Hamas admits 600-700 militants were killed

[MichaelW]

From: www.haaretz.com

Link: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-admits-600-700-of-its-men-were-killed-in-cast-lead-1.323776

Hamas admitted last week that between 600 and 700 of its militants were killed during Operation Cast Lead – a figure consistent with that reported by the Israel Defense Forces.

The figure is several times higher than the previous number of fatalities that Hamas claimed it sustained during the operation.

Hamas’ military wing had previously claimed that only 49 of its militants were killed during the three-week operation that the IDF launched in December 2008. Israel had put the figure at 709.

[William Rea]

From: www.haaretz.com

Link: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-admits-600-700-of-its-men-were-killed-in-cast-lead-1.323776

This report is shameful and something that Haaretz needs to take a good long hard look at itself over.

[questionmark]

Having dug through the Goldstone Report for two days now, I fail to see how the fact that some militants were killed contradict the report.

Could somebody point me to the contradiction?

[William Rea]

Having dug through the Goldstone Report for two days now, I fail to see how the fact that some militants were killed contradict the report.

Could somebody point me to the contradiction?

It doesn't contradict Goldstone, it supports it (Page 90 of Goldstone)

Haaretz is being very dishonest with the headline and the lead into the story.

Edited November 12, 2010 by William Rea

[MichaelW]

The report stated that the number of militants killed during Operation Cast Lead was far lower than what the IDF claimed and slammed the IDF for excessive military force in Gaza (with no mention of why Israel undertook said operation I presume). Hamas said that they lost a number far less that what the Israelis said but only now have they actually admitted that the mission did in fact significantly reduce their terrorist capabilities.

[questionmark]

The report stated that the number of militants killed during Operation Cast Lead was far lower than what the IDF claimed and slammed the IDF for excessive military force in Gaza (with no mention of why Israel undertook said operation I presume). Hamas said that they lost a number far less that what the Israelis said but only now have they actually admitted that the mission did in fact significantly reduce their terrorist capabilities.

Oh? I fail to see precisely that in the report, but evidently you have not read it else you would point me to the page (link provided above). As far the excessive force, the unwarranted attacks on civilians does not go away, no matter how many militants were killed.

[MichaelW]

Excuse me? Unwarranted attacks on civilians? You honestly think that Israel would just wander into Gaza and blow it to kingdom come for no apparent reason? Hamas do not forget, targets Israeli schools, houses, hospitals etc. on sovereign Israeli territory and has no qualms about the killing of innocent civilians. Israel doesn't purposely target civilians. Hamas does. That is the difference.

[questionmark]

Excuse me? Unwarranted attacks on civilians? You honestly think that Israel would just wander into Gaza and blow it to kingdom come for no apparent reason? Hamas do not forget, targets Israeli schools, houses, hospitals etc. on sovereign Israeli territory and has no qualms about the killing of innocent civilians. Israel doesn't purposely target civilians. Hamas does. That is the difference.

That Hamas are savages does not justify a country that claims to be the good guys to behave as them. And don't come with the victim number, a victim who turns perpetrator is first and foremost a perpetrator.

[Erikl]

That Hamas are savages does not justify a country that claims to be the good guys to behave as them. And don't come with the victim number, a victim who turns perpetrator is first and foremost a perpetrator.

Let me present to you this scenario: Imia is being given away to the Turks. The Turks then estabish there rocket bases to launch at Greece mainland, hitting Thessaloniki, declaring their intentions are as follow:

1. To liberate (conquer) all of Greece in the name of Allah.

2. To reduce the Greek population to it's size in pre-1820s, declaring that all Greeks who descedant from the Greek diaspora that returned to their new independant state should be expelled or persih.

3. To return all the Turkish refugees of 1920s and their descendants to Greece.

4. To make Athenes their eternal capital city.

They will then continue and bomb Thessaloniki for 8 years from Imia. They will also kidnapp a Greek soldier and use him to terrorize his family and pressuring the Greek government.

Then I guess what would be the actions of the Greeks, and how many innocent Turks will die as a result of these actions.

