Fighter Sees His Paradise in Gaza’s Pain

[Vegasaurus]

car arrived with more patients. One was a 21-year-old man with shrapnel in his left leg who demanded quick treatment. He turned out to be a militant with Islamic Jihad. He was smiling a big smile.

“Hurry, I must get back so I can keep fighting,” he told the doctors.

He was told that there were more serious cases than his, that he needed to wait. But he insisted. “We are fighting the Israelis,” he said. “When we fire we run, but they hit back so fast. We run into the houses to get away.” He continued smiling.

“Why are you so happy?” this reporter asked. “Look around you.”

A girl who looked about 18 screamed as a surgeon removed shrapnel from her leg. An elderly man was soaked in blood. A baby a few weeks old and slightly wounded looked around helplessly. A man lay with parts of his brain coming out. His family wailed at his side.

“Don’t you see that these people are hurting?” the militant was asked.

“But I am from the people, too,” he said, his smile incandescent. “They lost their loved ones as martyrs. They should be happy. I want to be a martyr, too.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/09fighter.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[bunnies]

1. funny thing about martyrs...

they're martyrs. This attitude is expected.

[cali]

3. and?

that hardly makes this mentality better.

[bunnies]

4. and nothing.

I didnt say it was better. Just not surprising.

[cali]

2. this is a tragic and powerful piece.

[The Magistrate]

5. It is Indeed, Ma'am, And Shows a Truth Of the Situation That Cannot Rightly Be Overlooked

Hamas fighters bear a great proportion of the blame for the suffering in Gaza, and cannot be allowed to wriggle out from under it.

[Arrowhead2k1]

6. You try raising your kids in an open air concentration camp called the Gaza Strip

while they are seeing their friends and family getting killed every few years all around them and see how well they turn out.

It certainly is tragic that some people in the Gaza Strip choose to cling to their religion and guns in an extremist way, but really, it's not entirely surprising giving their circumstance. I can't imagine having to live in their shoes for even a single day. Personally, I'd go absolutely batshit insane too if I was oppressed like that.

[cali]

7. this mentality existed well before Gaza became

an open air concentration camp, as you put it. I find it nauseating when people from either side make excuses.

[The Magistrate]

8. You Are Simply Evading the Import Of the Account Given in the Article, Sir

The doctor who has lost his family states clearly that fighters were engaging israeli forces from alongside his residence, and that the shell which so bereaved him was aimed at combatants.

The young gun-man states plainly that his fighting technique is a form of 'shoot and scoot' in which he fires, and then scampers off into people's houses, necessarily drawing Israeli fire onto them.

This has nothing to do with 'clinging to religion' or being 'batshit insane': it is criminal behavior under the laws of war, and a great part of the reason why this engagement is attended by so many non-combatant casualties. It establishes that the fighting conduct of Hamas militants courts such casualties, knowingly.

[Vegasaurus]

9. And it also accounts for the civilian death count

These Hamas fighters are cowards, and they are responsible for hundreds of deaths of their own people.

There is nothing worse than causing the death of children, and being happy about it.

These Hamas terrorists deserve to rot in hell.

[cali]

10. no it doesn't.

many civilians have been killed in bomb attacks. Hamas may be accountable for some of them, but Israel bears most of the responsibility. And Israel isn't terribly concerned about the deaths of Palestinian children or they wouldn't be bombing the life out of Gaza.

And cut the purple prose about rotting in hell.

[shira]

20. preposterous

Right under my post (Human shields) is a youtube video, showing that Hamas COUNTS on Israel to be careful and wary of attacking when civilians are involved. To say Israel isn't terribly concerned about deaths of Palestinian civlians is absurd. If they weren't concerned, Palestinians wouldn't volunteer to go up on rooftops of targeted IAF terror strongholds, as you see in the video.

While it's very fair to criticize Israel for not being careful enough at times, or that they can do better, yours is an unfair accusation. The very fact Israel has committed ground troops so early on when they could be bombing from the skies is proof, like Jenin, that Palestinian civilians are strongly considered - at the risk of Israeli troops. Even if for the most cynical reasons, it's only for "PR" purposes.

Otherwise, you think Israel is retarded enough to willingly grant Hamas and jew-haters-united their propaganda victories?

