casualties have been the result of Israeli air strikes. The highly publicised death of four-year-old Mohammed Sadallah appeared to have been the result of a misfiring home-made rocket, not a bomb dropped by Israel. The child’s death on Friday figured prominently in media coverage after Hisham Kandil, the Egyptian prime minister, was filmed lifting his dead body out of an ambulance. ‘The boy, the martyr, whose blood is still on my hands and clothes, is something that we cannot keep silent about,’ he said, before promising to defend the Palestinian people.”

Israel was complying with a ceasefire during the Egyptian visit the arab militants were not, The result was another dead baby.

Know what/ Neither baby would have died had Hamas not started hostilities and been firing missiles and rockets over the past year. In the case you cited, it is even simpler: Had the militants not fired rockets from the area, the Israelis would not have sent a round there to stop the rocket firings.

Wrong. Although 10-40 rockets have been fired from Gaza nearly every month since Israel withdrew, this recent escalation was from the IAF's targeted killing of Hamas leaders on October 7th (see link). The attack killed 1 militant and injured 11 including children. That was what triggered the escalation. http://www.timesofisrael.com/air-force-strikes-targets-in-gaza-strip/ This was when Hamas, rather than the rag tag militant factions that usually fire the 10-40 monthly rockets, retaliated with rockets. So unless you want to get Biblical and try to figure out who started the ORIGINAL hostilities, then it is incorrect to say that Hamas started this latest round of hostilities.

[geriatrickid]

Know what/ Neither baby would have died had.....

Spoken like someone who has never had a baby....Correct?

You can insert many chicken & egg scenarios as you like.

The end result would be no less heartless.

Sometimes I really wonder where the limits are.

Agreed!

Instead of condemning me, why not deal with the reality, which is that one of the baby martyrs was killed by a Hamas linked rocket. You wish to engage in hand wringing and finger pointing. Fine. Surely you can spare a smidgen of your indignation for the militants that fired the missile that killed the baby and the militants that launch from residential areas. Or, are you going to try and blame the Israelis for the Gaza rockets that landed in Gaza?

[geriatrickid]

Wrong. Although 10-40 rockets have been fired from Gaza nearly every month since Israel withdrew, this recent escalation was from the IAF's targeted killing of Hamas leaders on October 7th (see link). The attack killed 1 militant and injured 11 including children. That was what triggered the escalation. http://www.timesofis...n-gaza-strip/ This was when Hamas, rather than the rag tag militant factions that usually fire the 10-40 monthly rockets, retaliated with rockets. So unless you want to get Biblical and try to figure out who started the ORIGINAL hostilities, then it is incorrect to say that Hamas started this latest round of hostilities.

And Israel has repeatedly warned the perpetrators that they would be taken out if they kept launching rockets. So, after a continuing barrage, the Israelis defend themselves and it is the Israeli's fault? Nice logic.

[mania]

Or, are you going to try and blame

Nah that is your domain & again you miss the point.

[kblaze]

Wrong. Although 10-40 rockets have been fired from Gaza nearly every month since Israel withdrew, this recent escalation was from the IAF's targeted killing of Hamas leaders on October 7th (see link). The attack killed 1 militant and injured 11 including children. That was what triggered the escalation. http://www.timesofis...n-gaza-strip/ This was when Hamas, rather than the rag tag militant factions that usually fire the 10-40 monthly rockets, retaliated with rockets. So unless you want to get Biblical and try to figure out who started the ORIGINAL hostilities, then it is incorrect to say that Hamas started this latest round of hostilities.

And Israel has repeatedly warned the perpetrators that they would eb taken out if they kept launching rockets. So, after a continuing barrage, the Israelis defend themselves and it is the Israeli's fault? Nice logic.

Did I say that they shouldn't defend themselves? Are you denying that the Oct 7th airstrike didn't result in Hamas openly joining the rocket firing, thus resulting in the recent conflict? Don't spin my words GK.

[Chicog]

Another home run for truth versus political correctness from Pat.

Ah, angry bigot in pub.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Scott

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Please stay on topic.

[awayego]

Know what/ Neither baby would have died had.....

Spoken like someone who has never had a baby....Correct?

You can insert many chicken & egg scenarios as you like.

The end result would be no less heartless.

Sometimes I really wonder where the limits are.

Agreed!