[questionmark]

Let me present to you this scenario: Imia is being given away to the Turks. The Turks then estabish there rocket bases to launch at Greece mainland, hitting Thessaloniki, declaring their intentions are as follow:

1. To liberate (conquer) all of Greece in the name of Allah.

2. To reduce the Greek population to it's size in pre-1820s, declaring that all Greeks who descedant from the Greek diaspora that returned to their new independant state should be expelled or persih.

3. To return all the Turkish refugees of 1920s and their descendants to Greece.

4. To make Athenes their eternal capital city.

They will then continue and bomb Thessaloniki for 8 years from Imia. They will also kidnapp a Greek soldier and use him to terrorize his family and pressuring the Greek government.

Then I guess what would be the actions of the Greeks, and how many innocent Turks will die as a result of these actions.

Hmmm, does 1453 CE sound like something you had in history? Did not have a lasting effect either.

Besides, why would the Turks do that? They would have to take in all Greeks as their citizens with full rights even if they spread them around, after all they were Turk citizens until 1832 and in the part where I live until 1919. Just as Israel will have to take in the Palestinians as citizens with full rights unless a lasting solution is found. No matter if both sides behave like kids to small for their breeches.

[danielost]

you guys fail to see why 600 to 700 more militia were killed is important, then try 600 to 700 fewer civilians that were killed. of course this is just this time when they got caught.

[Erikl]

Hmmm, does 1453 CE sound like something you had in history? Did not have a lasting effect either.

Besides, why would the Turks do that? They would have to take in all Greeks as their citizens with full rights even if they spread them around, after all they were Turk citizens until 1832 and in the part where I live until 1919. Just as Israel will have to take in the Palestinians as citizens with full rights unless a lasting solution is found. No matter if both sides behave like kids to small for their breeches.

Your attempt to find moral equivalence between the two sides is laughable and false.

The conflict is very, very simple - much more than you'd think.

Jews want to live in their own state of Israel, and recognize Palestinians to have their own state. The Arabs (Palestinians included), do not want a Jewish state here and wish to kill or expell all of them. It's that simple. Israel gave up on a territory larger than itself for peace, with alot of oil in a time when oil prices were rising (thw 1970s). The Arabs however, even though they have 22 states, never offered to give any land to their beloved Palestinian brethren. Before 1967, when the Palestinian were under Jordanian occupation and Egyptian occupation - no one offered or tried to create a Palestinian state. And why's that? because Palestinian nationalism is an instrument to destroy Israel. The only thing that make Palestinians different, the only thing that unifies all their different clans and tribes, is their ambition to see Israel destroyed.

And with all that - Israel is still willing to see yet another Arab state created in what we consider our historical land, and still attempt to avoid civilian casualties.

[ships-cat]

Hmmm... I may be going off at a slight tangent here, but isn't some of the above criticism of Israel a bit .. well... not hypocritical exactly, but "Comfy Armchair Criticism" ?

We had this with the discussion on the Naval Blockade elswhere on the forum. I would put it to you that any nation that has suffered the sort of terrorist attacks that Israel has suffered, has also reacted in very similar ways.

In making that statement, I would have to add that no nation HAS been (or is currently) in the same position as Israel, or suffered the same level of continous (and I mean for DECADES) attack, at such a ferocious level.

As I wrote in the other thread: consider the UK experience with the IRA. It was at a MUCH lower level of violence than that in the Middle EAst, and yet the UK government adopted many of the techniques that we currently criticise Israel for. I would cite the same thing with the USA's reaction after 9/11. (Invading Afghanistan, illegal detainment and torture.. etcetera).

So really... criticising them for Operation Cast Lead, and the high civilian death toll ? Well GOSH .. how about we look at the mote in our own eyes, before commenting on the beam, in Israels ?

meow purr

[William Rea]

Excuse me? Unwarranted attacks on civilians? You honestly think that Israel would just wander into Gaza and blow it to kingdom come for no apparent reason? Hamas do not forget, targets Israeli schools, houses, hospitals etc. on sovereign Israeli territory and has no qualms about the killing of innocent civilians. Israel doesn't purposely target civilians. Hamas does. That is the difference.