[Arrowhead2k1]

22. Yeah, and having I/P related content in your sig is against forum rules btw.

Nice one.

[shira]

24. oops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBYtij4Q7sE

taking it out of my sig. right now.

[azurnoir]

33. If this claim is true

The very fact Israel has committed ground troops so early on when they could be bombing from the skies is proof, like Jenin, that Palestinian civilians are strongly considered - at the risk of Israeli troops.

how is that the civilian causalities have grown exponentially since that time? Keep in mind that a large number of those have been proven to IDF's responsibility

Otherwise, you think Israel is retarded enough to willingly grant Hamas and jew-haters-united their propaganda victories?

Jew haters? So if one criticizes Israel's tactics you are being a Jew hater? Then perhaps just to be fair should we say that if one criticizes Hamas they are being Palestinian haters I mean justice being a queer thing and all?

[azurnoir]

12. Sir are you implying that it is

indeed Hamas that is responsible for the civilian deaths? I would say that both parties here are and to be honest I winced when you requested that this be run as a thread because as is seen on this thread that is exactly how the article is being purported to vilify Hamas as the sole responsible party and absolve Israel as only doing what Hamas is forcing it to.

[cali]

13. this is a revealing and important article. why on earth you wouldn't want it posted

is beyond me. And so what if there's a couple of people who are using it to put all the blame on Hamas? I mean, why should the response of people be what guides whether an article is posted? Lastly, I've never seen you object to some truly hateful pieces that paint Israel as evil incarnate. That makes your whinging about this, all too suspect.

[azurnoir]

16. It was the poster not the article

and as you your self have seen and commented on that is what is being purported

[azurnoir]

31. I forgot to address this

Lastly, I've never seen you object to some truly hateful pieces that paint Israel as evil incarnate. That makes your whinging about this, all too suspect.

Suspect of what you make dubious charges so please be plain

[The Magistrate]

14. Hamas Bears A Good Portion Of the Blame, Ma'am

They engage in a style that is illegal precisely because it courts the involvement of non-combatants in the effects of an enemy's engagement of legitimate military targets. There is little question that one of the reasons they do so is because of the propaganda value of dead non-combatants in blackening the name of their enemy.

Israel bears also a good portion of the blame. There is legitimate question about whether in all instances the Israeli military is heeding the legal requirement to weigh the direct military value of a strike against enemy combatants against the degree of harm likely to non-combatants the strike entails.

Away from the details of the engagement, again, both sides must bear a great deal of responsibility for deaths that are spectacularly pointless. Neither side can, as a practical matter, achieve its stated objectives by use of the capability for violence at its command. While, strictly speaking, engaging in operation that simply cannot succeed is not illegal, it is thoroughly reprehensible.

[shira]

23. Israel does bear a great portion of blame

without question, for ANYTHING they do that results in Palestinian suffering.

But what most haters here will not concede is that no good options exist with Hamas in charge - and that it takes 2 to tango if Israel wants peace with a neighboring Arab state.

So what is a proportionate, practical, and moral response Israel can take - that Hamas will in all likelihood accept?

[The Magistrate]

25. Not Every Problem Has A Solution, Ma'am....

[PerfectSage]

26. Why is that style of warfare illegal sir?

The Gaza strip is urban terrain with little open terrain. Israel's defense of "collateral damage" to civilians and property sounds like the wife beaters defense: "She made me hit her"

Hamas has been using Qassam rockets since 2001 and by now Israel should have developed surface to air missiles to shoot them down. Invading Gaza is not going to solve anything, unless Israel is willing to kill every Palestinian in Gaza. But then Israel will be stuck dealing with being perceived as an international pariah state.

In warfare, the greatest mistake is to do what your enemy wants you to do. I'm not 100% sure if Hamas wanted Israel to invade Gaza, but I'm 100% sure Hamas wants Israel to create a lot of collateral damage to people and property. Their intent is to win on the propaganda, moral and grand strategic level. The end result will be that the civilians bond more closely with Hamas. I haven't seen anyone who I consider to be an expert in strategic thinking who advocates the invasion of Gaza.

The best strategy is to attack your opponents strategy. Israel already has a radar and warning system that provides good protection for it's civilians and in 2010 is introducing a system to shoot down Qassam rockets. Which should have been done sooner.

