P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

View Poll Results: What next?
KILL THEM ALL ! 0 0%
STOP ! 3 100.00%
Voters: 3. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-01-09, 05:54 AM   #1
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default In defense of Israel's 'disproportionate' response in Gaza

Kannamachi, Japan – It seems that whenever Israel responds to violent overtures from groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, leaders of the international community are quick to assign equal condemnation to Israelis and Palestinians regardless of whether one is legitimately acting in self-defense.
Whether it is due to a latent anti-Semitism, the desire to avoid inflaming fundamentalist Arab passions, or simply an unrealistic belief in equality, world leaders are focusing too much on buzzwords.
In the case of Israel, the buzzwords are the "disproportionate" and "excessive" use of force – terms used in the 2006 Lebanon war and most recently spoken by French President Nikolas Sarkozy and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in response to Israel's Gaza offensive.
This is a particularly puzzling criticism of Israel. Would the international community truly prefer a proportionate or equal response? If Hamas launches three crudely-fashioned rockets into Israel, should the Israeli government respond with three equally-crude rockets? If three Israeli Defense Forces are kidnapped by Hezbollah, should the IDF respond by kidnapping an equal number of Hezbollah foot-soldiers?
The notion of "proportional" response lacks both merit and logical support for several reasons. In war, there are winners and losers, and the only palatable means of victory come from a disproportionate use of force. Victors are inherently more skilled in combat, tactics, and in the effective deployment of (generally superior) technology.
It does not make sense to demand one technologically or militarily superior belligerent to refrain from fighting to their full potential, simply because they are able to enact "disproportionate" damage on a weaker foe.
Should the United States have refrained from using the atomic bomb because Japan did not yet possess one? Would it have been better to extend Lend-Lease to Nazi Germany as well as Britain so that neither side would gain the advantage? Simply put, a militarily superior force should not limit itself due to the international community's desire to root for the underdog.
The notion of "proportional" responses is further baffling in that such occurrences actually prolong conflicts.
One need only look to the warfare in World War I. Equally-manned belligerents, using the same tactics, the same weapons, and the same defenses resulted in both sides being bogged down in interminable trench-warfare. No side could gain the upper hand and thus the conflict continued in an endless back-and-forth.
The cold war is another example of a proportional conflict. Both Russia and the United States maintained near-parity in regard to weapons, manpower, and political influence, and neither could emerge as sole superpower. As a result of its drawn-out nature, the conflict spread beyond America and Russia to encompass the entire Eastern and Western worlds. For an international community so concerned with peace, condemning "disproportionate" response, thereby accepting endless symmetrical warfare, appears hypocritical.
To be sure, discretion is the better part of valor, and that makes genocide a line that is unacceptable to cross. The use of retaliatory military force must not be reflexive. If peaceful solutions fail, however, the use of force is a viable option that may have to be employed.
Certainly, an indiscriminate carpet-bombing or use of nuclear weapons on Gaza would be an unacceptable and excessive use of force, but if care is taken to minimize the loss of civilian life, then states should be able to respond as they see fit.
In the 2006 Lebanon war, as well as the current Gaza offensive, this proportionality argument has no place. In neither case did Israel decide to launch unprovoked, unnecessary air and ground assaults on a whim as a way of boasting its military might. In both cases, Israel's actions came as a response to provocations from groups bent on its destruction.
Hamas should garner no international sympathy simply because it made the poor decision of engaging an enemy of far-superior military might. The international community must further realize that both belligerents do not always need equal blame placed upon them.
Israel's superior military power comes with responsibility, however. In the wake of the Gaza offensive, Israel should be active in supplying humanitarian aid to affected civilians, and to help moderates such as Mahmoud Abbas regain influence in the area.
Hamas is owed nothing, of course. But in order to further peace negotiations, civilians and moderates must be given any support necessary from Israel.
With the latest Gaza offensive, world leaders must condemn Hamas for abandoning its truce with Israel and recklessly endangering Palestinian citizens, while supporting Israel's right to defend itself, not offering platitudes condemning a "disproportionate" or "excessive" use of force.

LINK
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-09, 08:24 AM   #2
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
The notion of "proportional" responses is further baffling in that such occurrences actually prolong conflicts.
yup - doesn't solve a fricking thing.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-09, 09:53 AM   #3
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

Quote:
One need only look to the warfare in World War I. Equally-manned belligerents, using the same tactics, the same weapons, and the same defenses resulted in both sides being bogged down in interminable trench-warfare. No side could gain the upper hand and thus the conflict continued in an endless back-and-forth
True enough in Europe but in the Middle -east it was a different tactic of outnumber and overwhelm

(and use a revolt for help and then change the deal)


1914
Mesopotamian Campaign: The campaign was fought mainly in the Tigris River valley region of what is now Iraq, and included battles on the Persian Gulf coast, at Basra, and numerous struggles around Kut and Baghdad.

