Comments:Israel begins ground assault on Gaza Strip

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


Good luck and best wishes to all Israeli soldiers participating in this operation. You are fighting on one of the biggest fronts in the global war on Islamic terrorism, defending the civilized world, and we all stand behind you. Give them hell! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.118.93.41 (talkcontribs)

I wouldn't stand behind them. That's where the Hamas missiles land. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lulz--KDP3 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage[edit]

The article says: The military does not want civilians to be harmed during the assault,

Really?

Neither the IDF nor Hamas seem to care about civilian casualties.

If Hamas cared, it would not site rocket launchers among human shields, nor fire them at civilian targets. It would smuggle medicines into Gaza, instead of rockets.

If the IDF cared, it would rely on legitimate self defense measures such as anti-missile weapons and sabotage. It would not bomb or invade a refugee settlement.

There is plenty of blame to go round. It is not a military battle, but war criminal versus war criminal. Fighters, and leaders, on both sides should be reminded that 'following orders' is no defense in a trial.

--Hroðulf (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hroðulf I disagree on calling Israeli military and political leaders "war criminals" if a Nation/Group shoots missiles or mortars rounds into my nation for 7 years and and their goal is to kill every single member of my race/religion and they hide in civilans areas and used them as human shields which is a violation on the laws of wars. (including killing innocent people but if you hide behind them then you violate the laws of war and the attackers are innocent.)--KDP3 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a very large number of tanks and air attacks, being used to "defend" against a very small number of rocket launches. The IDF is well aware of the illegal human shield tactic of Hamas, and chooses to use tanks and bombers, instead of saboteurs and anti-missile weapons. You suggest that the use of a human shield makes the attackers on one side innocent, but by that reasoning, both sides are innocent.[1] Neither do I think that reasoning is correct: ('According to former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, "the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians" is a violation of international law. ... This must be changed.' )
IDF and Hamas fighters should not rely on legal contortions to protect their consciences. They should instead risk court martial and defy illegal orders.
Otherwise the human shields will be punished, without trial, for the crimes of the fighters. Does the IDF believe that women and children who ignore the leaflets deserve to be injured?
--Hroðulf (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I am shocked how the loophole in that Law and how easy it can be use for human shields. But Hroðulf if you see your nation building defenses instead of attacking the problem how would you react? And the Israeli popluation want to the end of the Rockets attack not a missile shield.
And the fact that is a small missile attack its a attack from a enemy that wants you dead. You can't stand idle especially if its Israel. And on a last note Hamas goal is to kill every single jew and cast them into the seas. Israel just want to the end up the rockets attack. Yes I agree Israel should work better at minimizing the civilian death toll but sending in saboteurs would work? How can Israel can their soldiers in a city with 20,000 militants and no i don't believe innocent people should be injucied because Hamas used their backyard for a rocket site.But If their terrorist attacking my nation i would use every mean to defend my people and the people of Israel is a mixed group. And Hamas dos not care for the international law they even inspect their own religion to justified their wars and the Israeli troops are fighting for their nations right to lived.--66.229.21.217 03:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hroðulf, I believe that Israel obviously cares about civilian casualties. Why else would they send those warning text messages and drop leaflets (causing them to lose their surprise-attack advantage, even)? Furthermore, they do rely on anti-missile weapons ([2]) - this one was the one that was recently in the news about a town suing the Israeli government because they didn't get one (I think I read that it's not effective against all kinds of missiles, and that's why that town didn't get it). A 1/4 civilian casuality rate, while of course tragic and unfortunate, is still extremely low. (From [3], the Iraq war had roughly 30,000 dead Iraqi combatants, but 85,000 civilian casualties at its most conservative estimate.) To me, it seems that Israel is stuck in a difficult situation and alternates between the carrot and the sword hoping to find one that works.67.180.175.228 19:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do such mindless people get so powerful—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.158.72.89 (talkcontribs)

Israel and the 'good, friendly press'[edit]

In this article, as always now, there is a strong and partial POV to Israel. Israel sieges Gaza, but it's 'all guilth' of Hamas, right? Hamas was elected in 2006, declared a cease-fire, while Israel filled Cisgiordany with settlers, sieged Gaza, killed 60 palestinians. Hamas is considered 'terrorist', while before, Fatah was 'corrupted'. It's all BS. Israel has made crimes against Pal. Settlers are illegal. Sieging Gaza is illegal. Hamas has broken the ceasefire because Israel continued to make impossible life inside Gaza. And so? should we consider 'Hamas sin' all this stuff? 72 ONU resolutions have spoken cleary, but Israel, with US help, simply ignored them. And now, 'because rockets' Israel shells and bombs Gaza killing hundreds. Shame! Human shields? Are you kidding? Gaza strip is densely hinabited, how is supposed drop a 1 t bomb without kill civilians? Hospitals, markets, ports bombed and destroyed. The fews that are reporting INSIDE Gaza strip are writing about how Israel has a criminal intent against Palestinians, and not only Hamas. Israel even blocked an medical ship trying to sink it, only because pacifists tried to send 3 t medical aids to Gaza! This was in INTERNATIONAL waters. So is this a crime? Yes. It is, and totally gratuoitus.