I do think it's possible for Hamas to win the same way North Viet Nam won: A military defeat, but a political victory.

[bemildred]

27. "In warfare, the greatest mistake is to do what your enemy wants you to do."

Indeed. All the people saying "Hamas forced Israel's hand" ought to consider that carefully. If you are doing their bidding, you are handing them the initiative. It is perfectly clear that both parties, for different reasons, wanted to mix it up, civilians be damned. I rather think Hamas was/is hoping to suck the IDF into real urban combat. They've said as much.

But this is all military theatrics, Hamas has no real offensive military threat to offer, in the conventional sense, and not much defense, except on its home ground. It is a flea biting an elephant on the ass. The failure to understand that and deal with it in an appropriate way will lead to a failure to gain ones objectives. Hamas, someone in Hamas, appears to understand that this is war as show business, but the IDF still seems to imagine that it fighting a real war that can be won on ordinary military terms.

[azurnoir]

32. The simple fact is that Hamas has a tactical advatage

in urban warfare with or without civilians it would indeed be ideal if the civilians could have been evacuated but to where exactly is an unknown as is the when.

edited to add I know this will be interped by some as an endorsement of Hamas it is not I am simply pointing out a fact and will add that Hamas does not need human shields to have an advantage in urban warfare

[bemildred]

45. "Advantage" is too strong a word.

It's a more of a level playing field for them, the IDF's advantages are vitiated in that environment. If the IDF is actually concerned about getting them into a standup fight, I suppose that's the way to go. It's closer to even, and Hamas/IJ might take the bait. :sarcasm:

It seems worth observing, WRT the OP, that this is far from the first time in history that the issue of political resistance causing the deaths of bystanders has come up. Camus examines the issue of resistance when it leads to reprisals in "The Rebel", and is criticized for not examining that question more explicitly in "The Plague". Colonial history is just littered with such frightfulness, not merely Europeans either, and prohibitions on "collective punishment" are addressed at the shooting of ten or one hundred for one, not merely dietary restrictions, or being penned up, or what is now called "collateral damage".

I mention all this not to deny that the young man in the OP is a scary figure, he is, but to point out that he is also a predictable one, and a great concern of governments in all times and places, and frequently lionized as a hero in the aftermath of such disputes.

The Magistrate and I part ways on the laws of war, they seem to me to be more the "gestures of moral concern about war". We do agree that there ought to be laws of war, but as Lithos pointed out, that's not the way to bet, the way to bet is that it's going to be a bloody mess all around, that it will get out of hand, and that you will all be sorry, or dead. My own view is that war is by it's nature a moral vacuum, and that in the end it sucks all who participate in it long enough into the moral void, into moral nihilism: "the end justifies the means", repeated over and over in a thousand different ways.

War is what you do when the results of moral behavior are in your opinion not good enough. Once you are in a war, everyone more of less becomes cannon fodder. If war is to be circumscribed, you might as well go the whole way and replace it with some sort of athletic contest. The problem is, of course, that people resort to war precisely when they are not willing to accept the results of such more orderly ways of resolving disputes as may be available to them, or when they know their purpose to be unjust.

It is true that there is a concept of just war in defense of one own society, and I respect that as a principle, but the fact is that such wars always also involve an opponent, who obviously is seen as already having worked his way past such scruples, and who is in any case not going to be seen as defending himself too, and this in itself guarantees what the nature of the ensuing conflict will really be like. Ones opponent will always be seen as unjust, and one will always therefore be absolved of the requirement to be just to him. This is perfectly exemplified in the present case where both sides are firmly convinced that the other guy attacked him and that he is only trying to defend himself. There are various ways to try to resolve this "objectively", but they fail in practice, you never see a party actively at war that admits to being the aggressor, no matter what.

But I have to get back to bed now ...

Edit: My own view is that the means are the ends, they are always what you actually wind up with, and you had better get that straight and keep it straight, or you are going to become confused and have bad results.

