Stop ignoring the facts about Cast Lead

searched the topic, there was a couple threads regarding a zionist conspiracy and how it will escalate the conflicts and start a major war.
well, now that it's in the past, lets look back and discuss what the operation accomplished, if anything.
i'm posting this recent article in hopes that it may stir up a good debate over the issue.

below are a few quotes taken directly from the article, so if anyone wants to argue about it being a massacre, please link to sources that prove this information incorrect.

It featured the lowest ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare.

Three years ago, Operation Cast Lead saw Israel send troops into the Gaza Strip in response to the thousands of rockets and mortars launched into Israeli civilian areas. Which other government in the world wouldn't defend its citizens in such circumstances? If some wish to portray this operation as a "massacre", they would have to ignore the facts to do so.

In 2006, following the Israeli disengagement and pullout from the Gaza Strip, there was an increase of 436 per cent in the number of Palestinian rockets launched towards Israel from that very territory. For some time, Israel resisted a large-scale military response to such acts deliberately aimed at civilians. As a result, the attacks got worse, and every country, including Israel, has the moral responsibility to defend its people from such actions.
Increased Palestinian terror attacks from Gaza were the cause of Operation Cast Lead. Yet Israel's is a conscript army. Indeed Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to protect its young soldiers (witness the efforts make to secure the release of the kidnap victim Gilad Shalit), and does not send them to war easily.

In the three years since the operation, there has been an unprecedented 72 per cent decline in the number of rockets launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. No surprise, then, that Israel's Defence Forces Chief of Staff should call the operation "an excellent operation that achieved deterrence for Israel vis-a-vis Hamas". (However, that deterrence is still not enough to have prevented Palestinians from launching 1,571 rockets since the operation, including one attack with an anti-tank missile on a clearly identifiable Israeli school bus.)

Just as Israel's erection of a security fence to prevent homicide bombers from infiltrating Jerusalem saw a bigger than 90 per cent reduction in such attacks, Operation Cast Lead was undeniably effective in reducing terror attacks from the Gaza strip. The numbers speak for themselves.

visit link for the rest of the article.

uhm...

PRO-Israel rag
PRO-Israel author
PRO-Israel 'ZionistFederation' member



I won't discount the fact that BOTH parties handled and have reported things in a wrong-headed manner, BUT I'm not about to take these 'number and statistics' as being 'factual' in the least.


.. and to be honest, I've not a care nor concern for either side ...

I mean .. who the hell am I to try to judge or sway what would seem a 'sands of time' type situation. (?)

People need to learn to work things out on their own, IMO.

.. which should never escalate to the likes of the whole Israeli - Palestinian fiasco. :shk:

reply to post by rubbertramp


What?? Would you quit with this nonsense? Please? More than half of the people killed in that "war" were civilians, and that's counting the dead on both sides. When you count the wounded it's even more lopsided.

Linky for the forgetful: Wikipedia: Operation Cast Lead

Let's not discuss this further. Thanks.

i'll check the wiki link. no where did i say that the article was 100% factual, but i do think there is some interesting points made.

You report (28 December) warnings of a possible Israeli offensive on Gaza. In the three years since Operation Cast Lead, the effect is clear: there has been a 72% decline in the number of rockets launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. However, that still amounts to 1,571 rockets launched. This is anything but "sporadic". These attacks undermine the alleged "attempt by Hamas" to enforce a ceasefire among Gaza's militant groups. Israel has the moral and legal right to protect its citizens.

guardian

links inside lead to,

amnesty international

A new Israeli military offensive against Gaza will be launched "sooner or later" and will be "swift and painful", Israel's most senior military officer has warned.
Benny Gantz, the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces, was speaking on the third anniversary of the start of a major three-week assault on Gaza during which around 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.

That offensive was "an excellent operation that achieved deterrence for Israel vis-a-vis Hamas", Gantz told Army Radio on Tuesday. He added there were signs that the deterrent effect was wearing thin.

"Sooner or later, there will be no escape from conducting a significant operation," he said. "The IDF knows how to operate in a determined, decisive and offensive manner against terrorists in the Gaza Strip."

Within hours of Gantz's comments, the Israeli military launched two airstrikes on targets in Gaza, killing one person and injuring around 10, according to local reports.

A spokesman for the IDF said direct hits on two "terrorist squads with global jihad associations" had been confirmed. According to security officials quoted by Israel Radio, one of the targets was a cell en route to Sinai with the intention of launching an attack on Israel from Egypt.