If Wikinews cannot report stuff like these, then it makes POV articles Israel-friendly (they must had to invate Gaza, LOL). Almost it's written that Hamas is an evil, subhumans association, and Palestianias are supposed to be subhumans as well. An additional shame plus the usual, amusing 'conventionals' mass-media.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erik455 (talkcontribs)

If Hamas is breaking the ceasefire because of the blockade, why does it attack civilian targets? Why not stick within the Geneva Convention and concentrate its firepower on the Israeli military? Are Israeli civilians subhumans too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hroðulf (talkcontribs) --14:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point would make more sense if Hamas has any ability of targeting non-civilian Israeli targets. They cannot cross the border and they do not have any precision weapon. Unicode (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War of Terror[edit]

Whatever the unseen reasons behind the conflicts between Israel and Pakistan, starting a war of assault by attacking the city of Hamas from the air is unacceptable. How can the Israel Government claim that their intentions are to destroy terrorists? By mass attack using high technology will only cause destructions and further weaken both sides, sacrificing the lives of hundreds of civilians. Now they are starting on ground attack? The move by Israel is a crime and should immediately condemned by the international communities, particularly the UN Security Council. Whatever the reasons are, war is never the solution..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 115.132.103.62 (talkcontribs)

Why is stopping someone from anihilating you a war crime. Hamas acts like spoiled children who throw a temper tantrum when they don;t get handed what they want. Hamas terrorizes Palistinians as well as Israelis and ANYone that stops them is a world hero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.221.177.206 (talkcontribs)

Absolutely. This will lead only to more and more violence. And excuses and excuses to make another 'melt lead' operations. The aim of Israel'PM is clear: it's called 'ethnic cleaning'. Out Palestinians of Palestine, in settlers=Eretz Israel. All it's meant to make impossibile to pals to live (see Hebron, as example), and then cleaning them and replace with illegal settlers. So it will be the 'final solution'. But wait: when Serbia did it to Kosovo NATO declared war. Now almost all the countries supports Israel..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erik455 (talkcontribs)

international protest[edit]

The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, on Sunday pledged an additional $4.2 million of emergency aid for Gaza and called on Israel to respect international law.

"Blocking access to people who are suffering and dying is also a breach of humanitarian law," Louis Michel, EU's humanitarian aid commissioner, said in a statement.

"I call on the Israeli authorities to respect their international obligations and ensure a 'humanitarian space' for the delivery of vital relief," he said.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.122.10.173 (talkcontribs)


Humanity?[edit]

I believe that no matter what each side believes, there still most be humanity and while they might be warring each other it doesn't give them the right to ignore basic human rights of the civilians involved in this struggle.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.11.184.185 (talkcontribs)

It's about time that the IDF was allowed to put an end to the Hamas terrorism. In this age of heightened sensitivity to people's rights, it amazes me that the average Israeli citizen isn't allowed the basic right to live in peace from Hamas terrorism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.221.177.206 (talkcontribs)

I would be amazed if IDF would be able to put an end to terrorism. Bombing ordinary people's houses would only anger them and give them a reason to join the terrorists. Unicode (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptive War[edit]

Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that this is a pre-emptive war? Fephisto (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was Hamas preparing a ground assault into Israel? Unicode (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go Jews![edit]

Man, after six years, they finally decided enough is enough. You have to give it to Israel for their patience, any other nation would have done this and more after six months. Kill the terrorists, save the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.17.128 (talkcontribs)

But then aren't you the terrorists then, indiscriminately killing Palestinians, and committing genocide? 72.154.53.121 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For every civilian killed(after warnings and some aid allowed in) 4 terrorists were killed. If it was anything like what you described the figures would've been very different. But I guess it's "genocide" when Israel causes collateral damage and "resistance" when its enemies kill civilians on purpose.Ya'ir Hunter (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the context, the post I replied to was ultimately encouraging something very different which could have easily degenerated into genocide. It has nothing to do with who is involved then; if it is then it is and nothing changes it. Before then, it is only a misuse and overuse of force that should face its own punishment. 66.20.190.46 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Are we reading the same comment? Ya'ir Hunter (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horrifying is the best description of what is happening.

Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately.

This is not a pure response to terrorism: this is david vs. the Goliath and not the way you think. THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING>>>THEY ARE BEING MURDERED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS THIS IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.141.220.75 (talkcontribs)