[The Magistrate]

53. Our Views On The Laws Of War, And War, My Friend, Are Not Really So Different

We agree that war "is by it's nature a moral vacuum", that must corrode any engaged in it, and certainly as regards actual practice "the gestures of moral concern about war" is a very apt description of the Geneva Accords, and with your permission, you may find me quoting that on occasion in future. Maj. Liddel-Hart substitutes 'reason' for 'moral' in a formulation very similar to yours, speaking of war as the supreme act of unreason, being what people do when reason fails in settling conflict of interests, yet observing (and to my satisfaction, demonstrating) that war may be taken as vindicating reason, since reasoned calculation is essential in directing the efforts of war to any hope of success. It is a nice question of moral philosophy whether an act done without moral purpose, but which aligns with normal considerations of morality, should or even can be regarded as moral act, but it is evident from the history of warfare that there can often be great advantages to a nation at war from being perceived as the more morally sound of the parties in conflict, and that in many instances the soundest policy in war is one which appears to jibe with moral behavior.

A great proportion of the invocations of the laws of war in debate over some particular conflict, including this one we are discussing here, are nothing but attempts to raise one side or the other to the status of "the more morally sound of the parties in the conflict" in order to gain those advantages for it. War and behavior in it being what they are, these mostly take the form of seeking to lower the stature of the side the disputant opposes, there being little real prospect of raising the stature of the one the disputant supports, with most attempts on that line ringing distinctly hollow when not actively risible. The concept of laws of war thus becomes simply another weapon of war, wielded in the same moral vacuum as any other weapon of war is. It is this that most of my comment on laws of war is aimed at, and in opposition to. When someone invokes law, they are making a claim to judgement by a uniform and neutral standard, equally applied to all. That even in ordinary civil life, this is more ideal than practice, does not alter this: that is the ideal being appealed to, when this line of argument is taken up and pressed by partisans of one or the other side in this conflict, or any other.

Most invocations of the laws of war for these propagandistic purposes fail one or both of two tests, often to a degree that is simply contemptible. They fail to apply a uniform standard neutrally to both parties; they distort the true import of the legal standard in favor of the side they prefer. Both these things are profoundly dishonest, and in debate, dishonesty has no more legitimate place than counterfeit currency has in trade. It is one thing for a person to say, "I think this is wrong; it offends my sense of morality!" but quite another to conclude that because one feels this, it is accurate to say "This breaks the law; it is a grave crime!" People do it because they want to lend some greater authority than themselves to their statements, and because they want to seem to be less partisan in their statements than they actually are. They understand that if they speak on their own authority, on the ground of their personal sense of morality, the worth of their statements can be readily impeached over the depth of their knowledge and the quality of their logic, and that when the full degree of their partisanship is evident, the worth of their statements can readily be impeached over the obviousness of the special pleading they are engaged in.

[azurnoir]

56. Sir my point was

that each side wants to conduct this war in the enviroment which gives it the best tactical advatage, I do not think that either side Hamas or IDF puts the safety of civilian first and foremost in their considerations or even second or third for that matter, and both sides have said this.
I will also confess a complete ignorance of the laws of war which is why I do not invoke such things when commenting

[The Magistrate]

57. That is Quite Correct, Ma'am, On All Counts

[bemildred]

64. Well, perhaps I ought not to have singled you out, Sir.

I do doubt that we disagree much, or at all, as to the facts. I suppose it is the propagandistic use of the term that annoys me.

The only sound argument I have seen for respecting the "laws of war" is that if they do not protect your enemies, then they do not protect you. If you can torture, then you can be tortured, you make it that sort of situation by doing that. So you are befouling your own nest, so to speak. This is quite an old argument, but people in extremis at war, or confident of their own victory, are little inclined to listen to such arguments, and never seem to have been, so it is little respected in practice, except where neither side intends to destroy the other, that is when they are least needed.

Law comes from the sovereign, and for the laws of war to be more than moral precepts or propaganda, one must have a sovereign that promulgates the laws with the means to enforce them. Such a sovereign would then rule, and constitute a de facto world government, and the laws of war would be moot.

It is nevertheless handy to invoke The ICC and the Hague from time to time in discussion, when the situation seems to merit it. But that's all it amounts to.

[The Magistrate]

66. It is True Enough, Sir, that a Sovereign World Body Would Be Required For Actual Enforcement

It is possible for great powers to impose law on lesser ones, but no irresistible mechanism for the reverse. It does seem to me to be at least possible that, over time, weight of custom and concern for 'the decent regard of mankind' could provide some curb to what greater powers might be willing to undertake, as a body of precedent and enforcement builds up in cases involving lesser powers.