Caucasus Campaign: The Russian and Ottoman armies fought in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolia (northeastern Turkey), with the Ottoman Empire suffering a crushing defeat at the Battle of Sarikamis in November-December.


1915
Mesopotamian Campaign: Initially the Ottomans successfully repelled the British incursions. However, fortunes reversed after the disastrous Siege of Kut.

Caucasus Campaign: The Russians went on the offensive, advancing as far as Lake Van, but the Ottoman forces were ultimately able to drive them back. Ottoman repression of the Armenian population in Anatolia, who had evinced pro-Russian sentiments, grew into what is now called the Armenian Genocide. The fighting was largely inconclusive as the focus of the Ottoman and Russian war effort shifted to the Dardanelles Campaign and the Eastern Front respectively.

Dardanelles Campaign: the campaign, which began on April 25, took place at on the Gallipoli Peninsula on the European side of the Dardanelles (tr:Çanakkale Savaşları), and is commonly referred to in Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland simply as "Gallipoli". The British and French mounted a combined operation with the goal of capturing the Ottoman capital at Constantinople (now Istanbul). The campaign started with a Naval attempt to force the Dardanelles. When this failed the Allies decided to seize the European side of the Dardanelles with an amphibious assault. The troops were able to land but could not dislodge the Ottoman forces after months of battle that caused the deaths of an estimated 131,000 soldiers, and 262,000 wounded. Eventually the Allied forces withdrew. The campaigning represented something of a coming of age for Australia and New Zealand who celebrate April 25th as ANZAC Day. Kemal Ataturk, who would go on to become the first leader of modern Turkey distinguished himself as a Lieut. Colonel in the Ottoman forces there.

Arab Revolt: The British, based in Egypt, began to incite the Arabs living in Hejaz near the Red Sea and inland to revolt to expel the Ottoman forces from what is the modern-day Saudi Arabian peninsula.

Sinai and Palestine Campaign: The Ottomans launched an unsuccessful attack across the Sinai with the objective of destroying or capturing the Suez Canal.


1916
Arab Revolt: In 1916, a combination of diplomacy and genuine dislike of the new leaders of the Ottoman Empire (the Three Pashas) convinced Sherif Hussein ibn Ali of Mecca to begin a revolt. He gave the leadership of this revolt to two of his sons: Faisal and Abdullah, though the planning and direction for the war was largely the work of Lawrence of Arabia.

Caucasus Campaign: The Russian offensive in northeastern Turkey culminated with the capture of Erzurum in February and Trabzon in April.

Sinai and Palestine Campaign: The Ottoman forces launched a second attack across the Sinai with the objective of destroying or capturing the Suez Canal. Both this and the earlier attack (1915) were unsuccessful, though not very costly by the standards of the Great War. The British then went on the offensive, attacking east into Palestine. However, two failed attempts to capture the Ottoman fort of Gaza resulted in sweeping changes to the British command and the arrival of General Allenby, along with many reinforcements.


1917


Turkish trenches at the shores of the Dead Sea, 1917.
Mesopotamian Campaign: British Empire forces reorganized and captured Baghdad in March 1917.

Caucasus Campaign: Russia effectively withdrew from the war in 1917; the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 1918 eventually restored to Ottoman Empire the territories it had lost to Russia during the war.

Arab Revolt: The revolt was a success, aided immensely by General Allenby's conquest of Palestine in 1917 (see the Sinai and Palestine Campaign for details).



