Israeli army withdraws from Rafah leaving behind death and destruction

[DuctapeFatwa]

The Israeli army pulled out of a Gaza refugee camp early Sunday, leaving death and destruction in the wake of a four-day operation during which troops searched for tunnels used to smuggle arms from Egypt into the Gaza Strip, witnesses said.


Troops backed by tanks had entered the Brazil refugee camp along the Gaza-Egypt border four days ago. Troops and militants battled repeatedly. Two Hamas gunmen - and a woman - were killed in fighting on Saturday. The army remained in the Salam area of Rafah that it entered a week ago.

An initial investigation found that at least 15 houses were completely destroyed during the army’s Brazil operation, witnesses said. Electric and telephone cables were ripped up, along with water pipes and roads, the witnesses said.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2003/October/middleeast_October370.xml§ion=middleeast

[rudeboy666]

1. Border Disputes

They are not citizens.

Remember, Israel is the only democracy in that savage Middle East.

[rudeboy666]

2. p.s.

I heard it on DU!

[Gimel]

3. Troops and militants battled

Troops and militants battled repeatedly. Two Hamas gunmen - and a woman - were killed in fighting on Saturday.

The responsibility lies with the terrorist gunmen as well. Smuggling weapons is far from peaceful.

[Darranar]

4. Why do you call them terrrorist?

[Gimel]

5. Primarily because

they are militants without a legitimate government. They are extra-governmental militants, or guards set up by the smugglers. They may be merely criminals, but they are engaged in illegal transport or guarding the illegal transport of munitions against the treaty agreements for the PA.

If Arafat is their boss, he isn't owning up to it. Therefore, they are terrorist in nature, or guarding terrorist operations, which makes them part of the terorist group or in the employ of the terrorist groups.

[Darranar]

6. Uh, no, it doesn't...

being a member of a terrorist group does not make one a terrorist; targeting innocent civilians or planning a targetting of innocent civilians does.

Many Palestinians are members of terrorist groups but their actions are strictly legitimate in nature; therefore, they are militants, not terrorists.

[Gimel]

7. That is a very limited definition.

You grant a lot a grace there. When a gunman is involved, I don't see it as a passive, humanitarian role.

[Darranar]

8. It isn't a passive, humanitarian role...

it is legitimate armed resistance to an occupation - allowed according to international law.

It is not terrorism.

[Gimel]

32. Then you legitimize the conflict

My response on this failed to post. I'll try again.

The signed agreements contain the following for the Gaza security forces:

The Palestinian Police will enforce special security measures aimed at preventing infiltrations across the Delimiting Line or the introduction into the Security Perimeter of any arms, ammunition or related equipment, except for the arms, ammunition or equipment of the Palestinian Police, authorized through the relevant DCO.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00q30

This is the relevant portion of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement. Terrorism is one of the primary reasons that none of the previous agreements have advanced into real implementation.

Smuggling arms through a tunnel is contrary to every peace accord yet signed. Arming militants is contrary to the Road Map. In fact, it stipulates disarming militant groups if you recall.

Gunmen who are employed to carry out the arms smuggling operation are participant in the terrorist organizations. If Arafat can't/won't stop them, Israel must. It seems to me that you are in favor of continuing the conflict, if you view the militants as carrying out a ligitimate resistance. Only supporting the Road Map was the objective. Peace is the objective, remember?

[bluesoul]

33. What about Israel's part?

Israel should do it's part for peace. Like ending the occupation, illegal settlements...

[Gimel]

36. The operation here

Of course Israel must live up to agreements. But this cannopt be done without the dismantling of the terrorist organizations. This is obviously an arms shipment that will re-arm the militants and escalate the conflict. This is contrary to peace. The last four suicide attacks are irreversable. They are overwhelming proof that the PA cannot control the terrorists and has not dismantled the terrorist organizations. Withtdrawing forces from the Gaza and West Bank will only allow terrorists to gain strength and reorganize. Remember, Israel doesn't get a second chance. This is it. Palestinians can live in a number of Islamic states and have cultural freedom.

[bluesoul]

37. Palestine

Their only home is Palestine, not other "Islamic" states...

[rini]

57. that, to quote another famous poster

ain't nothin but shit!

[Darranar]

59. No, you're wrong...

that post you just wrote isn't anything but rubbish.

I never knew the Palestinians didn't exist.

[number6]

81. post 57 aint nothin but...

....poo...

[Darranar]

34. All targeting of combatants is legitimate...

that doesn't make it moral, or right.

[bluesoul]

35. Hmm

I would say that targeting Nazi soldiers and higher ranked officials during WW2 was pretty much right and moral...