[bemildred]

67. We got nothing to lose.

But I rather think we need a better class of humans than the current model.

[The Magistrate]

68. True Enough, My Friend

"The meek will inherit the earth, four cubic yards at a time."

[newtothegame]

73. Excellent Point Sir. Thanks for the read Sir. Appreciate it, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

28. Taking Up Fighting Positions, Sir, Or Storing Munitions, Etc.

In locations where an enemy attack on such legitimate targets would likely involve harm to non-combatants is not legal. Pushed to extremes, it becomes the grave crime of perfidy. Combatants must take reasonable precautions to minimize harm to non-combatants in their engagements with enemy combatants. It is not an onus that rests only on the uniformed armies of states, or only on the units which fire at enemy combatants who have arrayed themselves among non-combatants.

We are in agreement that the Israeli operation as currently underway is a poor proposition from the Israeli point of view, and that Israel is doing at present pretty much what Hamas wants it to do. If the Israeli government simply could not bring itself to refrain from military action at this time, as it might well not have been owing to constraints of its own internal political life, its proper course would have been a sharp and controllable round of air strikes, such as marked the first couple of days of this exercise, which all accounts but the most vividly propagandistic, agree were pretty cleanly carried out, and left the matter at that.

[shira]

29. excellent point sir

At that time, about 200 were killed in the first strikes with no more than 5% being civilians, by Hamas accounts. I also believe it would have been best for Israel to call it right there. Meretz called precisely for something of that magnitude - short, quick, effective, and done.

I think that would have sent a strong message to Hamas. They were caught with their pants down. Maybe they'd learn from that or else risk that kind of similar damage in future short strikes.

[Rage for Order]

35. You're tying yourself into knots with your attempt to excuse Hamas's tactics

First you say:

Israel's defense of "collateral damage" to civilians and property sounds like the wife beaters defense: "She made me hit her"

i.e. Israel blaming the victim, Hamas. But in the very next sentence, you say:

Hamas has been using Qassam rockets since 2001 and by now Israel should have developed surface to air missiles to shoot them down.

So it's Israel's fault if they get hit by a Qassam rocket because they should be able to shoot them down by now? Isn't that akin to saying, using your analogy, that the wife should've learned to defend herself by now? After all, her husband has been beating her since 2001.

You then go on to say:

...but I'm 100% sure Hamas wants Israel to create a lot of collateral damage to people and property.

Quickly followed by:

Their (Hamas's) intent is to win on the propaganda, moral and grand strategic level.

How does one win on the moral level if one hopes for "a lot of collateral damage to people and property"? Are you still wondering why that style of warfare is illegal?

[ellisonz]

38. "by now Israel should have developed surface to air missiles to shoot them down."

:rofl:

[azurnoir]

39. I read here some time back that indeed Israel had

developed such missiles but that they were too expensive to use the cost being about $10,000 dollars a piece and no I am not confusing it with the code red system

[ellisonz]

40. Such things are not easy...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/967354.html

You're narrative is incorrect. It's not the cost. It's that they don't work and the volume of projectiles we're talking about makes it near impossible.

[azurnoir]

41. I may have been wrong about cost being prohibative but

Israeli arms company successfully tests Iron Dome anti-Qassam missile

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999680.html

apparently they do exist so why are they not being used?

[The Magistrate]

43. According To That Article, Ma'am

The thing is by no means operational as yet. The first tests incorporating the whole system, missile, radar guidance, and control, may well be going on now, as these were scheduled for the end of 2008. The production staring date of 2010 is probably optimistic; this sort of thing tends to show a lot of bugs in early development. All they know at present is that intercept missile flies, and they think the radar works: bringing them together, along with the control package, and actually hitting something, will be the tricky part....

[bemildred]

46. I will be surprised if it proves a panacea for the problem.

They may well get it to work, even to work well in some cases, but it will be most expensive, and likely not robust, and means will be found to confuse it. Your comments seem sound.

[The Magistrate]

52. We Share, Sir, A Jaundiced Eye For Complexity

They seem to be trying for a laser system as well, which strikes me as mere boondoggle.

It may be simply my old fashioned nature, but something modeled on the naval Aegis system seems to me the most promising approach....

