Qassam explodes between Negev preschool, children's house

[oberliner]

A Qassam rocket fired by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip on Friday exploded in a western Negev community directly between a children's house and a nursery school.

There were no injuries in the incident, as the nannies and children managed to reach shelter in time. One woman suffered from anxiety, however, and a nearby structure was damaged.

Another rocket fired by Gaza militants on Friday struck an open field. In addition, militants fired six mortar shells at southern Israel, which exploded near the security fence in the central Gaza Strip.

Also Friday, Hamas and Palestinian medical staff said that Israel Defense Forces troops killed two armed Palestinians and wounded two others during clashes in the Gaza Strip.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/969534.html

[LeftishBrit]

1. Horrible - I am glad no one was injured!

I don't like to think of what would have happened if one of the buildings had been hit.

[subsuelo]

2. I get angry any time children are harmed or even threatened

Doesn't matter which 'side' is doing the attacking -- it's still deplorable and completely inexcusable.

[msmcghee]

3. Children are threatened every time . .

. . a militant launches a rocket into Israel from Gaza - on both sides. Since they have no defensive purpose they are all acts of aggression (war crimes) and crimes against humanity that could also be seen, technically, as genocide. Just wanted to clarify the actual facts of the situation for you.

[subsuelo]

4. Israel killing children is an act of aggression too.

(while we're busy clarifying for each other)

Furthermore, to make myself perfectly clear, I strongly oppose both.

[msmcghee]

5. No, you are absolutely wrong about that.

An act of aggression must have aggressive - not defensive intent. That's what aggression means. When civilians are killed in defensive operations - as long as reasonable means are carried out to prevent those casualties - and as long as a credible defensive purpose is served, then it is not aggression, it is lawful defense. This is what the international law says.

As far as morality, a state being purposely attacked and its citizens targeted by offensive weapons - has every right to do whatever is necessary - within proportion - to stop those attacks. You have offered no evidence that Israel breaks any of those rules - either legal or moral - while trying to defend itself. Neither has any other individual or group.

If they had, there are international tribunals prepared to convict Israel of war crimes based on that evidence. So far those tribunals have not even considered the accusations as worthy of notice. I wonder why.

I don't know whether you just don't understand how these things work or you are "playing dumb" - but it is curious that your inability to grasp these things always results in you making groundless accusations against Israel. Whatever the reason though, you are completely wrong.

[subsuelo]

6. I don't make excuses for killing innocent people

That's what it comes down to. Sorry you have such a big problem with that.

[msmcghee]

8. Since the word "killing" implies no intent . .

. . no excuses are necessary. Regrets are more appropriate. I regret those deaths as I'm sure all pro-Israel members of this forum do. I even go so far as to condemn the militants and their firing of rockets into Israel civilian populations - the acts that cause those deaths and make those regrets necessary.

I notice that those aggressive acts - the ones that ultimately cause all the violent deaths in this conflict - seem to escape your moral outrage. These are the acts that force Israel to launch defensive attacks aimed at the militants that sometimes result in Palestinian civilian casualties. Instead you spend your time posting dozens of unfounded and baseless comments asserting that Israel "targets civilians".

It's pretty easy to see your MO here which is identical to the Palestinian propaganda. It is to reverse the roles of aggressor and defender in the conflict - which happens to defy all the evidence and facts of the matter. But that's OK - I don't mind pointing it out repeatedly.

Just for the fun of it - let's see you establish a logical case that Israel is the aggressor and the Palestinians are "just defending themselves". Let's see the legal and moral principles you would objectively apply to both sides to determine which side is the aggressor and which the defender. You know, something you and HRW or ISM could take to the Hague and not get laughed out of town. ;)

(Of course, I offer this challenge to anyone here who thinks they can manage it.)

[subsuelo]

11. we've been down this road before, you and I

I reject excuses for killing innocent people.

You follow up, on cue, with ....

excuses for killing innocent people.

Your turn.

[msmcghee]

13. Yes, and rather than face the discussion squarely . .

. . you always run it unto the ditch - or get too busy to answer direct questions. I don't mind indulging occasionally. But a real discussion where you actually tried to support your assertions would be refreshing.