Since the end of the Gaza war in January 2009, Hamas has attempted to enforce a ceasefire among militant groups, although sporadic rocket fire has continued. Israel holds Hamas, as the de facto government, responsible for all rocket fire emanating from Gaza.

source

basically, i think israel does have a right to defend itself.
not that i agree with the tactics used, but it's basically like a chicken and the egg scenario, who fired first?

reply to post by MegaCurious

didn't get through the entire link yet, but you did notice this right?

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
Its use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Tagged since June 2011.
Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since June 2011.
It may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Some content may need to be summarized or split. Tagged since June 2011.

so, i posted a one sided argument, and it appears you did the same.

Its neutrality is disputed.

Meh, until the war actually starts, i'm not gonna hold my breath. Not gonna worry about it either, I have no control over whats going on so no point in me getting f'ed up about it.

Wake me up when its all over.

I doubt there will be another "military offensive" in Gaza right now. The rocket attacks, by Hamas and other militants in Gaza, would have to escalate drastically for the Israeli public to pressure the IDF into a major offensive, like in 2008. For now, the rocket attacks are more sporadic and Israel can deal with it by targeting specific militants in Gaza via drones, airstrikes, or secret operatives on the ground. And even if the "s**t hits the fan", the IDF won't take Hamas seriously enough to send a sufficient number of troops(at least 50,000) into the Strip. They will do what they did last time in 2008: Send in ~20,000 troops and do a half-ass job, which would allow Hamas to survive the conflict(and let's not forget the civilians who get caught in the cross-fire, which the media will have a field day with).

You also have to take into account the response from the Arab, Muslim, and Liberal media on such a conflict. They will only report on "Israel attacking Palestinians" while completely ignoring/omitting WHY the IDF launched the offensive(other than "Israel wants to kill all Arabs" ). This would result in the Arab/Muslim world hating Israel(or Jews, as they see it) even more.

So it's really a lose-lose situation for Israel. They can eliminate Hamas and transfer authority to the Fatah, which would result in the lifting of the blockade and the improvement of living conditions in Gaza. However, the media in the Middle East will make sure that Israel is hated even more. It's the same situation with Syria: The opposition has begged Israel to intervene and eliminate Assad, which Israel can do easily but they know it's a media trap.

For Israel, their whole situation is a Catch-22. It would take something drastic, not just a few rockets here and there, for Israel to launch a massive offensive. Otherwise, it just wouldn't be worth it for them...

Fact 1: 1400 people died in the attack, between 1000-1200 of which were civillians.

reply to post by rubbertramp

Your article attempts to paint Israel in some sort of noble, self-defense sort of light that just isn't factual. Israel didn't "resist any sort of military response". In response to the 2,700 rockets launched by Hamas from 2005 to 2007 (which killed 4 Israelis), Israel fired 14,600 artillery shells (which killed 75 Palestinians). After the 2008 ceasefire was brokered, Israel was once again the first ones to break it, and the whole time during the ceasefire (and even before it), Israel was planning their offensive.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
Fact 1: 1400 people died in the attack, between 1000-1200 of which were civillians.

FAIL

In worst case scenario, maybe 700 civilians were killed. But then again, according to reports in the link, Hamas fighters were ordered NOT to wear military uniforms in order to raise the civilian death toll. I find that tactic disgusting.

Either way, SUPPOSE 1000-1200 civilians WERE actually killed, what's your point?

You don't like civilian deaths? Who does?

There are a few solutions to reducing the civilian death toll:
1- Tell Hamas militants to distinguish themselves from civilians (as in wear non-civilian clothing)
2- Tell Hamas militants to fight the IDF in open battlefields, away from populated areas
3- Tell Hamas to stop launching rockets into their neighbor's territory, especially when their neighbors' military is 1000 times stronger and more advance.
4- Tell Hamas to completely denounce violence(especially against its own citizens), recognize their neighbor's right to exist, and sit down for direct peace negotiations with Israel.

In my opinion, option #4 benefits both parties. More importantly, it benefits the civilians on both sides. With a peace treaty in place, the blockade would be lifted, improving the living conditions in Gaza and Israelis won't have to sleep in underground bunkers every night.

reply to post by DJAghetto


Non combatants + Civil police officers: 926 + 255 or if you want to be conservative: 762 + 248. Both fall in with the 1000-1200 estimate.

