Do you honestly believe that Israel has reacted to Hamas rocket fire with â€˜disproportionate force?

Show all answers

Bravo Sierra

Hell, yes!
White Phosphorus against home made fire works, should you be a genius to guess ??

tambovi

And why do you think we believe this?Israel did what she had to do.The screams about the "disproportionat force" are the consolation of the defeated,nothing more.Pity that Israel stopped the Cast Lead so quickly and Hamas leaders in their majority stayed alive.

tlkr_11

Hamas has fired 10,000 missiles into Israel.

The world complains that Israel is using disproportionate force, and for once, I agree. Israel needs to do much more in order to be proportionate.

To achieve complete proportionality, the IDF must line up 10,000 qassam missiles along the border with Gaza, and point them in the general direction of Gaza City, then fire away.

Its only fair.

Yale Wannab

yes.

proportions are numbers. israel said they were responding SOLELY to the rocket attacks. take a look at the numbers. it's disproportionate.

it's a fact that it's disproportionate. I believe your question is whether that disproportionality is wrong or not.

yes, it is wrong.

THE TRUTH IS HOLY

Israel did not fight this defensive war with sufficient aggression. If America fought the Nazis with the same lack of commitment, we would all be speaking German today. Israel must remain the moral authority in the world and support good and wipe out evil.

dandyl

No, Israel reacted the same as any other country would have reacted.As much as Israel was against it, she had no other choice, she had warned the evil terrorists Hamas many times to stop, but they carried on..She was simply eliminating the forces who over the years, have sent rockets into Israel and whos main objective is to destroy the country and her citizens.Article 51 of the un charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks. The claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality -- by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets -- is absurd. First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian. Second, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk posed.This is illustrated by what happened on Tuesday (December 30, 2008), when a Hamas rocket hit a kindergarten in Beer Sheva, though no students were there at the time. Under international law, Israel is not required to allow Hamas to play Russian roulette with its childrenâ€™s lives.Furthermore, Since Hamas' stated objective is the destruction of Israel, isn't the appropriate response the destruction of Hamas? Wouldn't random missile strikes on Palestinian cities be proportionate to Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel? Can you imagine any of Israel's critics accepting those responses?When Palestinian terrorists plant bombs at Israeli shopping malls and kill and maims dozens of civilians, would the "proportionate response" be for Israelis to plant bombs in Palestinian malls? No one in Israel believes this would be a legitimate use of force. Thus, Israel is left with the need to take measured action against specific targets in an effort to either deter Palestinian violence or stop it.What would America do if terrorists fired thousands of rockets targeting U.S. cities? After 9/11, we saw that America took the same type of action as Israel by launching military strikes against the terrorists. U.S. forces used overwhelming force and though they never targeted civilians, some were inadvertently killed. Americans believe in Colin Powell's doctrine, which holds that â€œAmerica should enter fights with every bit of force available or not at all.â€The United States uses overwhelming force against its enemies, even though the threats are distant and pose no danger to the existence of the nation or the immediate security of its citizens. The threat Israel faces is immediate in time and physical proximity, and poses a direct danger to Israeli citizens. More than 6,000 rockets have now fallen on Israel's cities and now that Hamas has acquired long-range missiles, more than 900,000 civilians are in danger. Still, Israel has not used its full might as the Powell Doctrine dictates. The use of force has been judicious and precise.Israeli soldiers do not deliberately target noncombatants. The murder of innocents is the goal of the Palestinian terrorists. In fact, what other army drops leaflets to warn people to leave an area they intend to attack even though it gives up the element of surprise and allows the bad guys to hide as well as the innocent to escape?
IDF ctivities are governed by an overriding policy of restraint and a determination to take all possible measures to prevent harm to innocent civilians.No innocent Palestinians would be in any danger if the Palestinian Authority took steps to stop terrorism or if the international community, especially the Arab world, had pressured Hamas to stop attacking Israel.No innocent Palestinians would be in danger if Hamas terrorists did not deliberately hide among them. If the peace-seeking Palestinians prevented the terrorists from living in their midst, Israel would have no reason to come to their neighborhoods.
It is a tragedy whenever innocent lives are lost, and Israelis have consistently expressed their sadness over Arab casualties. By contrast, when innocent Israelis are murdered by terrorists, Hamas holds rallies to celebrate the murders

PaperbackWriter JPA

Were the Brits using 'disproportionate' force when they fought the Nazis and killed 20 times more Germans than the Germans killed in return?