[Darranar]

40. There are differences...

targeting them in this situation could have been right and moral, if it was being done in defense of their homes. Otherwise, it might not have been so.

More violence is certainly not helpful to the situation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Wrong

Being a member of terrorist organization makes you EXACTLY a terrorist. If you are a member of Hamas, you are part of an organization that likes to kill women and babies. Guess what? That makes you a legitimate target at all times.

BTW, I have no respect for a "news" source that calls such bile "militants."

[Darranar]

10. Junk...

because Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not strictly terrorist institutions; they also resist the occupation, as well as commit despicable acts in Israel.

That Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade man who saved that family; is he, too, a terrorist?

They are militants until they direct or commit terrorist acts, such as blowing themselves up on a crowded bus.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Terrorists

Terrorists are, in theory, human beings. They have families, they eat breakfast, they shop, etc. Some of them even have jobs and, I think it's pretty obvious that everything they do in a given day is not terrorism. Frankly, that would be kind of tough to manage.

But these facts don't make them less the terrorist. If I were to murder 30 people this afternoon, but then rescue a lost dog wandering along the highway, wouldn't I still be a murderer?

Being a member of a drug gang makes you a gangbanger. You contribute to the gang's operations and, by doing so, contribute to ALL of their criminal actions.

The same goes for being a member of Hamas. If you are a member, you are a terrorist.

[Darranar]

12. So if I work in the Federal government...

I am responsible for what happens in Iraq?

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. To some extent

But the same goes as a voter or a taxpayer. It doesn't make you a combatant though.

[Darranar]

14. So...

How is a Hamas member fighting against the occupation responsible enough to warrant being a "terrorist?"

[bluesoul]

16. Logic

That dog don't bite...

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Oh my God

Do we even have to have this discussion where you try to rationalize that Hamas is not a terrorist group?

It is. And members of said terrorist group are, to no surprise to anyone but yourself, terrorists.

[Darranar]

20. A terrorist group, yes...

but that doesn't make all members of said group terrorists.

The IDF sometimes engages in terrorism of a sort - bulldozing the houses of innocent people, for instance - but that doesn't make every IDF soldier a terrorist.

A terrorist is made by one's own actions, not the actions of the institution in which they belong.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Back to disagreeing

No, bulldozing houses is not terrorism.

Yes, belonging to a terror group makes you a terrorist. As such, you are painting a target on your back and putting all those around you at risk.

[Darranar]

27. Bulldozing the houses of innocent people is...

and don't tell me that the IDF didn't do so in Rafah.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Innocent?

If your home is being used for drug activity in the U.S., it can be taken from you. The same goes for you car. If your home is used for arms smuggling, the same rule applies.

[Darranar]

41. They randomly bulldozed houses in the area...

don't tell me that all those houses were part of smuggling operations; that's junk.

Israel deserves to be condemned for what they did in Rafah.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Why do you say randomly?

Do you know the diagram of the tunnels beneath?

[Darranar]

45. Do you think that those 1,500 people who were made homeless....

were all part of the vast Palestinian conspiracy to destroy Israel?

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. 1,500

First of all, I don't accept the number. That's hundreds of homes even at heavy occupancy.

Next, the homes that are demolished are atop smuggling tunnels. If you ever watch people doing underground work, the stuff above tends to suffer. When it is done under fire, you can't be delicate. You have a job to do as fast as possible.

Perhaps the Palestinians ought to be upset that gun smugglers were using their homes for cover.

No that would never happen.

[Darranar]

47. This from an earlier thread...

"Israeli troops, backed by about 40 tanks and helicopter gunships, have raided the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza in the second large-scale incursion in less than a week.
Palestinian medical officials say at least three Palestinians have been injured in the operation, which the Israeli army says is aimed at destroying tunnels used to smuggle arms into the camp from neighbouring Egypt.

In a repeat of Friday's raid, which United Nations officials said left 1,200 people homeless, local residents say the Israeli forces have destroyed a number of homes.

The first operation, in which eight Palestinians, including two children, were killed was condemned by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan."

So if 1200 people were left homeless in the first operation, it doesn't seem to me unrealistic that 300 more may have been made homeless in the second.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. It didn't say their homes had been destroyed

It said a few homes had been destroyed. They were homeless because they fled the combat zone, an entirely wise precaution. Combat is over now.

[rini]

58. just curious

is this from the wonderfully imaginative source that gave us Jinine? By the way, I am selling some land in South Florida, guarranteed not to be under 3 ft of water...a real bargain, sight unseen.

[Darranar]

60. The source is the BBC.

n/t

[rini]

65. yup

same reliable source, nuf said

[bluesoul]

66. Reliable sources

What in your world is a reliable source? Fox news? Jpost? BBC is as closest as it comes possible to that term of all the big media..

