Israel air strike 'hits charitable association for disabled' in Gaza

[Skidmore]

Source: The Telegraph

An Israeli air strike hit a home for disabled people on Saturday as the Operation Protective Edge in Gaza continued for a fifth day, with the death toll passing 120 Palestinians.

Two were killed in the strike that hit a charitable association for the disabled in Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza, while three others died in a second attack in western Gaza City, local health ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra said.

There were unconfirmed reports that a third body was later pulled from the rubble at the home for the disabled. A mosque was also hit by an air strike overnight.

Hamas fired five more rockets into Israel as the Islamist movement rejected growing international calls for a halt to hostilities, insisting Israel must act first.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10963427/Israel-air-strike-hits-charitable-association-for-disabled-in-Gaza.html

[peoli]

1. Fuck this bullshit!

[Archae]

3. Just the usual from Hamas...

Hiding in schools, charities, hospitals, and where do they keep getting those rockets?
Simple. They are smuggled in via those tunnels Israeli and Egyptian troops keep finding.

Food?
Medicine?
Nah, terrorist weapons are IMPORTANT! And must be the priority!

[IronGate]

5. +1000. nt.

[kelliekat44]

11. So, should the Palestinians remain completely defenseless against the terror and occupation they

face?

[Archae]

16. Those rockets are not "defense" weapons in the least.

They are terrorist bombs.
Nothing more, nothing less.

[awake]

19. Just to clarify are those rockets you are talking about Israeli or Palestine rockets?

[Scootaloo]

20. And blowing up a home for the disabled isn't "defense" either

[Archae]

22. What if Hamas is using the building to launch those rockets?

Just let them?

[Scootaloo]

26. Then that building is still full of innocent people and you do not fucking bomb it

Is this really a difficult concept for you to grasp?

[The Magistrate]

29. It Is, Sir, A Grave Breach Of the Laws Of War

For a combatant to take up positions in which, if the enemy engages, non-combatants will likely be killed or injured. If Hamas has set up a firing position in, say, a hospital, or used the cellars of a hospital as a magazine, Hamas has committed a very serious crime, and is considered under law responsible for non-combatant casualties resulting from engagement of that position by an enemy.

[Scootaloo]

31. Then bring evidence of that crime to the Hague

don't say "fuck it, they're just Arabs" and turn the entire building into rubble and flying meat.

[The Magistrate]

34. That, Sir, Is An Extremely Silly Response

The line you are pressing amounts to validating the use of human shields as a legitimate tactic of war. I doubt you want to do that, but that is pretty much what your response sums up as --- people who take up a firing position among non-combatants can shoot at will with immunity until a court hundreds of miles away says they are doing something wrong, after an adversary hearing. As someone who has on numerous occasions pointed out the use of human shields by Israeli forces as a crime, I doubt you really want to do that....

[Scootaloo]

44. And it seems to me that this can readily become an excuse for such acts

A care home for the disabled was just bombed. Innocent people are dead. But there was a shooter on the roof!

A school was exploded by missiles. Innocent people are dead. But there was a shooter on the roof!

Dozens and dozens of private homes have been flattened by artillery, their inhabitants dead, bloodied, and homeless. But there was a shooter on the roof!

The only means of providing fresh water to a coastal desert community was bombed into a ruin, leaving millions of people without access to the most basic resource for life. But there was a shooter on the roof!

No matter what gets blown up, no matter how many piles of bodies are pulled out of the rubble, no matter the anguish and human suffering caused, it's all okay. The people who dropped the bombs, fired the missiles, and launched the artillery assure us, there was a shooter on the roof.

Your argument is simply a legalistic justification, without backing evidence, for the killing of innocent people.

And in truth, I don't think that even if there is a "shooter on the roof" that it fucking applies. You want to know why?

because you are targeting this guy:

With this weapon:


Missiles are not antipersonnel weapons. They are not designed nor intended for use against "a shooter on a roof." If you are firing a missile at a building, your target is that building and everyone in it.

if you want to just get one guy - a shooter on a roof, for example, well, Israel has this thing called the IMI Tavor TAR-21:

[The Magistrate]

54. I Have No Idea What The Reason For The Targetting Was, Sir

I do not even know that the targeting was not in error, the result of poor intelligence or even something mis-typed.

What is very clear, however, is that you want to slide over the effective endorsement of human shield tactics you managed to deliver yourself of above.

And make no mistake, that is the sum and substance of Hamas militant action. Its acts are designed to provoke retaliation from Israel, which will in large part fall upon non-combatants, by the very nature of Hamas operations, the dense urban terrain, and the power of the weapons employed. If an Israeli government adopted a policy of not retaliating, the response from Hamas would be simply to increase the number of provocations until that policy became insupportable in a democracy. The soundest line on which to press a case that Israel is following a poor course is simply to point out that Hamas has succeeded in forcing its will on its enemy, which is considered about the worst thing a combatant force can suffer strategically. It is a suicidal, self-destructive, and deliberately criminal will, since it envisions as its goal the killing of people it uses as human shields, but it is nonetheless the will of Hamas, and they are calling the tune the IDF is dancing to....