PS - I'm getting bored with this. Unless you have something relevant to say I probably won't be responding further.

[subsuelo]

14. What's to support? I don't excuse killing innocent people, that's it

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I guess yr supposed to excuse the killing of innocent Palestinians...

That's where this seems to be heading seeing that unlike msmcghee, you don't excuse the killing of innocents on either side :)

[Dick Dastardly]

24. so the innocents killed

by the UK fighting Germany in the Battle of Britain made the UK at the very minimum just as wrong and evil as Germany even though it was defending itself from Germany


so the innocents killed
by the US fighting Japan in the South Pacific made the US at the very minimum just as wrong and evil as Japan even though it was defending itself from Japan



so the innocents killed
by the Union fighting Confederate Slave States in the US Civil War made the Union at the very minimum just as wrong and evil as Confederate Slave States even though it was defending itself from Confederate Slave States and fight Slavery


so the innocents killed
by Poland fighting Germany in WW2 made the Poland at the very minimum just as wrong and evil as Germany even though it was defending itself from Germany



so the innocents killed
by the Chinese fighting Japan when it invaded and raped China made the Chinese at the very minimum just as wrong and evil as Japan even though it was defending itself from Japan



Are you basically saying that you should not defend yourself and your innocents if it means that innocents from your enemies side will get killed, so in order to not be wrong and immoral you should not defend yourself and just let your innocents die. Thats what I get from what you say.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Yr right, Dick. Clearly we shouldn't be opposed to excusing the deaths of innocent Palestinians...

Really glad you cleared that up for me!

[Dick Dastardly]

29. Obviously its unacceptable to defend yourself

Just do nothing and accept being attacked is the only moral way

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Well, that's the way you see it when it comes to Palestinian civilians, so who am I to argue? n/t

[Dick Dastardly]

25. That is what always happens

I have called him on it a half a dozen times but never a response after I take him to task to back up his claims. Its a disapearing act and crickets. I should probably post all the threads. The atrocities of the criminal zionist state are vast but one must be able to back up what they say or it hurts the noble Palestinian cause and the credibility of those who support it against the ruthless Israeli occupation and its brutal tactics

[Violet_Crumble]

27. You forgot 'murdering Zionazi warpigs'...

After all, aren't you clumsily trying to make out that yr 'criminal zionist state' crap is how pro-Palestinian posters in this forum talk? May as well go for the gold!

[Dick Dastardly]

28. No, they are criminal and brutal but

so are the Hamas and other jihadi groups but that doesn't make it OK to lie,spin or embellish either of their actions to make the other look bad.It hurts the cause and credibility. There is also no reason to be always pro Israel or pro Palestinian as yourself and many if not most others are in this conflict, fair and balanced is what one should try to be. I see each situation as it is, if Hamas is firing rockets and hiding in civilian areas Israel have every right to try to stop them. The Palestinians have every right also to defend themselves against brutal and humiliating tactics. I try to be fair and fact based

[Violet_Crumble]

30. There's a difference between trying to be fair and being downright idiotic...

*Criminal Zionist regime*? Holy fuck. It's like listening to a hyped-up goth in my international relations tutes who could never bring herself to utter the word *Israel*, but always had to spit out the much longer and imo pretty idiotic *criminal zionist regime*...

You want to know what being fair and balanced is? When it comes to civilian deaths you should pay attention to subseilo instead of having a go at them for daring to think that the deaths of all civilians are wrong, regardless of whether they're Israeli or Palestinians....

[azurnoir]

17. A null challenge at best

are you seriously asking for a case covering a 120+ year long conflict that is still on going? Perhaps you should take a look at the way The Hague tries cases, they tend to focus on individual leaders and events, rather than the entire conflict, a fact perhaps you are unaware of.
However lets take a look at one Israel vs Palestinians case that was brought up before the Hague shall we?

Palestinian leaders today said they would seek UN sanctions against Israel after the international court of justice ruled that the barrier being built around the West Bank was illegal and should be pulled down.Palestinian leaders today said they would seek UN sanctions against Israel after the international court of justice ruled that the barrier being built around the West Bank was illegal and should be pulled down.