International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians.

en.wikipedia.org...

sit down for direct peace negotiations with Israel.

That would be a bit hard considering that Israel refuses any negotiations with Hamas.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by DJAghetto

 

Non combatants + Civil police officers: 926 + 255 or if you want to be conservative: 762 + 248. Both fall in with the 1000-1200 estimate.

International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hamas police chief at the time Jamal al-Jarrah stated that "the police took part in the fighting alongside the resistance." So, by International Law, the Hamas policemen were rightfully targeted.

Again, what is your point in mentioning the civilian death toll?

sit down for direct peace negotiations with Israel.

That would be a bit hard considering that Israel refuses any negotiations with Hamas.

edit on 10-1-2012 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)

Considering the history of terrorist activities committed by Hamas against the Israeli public and its own citizens, why would Israel or any other country want to negotiate with them? Even Jordan banned the Hamas, because they wanted nothing to do with Hamas. From suicide bombers to soldier kidnappings and constant rocket bombardment on the civilian population, it's always been clear that the Hamas have no desire for peace and quiet. And on top of that, Hamas have always rejected Israel's right to exist and have constantly stated that their main objective is to conquer all of Israel.

How can you negotiate peace with someone who's constantly trying to kill you? This is why NO ONE views Hamas as a serious partner for peace. When the Hamas grow some balls, stop the rocket fire and all other violence, and accepts co-existence with Israel( and Jews), THEN the peace process can finally take a legitimate step forward.

reply to post by DJAghetto

"the police took part in the fighting alongside the resistance."

That they probably did as most NGO's recognize, however as many other NGO's and comentators have pointed out, neither they nor Israel had concrete evidence on wether all those policemen took part in the hostilities towards Israel.

I point out the civilian deathtoll, because that is a fact. The war in Gaza was far more detremental to the civillian population of Gaza, not only killing and maiming civillians (not innocents but civillians) but also destroying infastructure such as schools, medical centres, apartment blocs and other infastructure vital to the striken Gazan economy. This in turn only strengthens the position of Hamas as the private sector is destroyed and the citizens of Gana who are not-alligned with the terrorists called Hamas are forced into their hands. As a result more civillians become dependent on Hamas. In turn the decimates Israels already weak position in Hamas forcing them to either kill more or actually take concrete steps to securing influence over the region. It is vital for Israel to defend its civillians which it was before it violated the truce when it entered Gaza to kill militants. The policy Israel has towards Gaza is bad for both sides, worse for Gaza but still bad for Israel.

It is difficult to fight an insurgency, it is difficult to simply use force to wipe out Hamas unless you are prepared to commit genocide on the people of Gaza. Israel has to seriously rethink its position. (Do we utilize other forms of power, which may be difficult especially in the short term but will be less costly to both sides or do we go all out and destroy Gaza and kill most its population?)

Considering the history of terrorist activities committed by Hamas against the Israeli public and its own citizens, why would Israel or any other country want to negotiate with them?

Ok so at first you want Hamas and Israel to negotiate, yet now you are defending their position of refusing to negotiate with Hamas. I don't understand, do you want the two sides to negotiate or not? I am not here defending Hamas, I am just pointing out your contradictions.

How can you negotiate peace with someone who's constantly trying to kill you?

So why dosen't Israel negotiate with Fatah in the West Bank. Terrorism conducted by the PA in the West Bank has ceased and terrorism in the West Bank is at a historic low. Yet I see Israel taking no constructive steps to establishing peace there. Instead they continue to carve up the area with checkpoints and roads, continue to expand settlements and continue to block the peace process from revitalizing.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by DJAghetto

 

"the police took part in the fighting alongside the resistance."

That they probably did as most NGO's recognize, however as many other NGO's and comentators have pointed out, neither they nor Israel had concrete evidence on wether all those policemen took part in the hostilities towards Israel.

OK, suppose you were the head of the police. When you openly state that your forces are taking part in the “resistance” against a neighboring enemy, how do you think your enemy is going to respond to that? Do you really think the enemy will try to avoid firing on your forces? Or will they specifically target your forces also? Common sense... In my opinion, that was probably the dumbest move the Hamas Police chief could’ve done in that situation.