[Scootaloo]

60. Then what was the point of your prior posts?

Where you were arguing that dropping bombs on a building full of disabled people was okay, because "there's a shooter on the roof"?

I don't "endorse the use of human shields," but thanks for making the effort.

I'm saying there is no evidence of this except for the word of the people who are dropping bombs on care homes, private houses, schools, civilian infrastructure, soccer bars, and refugee camps.

I'm saying that even with such evidence, there is a need for ethical behavior. Yes, the actions of someone using human shields is unethical and a war crime. This does not give you the ethical justification to just kill all those people to get the asshole.

What's more, under your logic, all Hamas has to do is say that it is targeting soldiers, and you'll be defending them as well. After all, a broad selection of adults in israel are soldiers, active and reserve. and they happen to often be surrounded by civilians, don't they? So using a bomb vest to try to get one of those guys - and "accidentally" taking out a few dozen civilians - is within bounds, just as using a missile to target a Hamas fighter and "accidentally" incinerating a care home full of people is permissible.

Which is another reason your logic is pure horse shit and i reject it.

These acts are grotesque violations of ethical behavior. If you wants to get a bad guy, then send in soldiers with guns to get him and his buddies with precision. Don't plow cities with missiles and say "There was a guy on the roof! There was a combatant in the crowd!" as if his presence justifies the slaughter you have conducted.

[The Magistrate]

66. You Replied To Someone's Question, Sir

The question was 'what if Hamas was firing rockets from that building?'

You answered, 'that does not matter, you still don't bomb the building if innocents are there.'

Your answer misstated the case, and I replied to present the information that, if a combatant does take up a position in which, if he is fired on, non-combatants are likely to be injured, he commits a crime and bears culpability for the non-combatant casualties if he is fired on. There are culpabilities possible on the other side, certainly, but the root crime remains the taking up of positions behind human shields.

I have, in fact, in the past, defended actions of militants among the people of Arab Palestine which targeted combatants, saying they were legitimate actions and certainly not to be called 'terrorist', and this even if some non-combatant casualties were inflicted. The definition of combatant does not extend to people who are liable to being called up from reserve status, or conscripted, so one cannot, as some have tried to do on occasion, claim that every Israeli of military age is a combatant. I am willing, however, to extend the definition to settlers known to be associated with militant bodies of that movement.

If one is going to have recourse to a standard of law, or ethical principles, or whatever, one must apply the same standard to all, and with as much neutrality and objectivity in judgement as one can muster.

[Scootaloo]

72. I can't be neutral, sir.

Not in the face of the world's 11th strongest military power using weapons designed to take out entire formations and modern military bunkers against sports bars, hospitals, and private homes, sir.

To me, being neutral there is no different than being neutral when witnessing a 250-pound man pin down and bludgeon a 90-pound woman, under the justification of "well, she did slap him first." You, sir are willing to stand by and watch her face crumple, to hear her screams turn into sobs, then gurgles, then nothing, because you have to be neutral, and you think you can justify the man's pulping of her skull as "self-defense" against her initial slap, and then against her feeble attempts to fend him off.

Now maybe your moral cowardice, your ethical stunting, is supported by the privilege of never having had to confront such a scenario, beyond flickering light on a screen, always nicely edited to protect your sensibilities. I haven't have that privilege sir. So I cannot lend my support to the animal savaging the helpless person bleeding on the floor through "neutrality." I am unable to do so. I cannot stand over her curled, limp form and drone bout how she "brought it upon herself."

That you are able to do this does not make you a paragon. It does not make you a voice of rationality. It makes you a participant in the abuse, a willing and pliant defender of the indefensible. The blood is on your hands as much as it is on the hands of the person doing the pounding. There is no neutrality here - you either support the abuser or you defend the abused, sir.

No, your vaunted "neutrality" just makes you another bloody-handed fucker who supports the destruction of the helpless to assuage the pride of the powerful, a sycophantic scavenger who waits for the predator to get done so you can snatch a bit of the meat for yourself.

Myself, I will have no more to do with your scarred stump of a moral center. I hope that someday you will wake up to realize that passivity in the face of perversity isn't an admirable trait.

A good day to you, sir.

[The Magistrate]

75. Neutrality In Application Of a Legal Standard, Sir

Is not neutrality in a conflict between two parties appealing to law.

People may choose, and choose for a variety of reasons, to align themselves with one side or another of this matter. The long war between the peoples of Israel and Arab Palestine is something on which it is quite possible for people of good heart and sound mind to hold differing views; there is more than enough justice to go around for both sides, and more than enough blame.