Announcing its findings, the court said the "security wall" infringed the rights of Palestinians, adding that Israel should pay compensation for the damage it had caused.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/09/israelandthepalestinians.unitednations

Now do agree that the death or injury of anyone, but especially children on either side is wrong? Can you do this without qualification?

[msmcghee]

18. You're not making much sense here but I'll try to respond.

I agree that the death or injury of any innocent person is a tragedy. As far as it being "wrong" - that's a moral question that implies fault or liability and that's not always a simple question. If someone intentionally kills an innocent person then that is absolutely wrong. If someone unintentionally kills an innocent person than that is a tragedy certainly - but not absolutely wrong. IMO absolute moral wrongness requires intention.

The law generally aligns with this moral view. Courts have trials where juries decide how much wrong there is in an act when it's not entirely blameless and not entirely faultless. Inattentive driving that kills someone is not the same as drunk driving or reckless driving - the law and morality generally recognize grades of fault.

When my father was in WWII he participated in operations where German civilians were killed. Millions of other Americans did the same. They were in Germany trying to stop Germany's ongoing attacks against Western Europe. I do not place moral blame on my father or my father's army or my father's nation (which is my nation) for the deaths of those civilians. I believe my nation and my father generally acted honorably in that war - because it was a defensive war. We were being attacked.

As long as Israel and the IDF are there to stop ongoing attacks against Israeli civilians - and as long as those defensive operations are proportional and designed to minimize civilian casualties then I do not place moral blame on Israel for those deaths. I place the blame for those deaths on the militants whose attacks on Israeli civilians make those IDF defensive operations necessary.

I suspect we disagree as to whether Israel intentionally targets those civilians during operations. So far I haven't seen any reasonably convincing evidence that they do - and plenty of evidence that they don't. You can be sure that if it ever turns out that Israel is actually targeting civilians as a matter of policy then I will immediately change my opinion on this and hold Israel morally responsible for their deaths.

But, no matter who either you or I believe is to blame morally for those Palestinian civilian deaths - I absolutely do believe they are tragic and regrettable. So, is your issue with me that you think their deaths don't bother me? You are wrong about that. Or, is your issue that I blame different people than you blame? Those are two different questions and you should be clear as to which one you want to use to condemn me.

(I have no idea what the World Court opinion on the wall has to do with the blame for the deaths of innocent civilians in defensive operations in Gaza.)

[azurnoir]

19. I was addressing your challenge

Just for the fun of it - let's see you establish a logical case that Israel is the aggressor and the Palestinians are "just defending themselves". Let's see the legal and moral principles you would objectively apply to both sides to determine which side is the aggressor and which the defender. You know, something you and HRW or ISM could take to the Hague and not get laughed out of town. ;)

(Of course, I offer this challenge to anyone here who thinks they can manage it.)

You offered an unmanageable challenge, and I called you on it. The Hague does not put entire conflicts on trial it is that simple.

[msmcghee]

20. Oh c'mon. Give it a try.

Anyone knows the Hague would only address specific events in the conflict. Find any significant event where Israel - as a state - initiated aggression against the Palestinians - where there was clearly no defensive purpose. "Clearly no defensive purpose" should mean that there's some clear evidence that is not just circumstantial.

You're not going to back down that quickly from the challenge are you?

[msmcghee]

21. You'd think with the hundreds of comments . .

. . posted to this forum in the last few weeks all claiming that Israel targets civilians and that Israel is the "aggressor" in this conflict - you'd think that someone here - perhaps one of those who were making those claims - would be able to take up this challenge.


"Oh, but you'll just disagree with the evidence", is not a justification to avoid this challenge. It is a cop out because you know your evidence is just the usual propaganda and people will see that.

If you have actual quality evidence then even if I disagree with it others would certainly see that you were right. You're job isn't to convince me anyway. I'm not in this forum as a judge of your argument. I'm more a partisan lawyer representing a POV - against yours.

How about it? Any challengers? ;)

[azurnoir]

22. I already have given an example nuff said

If it satisfies you to think of as backing down be my guest lol

[msmcghee]

23. As I understand it, assuming that the example . .

. . you provided was the World Court Opinion on the wall, the WC stated (in your post) that the wall "violates the rights of the Palestinians".