I point out the civilian deathtoll, because that is a fact. The war in Gaza was far more detremental to the civillian population of Gaza, not only killing and maiming civillians (not innocents but civillians) but also destroying infastructure such as schools, medical centres, apartment blocs and other infastructure vital to the striken Gazan economy. This in turn only strengthens the position of Hamas as the private sector is destroyed and the citizens of Gana who are not-alligned with the terrorists called Hamas are forced into their hands. As a result more civillians become dependent on Hamas. In turn the decimates Israels already weak position in Hamas forcing them to either kill more or actually take concrete steps to securing influence over the region. It is vital for Israel to defend its civillians which it was before it violated the truce when it entered Gaza to kill militants. The policy Israel has towards Gaza is bad for both sides, worse for Gaza but still bad for Israel.

Until Hamas starts to fight the IDF like men( in other words: fight outside the city away from civilians, distinguish themselves by wearing non-civilian clothing, not booby-trapping rows of civilian buildings with civilians inside, etc.), the civilians in Gaza will be the ones who pay the higher price. If Hamas actually gave a sh*t about its own citizens, they wouldn’t be launching rockets at their neighbor who can easily wipe out the whole Strip if they wanted to. But then again, based on its actions during the war, the Hamas’ whole existence is heavily depended on civilian casualties.
Israel did not violate the truce first. The truce ended on December 19. On the 18th, Hamas declared an end to the cease-fire and started launching rockets. On the 23th, Israel killed 3 militants by its border. And on the 24th, Israel launched its first air strike. On the 27th, the IDF began Operation Cast Lead with the massive air campaign. IDF troops began entering the Strip on January 3rd. There’s at least a 5-day gap between Hamas starting hostilities and Israel starting hostilities.

The policy that Israel has for Gaza exists solely because of Hamas. Before Hamas came into power, the borders with Israel were open and many Gazans had jobs in Israel too. Their living conditions were so much better. Once they voted in Hamas, everything changed.

It is difficult to fight an insurgency, it is difficult to simply use force to wipe out Hamas unless you are prepared to commit genocide on the people of Gaza. Israel has to seriously rethink its position. (Do we utilize other forms of power, which may be difficult especially in the short term but will be less costly to both sides or do we go all out and destroy Gaza and kill most its population?)

Trying to wipe out Hamas by force does not require genocide. There was no genocide in that war and there won’t be this time around, either. The tactics used by Hamas in the war shows that they deliberately use its own citizens as defensive shields. They count on civilian deaths for negative PR against Israel. The only way to fight Hamas is to completely overwhelm them with 50,000+ troops on the ground.

Considering the history of terrorist activities committed by Hamas against the Israeli public and its own citizens, why would Israel or any other country want to negotiate with them?

Ok so at first you want Hamas and Israel to negotiate, yet now you are defending their position of refusing to negotiate with Hamas. I don't understand, do you want the two sides to negotiate or not? I am not here defending Hamas, I am just pointing out your contradictions.

I’m not trying to defend their position of refusing to negotiate with Hamas. I would love for them to negotiate peace, but it’s currently unrealistic. Egypt, Jordan, and Israel were able to put aside their differences and commit to peace. Israel is currently negotiating with Fatah. What separates Egypt, Jordan, and Fatah from Hamas is that they were willing to co-exist with Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, have openly stated that their goal is to conquer all of Israel. So basically, how do you negotiate with an entity that doesn’t want you to exist?

How can you negotiate peace with someone who's constantly trying to kill you?

So why dosen't Israel negotiate with Fatah in the West Bank. Terrorism conducted by the PA in the West Bank has ceased and terrorism in the West Bank is at a historic low. Yet I see Israel taking no constructive steps to establishing peace there. Instead they continue to carve up the area with checkpoints and roads, continue to expand settlements and continue to block the peace process from revitalizing.

I just stated that they are. Terrorism is at an all-time low, not only because of the wall barrier built by Israel, but also because the West Bank is mostly governed by Fatah. Fatah is not a barbaric, radical-Islamic, terrorist organization like Hamas. They are more moderate and they don’t rule its people with an iron fist. And, more importantly, Fatah is open to co-existence.

About the settlements, all the small settlements outside of the Jerusalem district that are being built now are done by small ultra-religious groups. These settlements have been ruled illegal by the Israel Supreme Court and ordered to be torn down. The IDF always have to battle with these nuts. The soldiers tear them down and, as soon as they leave, these idiots start building again. It’s clearly a problem and my solution would be to strip them of their citizenship and let the Fatah deal with them.