You skipped a question.

With exact reference to Goldstone please.

[questionmark]

Your attempt to find moral equivalence between the two sides is laughable and false.

The conflict is very, very simple - much more than you'd think.

Jews want to live in their own state of Israel, and recognize Palestinians to have their own state. The Arabs (Palestinians included), do not want a Jewish state here and wish to kill or expell all of them. It's that simple. Israel gave up on a territory larger than itself for peace, with alot of oil in a time when oil prices were rising (thw 1970s). The Arabs however, even though they have 22 states, never offered to give any land to their beloved Palestinian brethren. Before 1967, when the Palestinian were under Jordanian occupation and Egyptian occupation - no one offered or tried to create a Palestinian state. And why's that? because Palestinian nationalism is an instrument to destroy Israel. The only thing that make Palestinians different, the only thing that unifies all their different clans and tribes, is their ambition to see Israel destroyed.

And with all that - Israel is still willing to see yet another Arab state created in what we consider our historical land, and still attempt to avoid civilian casualties.

There is no moral equivalence to atrocities, they are all atrocities and it is quite irrelevant how many took damage in one.

And you say that the Jews (well not all, as I exemplify) want to live in Israel, well they should live in Israel. In the borders of 1967.

How the Jordanians and the Palestinians solve their problem is up to the Jordanians and Palestinians. I fail to see how a third party has to get involved, and what is more, trying to justify its own immoralty by the immorality of others.

[William Rea]

Oh? I fail to see precisely that in the report, but evidently you have not read it else you would point me to the page (link provided above). As far the excessive force, the unwarranted attacks on civilians does not go away, no matter how many militants were killed.

Questionmark, keep these guys honest, don't allow them to deflect from the Haaretz article with obfuscation, faced with bare truth it is clear from the posts so far that this is their tactic.

Some homework for the naysayers. Compare and contrast the following...

1. The Haaretz Headline and lead paragraph

2. Page 90 of Goldstone

3. Precisely what Fathi Hamad said.

If these people cannot even be bothered to do that then they are just propogandists.

[MichaelW]

Hmmm... I may be going off at a slight tangent here, but isn't some of the above criticism of Israel a bit .. well... not hypocritical exactly, but "Comfy Armchair Criticism" ?

Get used to it. These people will post absolutely anything which will put Israel in any form of negative light. Some of their arguments and reasons are some of the funniest and most ridiculous things I have seen for ages.

You skipped a question.

With exact reference to Goldstone please

Give me on reason why I should. I didn't see anything there which criticized those who started the war in the first place.

[danielost]

Get used to it. These people will post absolutely anything which will put Israel in any form of negative light. Some of their arguments and reasons are some of the funniest and most ridiculous things I have seen for ages.

Give me on reason why I should. I didn't see anything there which criticized those who started the war in the first place.

you have to remember the jews started this war, by simple moving to the area.

[Agent X]

The Jews started the ware simply for existing.

[danielost]

The Jews started the ware simply for existing.

some would have us believe so.

[William Rea]

Once more...

Some homework for the naysayers. Compare and contrast the following...

1. The Haaretz Headline and lead paragraph

2. Page 90 of Goldstone

3. Precisely what Fathi Hamad said.

If these people cannot even be bothered to do that then they are just propogandists.

[Knight Of Shadows]

well of course israel started the war that's simply a fact

now they complain about the results they reap ?

you don't want people to attack you .. simply solution get off their

land and home

it's as simple as it can be

[danielost]

well of course israel started the war that's simply a fact

now they complain about the results they reap ?

you don't want people to attack you .. simply solution get off their

land and home

it's as simple as it can be

except that the jews bought the land in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

[questionmark]

except that the jews bought the land in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

So, if 10,000 Chinese show up and buy half of Utah that allows them to establish their own country?

Edited November 14, 2010 by questionmark

[Knight Of Shadows]

in his point of views yep it allows it to become chinese