British artillery placements during the Battle of Jerusalem, 1917.
Sinai and Palestine Campaign: Late in 1917, Allenby's Egyptian Expeditionary Force smashed the Ottoman defenses and captured Gaza, and then captured Jerusalem just before Christmas. While strategically of minimal importance to the war, this event was key in the subsequent creation of Israel as a separate nation in 1948.
Quote:
The mounted attack began with attempts to capture Turkish outposts to the east of Beersheba. The advance of the Anzac Mounted Division was held up at the Tel el Saba redoubt—by the time it was captured the attack was running many hours behind schedule and the possibility of launching the combined infantry and mounted assault on the town before nightfall looked slim.
With time running out, the commander of the Desert Mounted Corps, General Chauvel, ordered the Australian, 4th Light Horse Brigade to make a mounted attack. The 4th (Victorian) and 12th (New South Wales) Regiments of the brigade formed up in three waves and charged across four miles of open terrain through shrapnel and machine gun fire. The audacity of their charge confused the Turkish defenders who failed to adjust their rifles sights and so consistently over-estimated the range to their targets and fired too high. As a consequence, the charge was incredibly successful and few casualties were incurred.
Turkish resistance in Beersheba quickly collapsed and they began to abandon the town in a panic. Many of the garrison were taken prisoner and most importantly the Turks only succeeded in destroying two out of the 17 wells. Furthermore, two reservoirs containing 90,000 gallons each were captured intact. Immediate relief for the horses was fortuitously provided by a torrential downpour that had preceded the battle and left pools of standing water.
..more

1918
Sinai and Palestine Campaign: Ottoman Empire could be defeated with campaigns in Palestine and Mesopotamia and the Spring Offensive delayed the expected attack. General Allenby's was given brand new divisions recruited from India. British achieved complete control of the air General Liman von Sanders, had no clear idea where the British were going to attack. Compounding the problems, withdrew their best troops to Caucasus Campaign. General Allenby finally launched Battle of Megiddo,with the Jewish Legion under his command, Ottoman troops started a full scale retreat.

Arab Revolt: T. E. Lawrence and his Arab fighters staged many hit-and-run attacks on supply lines and tied down thousands of soldiers in garrisons throughout Palestine, Jordan, and Syria.

Caucasus Campaign: The Grand vizier Talat Pasha signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk March 3 1918 with the Russian SFSR which stipulated that Bolshevik Russia cede Batum, Kars, and Ardahan to Ottoman Empire. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk united the Armenian-Georgian block[4]. Democratic Republic of Armenia declared the existence of a state of war between the Ottoman Empire[4]. In early May, 1918, the Ottoman army faced the Armenian Corps of Armenian National Councils which soon declared the Democratic Republic of Armenia. The Ottoman army captured Trabzon, Erzurum, Kars, Van, and Batumi. The conflict led to the Battle of Sardarapat, the Battle of Kara Killisse (1918), and the Battle of Bash Abaran. Although the Armenians managed to inflict a defeat on the Ottomans at the Battle of Sardarapat, the Ottoman army won the later battle and scattered the Armenian army. The fight with Democratic Republic of Armenia ended with the sign the Treaty of Batum in June, 1918. However throughout the summer of 1918, under the leadership of Andranik Toros Ozanian Armenians in the mountainous Karabag region resisted the Ottoman 3th army and established the Republic of Mountainous Armenia. The Army of Islam avoided Georgia and marched to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. They got as far as Baku on the Caspian Sea. They threw the British out in September 1918 with the Battle of Baku.


The Armistice, October 30, 1918
The Armistice of Mudros, signed on aboard HMS Agamemnon in Mudros port on the island of Lemnos on October 30 1918, with the Ottoman Empire and Triple Entente. Ottoman activities at all the active campaigns terminated.

...more
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-09, 03:51 PM   #4
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

here's a rather startling stat: Israel killed 1200 Palestinians in the latest round of conflict. of those killed, 410 were children.

hard to see how that is defensible.

http://www.reuters.com/article/lates...s/idUSLH286481
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-09, 09:30 AM   #5
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

All we will ever be told is that it's justifiable to kill innocent civilians like that because it is Israel defending itself. That is all we need to know.

Then we put faith in the UN to deal with it fairly and it has always been unable to. Nothing will ever change with that , it is set in stone...

Quote:
The logic goes as follows: Israel has the right to occupy Palestinian land, lay siege to Palestinian populations in Bantustans surrounded by an apartheid wall, starve the population, cut them off from fuel and electricity, uproot their trees and crops, and launch periodic raids and targeted assassinations against them and their elected leadership, and if this population resists these massive Israeli attacks against their lives and the fabric of their society and Israel responds by slaughtering them en masse, Israel would simply be "defending" itself as it must and should.
...more
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-09, 04:43 PM   #6
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by multi View Post
All we will ever be told is that it's justifiable to kill innocent civilians like that because it is Israel defending itself. That is all we need to know.
[/url]
Israel had 13 people killed, 3 of them civilians, in this latest round. so, 13 dead Israelis = 1300 dead Palestinians.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - April 12th, '08 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 1 09-04-08 07:03 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - October 13th, '07 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 1 10-10-07 09:59 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - June 16th, '07 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 1 13-06-07 09:34 AM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)