[Darranar]

67. BBC is a reliable source...

thanks for agreeing.

[bluesoul]

68. BBC

As far as I can remember BBC has done numerous reports on suicide bombings in Israel, those families affected just as it had covered the suffering of Palestinians. John Simpson being the reporter if I am not mistaken. From what I've seen they'r pretty much even handed in their reporting..so

[drdon326]

48. No, Muddle , it wont happen......

as long 75% of the palestinian population support the
terrorist activities.

[Darranar]

49. And therein lies the problem...

you see the results of incursions as justification for incursions, the same way some poeple see the results of suicide bombings as justification for more suicide bombings...

Both of those patterns of thought are wrong, but they exist, and hence the conflict continues.

[bluesoul]

50. well

And Israelis support Sharon and his policy..

[number6]

82. What bulll

..

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Rubbish...

I work for a government that sent troops to Iraq. That doesn't make me in any way responsible for something I actively opposed. It doesn't make me a combatant, but that's not what you were arguing. You were trying to say that all combatants are terrorists, which of course they're not...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. No all combatants are not necessarily terrorists

Someone opposed to the Israeli presence in the West Bank could gather a band of fighters and start attacking only military targets. That is resistance. That is not terror. And it is also not happening.

Hamas is terror.

[bluesoul]

21. Another question

So let me get this right Muddle, if the Palestinians would only be targetting and killing IDF forces in the occupied territories you wouldn't have a problem with that?

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Oh, I'd have a problem with it, but it would be legal resistance

Not terror.

I'd prefer they choose a peaceful method, but that is a legitimate means of resistance.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. So how do you know who's who?

How do you know that every legitimate act of resistance has been carried out by Hamas? And if Hamas were to stop attacking civilians and start attacking only military targets, does that mean that Hamas would no longer be seen as a terrorist group?

I go by the rule of thumb that if the targets are military ones, then it isn't terrorism and those who carry out acts of legitimate resistance aren't terrorists. Anyone who targets civilians is a terrorist, and that goes equally for both sides in this conflict...

Violet...

[Darranar]

23. That's a good rule...

the organizations really only procide training and equipment.

[bluesoul]

24. Violet

But Violet, Israel does NOT target civilians, those killed are all collateral damage even if that means 3 times more killed then the terrorists do...

[Darranar]

25. Right!

And the old warrior Areil Sharon is a benevolent man of peace who seeks to make peace with the Palistinians, but they always fail him!

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. That happens when terrorists deliberately hide in civilian areas

You can't blame Israel for actions terrorists take.

[bluesoul]

31. Excuses for war crimes

Lame, lame, lamer excuses...

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Yes your excuses are lame

And terrorists commit tons of war crimes, but few in the pro-Palestinian camp admit that.

[Darranar]

42. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

52. Do you really believe

that the numbers can tell you the real story? That is trusting a lot in simplicity. In fact it is a very complex situation. Consider this likely scenario. Women and children throwing rocks at soldiers are civilians. Trained shrp-shooters join later and gradually increase their numbers. Women and children are hurt, some even killed. You lay the blame on Israeli soldiers 100 percent because the numbers tell you today 4 Palestinians killed 250 wounded. No Israelis hurt. It's all the fault of the soldiers, you say. Israel is commiting war crimes you think. Is that the real authentic truth?

[bluesoul]

53. Aha

Pretty much, YES!

[Gimel]

69. The crime

No soldiers used live ammunition until they were shot by Palestinians. That was a violation of the Geneva Convention and constituted a war crime. Are you denying that?

[Darranar]

70. What about enforcement of curfews?

I know you're wrong, but arguing about it would take too long and would get nowhere. Anyway, how do you justify/excuse/explain the use of lethal force in curfews?

Speaking of crimes of war...

[Gimel]

73. A curfew is called

to prevent civilian casualties in times of danger. The use of amunnition is for those who violate the curfew and seem suspicious. It certainly is not 100% fair, but neither is war.

[Darranar]

74. More excuses...

why use lethal force?

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. What do you propose

When people put your life in danger, lethal force is the most effective.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Eventually, yes

If Hamas declared it would no longer commit acts of terror and actually stuck to it for a long time, sooner or later they would not be seen as a terror group. Sure, they would have residual realities to contend with. Anyone involved in previous terror attacks would still be to blame for those.

Members of a group that is organized to commit terrorists acts are still terrorists.

[Aidoneus]

54. curious, Muddle..

and I'll try to leave out the big words and snobbery this time, but I can't make any promises on that (philosophizing with a hammer is somewhat comfortable to me on occasions when it seems fitting).