But if one makes statements which are accusations of crime, if one appeals to law or principles of ethics, then one must apply these neutrally, whichever side one aligns with. And it is simply fact that the military actions of Hamas are blatantly criminal, and people who cry up Israeli violations while ignoring this cannot be taken as seriously objecting to criminal behavior. They denounce criminal behavior by one side, and applaud or excuse crime by the other side.

Nothing in your hyperbolic ventings above alters this; if anything, these only make it more clear you really have nothing much to say that is worth hearing, and are simply enjoying the intoxication of self-righteousness and delusions of moral superiority.

[Scootaloo]

78. I said good day, sir

But please, do pause to enjoy the stylings of the John Butler Trio on your way out.

[The Magistrate]

80. Here Is a Much Better Song, Sir

[nilesobek]

84. Epic takedown. Thanks for the tune.

[bravenak]

86. Gracias.nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

93. Very well said.

It needed to be said, and I thank you for saying it.

[polly7]

100. Thank you. +1000.

Last edited Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:30 PM - Edit history (2)

Brilliant post that applies to many who believe 'collateral damage' is 'just a part of 'war'. I can't even stomach seeing the excuses and 'rational' behind it all anymore. Survival of the fittest (most militarily powerful, even though it's a welfare military) - it all reminds me of Dubya's thinking while destroying human beings to get the bad guys/insurgents/fighters in their own country. It's really sick. Also, I was that woman being beaten to a pulp, though I didn't start it and no-one was ever around, but that struck a deep chord with me - if he'd also beaten my child - it never came to that because he knew he wouldn't survive once I was strong enough to retaliate - one way or another, and people STILL defended him. To this day, people come up to me to talk and when they know who I was with for two decades plus they actually shake my hand because he's such a great person! Because my life didn't matter, just as those Palestinian women with dead children and husbands are forgotten like the murder/terrorism/'abuse' never occurred. People need to use their fucking heads and THINK about how every human in this world matters. Not just those with the richest militaries, the biggest guns, the biased opinion of the world so proud to shake Israel's hand over all of this. It's obscene, and so are those that defend it.

[freshwest]

65. Magistrate, please help me reason this out by your way of defining this.

Is this like the Bundies putting women in front to be shot for PR, then?

Perhaps that is a bad analogy, though. The BLM didn't shoot anyway. And the Bundies didn't get a chance to kill anyone at the ranch or along the roads to it, although they wanted to do so.

Two of their followers did kill, and met resistance to being killed. It just seems so similar to me, but you speak in military terms and I do not.

In a war zone, which that region is, the rules are nothing like we think they should be here. I can't even make the women's health clinic analogy, although clinics have been bombed here.

All I see is these people in that region of the world won't work with other, ever. They have such opposing interests, that they will never stop.

Appreciate your thinking on my trying to make a decision on who is doing wrong here. Likely both and not one side alone.

[The Magistrate]

68. That is Exactly What It Is, Sir

Bear in mind, though, that I was addressing a hypothetical situation. I have no information regarding why this particular building was taken for a target, and so cannot state it was a legitimate military target.

But the 'women in front' tactic the miscreant at the Bundy ranch suggested is the gist of Hamas' strategy, to provoke action by Israel that must kill some numbers of non-combatants, who will then be waved about as evidence of the foe's barbarity and demonic nature. Israel is far too obliging, and does not take possible political and diplomatic steps that might isolate Hamas and its sort within the polity of Arab Palestine, and so lead perhaps to it being put out of business by Arab Palestinians themselves.

[bunnies]

82. .

Havent signed in for days but had to just to do this:

[Threedifferentones]

91. Do you really believe the Israeli side is generally in the right?

How's this for a thought experiment: Japan won WW2. Japan insists we give certain states back to their original, "native" inhabitants. Certainly there is some moral backing for this idea. Just a few hundred years ago we stole the land from the natives by force, and they deserve it back. This was much more recent than the wars which ultimately left Jerusalem in Muslim hands, so it makes even more ethical and logical sense than the idea the Jewish people have some ancestral right to Israel.

Would the Americans forced to move away just forget about the homes of their parents? Or would we be so pissed that we'd be ready to fight another war to get those states back?

Now another question: Were the American and British men who made Israel possible overtly Christian? Did they make any secret of the fact that they valued Christians more than Jews and Jews more than Muslims?

Now another question: If Hamas had the money and technology to match Israel, would they resort to using human shields?

And another: Let's say you see a large person beating up a much smaller person. The smaller person winds up going for a weapon, which alters the stakes of the fight a great deal. Would you blame the smaller person for aggravating the situation, or would you see he was left with no choice because a smaller person stands so little chance in a fist fight?

In other words: In general fights are a situation of two wrongs don't make a right. But, when one side is way bigger and already has most of what it wants, and insists on pressing the fight, that side is a bully.

I'm annoyed by adherents to all three "book based" religions equally, but I HATE bullies, and really think you should too.

[awake]

101. 2 wrongs do not make a right but 2 Wrights did make a airplane

I do agree that things are more complicated than good vs bad thanks for you post

[Fantastic Anarchist]

92. Just because they are not following the laws of war, doesn't mean Israel can say "fuck it."

I can't believe people are defending the murders of disabled civilians.

