Before the most recent assault, the entire border was CLOSED. Completely. No huminatarian could get in. At all. Only recently huminatarian aid trucks where allowed inside Gaza.
That's an interesting that you should make such a blanket claim because not even Hamas makes such a claim. Maybe you get information from the BBC?
Before the most recent 'assault' was a cease fire. A cease fire in which it was agreed that if Hamas would stop and help prevent rocket and mortar attacks Israel would in turn stop hunting Hamas and start to lift the blockade which at it's worst was limited to 'only' 70 trucks of aid per day.
During the 'cease fire' as the rockets decreased the trucks increased but Hamas claims this was a breaking of the deal since the blockade wasn't lifted Israel claims that it was a breaking of the deal since Hamas never during the 'cease fire' ceased firing and the smuggling of weapons increased as the blockade was gradually lifted. “The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reported a total of 223 rockets and 139 mortar shells fired from Gaza during the cease fire”
On December 24th after the complete deterioration of the cease fire Hamas launched operation 'Oil Stain' and Hamas claims it launched 87 rockets and mortar shells at Israel. On December 25th Israel finished preparations for a broad offensive and delivered a final warning by the PM of Al-Arabiya saying "I am telling them now, it may be the last minute, I'm telling them stop it. We are stronger."
The very next day, the 26th, Israel reopened 5 border crossings to provide fuel and 100 trucks of humanitarian aid and Hamas in response launched a dozen rocket and mortar attacks on Israel one even hitting a palestinian house in Gaza and killing 2 sisters and wounding a third.
The next day, the 27th, Operation Cast Lead started.
Isreal said they would stop bombing for a few hours to allow the trucks to get through. And then they broke their own agreement.
Umm you mean they broke the humanitarian cease fire after being shot at with rockets during the 3 hour break? Boo hoo. Hamas shouldn't have fired during the much needed humanitarian cease fire and still it didn't stop it from continuing so what's your point?
And how was this sovereign nation formed?
Remember that Isreal still controls territories that are beyond those given to them by Armestice treaties and the UN partition plan.
Yeah territories that even after losing a war continue to fight and are therefore legally occupied (but illegally settled). Hamas and Palestinian attacks only give legitimacy to the continued control of these areas. You really think if hostilities would stop Israel could stand up to the international pressure to release these territories? Do you really think Israel doesn't WANT to be rid of this headache?
There is an order of things that need to occur in order for there to be a 2 state solution and the first is for the Palestinians to get a government that isn't a terrorist organization or a government that doesn't support the targeting of civilians. Then they can cease attacking negotiations can resume the settlers can go cry that they are going to have to move or live under Palestinian rule and a second state can be formed.
Remember that they suddenly all went there after the second world war and claimed it as their land by divine right. The problem with that theory is that that divine right includes that the Messiah should lead them there. Unfortanatly, also according to the Jew, he or she hasn't arrived yet.
unless you are contesting the right for Israel to exist in the land of Israel his is no longer a relevant point really. The realists on the Palestinian side even know that they are going to have to live side by side with Israel. And for many it had nothing to do with divine right for many it was just a return to their ancestral homes.
If only it was so simple in reality. And if there only was anything substantial behind those claims.
"The world hates us. They will lie about us anyway. Let's no allow the media to see what we're doing!" - cry me a river, why don't you?
Okay Justin.
Reinforcements from where. Israel controls the sky. Israel has tanks and trucks and helicopters. If anyone is mobile, ti's Israel. How can any reinforcements come to the city from the outside if you monitor the sorroundings from the air?
Unless you mean reinforcements from the other side of the city? Which I'd assume would be even better for Israeli forces. Draw the enemy out of hiding, let them come to you.
”The army has been slowly neutralising tunnels one by one to avoid a repeat of the heavy casualties it suffered in Lebanon in 2006 when outflanked by Hizbollah gunmen hiding underground.””I had been hunting for one of Hizbullah's bunkers since the end of the 34-day war. It had been a frustrating exercise, to be sure. The bunkers and rocket-firing positions had been constructed in great secrecy, the entrances cunningly camouflaged, in remote valleys along the Lebanon-Israeli border.””NICOSIA — Hizbullah's massive tunnel network in Lebanon contains electricity, running water and food and could maintain Iranian-sponsored fighters for months.“ Such contracts have been signed before and the reprocussions are big. While a news agency can still get their news by proxy, it looses much. No exclusives. News are late and unconfirmed by their own sources.
