Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumOn Eve of Ceasefire, Hamas Celebrates Bus Explosion with Sweet Cakes
The Ma’an news agency reports that Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri hailed the explosion in Tel Aviv this afternoon.
“Hamas blesses the attack in Tel Aviv and sees it as a natural response to the Israeli massacres…in Gaza,” he told Reuters. “Palestinian factions will resort to all means in order to protect our Palestinian civilians in the absence of a world effort to stop the Israeli aggression.”
Sweet cakes were handed out in celebration in Gaza’s main hospital, which has been inundated with wounded from the round-the-clock Israeli bombing and shelling.
“You opened the gates of hell on yourselves,” Hamas’s armed wing, the al-Qassam brigades, said on Twitter. “Oh Zionists, you have to drag yourselves out of hell, go back home now, go back to Germany, Poland, Russia, America and anywhere else.”
MORE...
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/on-eve-of-ceasefire-hamas-celebrates-bus-explosion-with-sweet-cakes/2012/11/21/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)There was supposed to be one that went into effect at midnight (4pm cst Tuesday) that never materialized 
demokatgurrl
(3,931 posts)is "Give peace a chance".
(Whatever happened to the "sarcasm" smilie?)
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)The world prays for a Palestinian leader who sees non-violence as the solution to move forward and can capture the hearts of his people. “You opened the gates of hell on yourselves” is really “We leave open the gates of hell on ourselves”.
There is no chance US and / or world opinion or actions will move their way while they blow up buses full of innocent Israelis. Their parade of fools leads to the abyss...
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This bus bombing is despicable, as is the case when anyone kills innocent civilians (I don't distinguish between targeting civilians and striking "legitimate" targets when civilians are known to be present).
But, there was no "eve of ceasefire." This bombing isn't what caused a ceasefire to fail to materialize. It does, however, suggest a widening of fighting. This escalation is good for no one. The Middle East is is for a hard winter.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)22 people have been seriously injured on a Tel Aviv bus....This is very sad but how come it is plastered over all the news networks who hardly mention that there was been another 20 people killed in Gaza and probably another 100 injured........Palestinian lives and injuries apparently don't count as much as injured Israelis.
shira
(30,109 posts)Intent really does make a difference.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:38 AM - Edit history (1)
Murder is what Israeli's did to the Hamas policeman's family.......or perhaps you think a policeman isn't a civilian and deserves to be murdered?
shira
(30,109 posts)Hamas policeman are Hamasniks. They're legit targets.
If you remember, 4 years ago the IDF bombed the Hamas police HQ. Some 100-200 dead. Hamas even admitted they were militants.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Hamas policeman are Hamasniks. They're legit targets.
No doubt Hamas considers that the Israelis it targets are Netanyahuniks and that they are legitimate targets.....Murder is murder, but Hamas are not quite as good at it as Israel........100-200 dead policemen, and you have no remorse!
Non-Jewish lives appear to be valueless to you...... You have no shred of evidence that any of these policemen had anything to do with attacks on Israel but that doesn't stop you being pleased that they were deliberately targeted and killed by Israel at the very start of Cast Lead.
shira
(30,109 posts)Not exactly like civilian police, now are they?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)The first two lines from your reference:
Hamas has up to 20,000 men divided between its armed wing, known as the Izzedine Al-Qassam Brigades, and paramilitary police, commonly known as Executive Force.
Does that imply the Hamas Paramilitary Police are the same as Quassam Brigades or that they are a totally separate unit responsible for policing the civil population?.....You may not like how they treat Gaza civilians but that is no justification for Israel to murder them.
Now I challenge you to find any reference which suggests that the Hamas Paramilitary Police have had anything to do with attacks on Israel or terrorism.
If you can't find such a reference, is it too much to ask you to admit that the Hamas policemen were murdered by Israel?
shira
(30,109 posts)During OCL, the Police killed then were 83% al-Qassam brigades. Like 286 out of 343.
I marvel at all these accusations of "murder" from people who either ignore, explain away, diminish, or deny Hamas' overall strategy to use the entire population of Gaza as one big human shield (a horrendous warcrime for which they are responsible, not Israel).
In my book, apologists for this major war crime are as vile as Hamas and only use Palestinian casualties to incite hatred, demonize, and dehumanize Israelis, Zionists, and Jews.