This is as reactionary as it gets.


For shame, for shame.

[The Magistrate]

96. You Are Quite Right, Sir, It Does Not

Israel may very well be committing breaches of the laws of war in Gaza now.

But there are a few things that need to be made clear in assessing that. There seems to be a widespread view that any risk, certainly any harm to non-combatants, is a violation of the laws of war. That is not true. When taking military action, a force must take reasonable precautions against harm to non-combatants. If a military action may put non-combatants at risk, the action is not a violation if the direct military benefit of neutralizing the target would be such that it could be reasonably seen as outweighing the risk to non-combatants. And, as observed before, if that risk to non-combatants flows from a decision by combatants to take up positions in which strikes against them would put non-combatants at risk, the responsibility for harm to non-combatants falls on the people who took up such a position, though it may be shared by the force which attacked them, if it did not in its actions meet the two criteria set out earlier. Still, it needs to be borne in mind that the fact that non-combatants have been harmed does not establish that the party which harmed them violated the laws of war. Reasonable precautions is not a standard that can only be met by perfection; one may take reasonable precautions to avoid a thing, and it may still occur. It is quite possible for an act which does produce a very great direct military benefit to have also done a good deal of harm to non-combatants.

The Israeli practice of giving warnings of where it will strike is certainly designed to meet the standard of taking reasonable precautions against non-combatant casualties. It probably does establish that reasonable precautions against harm to non-combatants are being taken. But one could still make a decent argument that the munitions employed, in so densely inhabited a place, and where much construction is so flimsy, present an unreasonable risk of harm to non-combatants.

Where Israel is on much shakier ground is the 'direct military benefit' standard. If combatants of one side in a battle, say, position a machine-gun in the living room of an occupied home, and if neutralizing that position allows there opponents to advance to a position that cuts off a large body of troops from supply, the matter is pretty clear-cut; the direct military benefit of destroying that machine-gun post outweighs the harm done to the non-combatants inhabitants of the house, or even nearby houses. But matters in Gaza are nowhere near so cleanly defined.

If it is a case of munitions being stored in a house, or a house is being used as a firing point or a command post, a decent military benefit can be readily made. But in instances where the point of the strike is to kill some individual militant, or to ruin his home and possessions, trying to claim some direct military benefit is gained by the attack is far too much of a stretch, and harm done to non-combatants in such an attack cannot possibly be said to have been outweighed by the direct military benefit gained, let alone be reasonably said to have have been outweighed. A good portion of the Israeli strikes in Gaza seem to have been of this latter sort, and are certainly grave breaches of the laws of war.

What can be readily observed here is that partisans of one side or the other in this conflict routinely condemn the criminal behavior of the opposing side, while ignoring or justifying their own. Persons who range themselves with the cause of Arab Palestine will cry up Israeli crimes, but will treat crimes of Arab Palestinian militants as justified by the right to resist, or by the greater power of their enemy, or even as of no consequence set beside the bestial behavior of the side they oppose. Persons who range themselves with the cause of Israel will cry up Arab Palestinian crimes, but will treat crimes of Israel as unavoidable in exercise of the right of self-defense, or justified by the tactics of their enemy, or even as of no consequence set beside the bestial behavior of the side they oppose. Where these things can be observed in a partisan's comments, it is clear that in neither case is there any attachment to the principles of law appealed to, but rather that the appeal to law is simply one more weapon being taken up to cudgel the foe. It is rather as if, where two gangs are feuding in a city neighborhood, members of one try and lay information against the other with the police: they do so not out of desire to see the law abided by, but to try and get the police to assist them in gaining a clear field for their own law-breaking. It is part of the wrestling for a claim to the moral high ground, which is always a part of the political side of armed conflict, and nothing more.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

46. They're emotional bombs? n/t

[JoeyT]

56. Apparently my ancestors were also wrong to fight back when people stole their land.

Of course DU didn't exist yet, so we didn't have to hear about how fortunate it was brave men showed up with freedom blankets to stop those swarthy terrorists.

Yeah, I'm drawing a parallel between Native Americans and Palestinians. When you face obliteration, you fight back however you can.

[Threedifferentones]

90. So, we have two sets of armed people terrorizing one another.

One set is not an official army. They don't have the funding to buy weapons which can compete with an actual military, and they are not an internationally recognized government, so they are "terrorists."

The other side is an actual government with a tremendous military. They are NOT terrorists, although they do terrorize.

One side launches a lot of rockets and kills a couple people occasionally. The other side launches a lot of rockets and kills dozens of people consistently. And I'm supposed to sympathize with the winning side?

Now when you consider that the losing side had their homeland stolen away by people who obviously valued Christians more than Jews and Jews more than Muslims, I'm STILL supposed to support the winning side?