While I wasn't able to work out any exact figures, I can comfortably say that the greatest deal of the deaths on the Palestinian side comes in the course of the so-called "retaliatory" (such is the term spit out by the spokesmen of either or any other aggressor with a story to sell) assaults on Palestinian cities/villages/camps, and of the combatants that are killed this occurs in the course of defending against these IDF assaults (oh sorry, "self-defense incursions"/"targetted executions" or whatever silly euphamism is employed this week).

That's essentially AKs and the occasional RPG/crude landmine against tanks, armoured transports, and helicopters in residential/commercial areas:--exactly and specifically considering that, is it "terrorism" or not to you? ...please, no evasions, no "terrorists living around people on purpose to get them killed for sympathy" type of bullshit, my kingdom for one straight answer..

On the side, your rationalizations above are disturbing, and of the sort that notably aren't recreated whenever some humanbomber hits some "Green Line" Israel position (though they could be if one wanted to be cheeky or "I know you are but what am I" enough, as there might've been some IDF people present at these "right-back'achta(TM)" atrocities--the really raw nerve of those IDF "terrorists" to hide among others to deliberately get them killed just for sympathy!). Besides that, considering historical patterns that are related to Israel's occupations over neighboring lands and from other situations that are not at all related to it, the house demolitions argument you present is just ridiculous.

[Aidoneus]

75. perhaps I shouldn't have toned down the antagonism

at least then I got an answer..

I ask a lot of questions, is there anything somebody wants to enquire about from me in response?

[Violet_Crumble]

86. What I always find cute...

Is when the person being asked the question reappears in the same thread not far from the question and keeps posting away. If I didn't know better I'd think they were studiously ignoring some questions ;)

Violet...

[bluesoul]

19. Question

So all those resisting the occupations, illegal settlements', Sharon's policy are "terrorists". As are those in Iraq that attack US and British forces that are occupying Iraq, as well, right?

[DuctapeFatwa]

55. Terrorism is any opposition or resistance to bush or sharon regimes

"You are with us or you are with the terrorists," decreed bush, surprising millions who had never realized either that they were terrorists, or that they were rather proud to be so.






edited typo

[rini]

56. Maybe just because they are?

n/t

[Darranar]

61. And how exactly are they terrorists?

[bluesoul]

62. Simple answer

Bush and Sharon say so...

[drdon326]

63. Heres a simple question, bluesoul

Do you or dont believe that hamas,ij,and alaqsa's actions
of suicide bombings of restaurants, busses and other places
represent terrorism??

yes OR no , please.

[bluesoul]

64. Glad to answer

Yes for the actions you talked about.

Resisting the occupation, attacking IDF on the occupied territories, no.

[rini]

71. by attacking and murdering innicent civilians

[Darranar]

72. They were attacking IDF soldiers.

[rini]

76. hey one exception proves the rule

[GabysPoppy]

77. Which is it?

Being the dove that I am, I am of the opinion that few things militarily are strictly neccesary in this situation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=22531#22701

Is this one of the few things you approve of?

[Darranar]

79. Approve?

I don't really know if I can answer that question. "Approve" is a tricky term; I was not there, I do not know for sure who these people are, or why they were firing at IDF soldiers.

What I can say is that these actions are legitimate armed resistance; just like extra-judicial assasinations that are carried out with minimal harm to innocent people.

[GabysPoppy]

80. Sure sounded like you knew

"They were attacking IDF soldiers."

Those are your words, sir. And I was asking you if you approved because of your statement that you consider yourself a dove. As a "dove" are you in approval of this incident?

[Darranar]

83. I dislike violent means of all kinds...

the targeting of IDF soldiers that occured yesterday, with the attack on the patrol vehicle, was legitimate, but I do not approve of it. It was not in direct defense of one's home and family, and most IDF soldiers would not harm innocent civilians on purpose.

In this particular incident I must say that I am leaning towards approval; these soldiers were harming innocent people, knowingly or not, and this was defense by legitimate means.

[GabysPoppy]

84. You have me confused, sir

First you say:

"I don't really know if I can answer that question. "Approve" is a tricky term; I was not there, I do not know for sure who these people are, or why they were firing at IDF soldiers."

Then you say:

"In this particular incident I must say that I am leaning towards approval; these soldiers were harming innocent people, knowingly or not, and this was defense by legitimate means."

Can you see my confusion?

[Darranar]

85. I have not made up my mind...

I see no contradiction between the two.

Leaning towards approval does not mean that I neccesarily do approve. As I said before, I was not there, so I do not know if it would fit my criteria.

And I really cannot blame those IDF soldiers who were killed. They were drafted into the military forces, and despite the fact that they are combatants, they are still human beings.

I am sorry if my posts have been wishy-washy. The reason that they are so is that I am still wishy-washy about this incident. My mind is not made up.