What nations signed these with what news agencies? What repercussions? Any evidence that this kind of ban can be enforced on anyone but the local news outlets?
You just put your foot in your mouth. So contracts with news agencies DO exist and apparently DO work. What happened to the other media? You see, Israel only let in those it can control. I wonder why is that? Security of hte troops? Yeah, right. You can use the "security" excuse to suffocate any and all freedoms.
What contracts? Did I say contracts? Where do you see that they work? What part of “Israeli media was allowed in (Because the orders for them to hold off on a story could be enforced) as were BBC reporters but only on an imbed mission which prevented them from broadcasting live and therefore was not a threat.” was too hard for you to understand?
What they get from Israel? You mean the endless supply of aid trucks that are turned back by hamas every day? Or do you mean their electricity? Or Water? Or perhaps their fuel?
You mean ECONOMIC SLAVERY?
So before posting a response I looked albeit briefly at google for some references that determine that Palestinians have to pay for ANY of the aid they get from Israel. I couldn't find any but again it was a brief search. Can you provide some links?
The only reference to Palestinians having to Buy the aid given them was from the
wiki article on Gaza aid where it said “On 12 January, Hamas raided some 100 aid trucks entering Gaza, stole their contents and sold them to the highest bidders.[86] On 20 January, gunmen from Hamas' armed wing seized 12 trucks loaded with humanitarian aid that had been donated by the Jordanian government to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to Jordanian and Palestinian Authority officials.[87][88]” Which coincides with my view of Hamas anyway.
According to what study?
The study of the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict where again and again and again and again I have referenced and linked to numerous stories of failed attempts at propaganda by Hamas/Fatah/Islamic Jihad etc etc.
If Gaza was bombed to hell it wouldn't exist anymore. There was only one thing standing in Israels way from the total annihilation of the Gaza strip it's own sense or morality. But your right I do believe the bombing of Gaza was justified and I wish it had been as simple as bombing it to hell because it would have saved a lot of time money and effort. But fortunately for Hamas there are still lives down there worth preserving and as long as there are Israel will go for the drawn out more expensive more dangerous to itself route.
So you only count total genocide as a war crime? 
That's exactly what I said here have ANOTHER cookie.
No a war crime is when you don't try and avoid civilian casualties when you disregard their presence as having any effect or whether or not you should launch your attack... or in the case of Hamas standpoint if civilians are not present they see no point in launching the attack since civilians ARE their target.
Uuum..yeah, it is.
See, there have been numerous conflicts in the world recently. Even in far longer wars of bigger intensity and over bigger areas then the Gaza, destruction was still FAR LOWER. And people and sides involved were still accused of overshelling or war crimes. For 100 destroyed houses.
Gaza has thousands of structures destroyed, and mostly infrastructure. In a period of 3 weeks. That's an order of magnitude more.
Sorry I was in a rush to exit the house and I did a quick google search for
“international law excessive use of force” and found the words “According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force” and in my rush didn't explore the article which goes on to explain that there is such a law but that from a strictly legal standpoint Israel didn't break it. So that's my bad for being in a rush and to lazy to look into it futher. The full quote was “According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it (Israel is not expected to make Kassam rockets and lob them back into Gaza).”
With further looking however I found
this:
“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).”
Do you have some proof my stance is a product of rumors and total bias without some checking or backing up? No? In that case, keep such comments to yourself.
Well lets look at it this way. If you have any proof that your stance on distrusting Israeli sources is based on anything but rumors and bias you have yet to proffer any evidence. And one would think that since you are a pretty smart person you would use all and any advantage you had to argue your point. So if you had proof or past president of Israel doing the same kind of propaganda and lies about what goes on here as I have already shown the Palestinians doing then why don't you produce it?
So based on lack of any evidence of the sort from you and the fact that Israeli media loves this kind of thing and would jump at the chance of exposing military propaganda in which case I would have heard about it... It's safe to say you are basing most if not all of this on your dislike and bias towards Israel and her policies. I would love to be proven wrong though.
Using women and children as suicide bombers doesn't make all women and children combatants you know.
Which is why there are women and children still alive in Gaza.