I've never supported bullies. If this fight is wrong vs wrong, then I will back the little guy or stay out altogether.

Let me ask you this: If Japan had won WW2 and insisted that certain states be given back to their original, native inhabitants, would Americans still be upset about this today, or would we have just said "oh you're right Japan, let me forget all about my parents' homeland?"

Would we be upset enough to kill over the loss of some of our territory? Seems pretty obviously yes.Thus, the people who created the nation of Israel created this present day conflict, period.

[The Magistrate]

17. Surely, Ma'am, You Do Not Think The Acts Of Hamas Constitute Defense Of The Arab Palestinian People

The actions of Hamas are deliberate provocations intended to goad Israel into just such actions as are being carried out now by its armed forces. The last thing Hamas wants to do is defend the people of Arab Palestine, to reduce the risks they face from Israeli military action, and they are absolutely powerless to interfere with, or ward off, Israeli military action, or to compel Israel to halt military action.

[awake]

25. If the shoe was on the other foot what would you do?

If it was a Israeli home for the disabled hit by a Palestinian rocket would you say that Israel's response with force was uncalled for?
Until both sides decide that they want this dispute to end I am afraid it will go on and on and on.

[The Magistrate]

28. Beside The Point Addressed, Sir

No one seriously disputes Hamas courts Israeli military action in Gaza; to present Hamas as in any sense defending Gaza is absurd.

[awake]

33. Just because you do not think that the tactic of defending ones state works or makes sense

does not mean that they are acting in what is self defense in their minds. In conflict it is all too easy to believe that your side is right and the other side is wrong. Can you show me how dropping bombs on a city or firing rockets has ever solved a problem?

[The Magistrate]

36. Whether A Tactic Works Or Not, Sir, Is Subject To Test By Objective Stanbdards

What someone thinks is immaterial. I may well think I can fly, but stepping off the garage roof will test that, and what I believe will not make the slightest difference.

[awake]

39. You still have not answered the question

If you were part of the Palestine elected government what would you do?

[The Magistrate]

41. I Would Not Do What Is Being Done Now, Sir

I would certainly not indulge in firing off artillery rockets for the purpose of provoking a first-rate military to kill my people so I could glory in martyrdom and posture as a helpless victim.

[awake]

43. If you were part of the Israel elected government what would you do?

Would you continue the killing of Palestinians, would you continue building settlements on Palestinian land?

[The Magistrate]

53. Again, Sir, I Would Not Do What They Are Presently Doing

I would have halted settlement construction, even rolled it back. I would have tried, at least, to take conciliatory steps that might marginalize Hamas and its ilk and make most people of Arab Palestine feel they had something to lose that militants threatened. At minimum I would have tried to set the political and diplomatic ground so there could be no doubt in anyone's mind it was not my government which was preventing a peaceable resolution to the matter.

[geek tragedy]

45. Israel's government and Hamas have a toxic symbiosis that afflicts only

the innocent--Hamas and Israel justify each other's policies, and always it's hundreds of Palestinians and a few Israelis who die as a result.

[The Magistrate]

49. I Agree, Sir, They Prop One Another Up, The Hard Men On Both Sides

[awake]

50. Sadly I think you may be right

[Fantastic Anarchist]

48. Then why does Israel take the bait?

That's not seriously an argument.

[The Magistrate]

57. There Is A Limit, Sir, To What A Government In a Democracy Can Tolerate

If an Israeli government adopted a policy of not retaliating to provocations from Hamas, the response from Hamas would be simply to increase the number of provocations until that policy became insupportable in a democracy where people clamored for protection. The sum and substance of Hamas militant action is to provoke retaliation from Israel, which will in large part fall upon non-combatants, by the very nature of Hamas operations, the dense urban terrain, and the power of the weapons employed. The soundest line on which to press a case that Israel is following a poor course is simply to point out that Hamas has succeeded in forcing its will on its enemy, which is considered about the worst thing a combatant force can suffer strategically. It is a suicidal, self-destructive, and deliberately criminal will, since it envisions as its goal the killing of people it uses as human shields, but it is nonetheless the will of Hamas, and they are calling the tune the IDF is dancing to....

[ChairmanAgnostic]

94. Well. I can tolerate no more blind support for a country murdering innocents,

Nor can I tolerate your ridiculous posts. Ignore ,

[The Magistrate]

98. You Are Not A Government, Sir

And in fact, the conduct of the Israeli government under Sharon and Netanyahu has eroded support for that country in the United States, and the process seems if anything to be accelerating. I can offer myself as some example of this. In my earlier days here, I was one of the leading lights of 'Team Israel' down in the various incarnations of the I/P forum. I ceased to devote any concentrated energy to it when, during the process of constructing the security barrier, it was declared that land this barrier separated from Arab Palestinian owners would be treated under the same 'abandoned property' regulations as had been applied to land whose owners had fled in '48. In other words, it would be placed in government custody and sold off. Such a blatant abuse and at such a late date made it abundantly clear that a policy of annexation in all but name, under a banner of 'one land between the river and the sea', is the actual goal of at least a presently dominant portion of the Israeli polity. The same thing is happening with a good many people, i am quite certain.