Sick.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)
Does that justify the killing of a Hamas policeman's ten family members?
You make a nasty slur when you say "In my book, apologists for this major war crime..." In what way do you think I have been an "apologist" for Hamas and for which major war crime?
An apologist is someone like yourself who can only see one side in this conflict......I loathe the bloodshed on both sides but Israel is a western democracy and has failed miserably to bring this 60 year conflict to a peaceful soution.
Hamas, on the other hand is a resistance movement fighting for what they consider is an injustice......You hate them because they use despicable methods to resist Israel's domination of their homeland.....You think Israel is not responsible for the injustice, Hamas think Israel is, which is why this conflict goes on.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Is this a site that you are a fan of?
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Look through some of the op-eds.
They are further right than Fox News.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)News.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I wasn't sure if you posted it ironically or not.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)That is quite interesting. I wonder why that is.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)could care less whether YOU liked the source or not.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am not asking why you didn't go through any extra effort - I'm asking why certain news sources provide certain types of coverage and other don't.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)to attempt to make sure they fall within the ToS of this forum.
Beyond that there is nothing more I'm obligated to do.
I'm approaching close to 10K posts and I can safely estimate that 95% of the posts are in the form of an article.
I think I pretty much have it figured out by now as this is what I like to do. Not the 'chatty' type myself.
Carry on as this conservation is over.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you've criticized for sources being too liberal or too right wing but what is just right? What bowl of news is just right?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... I see it.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)At least I think it was based on the name.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Israel has them as does Egypt. In fact it looks like they are both running the show right now.
I really do wish that peace and common sense would break out.
King_David
(14,851 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/brandeis-u-owes-jimmy-carter-an-apology-israelis-agree-they-run-apartheid-state-as-far-right-wing-coalition-emerges.html
Article he links to.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/israelis-back-discrimination-against-arabs-poll-20121024-2844m.html
Jimmy Carter: Israel's 'apartheid' policies worse than South Africa's
http://www.haaretz.com/news/jimmy-carter-israel-s-apartheid-policies-worse-than-south-africa-s-1.206865
UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/un-committee-israeli-system-tantamount-to-apartheid.html
Israel an apartheid state? A majority of Jews say yes
http://rt.com/news/israel-apartheid-survey-098/
UN envoy hits Israel 'apartheid'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6390755.stm
Who is wrong: all these people, including a poll by Israelis, or you?
When you consider your opinion that Israel can do no wrong you have already lost.
Tell me, when will you start screaming that they are all anti-Semites?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Labeling Israel "The Apartheid state or entity" is all the rage from far left to far right nowdays ..
It's "in" and everyone's doing it.
... Israel the Apartheid State :
In Tel Aviv They put French Fries in their Shwarma...gross..Israel the Apartheid State
In the Knesset they have Coca Cola Machines not Pepsi ....Israel the Apartheid State
They have in supermarkets Milky and Milky afooch....Israel the Apartheid State
Pesach time the Bakeries sell Kosher Lepesach Bread Cakes and Bagels...Israel the Apartheid State
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)He regurgitates a nothing comeback since he has...
nothing.
I expected no less.
I believe that your name should really be King D minus.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)"All" of those people, yes. Although there aren't that many in reality if you actually click on those links.
Three of them are based on the same problematic poll, which suffered not only from issues in how its questions were presented, but then saw its data misrepresented.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/23/that-poll-s-apartheid-problem.html
Individuals like Jimmy Carter are so biased regarding this conflict that their opinions can hardly be counted as objective. And the UN hardly has a history of impartiality regarding Israel. That committee found that Israel was guilty of apartheid not only in the OPT, but within Israel proper as well. Which might be the most absurd accusation leveled against the state yet. Using their standards, any example of racism or discrimination is evidence of apartheid. The terms seem to be interchangeable.
Left out of the discussion is the reality that if we are to label Israel as being an apartheid state then that would mean that most states in the world are apartheid nations as well.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I'm sure that if I was to include more of "those people" and their quotes on Israeli apartheid the partisans would cluck their tongue in unison and tell me why they were all irrelevant.
The funny thing is that the language that I am getting from the apology brigade was that nobody was calling Israel's actions apartheid, but when I produce a few examples of apartheid being used by others to define Israel the narrative that they try to push is that they are either irrelevant or discredited.