[Fozzledick]

54. Unfortunately, this fails to address the root of the problem

The current rocket attacks are Hamas' response to the effectiveness of Israel's defensive wall in stopping their previous campaign of suicide bombings inside Israel. A technical defense against the rockets, even if possible, would only lead to adaption of other offensive tactics unless Hamas is effectively dissuaded or disarmed.

[The Magistrate]

55. No One Disputes That, Sir

But that is no reason not to take a technical measure of defense if it is feasible and available. Balking an enemy's prefered means of striking is one good method of dissuading him, after all.

The rockets are a peculiarly effective form of attack in the militarized political struggle this conflict actually is. They do very little real harm, but cause a great deal of fear. The later guarantees that the Israeli government sooner or later will be drawn to violent measure to assuage its citizenry's alarm; the former guarantees the butcher's bill presented by those measures will be grotesquely one-sided, to the point of shocking the consciences of many. Striking this tool from the enemy's hand by means which kill no one would be of great benefit to Israel.

[Fozzledick]

58. While I agree with your assessment, I still find it less than an adequate solution

leading only to another recursive round of provocative attacks.

Some improvement, but the essential problems persist.

[The Magistrate]

59. The Essential Problems Are Going To Persist, Sir

Certainly violence cannot make them go away, and violence certainly cannot heal them over.

[bemildred]

62. Well, complexity is part of it, but also that solutions ought not be vastly

more expensive than the problem they are intended to solve.

There are two approaches, guided pursuit, and unguided targeting. With the first you need sensors and steering and a lot of speed, which makes interceptors expensive. With the latter you need very precise computation of an aim point in advance of where the target is, based on what you know about it's velocity vector. This is probably not feasible in real world physics except at close range. Aegis takes something like this approach, as I understand it, and also uses boatloads of ammunition to enhance it's chances, and works well up close. I don't know what sort of angular coverage it provides, I presume one deploys several together to get full coverage of all angles of approach.

If the target is capable of evasive action, or simply programmed to juke when it gets close, a bit of steering of the fins of the ballistic object perhaps, the problem gets much worse.

But the point is, all of this costs boatloads of money, to stop a cheap garage shop weapon. So it can become a form of economic war, where the fabricators of the cheap rockets have the advantage.

And one could attempt to overwhelm these expensive defenses with lots of rockets, since the defense can only target one at a time.

Cheap rockets are therefore, an excellent sort of weapon for political resistance, like car bombs and bicycle bombs and suicide bombs, and the like. And they do have a much longer military history than most people suppose.

Like you, I am very skeptical about lasers for this sort of thing. It is very difficult and expensive and clumsy to deliver the necessary quantity of energy on target at the rate required, and the longer you take to do it, the more you have to track the target in flight.

[The Magistrate]

63. Thank You, Sir

To my view some of the economic considerations may break off in a situation like this. It is a sound enough rule of thumb not to set a million dollars to catch a thousand, but the political benefits of this could well outweigh the usual economic standard. Negotiating an end to the rockets does not seem very feasible either, and would probably involve considerable cost in bribes under some form or other. The situation does demand something be done, and money is better than blood, if one must spend something like water.

So long as the rockets remain at the 'cheap and cheerful' garage assembly level, it would seem unlikely much in the way of evasive capability could be provided. Swamping the defense would remain a possibility for getting a good number through, but that has other problems from the fire's point of view. A long build-up to the mass firing would be required, which would be vulnerable to enemy surveillance and disruption; it would also restrict the firer's flexibility to make timely gestures, and in general slow down the pace of plaguing the foe. It also alters the political aspect: military reaction against waves of hundreds of weapons looks a bit better than military reaction against sporadic handfuls. It makes it too obvious someone really is trying awfully hard....

[bemildred]

65. Well, I'm not suggesting that one not pursue it,

I'm just suggesting that one not expect too much. As Mr Dick points out, other avenues will be sought when a particular one is closed off. Certainly at the garage level, barrages of rockets aimed at the same target will be hard to bring off, and perilous to the people firing them. Somewhat like firing too many mortar rounds without moving to a new location.

[azurnoir]

51. May well be going on now?

then or IDF may have decided to the more direct route as it seems

[ellisonz]

60. You don't read your own link...

Sources in the defense establishment said recently that Rafael had been instructed to complete the development of the first operational system by early 2010, and the expectation is that it will be deployed to defend Sderot and other communities bordering the Gaza Strip from Qassam rockets.