Below is something I posted here several years ago, that I think remains quite apt, and a warning to the more hard-line members of 'Team Israel'....

"There are several facts here people need to take notice of.

"First, since the end of the Cold War, there has been very little real over-lap between the strategic interests of the United States and the interests of Israel. Support for Israel alienates Moslems, universally and in the region, and thus threatens stable access to fuel resources for the United States. The idea some attempt to sell, that the U.S. uses Israel to maintain access to and control of oil is risible.

"Second, support for Israel is, in the domestic politics of the United States, becoming deeply tinged with fundamentalist Christian fanaticism, which leads increasingly to support for Israel being identified, among the general populace, with far right lunacy. It is worth noting many of these fundamentalist Christian supporters of Israel are, in actual fact, profoundly Anti-Semitic, in that they view Jews as having murdered Christ, and believe all Jews who do not convert to Christianity during the 'coming tribulations' will be killed as followers of the Anti-Christ. Their only real interest in Israel is the degree to which its existence is a prop in support of their beliefs in the imminent return of the Christ, and its attendant apocalyptic horrors and millenial reign of Jesus directly and physically over the earth. Israeli leaders who accept support from this element are making a contemptible bargain, that brings them into disrepute by association, rather like a candidate running on a 'law and order' platform would suffer by accepting an endorsement from a local Klavern.

"Third, certain elements of cultural over-lap between the United States and Israel are fading away. One of the great unspoken facts of support for Israel here has always been the shared characteristics of a frontier/settlers society: we had Indians, they have Arabs, and expansion into a hostile frontier existence defined self-image of both societies to a fair degree. Fifty years ago popular culture here presented our expansion into the western plains as a fight between good White soldiers and settlers and bad, cruel Indians who above all could never be trusted. Today, these images are pretty much reversed, and the supply of people who grew up taking the former picture as an elemental frame of their moral universe and self-image as Americans is dwindling fast."

[Caretha]

102. They take the bait

for the same reason that the US is in perpetual war.

Resources & the MIC need to suck & siphon money from us plebs.

War is a racket...doncha know? It really is as simple as that. If the Palestinians didn't actually exist, the US & Israel would have to invent them...hmm

[840high]

13. +100

[peoli]

4. 'being removed from the face of the Earth' is a Right Wing Propagandist talking point you troll.

[IronGate]

6. No, it's not,

it's a fact whether or not you want to recognize it.

[peoli]

10. Sorry, I can smell your right wing stench from here.

When you support eliminating an entire race of human beings from Earth you are a RIGHT WING TROLL. So, GTFO of here!

[Fred Sanders]

7. He is a troll, no doubt. MIRT alert.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Notice the italics in the headline, as if to sow doubt that this was a charity...the propaganda.....

[Archae]

18. You mean like the "Baby Milk" factory that had that pristine sign in front of the building, in Iraq?

Maybe it did have a charity in the building.

But Hamas was probably using the roof to launch those terrorist rockets.

They've been seen using playgrounds, schools, hospitals, why not a charity?

[n2doc]

9. How many have died from the rockets?

anyone? The disproportionate response is immoral. The IDF knows exactly what it is doing. And they play into the hands of Hamas every time they do this.

[Scootaloo]

21. There's been at least one elderly man killed by a rocket

And another lady suffered a heart attack while running to a shelter.

Two more deaths added to the toll of this paroxysm of rage and stupidity.

[Uncle Joe]

24. I agree, n2doc, the Netanyahu Government deliberately plays into the hands of Hamas because

they don't want a peaceful two state solution.

The Israeli government keeps the Palestinians in their modern day ghetto until frustrations boil over resulting in attacks against Israel which then are used as an excuse to wage disproportionate attacks against the Palestinians, this cycle continually feeds itself.

[Sunlei]

38. I think Israels Iron defense system has prevented 300? missiles from killing perhaps thousands?

That system is not 100%, but do all the Hamas missiles have to kill those thousands first before Israel is allowed to go after the Hamas missile launchers?

[n2doc]

69. But they haven't, and never will, 'kill thousands first"

While the IDF has killed hundreds already. One can fantisze about all sorts of scenarios. The reality is the IDF is employing far too much force indiscriminately compared to the threat. And unless the IDF is willing to go full genocide and kill off all the Gazans, they are only stoking the survivor's anger. Inhuman.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

12. Even if you do think Israel is in the right.

And I certainly recognize that there is enough blame to go around. How could you cheer on death and destruction on either side? The whole "they started it, they deserve it" thing mindset is disgusting.


No matter if you think Palestine is 100% the victim, or Israel is 100% the victim, these are real casualties and real children, this isn't a football game, this isn't reality television, this is reality. 24 hour news and the anonymity of the internet have really tested our capacity for compassion and empathy.

