What we shouldn't do

And people shouldn't be using schools as locations to launch attacks. Fairly obvious really.

[Yes, it is. So to be more explicit, for the hard of understanding: if people are usuing human shields (certainty of which requires at the moment trusting the Israeli military, wich I don't), then you don't go "kablammo" and take out the gunmen and the shields too. Well not if you have any pretence of being a civilised country -W]

What we shouldn't do is fire mortar rounds from schools. Fairly obvious really, but some people will never learn. Bozos.

[It seems to me that using a video of an empty school from 2007 to justify indiscriminate bombing of a full school in 2009 is logically invalid. When you in a hole, as the old proverb says, stop blowing it up -W]

Wow ... Attempting to justify the killing of more than 30 people in a school? Impressive, Matt and Joshua. Impressive.

The more disturbing aspect of Matt and Joshua's posts is that they seem to be taking the Israeli reports at their word, and assume that Palestinians just lying.

The truth of the matter is, until Israel allows international journos into Gaza, we just don't know squat about squat.

Justification? The lunatics who deliberately set up their own children as human shields in a school building are the ones who should have to answer for their actions. No one has done more to make Gaza a living hell for the Palestinians than the leadership of Hamas.

Even if it is true that Israel has irrefutable proof that the school was used to launch rockets, it is incredibly stupid to give your opponents a propaganda tool as powerful as the death of innocent children.

Of course, it's morally reprehensible anyway.

Islamic Militants worldwide throughout history have extensive experience in using human shields.

The whole point is to use hostages to force the enemy to either stop/slow down or accept moral indignation from the media et al.

This makes Hamas morally responsible for the injury or deaths of anyone they use as shields, not their enemies.

Yes such deaths should be avoided when possible. But in historical military campaigns (not police scale hostage resolutions!), it is often better to attack quickly and decisively, so that would be hostage takers see futility in that move. Discouraging hostage games by refusing to play them, taking will in the long run save more lives than giving validity to the tactic.

[Hamas morally responsible - transparent regurgitation of Israeli propaganda; and transparently false. it is often better to attack quickly and decisively - it doesn't seem to have been a brilliant success in this case -W]

Does Israel have even the slightest idea of how it is looking to citizens of other countries around the world. To say that Hamas 'made them' kill all those children isn't exactly a problem for Hamas. Most of us already think Hamas are barbaric extremists. For Israel to sink to the same level, however, is a sad reflection on what they seem prepared to pay to ensure ownership of that land.
http://weturl.com/3309/

" Hamas morally responsible - transparent regurgitation of Israeli propaganda; and transparently false."

No, that's my own philosophical beliefs. Please -show- this to be false. Until you do, I stand by the notion that a hostage taker is primarily morally responsible for all that the hostage must endure.

"it is often better to attack quickly and decisively - it doesn't seem to have been a brilliant success in this case -W"

Assuming the reports are true from your own linked article, and I have no particular reason to doubt the Israeli side, then two Hamas cell members were killed. A technical success; relatedly, any -sane- Israeli enemy is now that much more discouraged from using their own people as human shields, and hostages in general.

Hamas claims no militants were even present much less killed. Hamas, Hezbollah, et al have given us every reason to doubt them.

P.s.
People have been fighting over that chunk of land for many thousands of years. I don't expect humans to stop doing so anytime soon. I don't really have a dog in this fight, not even an Israeli dog.

Don't always agree with this bloke, but think this is close enough to link to, rather than regurgitate:

http://www.septicisle.info/2009/01/massacres-upon-massacres.html#links

Definitely tragic and hard to see any real justification. Overall, however, (and unfortunately) I think "...but some people will never learn. Bozos." applies to both sides in this tragedy.

William, I agree up to a point. If for example, Hamas were planning on launching a nuclear weapon at Tel Aviv I suspect you would agree that taking out a building even if it had innocent people in it would be ok even if very painful. The question then becomes a matter of degree rather than difference.

Matty Smith, Regarding the issue of trusting the Israelis in this regard, Israel has in the past been generally open about when their weapons have hit targets they didn't intend to hit. I see no reason why this case would be any different if it had been a mistake. The logical conclusion is that Israel is telling the truth in this case until we see evidence otherwise. That there were reports of specific Hamas rocket men being killed at the site backs up that all the more so.

There's more than enough blame for both sides to have their full share. I'd think there's more to be gained by negotiating a lasting solution than by arguing endlessly about whether which side is more wrong, the one that uses civilians as human shields or the one that inflicts civilian casualties. (Sorry, I forgot they both do that.) But maybe that's just me.

[Both sides need more of your sanity and compassion that they are likely to get :-( -W]

http://tinyurl.com/7clowg

Obviously unconfirmed (just like all the IDF claims). The UN have also denied that any mortars were fired from the school.