Carter Irrelevant? Wrong.
The UN irrelevant? Wrong.
I've been told in this forum that poll after poll a majority of Americans support Israel no matter what. Now I am being told that polls don't matter...when they portray Israel in less than stellar fashion? 
Yes I am actually laughing.
Strange quote here.
Left out of the discussion is the reality that if we are to label Israel as being an apartheid state then that would mean that most states in the world are apartheid nations as well.
Really? This is a Fox News style talking point.
This resembles the false equivalency card where the American press says that both Republicans and Democrats do it so the Dems and Repubs are the same...except they are not. The difference is that, again and for the thousandth time, that Israel receives $$ from the USA where these other unnamed countries may not...probably don't and that as a Big DEE Democracy that they shouldn't be doing this at all.
Strange that on one hand you try to suggest that
1) The poll is wrong somehow. Poor you.
2) The other parties are discredited just because partisans say so.
3) Other states are guilty of what you are accusing Israel of so what's the big problem?
From the article that you tried to discredit.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/israelis-back-discrimination-against-arabs-poll-20121024-2844m.html
When specifically questioned on whether there is apartheid in Israel, 58 per cent said there was – of those, 39 per cent said apartheid existed "in some respects" and 19 per cent said it existed "in many respects". Thirty-one per cent believed there was no apartheid.
So do you or others plan on discrediting or marginalizing these Israelis?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Well, you have certainly done a thorough job of twisting what I wrote to suit your purposes. Allow me to clarify and hopefully disabuse you of some of your misconceptions regarding my opinion.
Now I never said that no one was accusing Israel of apartheid. On the contrary I think that a popular anti-zionist movement exists that seeks to demonize Israel in any respect possible. Accusing Israel of apartheid seems to be a somewhat common criticism lately. Nor did I ever say that Israel's accusers were "irrelevant" and only in specific cases would I use the term "discredited."
What I did say is that many of those who level this accusation are doing so not from a position of objective investigation but rather from a highly biased platform that seeks to demonize Israel in any way possible. The people you listed have well established reputations of always siding against Israel to the point of dishonesty.
Carter's book was rife with both factual errors and (more commonly) selective editing of historical events that left the reader with a decidedly distorted understanding of how certain events unfolded. The UN has a long and problematic history of anti-semitism and of discriminating against Israel. Alone among national movements, Zionism was singled out as being the equivalent of racism. Alone among member states, Israel remains the only country that is ineligible to sit on the security council or participate in any committees outside of the NYC offices. The UN Human Rights Council has focused almost exclusively on Israel, condemning it numerous times and criticizing it in more resolutions than the rest of the world's states put together. No other state has yet been condemned by the committee. Simply put, these are not objective judges of Israeli guilt in any respect.
No, you are being told that this poll is probably not accurate due to its small sample size and poorly worded questions.
A great example of my point, thank you. At no point in the poll was anyone "specifically questioned on whether there is apartheid in Israel."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-changes-tack-on-major-story-that-alleged-widespread-apartheid-attitudes-in-israel/
Whether or not a state gets aid from the US has no relevance in determining if it practices apartheid or not. You may argue that this variable makes the practice of apartheid WORSE than when other states do it, I guess. But it has no impact on whether a specific state engages in apartheid.
Well, seeing as how even you misunderstood what it was asking perhaps that criticism has some validity, don't you think? Or are you going to keep arguing for the validity of questions that never even appeared in the poll itself?
Other parties are discredited because of their biased viewpoints and history of espousing extremist propaganda, and sometimes even engaging in outright anti-semitism.
Hardly. The issue is that apartheid has been identified as a crime against humanity; among the worst crimes that a state can perpetrate against another group of humans. Now if we dilute the meaning of apartheid so that any instances of discrimination or racism meets the definition then both "apartheid" and "crimes against humanity" become so commonplace as to be meaningless.
At no point was I excusing any instances of racism, or making any kind of value judgement at all. Rather I am pointing out the problem faced by those who seek to single Israel out with the apartheid label to villianize her. Israel's policies are decidedly less racist and discriminatory as compared to most other countries. We can not accuse Israel of practicing apartheid without agreeing that almost everyone practices apartheid, effectively neutering the label itself. I never attempted to marginalize ACTUAL instances of real apartheid. Ironically, it is falsely applying this label to Israel that reduces the severity of the word's meaning.