[Scootaloo]

23. +1, but with argument...

24 hour news and the anonymity of the internet have really tested our capacity for compassion and empathy.

I disagree here. Prior to the need to fill space on the air, prior to the internet... there simply was no coverage of what was going on with Palestine. Ever. Talking about Palestinians - or Arabs in general - as if they were human was a gigantic taboo in hte media and in general discourse. They were denied a narrative, empathy was blocked away from them. They were just a faceless "enemy" and every death among their number was hailed as righteous and good.

of course this empty, mindless sort of "support for Israel" - denial of the basic humanity of palestinians, much less any rights or protections htey may have as a people or society - is still a problem of course, but both the modern news cycle and the openness of the internet have contributed a great deal to eroding that propaganda wall. more the latter than the former, mind.

[Scootaloo]

30. You want me to link to stuff that happened before the internet entered the scene?

I suggest you hit the public library. See if they have a newspaper or magazine archive. Check for books about the conflict. Watch "Exodus," or other such films - fiction, but they helped sculpt the narrative.

hell, look for news reports from the '91 gulf war. It's not Israel / Palestine, but the utter indifference to the lives of Arabs will be on full display just the same.

[Scootaloo]

63. '73 was before my time, so I have a question.

Did the media call it an invasion of Israel, or an attack on Israel?

[Sunlei]

32. who sells those missiles to Hamas? out those people/ that country in the media!!

The Iron defense system has shot down about 95% of the missiles Hamas has been lobbing 'willie-nilly' at Israel. Other wise there would have been thousands of dead Israel citizens by now.

Israel directly targets where missiles are coming from. They give warning phone calls AND shoot a blank noise 'dud' right on the target- several minuets before they knock out the launching systems.

I think the media needs to focus please, on who the heck supplies Hamas with the missiles and launch systems. And the money to buy them.

And one of the filthy rich desert neighbor countries with millions of acres of unused land in their country could very easy turn over a couple hundred miles to their Hamas buddies if they cared so much about them. Even their Muslim brothers don't give a crap about them.

[awake]

37. Who sells bombs to Israeli? Maybe we should help Palestine have a "Iron defense system"

This conflict will not end by violence there needs to be true negotiations by both sides. I condemn all bombings and rockets by all sides, as well as the "defense" contractors who make and sell the weapons.

[Sunlei]

42. Hamas has nothing to do with Palestine or their people. Its a war crime to launch missiles

from civilian populations, their buildings.

[awake]

47. Since 2007, Hamas has governed the Gaza Strip, after it won a majority of seats in the Palestinian

As for war crimes I believe both side are guilty.

[Sunlei]

52. well then tell Hamas to stop launching missiles from under homes and hospitals of their 'citizens'

goood thing I guess the Hamas gun salesman didn't sell "Hamas Palestine Government"nuke systems eh?

[awake]

55. You mean like the nukes that Israel has

My point is no side in this conflict is "right" both are fighting for what they believe is right but the result of the fighting is only the death of innocent people on all sides, until there are honest peace talks where both side are willing to listen and understand the others point of view then the kill will not stop. It could happen if there is the will on all sides to do so, It happened in Ireland so it is possible.

Sadly there seem to be too many profiting in one way or another from this conflict for it to end any time soon

[Sunlei]

58. I hope there is peace someday but there are always gun salesmen who sell to anyone /w $

It is about profits and politics and the old ethnic/religious hate.

I'm pushing for one of the neighbor countries to give the Palestine people a couple hundred miles of land so they can expand their country out of that cramped corner. Just miles & miles of desert unused lands right there. Even their wealthy, wealthy, land-rich-Arab brothers ignore them.

Sure Israel has nukes, thank God they can restrain themselves to not use them. I do think they would in an instant, if they ever were directly attacked with nukes as would America.

[awake]

59. Why do you feel that the Palestine people need to leave their land?

This seem to be at the hart of the problem, who gets to live where.

[Sunlei]

64. they do not need to leave, they need more land, expand their 'countries' size.

Same for Israel they could do with a couple hundred miles more of the thousands of miles of unused desert in that part of the world.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

70. That's always been the heart of the problem.

You can bet if one of those neighbouring countries offered the Israelis that same land swap, they wouldn't take it either. Because everybody feels they have to have the 'Holy' land, and nobody wants to leave, they just want to push 'the other guys' out.

[Sunlei]

73. not even a swap, Israel can make do with their land mass. The Gaza strip is to small, if only

Egypt would gift a tiny bit of land to triple the size of that strip. Or Israel 'man up' and give up some land around the strip without conditions. Just do it out of the goodness of most of their citizens hearts.

Or the Saudis work something out with Jordan & Saudi land.

Or several close neighbor countries help expand the coastal land outward into the Meditarian sea.

I know it's the heart of the problem. Such a shame, is humanity destined to always have deadly conflict between religions?

