Anonymous wrote:The problem with these fights is someone with minimal weapons attacks a strong nation, what is the strong nation supposed to do? It will respond.

The difference in the casualty figures are because Israel does all she can to minimize her casualties -- safe rooms, bomb shelters, Iron Dome. Hamas, not so much. Rockets are launched from populated areas.

Oh, and the death toll would be very different if the IDF did not find a terror tunnel, according to Al Jazeera:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/gaza-tunnels-hamasisraelidf.html

We do not know what would happen.

I would be much happier if this battle was not being waged, but being stronger does not make you wrong...just strong.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Hamas is in the wrong, not Palestine, not Israel. Hamas needs to quit with the bleeping rocket fire. It's not reasonable to expect Israel to lay down arms while Hamas forges on ahead.

jsteele wrote:Both sides think they are right. The question could be debated for centuries and not settled. But, ask yourself, "who is doing the killing?"

Then, ask yourself how to justify the killing of over 1,000 people, most of whom are civilians. You will hear a lot about who is to blame, but who is doing the killing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither! They are now equally horrible. I hope they bomb each other off the map. Neither side provides the world with anything of value. It's all war and hate with both sides.

Children are innocent. Somebody has to care about them. Somebody has to protect them.

Anonymous wrote:Neither! They are now equally horrible. I hope they bomb each other off the map. Neither side provides the world with anything of value. It's all war and hate with both sides.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Both sides think they are right. The question could be debated for centuries and not settled. But, ask yourself, "who is doing the killing?"

Then, ask yourself how to justify the killing of over 1,000 people, most of whom are civilians. You will hear a lot about who is to blame, but who is doing the killing?

It is not Hamas' fault that Iron Dome shoots down missiles. If it wasn't for Israel investing in that system, the killing would probably be equal.

Do you really believe that? The Israelis say that Iron Dome is 90% effective (I believe this to be a gross exaggeration). That means that 10 percent of the rockets are getting through. So, the number of Israelis killed should be 10% of the number of Palestinians killed. Yet, the number is .03%. There is no justification for the killing that the Israelis are doing.

That's 4% (40/1000) actually, and if Iron Dome focuses on populated areas, which it probably would to reduce killing, the proportions make sense. Also, the Israelis are trying to strike militants. Gaza is a small place, however, and missiles are frequently placed in populated areas by Hamas, so it's unavoidable, although tragic. Israel, however, tries to reduce the death toll (by giving warnings, for example). Israel only wants terrorists to stop attacking it, and Israel is reacting in the same way that the US would probably react if placed in the same situation.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with these fights is someone with minimal weapons attacks a strong nation, what is the strong nation supposed to do? It will respond.

The difference in the casualty figures are because Israel does all she can to minimize her casualties -- safe rooms, bomb shelters, Iron Dome. Hamas, not so much. Rockets are launched from populated areas.

Oh, and the death toll would be very different if the IDF did not find a terror tunnel, according to Al Jazeera:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/gaza-tunnels-hamasisraelidf.html

We do not know what would happen.

I would be much happier if this battle was not being waged, but being stronger does not make you wrong...just strong.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with these fights is someone with minimal weapons attacks a strong nation, what is the strong nation supposed to do? It will respond.

The difference in the casualty figures are because Israel does all she can to minimize her casualties -- safe rooms, bomb shelters, Iron Dome. Hamas, not so much. Rockets are launched from populated areas.

Oh, and the death toll would be very different if the IDF did not find a terror tunnel, according to Al Jazeera:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/gaza-tunnels-hamasisraelidf.html

We do not know what would happen.

I would be much happier if this battle was not being waged, but being stronger does not make you wrong...just strong.

Anonymous wrote:So how should Israel react to the rockets?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A quick Google search found some Israeli soldiers killed by a mortar shell. As for being well-protected, 90% is not all the time. Inevitably, one rocket will land in a populated area, and Israeli citizens will be killed. Israel could theoretically go through with a larger ground invasion, instead of the rockets, but the rockets specifically destroy missile locations, which would be harder in a ground invasion.

Can you please explain why Israel did not have an alternative to this:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Both sides think they are right. The question could be debated for centuries and not settled. But, ask yourself, "who is doing the killing?"

Then, ask yourself how to justify the killing of over 1,000 people, most of whom are civilians. You will hear a lot about who is to blame, but who is doing the killing?

It is not Hamas' fault that Iron Dome shoots down missiles. If it wasn't for Israel investing in that system, the killing would probably be equal.

Do you really believe that? The Israelis say that Iron Dome is 90% effective (I believe this to be a gross exaggeration). That means that 10 percent of the rockets are getting through. So, the number of Israelis killed should be 10% of the number of Palestinians killed. Yet, the number is .03%. There is no justification for the killing that the Israelis are doing.

Are you effing kidding? Hamas is striking as far as they can, which doesn't happen to be very far. Since they can't detonate in Tel Aviv the way they'd like to... What? The rocket attacks should be dismissed as merely impolite?

I am so sick of this pattern:

1) Someone says something that is clearly wrong;
2) I call them on it;
3) I am accused of suggesting something entirely different.

Please learn to read. If I do not write clearly enough for you, ask me to clarify. But, no, I don't think rocket attacks should be dismissed as merely impolite. Nor do I think that the only possible reaction is to kill more than 1,000 people. Is it your position that there is no possible alternative to destroying complete neighborhoods, bombing schools and hospitals, and killing hundreds of children?

Anonymous wrote:
A quick Google search found some Israeli soldiers killed by a mortar shell. As for being well-protected, 90% is not all the time. Inevitably, one rocket will land in a populated area, and Israeli citizens will be killed. Israel could theoretically go through with a larger ground invasion, instead of the rockets, but the rockets specifically destroy missile locations, which would be harder in a ground invasion.