At the end of the day the key issue remains that no Israeli policy meets the definition of apartheid, period.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Now I never said that no one was accusing Israel of apartheid. On the contrary I think that a popular anti-zionist movement exists that seeks to demonize Israel in any respect possible. Accusing Israel of apartheid seems to be a somewhat common criticism lately. Nor did I ever say that Israel's accusers were "irrelevant" and only in specific cases would I use the term "discredited."
In two short sentences you admit that there are critics of Israeli regarding apartheid then move on to try and discredit them by calling them "anti-zionist" and "demonizers", and then in the third you claim that it is just a new thing to accuse Israel of. In the last sentence you declare that you have never done that which you had just attempted in the previous two. To discredit one for their views is to make their opinion or ruling irrelevant. It is amazing that you were able to shovel so much into such a tiny bag.
What I did say is that many of those who level this accusation are doing so not from a position of objective investigation but rather from a highly biased platform that seeks to demonize Israel in any way possible. The people you listed have well established reputations of always siding against Israel to the point of dishonesty.
And then you pick up the shovel again and start packing an even smaller bag. I guess that an Nobel Prize winning American President and the UN are highly biased demonizers of Israel.
Carter's book was rife with both factual errors and (more commonly) selective editing of historical events that left the reader with a decidedly distorted understanding of how certain events unfolded. The UN has a long and problematic history of anti-semitism and of discriminating against Israel. Alone among national movements, Zionism was singled out as being the equivalent of racism. Alone among member states, Israel remains the only country that is ineligible to sit on the security council or participate in any committees outside of the NYC offices. The UN Human Rights Council has focused almost exclusively on Israel, condemning it numerous times and criticizing it in more resolutions than the rest of the world's states put together. No other state has yet been condemned by the committee. Simply put, these are not objective judges of Israeli guilt in any respect.
Carter's book will understandably draw criticism from those whose interests are tied to Israeli policy, who will never acknowledge any acts of apartheid against Palestinians and by those who wish to bury the truth with allegations of factual errors and selective editing. Marginalize and demonize to irrelevancy. You demonize the UN with the warning cards of anti-semitism and discrimination against Israel for not letting them sit on the Security Council or Human Rights Council. Perhaps the fact that Israel has ignored well over 60 UN resolutions against it might give you some insight that the UN has absolutely no obligation to seat any nation at these councils with that kind of dismal record. If you are looking for a reason look to that before you raise the red card again. Be honest.
A great example of my point, thank you. At no point in the poll was anyone "specifically questioned on whether there is apartheid in Israel."
On further reading that there was a retraction or at least a poor language translation from Hebrew to English I amend my point about the poll. There is apparently more to this, but if there is doubt with this poll then I won't pursue it.
Whether or not a state gets aid from the US has no relevance in determining if it practices apartheid or not. You may argue that this variable makes the practice of apartheid WORSE than when other states do it, I guess. But it has no impact on whether a specific state engages in apartheid.
If a state receives aid from any country that practices Democracy then it damn well has relevance in determining if it practices apartheid or not; especially when it is supposed to be a Democracy itself. Apartheid should not exist in any Democracy. I shouldn't need to argue this point any further. It should be crystal clear. If you are a Democracy then you should be expected to act like one. You can't exist as a Democracy for the few, and ignore human rights issues.
Other parties are discredited because of their biased viewpoints and history of espousing extremist propaganda, and sometimes even engaging in outright anti-semitism.
I can only gauge that you are referring again to Nobel Peace Prize winning President and the UN in general. Neither have been discredited. Perhaps in your opinion they have, but opinions vary.
The issue is that apartheid has been identified as a crime against humanity; among the worst crimes that a state can perpetrate against another group of humans. Now if we dilute the meaning of apartheid so that any instances of discrimination or racism meets the definition then both "apartheid" and "crimes against humanity" become so commonplace as to be meaningless.
The very essence of Apartheid is the discrimination and separation of race, or in the instance of Palestinians race religion and land, over one group by another. Nobody is diluting the meaning. Israel currently practices crimes against the Palestinians through removal from their homes, lands, farms and livelihood. 190k Israeli settlers have taken up residence on land that is not theirs on 200+ settlements and outposts, and in many cases Palestinians have been pushed out of these areas. Hebron is a sad example.