Instead of condemning me, why not deal with the reality, which is that one of the baby martyrs was killed by a Hamas linked rocket. You wish to engage in hand wringing and finger pointing. Fine. Surely you can spare a smidgen of your indignation for the militants that fired the missile that killed the baby and the militants that launch from residential areas. Or, are you going to try and blame the Israelis for the Gaza rockets that landed in Gaza?

I wasn't aware I was condemning anyone - only conflict, wherever it exists, and man's inhumanity in using indiscriminate armed conflict as a means of resolving differences or pursuing a particular agenda, political, religious or otherwise. Do you really think it matters whose 'ordnance' killed this baby? Do you think his parents care? Conflict killed this and many other children, as well as so many innocent adults - so often dismissed as 'collateral damage' or 'unfortunate casualties of war'. Do I condemn Hamas for their modus operandi? Absolutely I do! Just as I condemn all those whose only resort is to pursue their aims through violence and the killing of innocents. And that includes Israel's over-the-top retaliation or, rather, 'defence'.

If all you (not me) can do is blame one side or the other then we get nowhere - only perpetuate the conflict. I merely, and perhaps naively, try to point out the absolute futility of it all. There has to be a better way or there can be no hope of resolution or peace - in the Middle East, in any other area of conflict or, for that matter, for us as human beings. That is the reality.

[Morch]

Wrong. Although 10-40 rockets have been fired from Gaza nearly every month since Israel withdrew, this recent escalation was from the IAF's targeted killing of Hamas leaders on October 7th (see link). The attack killed 1 militant and injured 11 including children. That was what triggered the escalation. http://www.timesofis...n-gaza-strip/ This was when Hamas, rather than the rag tag militant factions that usually fire the 10-40 monthly rockets, retaliated with rockets. So unless you want to get Biblical and try to figure out who started the ORIGINAL hostilities, then it is incorrect to say that Hamas started this latest round of hostilities.

And Israel has repeatedly warned the perpetrators that they would eb taken out if they kept launching rockets. So, after a continuing barrage, the Israelis defend themselves and it is the Israeli's fault? Nice logic.

Did I say that they shouldn't defend themselves? Are you denying that the Oct 7th airstrike didn't result in Hamas openly joining the rocket firing, thus resulting in the recent conflict? Don't spin my words GK.

The attack on the date quoted was not aimed at Hamas operatives, but at members of other organizations. I don't think that there's a very definite pattern as to when Hamas chimes in with rocket firing when something like this happens.

That aside, pinning this last escalation on a that attack is arbitrary at best (other dates/attack/reasons were brought up). The way things are, ANY act of aggression, no matter from which side, can lead to a conflagration. Add political considerations (again, on both sides), and the date/event of choice is whatever someone wants it to be.

Looking at a list of hostilities over the last year, for example, one can just scroll and pick a date at random - sure to be a reason for some payback on something done earlier.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Morch

[Morch]

I wasn't aware I was condemning anyone - only conflict, wherever it exists, and man's inhumanity in using indiscriminate armed conflict as a means of resolving differences or pursuing a particular agenda, political, religious or otherwise. Do you really think it matters whose 'ordnance' killed this baby? Do you think his parents care? Conflict killed this and many other children, as well as so many innocent adults - so often dismissed as 'collateral damage' or 'unfortunate casualties of war'. Do I condemn Hamas for their modus operandi? Absolutely I do! Just as I condemn all those whose only resort is to pursue their aims through violence and the killing of innocents. And that includes Israel's over-the-top retaliation or, rather, 'defence'.

If all you (not me) can do is blame one side or the other then we get nowhere - only perpetuate the conflict. I merely, and perhaps naively, try to point out the absolute futility of it all. There has to be a better way or there can be no hope of resolution or peace - in the Middle East, in any other area of conflict or, for that matter, for us as human beings. That is the reality.

Not disagreeing with the spirit of your post. Probably easier to hold such a view when you're not in the midst of it, or less involved, though.

As the issue of 'Israel's over-the-top retaliation" comes up again, I wonder what would be considered "not-over-the-top", "reasonable", "acceptable" retaliation? (If possible, without going back to the roots of this conflict and all the baggage, as this seems to be more of an "operational" level thing).

[Scott]

Since it does not appear possible to have a civil discussion on this issue, I will close the topic.

//Closed//