Israeli F-16 bombers have launched a series of air strikes against key targets in the Gaza Strip, killing at least 155 people, medical chiefs say.
Gaza officials and the Hamas militant group said about 200 others were hurt as missiles hit security compounds and militant bases across the territory.
The strikes, the most intense Israeli attacks on Gaza in years, come days after a truce with Hamas expired.
Israel said it was responding to an escalation in rocket attacks from Gaza.
Palestinian militants frequently fire rockets against Israeli towns from inside the Gaza Strip; large numbers of rocket and mortar shells had been fired at Israel in recent days.
In a statement, Israel's military said it targeted "Hamas terror operatives" as well as training camps and weaponry storage warehouses.
In the West Bank, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - whose Fatah faction was ousted from Gaza by Hamas in 2007 - condemned the attacks and called for restraint.
But Hamas quickly vowed to carry out revenge attacks on Israel in response to the air strikes, firing Qassam rockets into Israeli territory as an immediate reply.
At least one Israeli was killed by a rocket strike in the town of Netivot, doctors said.
"Hamas will continue the resistance until the last drop of blood," spokesman Fawzi Barhoum was reported as saying.
Israel also stood firm, saying operations "will continue, will be expanded, and will deepen if necessary".
International reaction was swift and expressed concern, with many world leaders calling for calm and an immediate ceasefire.
Rising toll
A White House spokesman said the United States "urges Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza".
"Hamas' continued rocket attacks into Israel must cease if the violence is to stop," the spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, added.
The UK Foreign Office said: "We urge maximum restraint to avoid further civilian casualties."
The French presidency of the EU meanwhile called for an immediate halt to the shooting by both sides.
Reports of the casualties in Gaza mounted swiftly after news broke of the Israeli operation, in which at least 30 missiles were fired by F-16 fighter bombers.
Images from the scenes of strikes showed dead and injured Palestinians, burning and destroyed buildings, and scenes of panic and chaos on Gaza's crowded streets.
Residents spoke of children heading to and from school at the time of the attacks, and there were fears of civilian casualties, although no detailed information was available from hospitals.
Israel hit targets across Gaza, striking in the territory's main population centres, including Gaza City in the north and the southern towns of Khan Younis and Rafah.
Egypt opened its border crossing to the Gaza Strip at Rafah to absorb and treat some of those injured in the south of the territory.
Most of the dead and injured were said to be in Gaza City, where Hamas's main security compound was destroyed. The head of Gaza's police forces, Tawfik Jaber, was reportedly among those killed.
Reuters news agency said at least 20 people were thought to have died in Khan Younis.
Hamas said all of its security compounds in Gaza were destroyed by the Israeli air strikes, which Israel said hit some 40 targets across the territory.
The air strikes are the most intense Israel has launched against Gaza for some time, and come amid rumours that a ground operation is imminent.
Israeli security officials have been briefing about the possibility of a new offensive into Gaza for some days now, says the BBC's Paul Wood, in Jerusalem.
But most reports centred on the possibility of a ground offensive, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was not expected to authorise any operation until Sunday at the earliest.
Although a six-month truce between Hamas and Israel was agreed earlier this year, it was regularly under strain and was allowed to lapse when it expired this month.
Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the ceasefire, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the blockade under which little more than humanitarian aid has been allowed into Gaza.
Israel said it initially began a staged easing of the blockade, but this was halted when Hamas failed to fulfil what Israel says were agreed conditions, including ending all rocket fire and halting weapons smuggling.
Israel says the blockade - in place since Hamas took control of Gaza in June 2007 - is needed to isolate Hamas and stop it and other militants from firing rockets across the border at Israeli towns.
from BBC.co.uk
What the fuck?! Granted Hamas has been behaving terribly. They refused to renew the truce and have been firing rockets into Israel. But--as per usual--those rockets killed or injured a very small numer of Israelis. I think 1 Israeli has been killed in the last week. So Israel levels part of Gaza wih air strikes and kills 155 people? How is that in any way a balanced response? God damn it. Gaza is already like a 140 square mile prison, especially since the Israeli embargo. People live in appalling conditions. And yes, Hamas is to blame for a lot of it. But popular opinion has tunred against Hamas over the last coupe of years. But I can bet it increases now. And it will increase even more when Hamas starts killing dozens of Israelis in suicide attacks. For Christ's sake Israel should see this coming.
Update: Nearly 200 killed. Many civilians. Even sadder.
....now over 225.
....nearly 300 and now more attacks...
....over 350 and 1400 injured. At least 60 civilians. 2 Israelis killed by Hamas rockets.
5 comments:
Sadly, these headlines have appeared so many times now it's almost passé. "Hamas fires rockets into Israel, Israel responds by bombing the shit out of them." It's difficult not to be a bit jaded.
I truly am remorseful that innocent people are being killed in these attacks, and the aftermath takes on the lives of those affected by the violence.
But FFS, it's not this came out of no where. If Israel's response is so fucking predictable, stop firing the fucking rockets. Stop smuggling weapons. Stop engaging in activities that serve no purpose beyond provoking the Israelis.
And it seems that most Americans feel the same way. I've seen a couple of major polls taken, and they generally seem to break somewhere in the area of 60% in favor of Israel's response being justified.
I'm having a difficult time disagreeing; For the same reason I have a hard time feeling sorry for a kid who throws rocks at a tiger at the zoo, only to have the tiger jump the fence, eat his face, and kill his family.
:(
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. This is what Hamas wants. The more Palestinian homes destroyed, the more Palestinian children killed the more support Hamas gets. Is it rational for Palestinians to support Hamas? On the one hand no. They should see how Hamas actions instigate Israel. On the other, mmmm...maybe. They see that Israel has imposed an embargo that basically starves them, that Israel has sealed Gaza making it a virtual prison, and that Israeli security has arrested (at one point or another) some notable percentage of the adult male population. And now, as in the past, they see Israeli jets and helicopters leveling their neighborhoods and killing their children.
So some Palestinians will support Hamas's activities. They cheer when rockets hit Israel or suicide bomber kill Israeli civilians. But most look at like why the FUCK does my house get leveled just because a couple of hundred radicals (seriously, Hamas has about 500 armed soldiers) want to start shit with Israel?
And your Tiget analogy is totally off. One, it would suggest that Israel is in no way strategic. And for that matter neither is Hamas. More importantly, though, fine, don't feel bad for the kid. He might deserve what he got. But feel bad for the rest of the people that mauled by no fault of their own. Still, the analogy bugs me because it it completely inapplicable here.
Let's use another analogy. If the two of use are walking down the street and I through a rock at a group of thugs, and they shoot both of us, who is to blame? Me? Sure. I was acting like a dumb ass. I provoked some bad looking guys who probably had guns. You? Probably not. You didn't do anything. You were just there. You might have even said "Reed don't do that! For the love of God you will get us killed." The dudes who shot us? Hell yes! They responded to a rock with a gun. Most courts would find that response far beyond any reasonable attempt at self defense. Flatly, their response was unbalanced and they would deserve to be punished.
And as for American public opinion. Fuck it. Most Americans no jack shit about the conflict. Most have never met or talked to anyone from Israel or Palestine. And certainly most can in no way begin to think they have any idea what life is like in Gaza. Hell, most Americans supported invasion of Iraq in 2004. Look where that got us all.
He who lives in a glass house should not cast bullshit! (or something...) Let's take your analogy a little further, then, shall we? And this time, we'll leave out any suspect imagery like a hapless "tiger" or a group of "thugs".
You and I live in a house together next to a larger family that we know is armed to the teeth. We've had disputes about a number of things for ages; and we constantly accost each other, make physical threats, and get into physical altercations. They see us as assholes, we think of them as bullies.
Over the few months, you have been launching large rocks over the fence, hoping to hit somebody someday by pure chance. But mostly just to irk them. I often say "Reed, you really shouldn't do that...", but I just sorta give in to the notion that I'm not your keeper, and can't stop you. Besides, I hate our neighbors, too.
One day, you are successful... by pure chance, your lobbed rock hits a member of the family in the head while they were outside mowing the lawn. He/she is taken to the hospital, but dies from his/her injury.
That night, the neighboring family patriarch comes over with a rifle and fires a hail of bullets at you. He was aiming at you, specifically, but kills me too because I happen to be standing next to you at the time. A disproportionate response? Absolutely. Now let's imagine for a moment that we live in a place where there is *no* law enforcement to speak of, no one who will commit the time and resources to actually protect us from each other. There's no higher authority to stop us from lobbing rocks, or stop him from shooting at us... (besides our other neighbors who are likely to pitch a stink, but for the most part aren't inclined to interfere).
If there is no system in place to hold people accountable for their actions, and you are responsible for protecting your family and your property, you might be inclined to be more heavy handed in your response, too.
The analogy isn't complete of course. No analogy is, and we can go back and forth all day long. But you constantly seem to assert that Israel is a mindless, brutal thug, and the Palestinians are just hapless victims of their brutality, and *that*, is triple bullshit too.
Personally, I'm starting to think that the "best" thing that could happen is for Fatah and Israel to ally against Hamas, and run a coordinated campaign to crush the organization to kill Hamas once and for all (if that's even possible).
Is Israel's response heavy handed? Yes it is, and I wish their response had been more measured. But in the end, do I blame them? No, not really. And the thing is, the more you sugar coat Hamas' role in all this, the less objective your arguments appear to me, and the less likely I am to be persuaded by them.
I'm perfectly content to blame both parties for being asshats. But I am compelled to defend the Israelis precisely because you attack them so vehemently, with little criticism for Hamas' part in the conflict.
Yeah, I follow your analogy. And you are still dead from no fault of your own. And it is the fault of me (indirectly) and the neighbors (directly). You seem to have made my point. Two parties share guilt at your death, but one has the blood literally on their hands.
No one should cheer Hamas, but the attitude that you and the US administration, and maybe even most Americans have, is that while it sucks that hundreds or thousands of innocent people die every year from Israeli attacks, the fault really lies with Hamas, a group of several hundred radicals in a sea of nearly a million bystanders. So, sucks for the innocent, who by the way have no control over Hamas. And Israel gets at worst a plea to be ever so slightly less brutal from the US.
Again, blame Hamas all you want. I have never sugar coated anything about them. I have only ever tried to show the rational to their actions. Why the fuck does it always seem that arguments against Israel get twisted into pro-Hamas arguments? Screw Hamas. Why is it so hard for most you and so many other Americans to say the same thing about Israel? I understand their rational as well as I understand Hamas's, but that doesn't mean I would defend their actions.
My concern is for the thousands of people killed or injured or left homeless and destitute as a DIRECT RESULT of Israeli actions. You can't give Israel a pass because it is engaging in counter terror or because Hamas is awful. The bullshit I mentioned before is that Israel gets off light as a result of arguments like the one you are making. "Well, I am defending my family so killing you, your wife, your kids, your dog, and the neighbors on the other side is totally justified." It is not. It is a wrongheaded, counterproductive, and repugnant response. System of law or no system of law it is wrong.
Ok, I just can't resist. Following the logic of your analogy outward, at what point does the civilian cost become unacceptable? Would it be justified to kill just the family next door? Their neighbors as well? Maybe the whole block hates the guys, so is burning the whole thing down justifiable?
So to bring it back to the actual situation: If Israel could annihilate Hamas, permanently crush the organization, would it be worth 10,000 Palestinian deaths? 100,000?
And lastly, yes, most of the Palestinians ARE certainly innocent bystanders. Why the hell would you think they have any control over Hamas?
Post a Comment