They did not say that the wall is an example of Israeli non-defensive violent aggression against the Palestinians. Nor did they say that the wall is an example of Israel "targeting civilians".

Isn't that what you were going to provide an example of?

[breakaleg]

7. So you think dead people care if it for a "defensive purpose"? Dead is dead. There is no morality.

[msmcghee]

9. Then why are you and some others here so anxious . .

. . to morally condemn Israel for their deaths? Why are we treated to several threads here very day trying to create some faux moral equivalence between rockets that target civilians - and military operations carried out to stop them - if dead is dead?

[breakaleg]

10. Killing people is wrong. It doesn't matter if it implies "intent" or not because dead is dead.

It's you who tries to support Israel's killing of innocents with convoluted phrases that mean nothing about defensive offense and the like. Whereas I and others here do NOT try to defend the deaths of Israelis killed by the other side.

I condemn Israel for their deaths and I condemn Hamas or whomever for the deaths of Israeli civilians. Period. The fact that you can find no wrong with Israel - ever - reminds me of a child who stand there with chocolate on his face denying he ate the chocolate. It's hard to take them seriously.

[msmcghee]

12. Killing people is wrong?

You just said "there is no morality - dead is dead".

Now you want to change the subject to me finding "no wrong" with Israel. It would be interesting if anyone from your side were actually capable of carrying out a real debate on this issue. I've been trying to find one for several years now - but the best I can hope for is just showing you how absurd your weak and self-contradictory arguments are. Too bad.

[msmcghee]

15. Re: "No fault with Israel"

Actually, Israel has a lot of problems. It has a political system that gives minority coalitions too much political power - more than is represented in the population - and that's dangerous. It also has its share of corrupt politicians. Does any society not have politicians that are flim-flam artists more than they are law-makers? I'd say that's especially true in democratic societies where votes have to be earned through persuasion and attaining power through force is not allowed.

Israel has certainly made bad decisions regarding the several wars it has fought since 1948. All wars are rife with bad decisions. The winner is basically the side that makes fewer bad decisions than their opponents. Those issues - as long as they don't violate the rules regarding aggression / defense or proportionality of defense - have nothing to do with morality.

There is a question as to whether the occupation can be construed as an example of Israeli non-defensive violence or a coercive threat of non-defensive violence. To me it is obvious that Israel ended up as occupier as the result of a defensive war. As it is, Israel has no choice in the matter and Israel's civilians would suffer far greater casualties without the occupation. Since the Palestinians are the ones sending suicide bombers into Israel and firing rockets into Israeli population centers - the decision as to legality (and morality) should always go to the defender. It is the defender that is being forced to act in response - not the aggressor who has the option to call off the attack at any time. International law always gives the benefit of the doubt to the defender for those reasons.

I am interested in the right or wrong of war. To me that comes down to aggression and defense. Defense against aggression is why states exist in the first place. I have stated my beliefs on this matter repeatedly here. Defense against aggression is moral and legal. Aggression is immoral and illegal. All my posts in this forum can be reduced to that principle. If you follow my reasoning in any thread - that's where you'll end up. I justify that belief on the logical conclusion that only by adhering to rules based on that principle - can the death of innocents and the terrible destruction of war be reduced or prevented. My beliefs follow my reasoning in that regard and I'm more than ready to support those beliefs, politely and logically, to anyone who would like to challenge them in the same manner.

International law does not say that only states that have a political system that does not give undue influence to minority coalitions are justified in defending themselves from outside attack. Nowhere in international law does it say that states that have corrupt politicians can not defend their citizens from attack.

The only right or wrong acts that apply to violent conflict - and therefore the only acts that I am interested in - are acts that violate the rules regarding defensive and aggressive violence.

If you want to talk about that in the context of this conflict you will find me an eager participant. Or if you want to offer some other set of principles that you'd like to apply to these moral questions - and you have a good argument for why those principles are more relevant and determinative than the aggression/defense principle - I'm more than ready to listen.

As far as I'm concerned any discussion of the morality and/or legality of conflict that does not rest on clearly articulated moral and/or legal principles that each side is ready to reference, defend and support - and apply equally to the actions of both sides - is just smoke and mirrors.