At no point was I excusing any instances of racism, or making any kind of value judgement at all. Rather I am pointing out the problem faced by those who seek to single Israel out with the apartheid label to villianize her. Israel's policies are decidedly less racist and discriminatory as compared to most other countries. We can not accuse Israel of practicing apartheid without agreeing that almost everyone practices apartheid, effectively neutering the label itself. I never attempted to marginalize ACTUAL instances of real apartheid. Ironically, it is falsely applying this label to Israel that reduces the severity of the word's meaning.
The only player that matters in this who is villainizing Israel is Israel itself. It has become its own worst enemy in this regard. When it decided that its citizens could colonize land that didn't belong to them, protect them while doing it, harassed and pushed out those who owned and farmed the land, destroyed property not belonging to them and created refugees and an underclass that it treats as second class citizens it became the antithesis of what is just and moral. We can very well accuse Israel of these actions since, again, they are supposed to be a Democracy. That is supposed to mean something. You can very well accuse America of such things in its past: slavery, Jim Crow, the abysmal treatment of the indigenous peoples. You can accuse others of it as well, and it doesn't make it any less wrong or neutered in label or action.
At the end of the day the key issue remains that no Israeli policy meets the definition of apartheid, period.
You can ignore what goes on in Israel at your own error as long as you like, but that does not change the fact that sooner or later, if Israel keeps to the same course, it will have to pay a heavy price for its brutal behavior of superiority of one race over another. You can claim nothing Israel does will ever be the same as apartheid. I disagree, and I am not alone.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I'm not discrediting people for the most part. I am rejecting their views as they are often biased, inaccurate or anti-semitic.
Why do you think that having a Nobel is any indication that Carter is free from bias or dishonesty? And how can any objective person look at the UN's past behavior and consider them to be honest and fair regarding Israel?
You know, I have probably read about two dozen books on this conflict, and countless articles. Many of which were highly critical of Israeli policies and acts, both current and historical. Many of them were very well done. Some of them were not though. My issue with Carter's book isn't that it speaks the terrible truth about Israel that I want to keep covered up for my own benefit. You do not know me so I am not sure why you would be so quick to assume that anyone who critiques Carter or his book must be coming from such a place. I'm assuming you haven't read the book yourself? What he did was the equivalent of writing a book about world war 2 and leaving out the fact that Germany invaded Poland, France and Holland and perpetrated the Holocaust. You would end up with a book that made the Nazis look quite sympathetic, merely by omitting a few key events. You see, my issue with Carter's book is that it WAS extremely biased and dishonest and that it WAS rife with errors and distortions, not that it criticized Israel, and certainly not because it told the truth. For example, one I remember off the top of my head, it is not actually true that Israel attacked Jordan in 1967, no matter what Carter says.
I wonder if you can see the irony in the fact that you implore me to be honest, yet in the very sentence before that you chose to comment on the fact that Israel is restricted in its participation at the UN by making a guess as to the reason, and posting it as though there was some factual basis for it. Instead of bothering to google the real answer (and there is a real answer, and yours is not it), you invented a reason out of whole cloth, working from the concept of making sure that the answer (whatever it was), must make Israel at fault. So you came up with a plausible reason that makes Israel out to be the cause of the UN discriminating against it, and posted it, along with an implied accusation that I was the one being less than honest.
Does it not give you pause as to why Israel has hundreds and hundreds of resolutions condemning it, (more than the rest of the world's nations added together!) in the first place, (if the UN is as impartial as you think?) Is Israel the worst nation on earth many times over? It's a democracy where everyone has the vote. It's far and away the most diverse nation in the whole middle east, with equal rights guaranteed under the law regardless of ones race, religion or heritage. It has had a female prime minister and an Arab president. Non-Jews are represented at all levels of government and in the military. It follows one of the most stringent rules of engagement of any military and boasts of the best civilian to enemy death ratio of any army on earth.
Other nations engage in slavery, institutionalized rape, gross ethnic and gender-based discrimination and oppression, female genital mutilation, bride burning, honor killings, child brides and so on. While the UN's human rights council was penning their most recent resolution condemning Israel (one of many, many others), genocide was raging in Darfur, without any comment from them condemning it. While Syria slaughtered its citizens with wild abandon, the UN spent its resources passing a resolution condemning Israel for occupying the Golan Heights, a terrible crime against Syria. No other resolutions concerning Syria were passed in case you wondered.
So why is it that these states have a handful of resolutions against them, if even that, while Israel boasts hundreds and hundreds? Might it have to do with the UNGA having several dozen Muslim and Arab states that consistently vote as a block against Israel, constantly tabling resolutions against it while protecting one another from criticism, no matter what their government's crimes may be? Because that would be an example of anti-semitic bias, in case you were unaware.
Perhaps you have an alternate explanation? (One that you did not merely imagine this time, but something that has its basis in fact, if you don't mind.)
So I take it you don't have an issue with innocent civilians in Hebron losing their homes, being slaughtered and the survivors forced out and ethnically cleansed to the last person, if they are Jewish? Because there have been Jews living in that city for a few thousand years before the massacre. They then returned a scant 20 years later to repopulate the city and you consider it an example of criminally stealing land and homes that don't belong to them? The settlers in Hebron are vile, there's no question about that. But to say that it's an example of Israel stealing land that doesn't belong to it... that's a little more problematic. The titles of property do not change just because you slaughter the family who was living there, you know?
So what race is it that Israel holds superior anyway? Because the last time I checked there was equal rights by law there, freedom of religion, and people of every race on earth living all mixed up together. Who do you think this apartheid is oppressing and who is it elevating in your opinion? And do you have any examples of it at all?
There is nothing within the text of the article that shows the fact that sweet cakes being handed out at hospital where people are wounded and dying, and families are grieving and scared, has anything to do with any kind of celebration. They could have been passed out as relief in a stressful time where people may also be hungry because they out of their homes.
The title is obviously meant to inflame and doesn't belong on a site like this. I don't have any opinion on the organization as a whole though.
shira
(30,109 posts)This is what Israel is dealing with.
jeggus
(26 posts)of your whining and minimizing Israels part in this. Will you please shut the hell up!
PCIntern
(25,553 posts)Oh...yesterday.
shira
(30,109 posts)...minimizing Hamas' war crimes (not just vs. Israelis but also WRT their victimization of Palestinians) in order to focus all their energy bashing Israel.
aandegoons
(473 posts)And your different than the people you hate how?
shira
(30,109 posts)I have decided to be like you. Unrepentant and will not condemn a damn thing the Palestinians do. Maybe you will see the error in your thinking.
shira
(30,109 posts)My point is, with Hamas using that as their main strategy HOW are you sure that certain civilian casualties are primarily Israel's fault? What Hamas is doing is a war crime and Palestinian casualties are their fault when using that strategy.
Have you ever condemned Hamas for that strategy?
aandegoons
(473 posts)Have you ever condemned Israel for that strategy?
Look Shira I hope for the best for you, I really do. But I don't think I am getting my point across to you. You have too often used the ruse of pushing for condemnation while avoiding doing so yourself.
Please just think of the innocent.
shira
(30,109 posts)...than any other nation in the history of warfare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israel_in_the_Gaza_War
See the reality now?
It's vile equating IDF actions to Hamas, or condemning the IDF far more than Hamas (which is hardly ever criticized). Worse, it's disgusting to be an apologist for or supporter of Hamas' victimization of its civilian population.
Now of course, Palestinian civilians are dying. There's no question & it's tragic. I hope Israel does even more to protect them. But this nasty libel about Israel being bloodthirsty does nothing but sanitize and whitewash Hamas' vile actions.
When you say Israel is killing civilians, it's as if Israel just decided to be like Hamas. Nothing about defense of its civilians against Hamas rocket attacks. Do you not see how vile that accusation is?
aandegoons
(473 posts)And the ratio will be zero. When that day hits you can turn around and say you are not like them.
shira
(30,109 posts)...flying over its borders into civilian areas?
Would the USA and its Navy just go out and kill people?
Seems to me your response would be to just lie back and take it, like the Israelis. That's the moral thing to do, right? Why do you find being passive and suicidal more moral than self-defense?
============
You realize your position only emboldens Hamas to keep it up? That it ultimately leads to more casualties?
aandegoons
(473 posts)I have said that a number of times already.
shira
(30,109 posts)They also wouldn't be using their population as a human shield when attacking the Jews.
They'd have made peace with their neighbors years ago if they were like Israel.
=====
Of course you didn't answer any of my questions.
No surprise there.