Is America 'disproportionate' in her response to 9/11?

Was Turkey 'disproportionate' when it killed the rebels last year?

In War, the toughest wins. Simple as that. And when the officially ELECTED GOVERNMENT of Gaza began increasing its terrorism against Israeli civilians, it was DECLARING WAR.

If Palestinians don't want war, perhaps they shouldn't support, elect, feed, house and respect Hamas creeps who openly call for genocide against every Jew on the planet.

--------------------------------------...

FAB response from the poster directly above me! I am applauding.

Shay p

In war there is no such thing as disproportionate force.

And in fighting counterinsurgency wars, most armies seek to achieve military victory by defeating the military capacity of an adversary, as efficiently as possible. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis; most armies seek to decisively eliminate as many enemy forces as possible while minimizing their own losses of troops. There are NATO members who have been critical of "Israel's disproportionate use of force," while NATO armies take pride in their "kill ratios" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, decisive military action against an aggressor has another effect: it increases deterrence. To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.

The loss of any civilian lives is truly regrettable. Israel has cancelled many military operations because of its concern with civilian casualties. But should civilian losses occur despite the best efforts of Israel to avoid them, it is ultimately not Israel's responsibility. As political philosopher Michael Walzer noted in 2006: "When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible - and no one else is - for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire."

International critics of Israel may be looking to craft balanced statements that spread the blame for the present conflict to both sides. But they would be better served if they did not engage in this artificial exercise, and clearly distinguish the side that is the aggressor in this conflict - Hamas - and the side that is trying to defeat the aggression - Israel.

Simple Simon

Sure it was disproportionate.
Arabs say that 1.5 billion Muslims will destroy 5 million Jews.
The proportion is 300:1.
It means at least should 6,000 Arabs should be killed to make even 20 dead Israelis.
The conclusion: Arabs won again.

Pete O

Israel has not only reacted to rocket fire but also to the suicide bombers who have killed over 500 Israeli citizens since 2001.

There will always be claims of 'disproportionate force' used but there is always two sides to the story.

You should also be aware that Hamas and Fatah have killed more Palestinians than Israel.

The biggest sufferers in this conflict is the children who have been killed as the result of Hamas using them as human shields by firing rockets from school grounds and parks where they play.

Lupines supports GEERT WILDERS

No such thing as disrorportionate force in warfare.

Israel didn't use enough force, Hamas is still there!

Arieh

Most definitely. It was payback for the hundreds of Jewish/Israeli civilians killed from the years 2001-present by suicide bombings and by other means of terrorism. This is what I believe and that the stopping of the launching of missiles (without success I might add), into the southern, sparsely populated area of Israel was just an excuse to exact revenge. I hope I'm not alone (as I usually am) in my perceptions and criticism of the Israeli government.

âœ¡

http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=2654

Nope.

Local Machine

Ok, son, let me tell you something.
The jews acted real bad back then.
Do you know that never in our recent history there was such a big number of dead kids in one day?
Do you know that even the nazis used to spare little kids lives?
Many of them did in fact saved these kids from getting shot by friendly or enemy fire.
The Jews went to print sweat shirts and jackets for Christ sakes with dead Arabian kid cartoons all over them.
The jew PM back in 03 ordered 70 dead Palestinian kids PER DAY!

Listen son,
Why are you doin this?
Please give me a rational explanation and I promise I'll shut the F up!

Da Machine

Papa razzi

No, the war on Gaza was for killing civilians not Hamas.

Lady LULU

absolutely, and so would any truthful, rational person. Anyone who doesn't is either biased, or doesn't know anything about the conflict
--------- Anyone who knows anything about international law will know that there is indeed a law of proportionate force in war, and to state otherwise is absolute rubbish, and shows that at least on this subject, many people are ignorant of the facts. The law regarding proportionism is the same as it is in municipal law, which states that you must use the same amount of force to defend yourself, as the one attacking you. Now I might add at this point, that Israel claiming to be defending themselves from Gaza can be in dispute. The point is, that if the law was followed (which it very seldom, if ever is, especially in Israels case, but not limited to it) then the attrocity commited by the Israeli's in Gaza could be seen as using the same proportionality as shooting a three year old child for slapping you, and calling it self defense.

Divine Creation

Yes! They were just bombing random places... I wonder if it was the opposite, What will the Jews say about the bombing if Hamas was in their place?

Many here believe in this statement "In war there is no such thing as disproportionate force"

So I am guessing that Hitler's actions were justified. because that is what you believe.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: