Israeli Troops Launch Attack on Gaza

[Homyrrh]

(from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/world/middleeast/04mideast.html?_r=1&hp))
January 4, 2009
Israeli Troops Launch Attack on Gaza By TAGHREED EL-KHODARY and ISABEL KERSHNER

JERUSALEM — Israeli tanks and troops swept across the border into Gaza on Saturday night, opening a ground war against the militant group Hamas after a week of intense airstrikes.

Israel’s stated goal was to destroy the infrastructure of Hamas, the militant Islamic group that controls Gaza’s government, and the military warned that the campaign could take “many long days.”

The assault brings new risks and the prospect of many new casualties on both sides in a confrontation that, before this phase began, had already cost the lives of more than 430 Palestinians and 4 Israelis.

While a ground war in densely populated Gaza is likely to increase the civilian toll there, the Israeli Army also faces new threats. Since seizing control of the territory a year and a half ago, Hamas has been able to smuggle in more and better effective weapons. Its more sophisticated arsenal has been on display in recent weeks, and even under heavy fire the group has shown its ability to keep hitting Israeli cities with long-range rockets.

Sharp explosions rang out across Gaza, and tank fire and airstrikes lit the darkened sky well into Sunday as Israel continued to pound the area by land, air and sea. The Hamas military wing said it was firing mortars at approaching Israeli troops.

Palestinian hospitals reported three civilians killed by midnight, and Al Aksa television, run by Hamas, reported that five Israeli soldiers had been killed. An Israeli military spokesman said he had no information about casualties and suggested that the Hamas reports may have been concocted to lower morale.

World leaders called on Hamas and Israel to accept an immediate cease-fire, and in several European cities tens of thousands of protesters demanded that Israel end its campaign. Meanwhile, the Bush administration said it was working toward a new cease-fire, but rather than calling for a halt to military action urged Israel to “be mindful of the potential consequences to civilians.”

In a statement, the Israeli military said a key objective was “taking control” of the rocket launching sites Hamas has used to fire at southern Israel. Rockets fired from Gaza have plagued southern Israel for years, and they have drawn the military into the coastal territory repeatedly since troops formally withdrew and the Jewish settlements there were evacuated in 2005. A 48-hour raid in March 2008, aimed at inflicting a cost on Hamas for its continuing rocket fire, killed nearly 100 Palestinians.

Israeli officials have said repeatedly that it is not their aim now to fully reoccupy Gaza. But it was clear that the military expected a grueling operation.

“This will not be easy and it will not be short,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on national television shortly after the ground invasion began. He did not elaborate on how long Israel hoped to hold the rocket-launching sites.

The ground operation began after eight days of intensive attacks by Israeli air and naval forces on Hamas security installations, weapons stores and symbols of government in the Palestinian enclave.

“This has always been a stage-by-stage process,” Shlomo Dror, a Defense Ministry spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “Hamas can stop it whenever it wants,” by stopping its rocket fire, he said.

Hamas leaders in Gaza were in hiding, but a Hamas spokesman said Saturday night by video that the “moment of decision has arrived” and that Gaza would be the Israeli Army’s “graveyard.”

Hamas has also threatened to use the invasion as an opportunity to capture Israeli soldiers. The group has been holding an Israeli corporal, Gilad Shalit, hostage for more than two years.

The exact number of troops entering Gaza was not being publicized, but the military said the operation involved “large numbers” of forces including infantry, tanks, engineering and artillery corps. On Saturday night, the Israeli prime minister’s office said that a call-up of thousands of army reserve troops, approved earlier, had begun.

Before Israel started the invasion, warplanes and ground artillery carried out heavy strikes on Saturday. Many of those attacks were on open areas around Beit Hanoun and the main route connecting the north and south of Gaza, most likely to clear those areas of mines and tunnels and to hamper movement before troops entered.

A mosque in northern Gaza was also hit, during evening prayer time, in what witnesses said was an Israeli airstrike. At least 11 worshipers were killed and about 30 wounded, according to Palestinian hospital officials. The Israeli military had no immediate comment.

The air force has struck several mosques in the past week, with the military saying they served as Hamas bases and weapons stores.

The Israeli Army also dropped thousands of leaflets into some residential districts warning inhabitants to evacuate their homes. Because of “the activity of terrorist groups,” the leaflets said in Arabic, the army “is obliged to respond quickly and work from inside your residential area.” Many residents of one apartment block in Gaza City said they had nowhere else to go and would stay in their homes.

An Egyptian-brokered truce between Israel and Hamas, which took effect last June, began to break down in November, and Hamas declared it over on Dec. 19. Since then, rocket fire out of Gaza has intensified.

On Saturday, a rocket hit an apartment building in the major port city of Ashdod, about 20 miles north of Gaza, lightly wounding two Israelis. Other rockets landed in the coastal city of Ashkelon and in the Negev Desert town of Netivot.

The latest round of rocket fire has demonstrated the extent to which Hamas has been able to upgrade its arsenal with weapons parts smuggled into Gaza, according to American and Israeli officials. Compared with the crude, homemade Qassam rockets it had used in the past, the latest rockets have been more accurate and have flown farther — close to two dozen miles, enough to reach the southern Israeli cities of Ashdod and Beersheba.

President Bush, in his weekly radio address to the nation on Saturday, said Hamas had instigated the latest violence with rocket barrages “that deliberately targeted innocent Israelis.”

Expressing concern about the humanitarian situation facing the people of Gaza, he added that the United States was “leading diplomatic efforts to achieve a meaningful cease-fire that is fully respected.”

President-elect Barack Obama continued publicly defer to the Bush administration. “The president-elect is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza,” said Brooke Anderson, his chief national security spokeswoman. “There is one president at a time, and we intend to respect that.”

The United Nations Security Council held a closed meeting, called by France, starting at 7:15 p.m. on Saturday. Earlier, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for “an immediate end” to Israel’s ground operation, and asked Israel to “ensure the protection of civilians and that humanitarian assistance is able to reach those in need.”

Before the ground war began, hospital officials in Gaza City put the first week’s Palestinian death toll at more than 430, including 26 women, 74 children and an unknown number of male civilians. Three Israeli civilians and one soldier had been killed by rocket fire.

World reaction was intense and mixed. While thousands of protesters marched in cities across Europe to demand a halt to the Israeli bombing, in Prague, a spokesman for the new Czech presidency of the European Union said Israel’s actions were “defensive, not offensive.”

Other European countries quickly distanced themselves from the Czech position. The French Foreign Ministry condemned “the Israeli ground offensive against Gaza as it condemns the continuation of rocket firing.”

In London, the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, urged both sides to accept an immediate cease-fire.

More than 20,000 demonstrators marched against the Israeli air campaign in Paris and more than 10,000 in London, where some threw shoes at the prime minister’s residence, a particularly Arab form of protest that has gained worldwide currency since an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at President Bush last month in Baghdad.

Both protests were held before the ground invasion began. Large protests also took place in at least seven other European countries and in Kuwait, Israel and New York.

The Israeli military said Saturday evening that the air force had struck about 40 Hamas targets during the day, including weapons storage facilities, smuggling tunnels, rocket launchers and launching sites. Palestinians said the airstrikes also hit the American International School, a private institution in northern Gaza, killing a school guard.

Israel has also been firing on the homes of Hamas’s military leaders, and on Saturday struck a vehicle in Khan Yunis carrying Mohammed Maaruf, whom the Israeli military described as an officer in the Hamas ground forces. Another strike killed Mohammad al-Jammal, 40, who was said in Gaza to be a Hamas military commander, according to the news service Agence France-Presse. Israel said he was responsible for the entire rocket-launching operation in all of Gaza City.

But in Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, most of the wounded being brought in on Saturday seemed to be civilians.

Salah Abu Rafia, 38, was accompanying wounded relatives, including his 10-year-old son, Zeid. Mr. Abu Rafia said that an F-16 warplane fired missiles around his house in the Zeitoun neighborhood, west of Gaza City, while the family was sitting outside. He said that Hamas fighters had been in the area, but that he had been afraid to tell them to go away. They disappeared as soon as they heard the planes, he said, escaping without injury.

“We are the ones paying the price,” he added.

[MacReady]

Christ this is getting old.

[Preston_79]

Good. Israelis have taken enough shit. They comply with a cease fire, but Hamas fires rockets into to Israel whenever they want and the international monitors don't do anything about it. Enough is enough.


I'm well aware of the history of the region and how many times the land has switched hands in the past. I sympathize with Palestinians caught up in this mess who don't want "Death to Israel", but the fact is there are hard liners that would still want every Jew dead even if they did get their land back and that is why I side with the Israelis.

[Monotreme]

Alright, look. I really don't feel like getting into a heated arguement about this subject with anyone, so suffice it to say that I'm really disappointed at the biased coverage of the world media clearly leaning towards the Palestinian casualties and not even reporting about the dozens of rockets striking Israel every day. Allow me to chime in with the following words:

- Every country has the right to defend itself. Israel has been suffering quietly from Hamas for the past 8 years, since their sudden surge in power and popularity after the second Intifadah broke out. Israeli cities surrounding the Gaza strip such as Sderot have been suffering from rocket fire for that entire time, fire that has reached a peak in the past year, in which Hamas' range has also spread out farther and to larger cities such as Beer Sheba, Ashdod and Ashquelon. Even after Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza strip, forcibly removing its settlements in the area (a move that I was an ardent supporter of at the time, among a very split Israeli public), Hamas' actions hadn't changed, and the rocket fire continued. If a terrorist organization was launching rockets and missiles at U.S., British, or Canadian cities, do you really think those countries would just sit aside and "take it"? Of course they would act to protect their citizens, and that's just what Israel is doing. Sure, the circumstances are unfortunate, and I really wish we wouldn't have to do it, but we really have no other choice - the IDF has been operating against Hamas' terrorist actions in Gaza for the past 8 years but nothing has been effective thus far.

- Hamas is a terrorist organization. It rules the Gaza strip with a combination of brainwashing, threats, and the absense of any alternative group which can support the long-suffering civillian population. Its "democratic" election a few years back was also total bullshit: their "democracy" is just like Jordanian, Egyptian or Syrian "democracy" - it's a facade, with a parlimentary government which has no power and a president who has all the power. It should also be remembered that Hamas' mission statement from the beginning has been the establishment of an Islamic state on the entire area of Israel, and the destruction if the Jewish state in the process - and they haven't changed their goals whatsoever since their formation in 1988. How can we reach a settlement or an agreement with an organization that refuses to recognize us and calls for our destruction?

- Israel is not targeting Palestinian civilians, despite what Hamas and many biased news agencies will tell you. The IDF's targets are all Hamas-related: headquarters, weapons caches, smuggling tunnels, and bases of operation. The final goal is not to attack or harm the Palestinian people, but to cripple Hamas' ability to carry out terrorist activities, which thus far still continue in the form of rocket strikes on all Israeli cities within a 40 km radius of the Gaza strip. In fact, Israel goes out of its way to prevent civilian casualties; during the air strike period all of last week, the IDF dropped thousands of fliers over the target zones and even placed personal phone calls to civilians residing within a targeted area, warning them to get out. Many civilians adhere to the warnings and are thus spared; others, probably due to solidarity with Hamas, choose on purpose to stay in their homes despite the warnings, and are subsequently killed. In any war, civilian casualties are inevitable - it's called collateral damage - and things are made even more difficult when Hamas launches its operations from within the civilian population and uses these civilians as human shields; private homes are used as weapons caches, as are schools, hospitals and mosques. Hamas says over 200 Palestinians killed in the attacks are civilians: the UN reports that only 62 out of the over 600 dead are civilians, with the other 540 Hamas militants. Who are you going to believe?

- Hamas, on the other hand, does target Israeli civilians. Its war inside the strip itself is against the IDF military forces, and while Israeli soldier casualties are unfortunate, they are also inevitable in such warfare. On the other hand, all of Hamas' rocket launches, dozens a day, are targeted specifically at the Israeli civilian population. Hamas spokespeople say themselves that the rocket launches are targeted against Israeli women and children.

- Hamas is spearheading an information campaign based upon false reports and flat-out lies. Over the past few days, since the beginning of the ground incursion, Hamas has released to the media, dozens of falsified reports and stories about successful strikes against Israeli tanks, armoured vehicles, many IDF soldier casualties which are totally fabricated, and even a report of two Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped, which was totally untrue and yet still reported by the world media. In the war of information, Hamas is winning, probably because they are percieved as the "underdogs" by the world media, whose reports are almost laughably biased, leaning towards Hamas. I can only hope that those of you that actually care will make an effort to check all the facts and get the whole picture before judging.

To sum it all up: the Arab-Israeli conflict is unfortunate, and it saddens me that we have to resort to violence, especially such a large-scale attack on Gaza; the civilian population which really did nothing wrong except allow Hamas to play them like puppets are undergoing an inconcievable suffering and I really wish they could be spared - that said, we have tried going down the peace path but it has been exhausted; no matter how much Mahmoud Abbas wants to reach a settlement and create a Palestinian state, something that most Israelis today agree is the right way to go, there will still be Hamas who rule Gaza and who will stop at nothng to attack and harm Israel. And so, as unfortunate and tragic and frustrating as it is, right now, I really see no other choice but a large-scale military operation that will hopefully silence this terrorist organization once and for all.

[GeekOut]

Well put Monotreme.

I'd love to hear the apposing argument to what you just said. It seems like an easy decision to side with the Israelis and not Hamas.

I've got some friends who have bashed Israel for their aggression against Hamas, but I suspect they did it to come off like they were thinking outside the box, assuming that Americans just support Israel like sheep. Of course when I press them for more information or facts they just shake their head like I can't be reasoned with, but I don't think they have a clue what they're talking about.

[The Heart Collector]

Good. Israelis have taken enough shit. They comply with a cease fire, but Hamas fires rockets into to Israel whenever they want and the international monitors don't do anything about it. Enough is enough.

The terms of the cease-fire included stopping the blockade on Gaza. At no point did Israel stop the blockade on Gaza, therefore they did not in fact "comply with a cease-fire". So you are wrong.

Even if you were right, Israel just bombed a United Nations school full of children and killed 30 people. This is absolutely indefensible.

[The Heart Collector]

Israel is not targeting Palestinian civilians, despite what Hamas and many biased news agencies will tell you. The IDF's targets are all Hamas-related: headquarters, weapons caches, smuggling tunnels, and bases of operation. The final goal is not to attack or harm the Palestinian people, but to cripple Hamas' ability to carry out terrorist activities, which thus far still continue in the form of rocket strikes on all Israeli cities within a 40 km radius of the Gaza strip.

Israel just shot at a United Nations primary school which was used for refugees. This is not a Hamas-related military installation, not a weapons cache, and not a base of operation. The Israeli government was specifically alerted by the UN of the coordinates of their schools, because under international law, these are protected and should not be attacked. Israel did it anyway, and murdered scores of civilians.

From an article written by a journalist within the school before anything happened, you can observe this picture of the refugees that were hiding here.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/6/1231231799857/Palestinians-who-fled-the-001.jpg

Even if this UN school had the leader of Hamas inside, even if the UN representatives were working with Hamas and had an entire batch of ammunitions inside, common sense dictates that killing scores of children is not acceptable collateral damage. This absurd recklessness is justified to you, though, and because Israel is not "directly targetting civilians".

Any civilized human being understands that there is no meaningful difference between directly targetting civilians and knowing civilians are present but doing nothing to mitigate their losses. This is what Israel has done, as can be seen by their reckless bombing of schools and houses. This is what you are defending. You're a war crimes apologist. Awesome, man. Be proud.

[The Heart Collector]

I also want to talk a little bit about the number of dead people that you, Monotrome, mentioned. You claim Hamas says it's 200, but the UN says it's only 62 out of 600.

This is what the UN actually says:
"John Holmes, the UN humanitarian chief, told reporters on Monday that officials believed as many as 25 per cent of the 548 people killed in the fighting were civilians"
If we take a lower limit of 20 percent, it gives us a death toll of 109 to 137 civilians, certainly not "60" civilians. That means you gave literally less than half the alleged number that the UN is giving.

From another, earlier article:
A United Nations official (Maxwell Gaylard) estimates that at least a quarter of the 400 Palestinians killed by Israeli air strikes in the Gaza Strip are civilians.
A quarter of 400 is of course, 100. Not even close to 60.

So where is this 62 number coming from? Probably from this statement:
"Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties,"
The source for this article is the BBC. Here is a link to it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7803711.stm).

The date of this article is Tuesday, December 30, 2008. It is one week old. And it says that the total number of deaths is 320. But you didn't just state that 62 civilians had died. You stated this:

the UN reports that only 62 out of the over 600 dead are civilians, with the other 540 Hamas militants.

According to the UN numbers, only 320 people had died at the time. Not 600. So the other 540 dead are not Hamas militants. But you stated that it was 540. You took the current number of dead Palestinians, and subtracted the number of dead Palestinian civilians from one week ago, and used this to present the Israeli attack in a better light.


The worst case scenario is that you are deliberately lying to us and posting half-truths and lies by omission in order to boost the Israeli cause.

The best case scenario is that you got confused. Even if this is the case, it's very dubious of you to get confused like that in the same paragraph where you criticize Hamas for presenting a false version of reality.

[Vong]

The issue between Israel and the Palestinians is so fragile and complex that sides should never be taken. I applaud Obama for not taking a position on either side. Greater diplomatic language and tact is needed in this situation.

[GeekOut]

Israel just shot at a United Nations primary school which was used for refugees. This is not a Hamas-related military installation, not a weapons cache, and not a base of operation. The Israeli government was specifically alerted by the UN of the coordinates of their schools, because under international law, these are protected and should not be attacked. Israel did it anyway, and murdered scores of civilians.

From an article written by a journalist within the school before anything happened, you can observe this picture of the refugees that were hiding here.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/6/1231231799857/Palestinians-who-fled-the-001.jpg

Even if this UN school had the leader of Hamas inside, even if the UN representatives were working with Hamas and had an entire batch of ammunitions inside, common sense dictates that killing scores of children is not acceptable collateral damage. This absurd recklessness is justified to you, though, and because Israel is not "directly targetting civilians".

Any civilized human being understands that there is no meaningful difference between directly targetting civilians and knowing civilians are present but doing nothing to mitigate their losses. This is what Israel has done, as can be seen by their reckless bombing of schools and houses. This is what you are defending. You're a war crimes apologist. Awesome, man. Be proud.


Could you provide a link to this bombing of a school filled with refugees?


The war zone in a densely populated area, and Hamas is well known for using human shields. I've heard reports on the news that Israel warns ahead where they're bombing so civilians can get out? Where these refugees warned ahead of time? Till I read more about this issue I'm having a hard time believing Israel blew up a school for no reason.

The last Hamas leader who they dropped a one ton bomb was warned ahead of time, and was defiant. Three or four of his wives were killed along with some of his children. If civilians are warned of areas that are to be bombed, but choose to stay put I don't blame the Israelis if they die.


Let's address Israel having rockets fired on them during a supposed cease fire and nothing being done about it by the U.N.. Those rockets were fired off not knowing where they'd land. How would you have Israel resolve this matter? I can understand people being pissed about how many civilians are dying over there, but Hamas is to be blamed, not a country defending itself. Let's focus on the root of the problem.

Is Israel the root of this conflict? Am I wrong in thinking Hamas wants every Jew dead? This is more than just getting back the Holy Land. It wouldn't end there.

[someguy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-death-un

There's your article about the school bombing, and yes what heart collector said is all true. Israel also bombed a university recently, claiming that it was developing weapons for Hamas.

Vong was partially right up there, this whole issue is too complex to really throw support over on one side. I mean yeah, Hamas is pretty shitty but let's also take into account the disgusting treatment Palestinians have been getting for decades at Gaza.

[The Heart Collector]

The news report is here, from The Guardian: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-death-un)

from the report,
Two Israeli tank shells struck the school in Jabaliya refugee camp, spraying shrapnel on people inside and outside the building, according to news agency reports.
A United Nations official in Gaza said the school was clearly marked with a UN flag and its location had been reported to Israeli authorities. John Ging, director of operations in Gaza for UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, said that three artillery shells landed at the perimeter of the school where 350 people were taking shelter. "Of course it was entirely inevitable if artillery shells landed in that area there would be a high number of casualties," he said.

Asked whether there were Hamas militants in the area at the time of the attack, Ging said it was the scene of clashes "so there's an intense military and militant activity in that area." He said UN staff vetted Palestinians seeking shelter at their facilities to make sure militants were not taking advantage of them. "So far we've not had violations by militants of our facilities," he said. Ging called for an independent investigation of the strikes near UN facilities.

Haaretz reports here (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053233.html), with the following:

The Israel Defense Forces soldiers attacked the UN-run girl's school near the Jabalya refugee camp in self-defense, saying militants barricaded inside began firing mortar rounds at them.

...

A spokesman of the Israeli Embassy in the U.S. said that it was clear that the site was not operating as a school at the time of the attack.

Hamas has once again cynically chosen to use civilian sites from which to operate, thus endangering the safety of innocent civilians," he said.

Here is another article regarding one of these schools.

Khalil and his children, like thousands of other Gazans, settled for what they could find - schools run by the UN Palestinian refugee agency that have flung their doors open as shelters from the Israeli assault that is claiming more lives by the hour. By last night 17 schools had been turned into shelters with more than 5,000 people seeking protection inside. Nine of the schools are in Jabaliya refugee camp on the front line of the fighting.

Adnan Abu Hasna is an official with the UN's Palestinian refugee agency who visited several of the schools yesterday. "I found hundreds of people are fleeing their homes just in the Jabaliya area. There's a lot of fear, a lot of panic. You can see it with the children too," he said. "We are talking about Gaza as a very tiny area. Where do they go? We are talking about very poor areas. People arrive without anything. We are providing them with mattresses, blankets and certain amounts of food. We try and give families privacy where the schools are not too crowded. But there are huge numbers coming in some areas."

"We depend on it being a UN installation with a big flag. We hope the Israelis will respect that. We are contacting them and telling them," he said.

We have two conflicting stories. But for the sake of the argument, let's assume the IDF's version of the story is 100% right and the UN is 100% wrong, meaning this school was full of militants.

Even if this is true, 1) it is still a UN building and should be protected 2) it was full of children and refugees. Israel knew this. They had the coordinates. They had the knowledge that it was full of refugees. We certainly know from the reports before the school was attacked that it was full of refugees.

The defense given by the IDF is absurd because they are taking something as a given which isn't a given at all. Namely, they are saying "if a person we want to attack is surrounded by civilians, the correct course of action is to kill everyone". That is what the IDF is saying, and that is what you and Monotreme are arguing. Police officers don't go around shooting indiscriminately at crowds if they're chasing a criminal. SWAT teams trying to rescue hostages don't waltz in and fire a bomb at the place the hostages are if the hostage-taker shoots at them. War is extremely complicated when civilians are involved, but the correct course of action (certainly morally) is not to indiscriminately assault civilians. Sometimes the appropriate course of action is letting a militant live rather than take innocent lives. This is not the Israeli course of action.

I don't understand why I have to explain this to you people. Your argument seems to be "either Israel is allowed to do everything it wants, or Israel cannot defend itself", as if the only two options existing are to keep getting attacked by rockets or decimate Gaza and the people that inhabit it. The only way of defending yourself is bombing everything where a target might possibly be, regardless of what is surrounding it? Maybe if your war zone is a densely populated area, you shouldn't go to war. How about that crazy idea. As if Israel just had no responsibility for going to war in the first place.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that Israel shouldn't defend itself if it is attacked, but defending oneself requires responsibility. Israel's behavior has been extremely irresponsible. It has bombed the shit out of everything it can think of, it has killed scores of children, it has killed anyone even tenuously associated with Hamas (who are a political party and have government functionaries that are not "terrorists" in any way shape or form, regardless of what Monotreme wants to believe), and justified it all with "aww gee why can't we defend ourselves?". It's completely illogical and insane.

This is all, of course, if we assume that the IDF is being honest about the UN building being some sort of covert Hamas base. The burden of proof is on them to prove that these civilians were actually murderers, not on me to prove they were citizens.

From The Guardian's article:
Elsewehere, at least 12 members of an extended family, including seven young children, were killed in an air strike on their house in Gaza City. The bodies of the Daya family were pulled from the rubble of a house in Gaza city's Zeitoun district after it was hit by two Israeli missiles. The dead included seven children aged from one to 12 years, three women and two men. Nine other people were believed to be trapped in the rubble.

Think about that for a moment. If we assume that the two men were the top Hamas operatives, are the lives of seven children worth the cost of taking these men out? Or could Israel have tried another strategy, a more effective strategy that wouldn't result in the killing of seven children and three women?

Perhaps Israel is not interested in just getting these two operatives. Perhaps Israel, as has been said plenty of times in Op-Eds on Haaretz and other newspapers and journals, wants to "teach the Palestinians a lesson". What a great lesson.

[The Heart Collector]

I want to go into a bit more detail about your post and an obvious problem in it.

The war zone in a densely populated area, and Hamas is well known for using human shields.

This is not being a "human shield". This is evidently a place with hundreds of refugees where, if we are going to take the IDF's word, someone fired at Israelis. If I start shooting at people from the fifth floor of my building, would it be rational for the army to come in and indiscriminately fire everywhere? Of course not.

The other important point is Israelis fire guns. Israelis actually have free will. You guys seem to want to ignore this fact. You keep posting as if Israeli hands just automatically moved and automatically shot everywhere by sheer determinism, as if Hamas using human shields or hiding in civilian populations means "time to shoot at civilians". Reasonable human beings understand this is completely absurd, yet this seems to be the tone you take. This notion that because Hamas is surrounded by civilians (no kidding, since they are in cities) Israel is forced to murder civilians. Israel is not forced to do anything, Israel simply chooses to ignore any sense of restraint. If someone is using a human shield, the only moral option is to let them go.

I've heard reports on the news that Israel warns ahead where they're bombing so civilians can get out? Where these refugees warned ahead of time?

This does not make things better. Again, this is just a bizarre form of quasi-determinism. As if the bombs just HAD to fall on buildings and as if the tanks just HAD to fire at buildings and the choice is between leaving or not. The choice is not for Palestinians to leave their buildings, the choice is for Israelis to not bomb the buildings in the first place.

They consistently choose to bomb civilians. If there are civilians in a building, that is bombing civilians. Israel knows there are civilians in the buildings, and bombs them. I don't care if their "primary target" was someone else. They are bombing or shooting at a building known to be occupied by civilians, and are therefore attacking civilians. Talking about "targetting" or "primary objectives" or "collateral damage" might make you feel a little better, but it doesn't change anything for anyone that dies, now does it?

These arguments are weird. It's as if you don't want to admit that fighting a war against a city is incredibly barbaric, and just go "well, gotta bomb them anyway!". No, the moral course of action is not going to war in a city.

The last Hamas leader who they dropped a one ton bomb was warned ahead of time, and was defiant. Three or four of his wives were killed along with some of his children. If civilians are warned of areas that are to be bombed, but choose to stay put I don't blame the Israelis if they die.

The Israelis are to be blamed. The reason the Israelis are to be blamed is because the Israelis select a target, then bomb this target. Therefore, they are to be blamed for what happens. This is basic causation here.

You are trying to shift the blame to the Palestinians by saying that if they are given a choice (an absurd choice) then they are to blame. That's good to know. I will use this defense when I am under trial for murder because I shot you in the head after telling you "you are going to let me rape you or else". I guess it wasn't my fault, huh. It's your fault. It's your fault I shot you in the head.

Let's address Israel having rockets fired on them during a supposed cease fire and nothing being done about it by the U.N.. Those rockets were fired off not knowing where they'd land.

How many people have those rockets killed?

In comparison, how many people has Israel killed in the past week?

Does that give you an idea as to why there is less concern about your rockets? No one is denying that the rockets are a terrible thing, but comments about rockets TODAY, while Gaza is under siege, seem incredibly petty to the world at large. How can you expect anyone to be concerned about the plight of people in Sderot after Israel bombs a civilian population and kills a few dozen children?

How would you have Israel resolve this matter?

Not destroying civilians. You are doing the same thing again. You are going by some bizarre quasi-determinism where, because Palestinians did some bad things, Israel just has no choice but to bomb and shoot at everyone indiscriminately. This is what you are doing to remove Israel's moral responsibility to behave properly. Even if someone does ill towards you, that does not excuse this barbaric and uncivilized behavior. Yet that is what Israel has done, while that contemptible sack of shit Livni says there is no humanitarian crisis.

Is Israel the root of this conflict?

Yes. Israel is the root of this conflict. The founding of Israel in the territory of the Palestinians is in fact the root of the problem. If you are trying to suggest that the root of the problem is antisemitism or something, then I don't know what to tell you. But yes, Israel is the root of the problem.

[The Heart Collector]

Let's do an intellectual exercise.

A Hamas militant fires rockets at Sderot. He then runs away and hides in a building full of Palestinians in Gaza. The IDF tank is nearby. The militant fires at the tank. The IDF tank attacks the building, and kills many civilians in the process.

A Hamas militant fires rockets at Sderot. He then runs away and hides in a building full of Israelis, in Sderot. The IDF tank is nearby. The military fires at the tank. The IDF tank attacks the building, and kills many civilians in the process.


Do you believe the IDF acted properly in both situations, neither, or acted properly in one but not in the other? If you believe it acted properly in one but not in the other, can you give a thorough explanation of why one of those is morally defensible and one not?

[someguy]

http://i43.tinypic.com/289vds2.jpg

[Preston_79]

The amount of innocent lives being lost in this is tragic.

I wish it didn't have to come to this, but I don't see any other options. They could try another cease fire, but it would be one sided just like last time. You'd have Israel stopping their assault on Gaza, and rockets would continue to be fired indiscriminately into Israel in hopes they hit and kill people, but that's not peace.

Hamas has too much control in Palestine. Until They're wiped out I don't see this ending. Hamas is the problem. What Israel is doing is responding to being attacked almost daily. Those taking offense to what Israel is doing don't seem to want to bring this up, or they maybe want to downplay it, but Hamas just wants all Jews dead. Israel would probably agree to a cease fire, but the past shows us the international monitors don't hold Hamas accountable.

[The Heart Collector]

Yes, Hamas is the problem. There was no problem between Israelis and Palestinians before Hamas, and everything was going well. Then Hamas appeared and ruined everything. Hamas must be the problem.

Oh wait, that's not true. Israel and Palestine have had issues since decades before Hamas even existed. Hamas is a manifestation of a previously existing problem and the logical conclusion to what occurs when a population is subjected to occupation and indignity: it becomes radicalized.

[Preston_79]

Israel won the Six Day War. The land is theirs now. Are you saying there can't be peace until all of the Jews leave and go somewhere else? That's not going to happen.

[The Heart Collector]

Does Israel respect the internationally accepted boundaries of their territory?

[Vong]

Yes. Israel is the root of this conflict. The founding of Israel in the territory of the Palestinians is in fact the root of the problem.

You could go even further than that. You can blame the British for it's colonial presence in Palestine, or the White Paper of 1922 for the British government's intention on creating the state of Israel, or the Peel Commission of 1937 for planning the state. You can also blame the miscommunication committed by Britain to the two groups, Jews and Palestinians, for promising both sides territory.

Israel won the Six Day War. The land is theirs now. Are you saying there can't be peace until all of the Jews leave and go somewhere else? That's not going to happen.

There are many people (arbitrators, negotiators, politicians, Arabs and Israelis alike) that support returning to pre-1967 boundaries before Israel took over Sinai and the Golan Heights. In order to move forward, both sides need to make concessions. One of them is making Jerusalem international territory like it was pre-1947. Israel has rejected this, but many Arabs have agreed to it as part of their continual reference to UN resolution 194 and their "right to return".

[Homyrrh]

You could go even further than that. You can blame the British for it's colonial presence in Palestine, or the White Paper of 1922 for the British government's intention on creating the state of Israel, or the Peel Commission of 1937 for planning the state. You can also blame the miscommunication committed by Britain to the two groups, Jews and Palestinians, for promising both sides territory.



There are many people (arbitrators, negotiators, politicians, Arabs and Israelis alike) that support returning to pre-1967 boundaries before Israel took over Sinai and the Golan Heights. In order to move forward, both sides need to make concessions. One of them is making Jerusalem international territory like it was pre-1947. Israel has rejected this, but many Arabs have agreed to it as part of their continual reference to UN resolution 194 and their "right to return".
How great this is, that I don't even have to type "www.wikipedia.org" anymore! ;)

[Vong]

How great this is, that I don't even have to type "www.wikipedia.org" anymore! ;)

You can find anything you want on wikipedia, but why would I go there if I already possess information on the subject? :rolleyes:

[Jon Lyrik]

Yes, why neither side is pissed at the British is beyond me. Makes more sense, anyway.

I have a great idea. Let's nuke the Levant, and see if that settles shit. You think people would be bothering with petty strife if they have the body integrity of that guy from Robocop? And hey, even if they don't, we'll watch them take each other out with irradiated water balloons instead.

[Homyrrh]

You can find anything you want on wikipedia, but why would I go there if I already possess information on the subject? :rolleyes:
In honesty, there was a bit of biting conviction in there...

[The Heart Collector]

For the record, Monotreme deliberately lied about the civilian death count, then did not post again when called on it.

[Monotreme]

For the record, Monotreme deliberately lied about the civilian death count, then did not post again when called on it.

Sigh...

Alright.

First of all, where did you get the impression that I deliberately lied? In your first post, you speculated yourself that I may have been lying or may have mixed up the numbers. What made you suddenly decide that I must be lying? The truth of the matter is, that I was looking at two different sources for the numbers and didn't notice the difference in the dates. Even if we look at the percentages you posted from UN representatives, claiming 20%-25% dead are civilians, that's STILL a lot less than Hamas will lead you to believe.

Second of all, what does my not posting again have to do with anything? Maybe I had other things to do, like not spend every waking moment on the internet?

Finally, about the UN school: Although it was obviously filled with civilian refugees whose deaths are tragic, horrible and utterly shocking, Hamas militants mounted attacks on Israeli soldiers from the same UN school and have had a long history of operating from within that school while civilians were inside - the following video, shot by an Israeli plane in 2007, clearly shows Hamas militants mounting mortar attacks from the school, this despite the fact that the UN claims that "no Hamas militants have been using their facilities":

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/01/video-of-hamas-using-gaza-un-school-to.html

In accordance to the Geneva accords only to fire when fired upon, subsequent to the militants firing mortars from the school, Israel fired back on the school with three shells (this is according to the head of the UN Palestinian refugee agency, John Ging). Anyone who has even the most basic knowledge about weaponry will know that three artillery shells cannot completely destroy a building the size of that school. So how did it collapse? Hamas had it booby trapped to collapse the moment the Israelis fired upon it, in order for them to cause civilian casualties.

(From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama):

Explaining its attack on al-Fahora school, the Israeli military claimed that a mortar was fired from the playground, and it responded with a single shell whichkilled known Hamas fighters; the resulting explosion was compounded because Hamas "booby-trapped the school". Two Hamas militants were among the dead, both part of a rocket-launching cell.

The head of the UN Palestinian refugee agency, John Ging, said three shells landed at the perimeter of the school. "It was entirely inevitable if artillery shells landed in that area there would be a high number of casualties," he said.

He said UN staff vetted those Palestinians who sought shelter at the school. "So far we've not had violations by militants of our facilities," he said, though responding to questions he accepted there had been clashes between Hamas and the Israeli army in the area.

More examples of Hamas' information campaign of lies:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977558554&grpId=3659174697253781&nav=Groupspace

Also, the arguement about who started all of this is pointless. If you ask me, the obvious cause is Hamas: Israel and the Palestinian Authority were as close as ever to come to a long-lasting solution of two states for two peoples, during the talks with Ashaf and Arafat, and subsequently with Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. But ever since Hamas forcibly took over rule of the Gaza strip, we've had nothing but trouble and a long-lasting diplomatic agreement has been impossible, since Hamas refuses to take any steps towards reaching an agreement with Israel or even recognizing its right to exist.

The Heart Collector, your opinion about human shields has its heart in the right place, but you must understand that in times of war, sometimes these things need to be forefit in order to gain achievements: Sure, if someone is using a human shield, the only moral option is to let them go - but that's not how wars are won. It amazes me time and time again how much international scorn Israel gets when it really tries its best to avoid civilian casualties that are, unfortunately in times of war, inevitable; but when America bombs the fuck out of Afghanistan, not really caring if the victimes are Taliban operatives or civilians and just bombing the fuck out of them anyway, nobody seems to really care and America's allies even join in the fighting. And saying something like:

Think about that for a moment. If we assume that the two men were the top Hamas operatives, are the lives of seven children worth the cost of taking these men out? Or could Israel have tried another strategy, a more effective strategy that wouldn't result in the killing of seven children and three women?

is just irresponsible and naive. You, along with much of the international community, make the IDF and Israel in general out to being some bloodthirsty war-mongering organization of brute force that doesn't care about anything, especially not about the value of life. Well, the only place this imagery could possibly come from, as far as I'm concerned, is from classic antisemetic depictions of Jews over the years. Because why would Israel be any different than any other modern, democratic country? Why is Israel bloodthirsty and barbaric, but when America, or the United Kingdom, or Canada send troops into war, they're careful, and humanitarian. Don't you think that the IDF takes these things into account? Don't you think that Israel is NOT trying purposefully to kill innocent people? And don't you think that when the IDF decides that the lives of seven children are woth the cost of taking two top Hamas operatives out, that they STUDIED all the options, WEIGHED the consequences and decided that there ISN'T a more effective strategy?

And finally, The Heart Collector, I really wish that the situation you described below:

I don't understand why I have to explain this to you people. Your argument seems to be "either Israel is allowed to do everything it wants, or Israel cannot defend itself", as if the only two options existing are to keep getting attacked by rockets or decimate Gaza and the people that inhabit it. The only way of defending yourself is bombing everything where a target might possibly be, regardless of what is surrounding it? Maybe if your war zone is a densely populated area, you shouldn't go to war. How about that crazy idea. As if Israel just had no responsibility for going to war in the first place.

Were true. But unfortunately, this just proves to me that I can't stress enough just how unbearable the recent situation with Hamas has been, and although war is most unfortunate and I would like more than anything for there not to be any wars, there just really doesn't seem like any other option. Israel, like any other democratic country, has a right to defend itself, and neither Israel nor your own home country would suffer hundreds of rocket strikes on cities within its borders every day, sit aside, cross its arms and say "well, we can't take the responsibility of going to war, so let's just sit back and let this situation continue so that we don't kill any civilians in Gaza". Because if you had 60 rockets fall on your home town every day, being at constant risk of dying at any given moment for 8 whole years, I'm sure you'd want your country to do something to stop it as well, and that you suddenly wouldn't be so sentimental about the civilians killed as unfortunate and tragic collateral damage to your country's efforts to keep you and your family safe.

You said:

This is what Israel has done, as can be seen by their reckless bombing of schools and houses. This is what you are defending. You're a war crimes apologist. Awesome, man. Be proud.

But this is far from what I'm trying to do. I'm not defending Israel, and I'm not a war crimes apologist. All I'm doing is trying to prove to people like you that, like Vong said, there are two sides to this coin, that the situation is far from as simple and black-and-white as you and others are presenting it, and that nothing is quite what it seems (by the way, Vong, I salute your neutrality since I seem to remember getting into a series of heated arguements with you two-and-a-half years ago during the Second Lebanon War on these very forums, so kudos!). I sit at home, see the images in Gaza and am shocked and appalled, just like you are, at the frighteningly high number of civilian casualties, shocked at the destruction of hospitals and schools, frustrated that there is nothing else we can do about it. I am not proud of what the IDF is doing or how it is operating, but unlike you, I understand and grudgingly accept that there is no other choice and as tragic and frustrating and sad as it is, there's just no other way to change the reality of the region over here.

[GeekOut]

Were true. But unfortunately, this just proves to me that I can't stress enough just how unbearable the recent situation with Hamas has been, and although war is most unfortunate and I would like more than anything for there not to be any wars, there just really doesn't seem like any other option. Israel, like any other democratic country, has a right to defend itself, and neither Israel nor your own home country would suffer hundreds of rocket strikes on cities within its borders every day, sit aside, cross its arms and say "well, we can't take the responsibility of going to war, so let's just sit back and let this situation continue so that we don't kill any civilians in Gaza". Because if you had 60 rockets fall on your home town every day, being at constant risk of dying at any given moment for 8 whole years, I'm sure you'd want your country to do something to stop it as well, and that you suddenly wouldn't be so sentimental about the civilians killed as unfortunate and tragic collateral damage to your country's efforts to keep you and your family safe.



You're forgetting that all those rockets that Hamas fires into Israel don't really count, becuase they rarely kill anyone. It's like having a little dirt kicked on your shoe every day when you walk outside. No biggie.

If my neighbor fired one bullet into my house each day for eight years, but I'd only been grazed once I'd just live with it.

Poor Palestinians, all they want is their land back. They have no beef with Jews, it's just that piece of land. If they got it back they'd be no more conflict between the two.

[The Heart Collector]

Maybe Hamas got confused with their numbers because they had two different sources too.

I will respond to your post later tonight, when I get my primary sources organized.

[The Heart Collector]

I don't want to make this a line-by-line rebuttal because that type of post is not interesting to anyone reading this thread other than the person in question, so I will address some of your points in a general framework.

The gist of your argument is that the IDF and Israel are acting in the best possible manner, trying to protect civilians as much as they can, trying to be as humane as they can, and overall being civilized. The same argument, though in a broader way, is presented by other people in the forum focusing on Hamas' and Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israel, therefore suggesting that Israel is the oppressed here, and as a nation is allowed to defend itself. You in particular take this one step further and accuse critics of Israel as being anti-Semites, because according to you the only way to reach the conclusion that Israel is barbaric is through anti-Semitism, not through any reasonable understanding of the facts.

That is the argument in general. What I want to do is I want to discuss the record of Israel.

What is the most recent example? From the latest weekly Protection of Civilians report (http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_protection_of_civilians_weekly_2009_01_08 _english.pdf) from the United Nations, which discussed some of the recent operations, we can find several other fragrant examples of Israeli recklessness: "In of the one gravest incidents since the beginning of operations, according to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot-soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitun (half of whom were children), warning them to stay indoors. Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing approximately thirty". This particular example has been widely publicized and has lead to global criticism.

Hamas' actions in terms of using human shields and using unauthorized buildings have been criticized in this thread. What is Israel's record on this matter? If we look at this recent article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818122.stm), Amnesty International sources claim that both Hamas and the IDF have been using human shields: "Israeli troops had forced Palestinian civilians to stay in their homes after taking them over as sniper positions or bases". The same article goes into deeper criticism of Hamas, but when discussing Israeli military practices, we find this: "In several well-documented cases in the past, Israeli troops have forced Palestinian civilians, at gunpoint, to go before them into buildings from which they feared attack".

This practice only ended in 2005. A report by Human Rights Watch from 2002 titled "In A Dark Hour: The Use of Civilians During IDF Arrest Operations" (http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/israel0402.pdf) details some of these practices. According to eyewitness and victim testimony, "friends, neighbors, and relatives of “wanted” Palestinians were taken at gunpoint to knock on doors, open strange packages, and search houses in which the IDF suspected armed Palestinians were present. Some families found their houses taken over and used as military positions by the IDF during an operation while they themselves were ordered to remain inside". In one of the case studies mentioned, "soldiers went to the house of Yusuf A., a fourteen-year-old high school student. The IDF forced Yusuf, at gunpoint, to approach three houses they suspected might contain “wanted” Palestinians". This is clearly endangering civilians, and the fact that it is a child makes it worse. This child is not "collateral damage", he is being directly used by the IDF in risky, life-threatening activities.

There is a similar report, "Use of Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields" (http://www.btselem.org/Download/200211_Human_Shield_Eng.pdf) by respected Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, "During the al-Aqsa intifada, IDF soldiers have used Palestinian civilians as human shields. This practice has been most common during IDF operations in Palestinian population centers". I don't see any outrage on this thread regarding this common practice by the IDF. The report also states that this is an institutional practice, not simply started by the soldiers. It has testimony by several soldiers discussing this common practice. This report also discusses the fallout from the HRW report, which resulted in decreased use of human shields, but the courts deemed it alright for the IDF to use other Palestinians to remove people from their homes. The report also states that after a Palestinian was shot while approaching a house on orders of the IDF, the IDF claimed that because no soldiers were next to the Palestinian, he did not count as a human shield and therefore there was nothing wrong with this practice.

This same reckless treatment of Palestinian civilians is visible during arrest operations, where they are often killed while trying to escape, according to the IDF. A B'Tselem report titled "Fatal Shooting of Palestinians During Arrest Operations" (http://www.btselem.org/Download/200505_Take_No_Prisoners_Eng.pdf) has eyewitness testimonies for several case studies. Among the cases discussed, two of them "relate to incidents in which IDF soldiers besieged a house in which Israel claimed that a “wanted” person was present, and then fired at another occupant of the house when he opened the door, without prior warning and without offering them a chance to surrender. The persons killed were not armed and were not endangering the soldiers’ lives. In the other two cases, the security forces disarmed the persons wanted by Israel, but then shot and killed them. In one case, one Palestinian was killed and another injured after they raised their hands to surrender when they encountered members of an undercover Border Police unit". Later in the report, we can find the IDF's spokesperson excuses for the case studies, two of which are under investigation and two of which are excused by internal investigations. IDF's investigations are not only notorious for relying mostly on testimony by soldiers, but for their almost total absense. From the Human Rights Watch report "Promoting Immunity" (http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iopt0605.pdf), we find the following: "The IDF informed Human Rights Watch that as of May 10, 2004, it had criminally investigated just seventy-four alleged cases of unlawful use of lethal force, less than 5 percent of the civilian deaths in nearly four years of what is commonly known as the al-Aqsa intifada, or uprising".

The report describes the IDF's standard protocol for investigations as insufficient. It is a system that "relies on soldiers’ own accounts as the threshold for determining whether serious investigation is warranted". Also critical to the failure of the protocol is "the absence of victim involvement in the investigative process, and the demonstrated failure of the IDF to solicit or take seriously testimonies of victims or non-IDF witnesses as a basis for checking the reliability of soldiers’ accounts". These procedures are wholly inadequate to realistically impart justice.

More and more cases of civilian abuse abound. According to many of the posters on this thread, Israel does the most it can do to protect civilians and weighs all the options to take the best strategy. This is an opinion that is not shared by a single major human rights organization, let alone the citizens of Palestine. From an Amnesty International report in 2002 regarding the use of force by the IDF, titled "Excessive Use Of Lethal Force" (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/041/2000/en/dom-MDE150412000en.pdf): "security forces have repeatedly resorted to excessive use of lethal force in circumstances in which neither the lives of the security forces nor others were in imminent danger, resulting in unlawful killings." The report stresses that "some of the Palestinians killed were members of Palestinian security forces armed with firearms and shooting at the Israeli security forces. However, the majority of people killed were taking part in demonstrations where stones were the only weapon used". On a similar note, the group Physicians for Human Rights-Israel published a report titled "Evaluation Of The Use Of Force in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank" (http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/report-useofforce-israel.pdf), in which they conducted a forensic analysis of bodies during the Intifada to determine causes of death. Their findings show that "approximately 50% [of fatal gunshot wounds] were to the head. This high proportion of fatal head wounds suggests that given broad rules of engagement, soldiers are specifically aiming at peoples' heads". From a later part of the report, "the IDF spokesman commented to the PHR team that he was aware of the high incidence of high velocity gun shot wounds to the head, and did not dispute that most of these injuries were not inflicted upon individuals who posed an immediate threat to a member of the IDF". In a similar vein, a B'Tselem report titled "Unjustified Shooting and Violation of Open-Fire Regulations" (http://www.btselem.org/Download/200203_Trigger_Happy_Eng.pdf) has the following anecdote from an IDF soldier: "When our battalion commander taught us about rubber bullets, he said that they are fi red bound together in threes, which is ineffective for the most part, because they are too heavy. But if we separate them, they can kill. He added, winking: “I’m not hinting at anything.” The guys laughed and said to him: “You’re not hinting – you are telling us”. This points to a consistent tendency of IDF soldiers recklessly looking to hurt whoever they fire at. Certainly rubber bullets are not fired at Hamas members, so the signs point to the desire to inflict permanent harm or even take the life of Palestinian civilians.

I have been referring mostly to Palestinians here. Israel's last major conflict was the war with Lebanon in 2006, where again their treatment of civilians was an atrocity. From the Human Rights Watch report titled "Fatal Strikes" (http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/lebanon0806webwcover.pdf), I am pasting the following excerpt: "Human Rights Watch saw no evidence that there had been Hezbollah military activity around the areas targeted by the IDF during or just prior to the attack... In the cases documented in this report (...) the IDF consistently tolerated a high level of civilian casualties for questionable military gain".

You and others in this thread have constantly referred to the Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks as disturbing the peace, and (rightfully) denouncing them. Little mention has been made of the same circumstances affecting Palestinians. From a Physicians for Human Rights-Israel report titled "Harm To Children In Gaza" (http://www.phr.org.il/phr/files/articlefile_1162984298242.doc), "Children in the Gaza Strip are suffering anxiety and fear as a result of the ongoing violence. As part of Israel’s policy of terrorizing the civilian population in order to apply pressure, the Israeli air force carries out supersonic forays over populated areas, particularly at night and in the early morning... this causes mental injury to children due to protracted anxiety". Unlike in the case of Israel, the Palestinians are not allowed to "defend" themselves from these egregious assaults, otherwise they are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, and the cause of the conflict. This is the twisted logic that people on this thread are using to justify this attack by Israel while simultaneously denying any meaningful Palestinian defense.

This goes on and on. The consistent pattern is of the IDF disregarding civilian lives, using disproportionate force, targetting civilians when the IDF is not in any meaningful danger, attacking targets of dubious importance, and conducting insufficient investigations. All of the evidence is completely against the notion that the IDF weighted all the options, or is trying their hardest to protect the Palestinians, or behaves like a humane army. All of the human rights organizations agree on this. I will quote Amnesty International: "there has been a remarkable consensus in the conclusions and recommendations of the resulting reports". The plethora of evidence showing the IDF and Israel behaving in a way wholly unlike the one presented by yourself is staggering. For the purposes of "bias", I did not mention Palestinian human rights organizations on this post, simply international and Israeli ones. Regardless, the Palestinian human rights organizations reach the same conclusions and have more or less the same numbers as the international and Israeli organizations.

The evidence is simply against Israel in every way.

As you can all see, there is a place this imagery comes from, and it is not "classic antisemitic depictions of Jews over the years", an accusation that I am not going to let slide easily. The place these accusations come from is the documented reality of the conflict, statements by Palestinians, statements by IDF members, and the morgue.

The entire point that you tried to make is laughable. It is not a Jewish stereotype to be barbaric or bloodthirsty, quite the opposite. I don't understand why the image of being "bloodthirsty" couldn't come from anywhere other than a mythical version of antisemitism that doesn't really have anything to do with real anti-semitism. Second of all, the notion that America's wars are viewed as careful and humanitarian is absurd. America is currently at one of its lowest points ever, precisely because its military actions are seen as being barbaric, because of indiscriminate damage towards civilians, dubious logic, impunity from crimes, and torture of prisoners. If anything, the international community is fairly consistent in denouncing both Israel and the United States.

Throwing around antisemitism accusations this way is completely irresponsible and nonsensical. The organization Physicians for Human Rights-Israel says, on the "Harm To Children" (http://www.phr.org.il/phr/files/articlefile_1162984298242.doc) report mentioned earlier, "Israel can no longer continue to argue that the IDF does everything possible to avoid injury to civilians, on the one hand, while on the other hand blaming the Palestinians for supporting and maintaining terror, and for sheltering terrorists in their homes – thus making everyone a legitimate target". According to Monotreme and other Zionists' tortured logic, this respected Israeli organization must be self-loathing anti-semites who don't understand Jews. What about B'Tselem, who are an Israeli group? Antisemites, because the only place this imagery can come from is antisemitism. What about several of the writers of Haaretz? Gideon Levy, in an Op-Ed column, says "Anyone who justifies this war also justifies all its crimes" (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054158.html). Is Gideon Levy a self-loathing antisemite? I wouldn't be surprised at the accusation, since Noam Chomsky has been called an antisemite and a self-loathing Jew on numerous occasions by the "peaceful" right-wing Zionist groups in Israel and America.

You are presenting a bizarre and nonsensical version of events to try and blame the international community of antisemitism for dubious reasons. The reality is that within Israel, there is a considerable amount of dissenting opinion regarding the necessity of this war and the behavior of the IDF and Israeli government. Unless you want to suggest that a considerable amount of Jews are in some bizarre position where even though they live in Israel and experience these situations they are victims of international antisemitism, then we can safely conclude that perhaps the basis of criticism of Israel is justified outrage at the reckless and miserable behavior of its government, military, and citizens.

I believe I have shown conclusively that every single one of your points is wrong. Israel does not make sure that civilian losses are minimized, the IDF does not act in a reasonable manner, and the accusations against Israel do not come from antisemitism. I did not even bother discussing the thousands of cases of Palestinians being tortured under custody, the repeated attacks on ambulances and impositions on the freedom of movement of patients, the prohibitions and hassles for marriage between people from separate occupied territories, the attacks on Palestinians by settlers that go by with impunity, etc.