The Defense Ministry noted in a statement on Sunday that the research and development of Iron Dome goes on all week, in three shifts, which is part of the sense of urgency that is felt among staff at Rafael and defense officials regarding the need to develop an answer to the problem posed by rockets.

[azurnoir]

61. Yes the Magistrate pointed that out some 12 hours ago

perhaps you should pay more attention or did you just see a chance LOL thank you

[ellisonz]

69. MyDU...I do have a real life you know.

[azurnoir]

70. As do all of us and gee some of us even have families n/t

[Shaktimaan]

44. So the rockets are really Israel's fault?

Because they should have figured out how to shoot them down by now!

Of course! That makes total sense.

Is it also the Palestinians' faults for getting themselves killed because they stupidly allowed Hamas to fire rockets from Gaza? I mean, they should have figured out a way to stop these violent, armed militants by now, right? :sarcasm:

[ShadesOfGrey]

11. Oh I get it... the people weeping over their dead loved ones are

actually crying because they're filled with joy!

NOT!!!

[cali]

15. sheesh. that response is just pathetic.

try reading for comprehension.

[ShadesOfGrey]

17. What an arrogant ,,,

response. Try keeping that pie hole shut if you don't have anything nice to say!

[cali]

19. tough for you that I don't intimidate easily

and as for the other post, the reason the poster posted it, is because The Magistrate suggested it. And had I seen it, and I'm not remotely on Israel's side in this, I would have posted it.

Some people sadly, can't handle anything that challenges their pov. it's rather sad.

[ShadesOfGrey]

21. I agree with you...

It's sad that SOME people can't handle anything that challenges their point of view. Yup, I TOTALLY agree.

Some here are trying to justify the massacrein Gaza in the stupidest ways. I'll call 'em on it when I see it - whether I have your approval or not. Mkay?

[azurnoir]

34. Unlike those that spew hateful venom

at other posters and run away

[cali]

47. oh bullshit. I hardly run away

and yeah, I call people on their ugly biases. too bad you don't like it.

[ShadesOfGrey]

18. Oh and btw...

I think it's obvious to anyone with half a brain why the poster had to post that little story at this time.
Reading comprehension my arse!

[azurnoir]

36. No really the Magistrate requested that she did

on another thread

[The Magistrate]

42. That I Did, Ma'am

The O.P. had linked to it in a reply to some post in another thread, and it seemed to me worth its own thread.

[ShadesOfGrey]

48. I apologize to the OP...

for that response.

There has been been so much justifying of the Gaza crisis in the past couple of days that I automatically assumed that this post was another attempt to do so. I'll take a chill pill now.

[Alamuti Lotus]

30. Latest in a growing string of bad reporting by Taghreed

But as my refrain lately has become, "nothing better can be expected".

[azurnoir]

37. There is another account of the death of

Albina or Olvera al Jarou

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_gaza_ukraine

But of course as the Lebanon cqampaing of 52006 showed NYT is a totally unbiased source when it comes to Israeli Arab conflicts

[Vegasaurus]

49. You don't have to believe the NYT

or scholars from Brown University or elsewhere.

These bloggingheads call the Palestinian martyrs "nihilists" with "deathwishes" and a "death embrace" who hope to defeat ISrael by simply choosing death of their citizens and themselves.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/01/09/opinion/1231544842105/bloggingheads-israel-s-end.html

[azurnoir]

50. the article related

to just exactly how the Ukranian women and a small child died they were hardly the focus of your OP I never said anything about the Hamas fighters who were your focus. The war is being fought by 21 year olds and younger on both sides young Palestinian men who have lived their entire lives under Israeli occupation and are willing to die and young Israelis who are only too happy to oblige them neither side gives a damn about the civilians

[question everything]

71. The culture of death

this is what they believe. And they drag the women and children with them.

They are coward. Hiding behind women and children that is a shameful trait in Arab culture.

They should be condemned as women and child abusers, at least on DU which is supposed to be a liberal forum. But, no, the end justifies the means. If they can be praised as fighting the Jews than all means are acceptable.

[Vegasaurus]

72. Cowards, nihilists, death lovers, evil doers

Terrorists are the dregs of the earth, and you can't go any lower than Hamas.

Pity the children.