Are all countries someday going to be tagged with their religion first? Seems like the USA is on this path, along with plenty of other countries.

[awake]

76. Would you be willing to leave your home with out a fight because someone else wanted to take it?

[wildbilln864]

40. absolutely!

out the S.O.B.s that sell or give them the rockets and money to buy them! Does anyone know?
Is it Saudi Arabia(same ones who funded the 911 hijackers)? Egypt?
who then?
I know I'm very ignorant about the conflict there but this needs to stop.

[Sunlei]

51. someone knows who pays for the systems, they are not cheap!

This is not like the old scud missile days, where Israel got pounded daily. The Hamas systems are much stronger and way more expensive.

Hard to tell what country would be funding, in that part of the world (pretty much global now) everyone traditionally for thousands of years, hates the Jewish people.

The country of Israel is not going away, that is for damn sure. They have the right to defend themselves and they will.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. "...insisting Israel must act first."

The ones who ordered this target hit should face charges.

[Shoonra]

62. Amazing statistics out of Gaza!

Whenever Hamas wants to intimidate Israel it emphasizes how all of Gaza, even children, are its soldiers, able and eager to kill as many Jews as possible.

But when Hamas gets bombed, even by an Israeli air force that phones ahead to tell people to evacuate (and when did any of the countries criticizing Israel do that?), gee, every last casualty was not just a helpless civilian but a deep-dyed pacifist or something.

In the meantime, the Israeli government should post a sign: "Only people who made an effort to get our 3 teenagers back can advise us to cease fire."

[awake]

71. By your logic all Israelites are fair game because they all have to serving in the Israeli army

There is no end too this violence by using more violence

[Amonester]

87. Even their Religion is full of violence without end...

When you think of it, it's one of the few Religions (and all it's almost endless Sects offspring) that can condemn "sinners" to endless burning or eternal torture...

Although a few isolated Religions include sacrifices of virgins into burning volcanos or something, most older Religions are not violent in nature...

[Ash_F]

74. You know, usually edges are not that protective. /nt

[Skidmore]

77. What??

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Ash_F]

79. Edge is another name for blade. /nt

[riverwalker]

81. a quadriplegic and one with cerebral palsy OMG

This is a war crime.

The centre was home to nine patients, including four who were spending the weekend with their families away from the centre, said Ms Alaiweh.

Of the remaining five, two were killed in the strike and three suffered serious burns and other injuries, the director said. A caregiver was also injured, she added.

The director said one of the women killed had cerebral palsy and the other was severely mentally disabled. Among the three wounded patients were a quadriplegic, one with cerebral palsy and one with mental disabilities, she said.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/israel-widens-range-of-gaza-targets-to-civilian-institutions-636169.html

[Tetris_Iguana]

85. Unfortunately war crimes are only prosecuted by the victors.

Which clearly will not be the Palestinians.

[JDPriestly]

83. So instead of spending money on rockets to use to harass Israelis, why don't the Palestinians

build a shield similar to the one the Israelis built?

Or better yet, why don't Palestinians declare a unilateral ceasefire on their part, announce they won't send any more rockets or rocks or whatever into Israel,, set up cameras and recording equipment to track Israeli aggression toward them, announce their ceasefire to the world and ask the Israelis to also stop retaliating.

If Israel did not return the ceasefire then the world would have reason to condemn Israel. As long as the Palestinians fire rockets, etc., it is hard to know who is at fault.

[Amonester]

88. Israel should return their stolen lands, properties, and fresh water sources

too, which will probably never happen...

Don't ask me to take sides, I'm so glad I wasn't born anywhere near that region...

[JDPriestly]

89. Without peace there can be no justice enjoyed by either side.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

95. You do realize that Israel controls all gaza banking?

They control what money and to whom it goes.

The reality is that Israel occupies and controls almost every aspect of life. They control what building materials can be "imported" what fuel is delivered, and when and how much electricity is available.

Most Americans simply have no clue how bad Israel has made life there, on a daily basis.

[polly7]

103. +1000. nt.

[S.A.M]

97. Impeach Netanyyahu!

Where is the evidence that Hamas killed those 3 boys? It is time that the Iraeli stand to the right wing war mongers!
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/israels-dissenting-voices-lost-war-echo-chamber-130623577.html#unBCToi

[thecytron]

99. Canadian-prime-minister-harper-praised-for-statement-in-support-of-israels-gaza-campaign!!!

PM Steven Harper, says Canada unequivocally behind Israel!

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/13/canadian-prime-minister-harper-praised-for-statement-in-support-of-israels-gaza-campaign/

Just in case, you don't know about PM Steven Harper: He is the same Evil Genius behind the Alberta's Tar Sand Project.

So, if you are looking for condemnation of the worst form of barbarism on the Planet by Israel, don't bother to ask one of the worst Canadian Prime Minister for support.

In addition, Canadian PM Steven Harper is already used to the worst form of Environmental Rape on the planet: Alberta's Tar Sand Project.