What are you going to argue, conspiracy? The whole world is against Israel, even many Israeli organizations? All this information is being faked? Everyone's analysis of the evidence is wrong? Human rights organizations are "antisemitic"? What a massive conspiracy that is.

[Monotreme]

You're forgetting that all those rockets that Hamas fires into Israel don't really count, becuase they rarely kill anyone. It's like having a little dirt kicked on your shoe every day when you walk outside. No biggie.

If my neighbor fired one bullet into my house each day for eight years, but I'd only been grazed once I'd just live with it.

Poor Palestinians, all they want is their land back. They have no beef with Jews, it's just that piece of land. If they got it back they'd be no more conflict between the two.

I'm really sorry, GeekOut, but you clearly have no perception of the situation whatsoever. It is not like having a little dirt kicked on your shoe, it's more like having a barriage of dozens of destructive rockets raining down on your house every day, completely disrupting your daily routine. Your kids can't go to school, you can't go to work, your business will go under, and you can't really go anywhere because you spend all day in the bunker. Not to mention that at any given point and without warning, a rocket could hit and totally destroy your house, and god forbid you or anyone will be inside when it happens. It's not "no biggie" when innocent civilians, against which these rockets are target, are killed or mortally wounded. It's very easy for you to say that if your neighbour fired one bullet into your house each day for eight years, you'd live with it. It may even be easy for you to say that if your neighbour launched 60 rockets at your house each day for eight years you'd live with it. But I have friends and relatives in Ashkelon and Beer Sheba. And I'm sure that if you come over here and experience the reality that they live in if just for ONE day, you'd realize that the situation is far more serious than you make it out to be.

And I agree that the Palestinians are poor, and I'm sure that all they want is their land back but it should be remembered that the people preventing them from getting their land back is not Israel, but Hamas. Hamas refuse to hold talks with Israel and refuse to recognize its right to exist, and so how exactly are we supposed to reach any sort of agreement with anybody as long as they are in power? Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas seem keen and sincerely willing to reach a long-term agreement for long-lasting peace, but Hamas refuse to cooperate.

And if by "their land" you mean the land currently occupied by the internationally recognized state of Israel and housing over 8 million Jews and Israeli-Arabs, then don't even get me started. I regret more than anything that of all places on earth we chose this one to build a country on, and I realize that there were people living here already - but if you're incinuating the relocation of the entire Jewish population to another location, then don't even get me started. What happened in history is exactly that - history, it's in the past and it's irreversible, and now if the Palestinian authorities and Hamas showed even a shred of responsibility for their people, they'd come to that fairly obvious conclusion, stop acting like children and try to reach a COMPROMISE that will finally help the Palestinian people and get them out of the mess they're in right now.

[Monotreme]

I want to thank you, The Heart Collector. Between our posts, I believe that both viewpoints on this issue have been properly represented, and I can only hope that all the other readers around here draw the right conclusions from this whole arguement, namely that the situation is immensely complex and that there is no "right" or "wrong" here. I hope we can both agree, at least, that this situation is unfortunate and atrocious, and that it should come to an end as swiftly and as comprehensively as possible, meaning the halting of agressions from BOTH sides. I only hope that, despite the IDF's questionable conducts, you can still understand the necessity of the operation in order to ensure the security of hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens.

What are you going to argue, conspiracy? The whole world is against Israel, even many Israeli organizations? All this information is being faked? Everyone's analysis of the evidence is wrong? Human rights organizations are "antisemitic"? What a massive conspiracy that is.

Again, you make these broad accusations against me even when that's not my point at all. I'm not going to argue conspiracy, I'm not going to argue that all this information is being faked (although if you ask me, when it comes to this campaign, none of us can trust ANY information reported from either side, and we'll only know for sure what happened and what did not happen a few months from now, in retrospect) and I'll say again, I'm not trying to defend the IDF or Israel's actions here at any cost. All I'm trying to do is present the opposite viewpoint, show that there are two sides to this coin and that nothing is quite as simple as you or many other people seem to percieve.

I'll admit that the IDF isn't perfect, and I've seen the images and heard the stories. I don't know if you know, but I'm actually in the IDF myself, and even I can't defend its actions to the fullest extent, both past and present. I hope you realize, though, that there is no such thing as a "humanitarian war", and that the very nature of war is atrocious and harmful and has no place for terms such as "humanitarianism". There is no army in the world that operates within "humanitarian boundaries", and all of the countries of the world, be it England, France, Belgium or any of the Arab countries, that are criticising the IDF's actions, have all committed their fair share of war crimes and wartime atrocities in the various campaigns they have participated in over the years, in particular the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I should emphasize that my calls of anti-semitism were not directed at you in any way, but rather at the international community for its portrayal of the situation and very clear and obvious one-sided solidarity with the Palestinian side in the matter. Why anti-semitism? It's called history, and trust me, it hasn't gone away. I could undertake for you, if you'd like, an extensive search on the internet and provide you with countless CONTEMPORARY examples of anti-semitic acts perpetrated against Jews and Jewish targets throughout Europe of today. So sure, this anti-semitism is on the sidelines and isn't in government - but then again, the anti-semitism was always on the sidelines, and was only in government for that one period in 1933-1945. Before and since then, anti-Jewish sentiments have existed and still exist all throughout the world, especially in Europe, which is why they created a Jewish state to begin with. Mind you that I haven't yet mentioned the modern Arab world, which suffers to many extents from extreme anti-semitism. Almost every caricature or political cartoon in any Arab publication today will depict Jewish characters as the anti-semitic stereotype that appeared in 19th and 20th century European publications. Look around, I'm sure you can find some.

Also, I don't know how much you know about modern anti-semitism, but depictions of Jews as barbaric or bloodthirsty has EVERYTHING to do with it. During the Nazi regime in Germany and even before it, stories were spread, by the Nazis, about Jews who "kidnap Christian children, murder them and spread their blood on their matzo bread". Sure, this may seem to you as a mythical and nonsensical, and it is - this type of anti-semitism dates back to the middle ages, but as recently as the 1940's it still hasn't gone away, and if you look at the political cartoons in many Arab publications, you'll see that it STILL hasn't gone away. And so I stand by my claims of anti-semitism, because Israel has been suffering scorn and hatred from the international community ever since its formation 60 years ago, even though it acts on the same basis as any of the countries that portray it in a negative light; namely self-preservation. No other country in the world suffers from as much open hatred and criticism as Israel, and although you may not have thought about it too much, looking back at history the reasons seem plainly obvious to me.

Finally, you have indeed shown conclusively that many of my points about the IDF may be wrong, and for that I salute you - it's only fair to portray both points of view and all the opinions and ways of looking at the matter. For instance, here's a point you may not have given too much thought to: who do you think knows more about the strategic situation of an area such as Southern Lebanon: an organized army with what is considered to be one of the most advanced and adept intelligence corps in the world, or a nonprofit human rights organization that gets its information mainly from local eyewitness reports and its own, from-a-distance observations? I'm not incinuating anything in particular, but I'm just bringing up a point you may not have thought about. Anyway, you certainly have not discredited all of my points. In fact, 50% of my claims you haven't even made reference to, and those are my accusations against Hamas. So sure, you may or may not be right about the nature of the IDF's actions in this campaign, but I only hope that you realize that the same applies for the opposite side, Hamas, and just as you are skeptical about everything the IDF does or says, I hope you are equally as skeptical and perhaps even more so of Hamas' claims and actions (I say even more so because that Hamas has proven itself to be extremely untrustworthy in its reporting of information throughout this campaign, and because at the end of the day we're talking about a terrorist organization here.)

Just some reading/viewing material:

The following is a US state department report on contemporary global anti-semitism. Hopefully it'll open your eyes as to just to what extent this is a real and still-thriving global problem:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf

The following are some examples of anti semitic cartoons from the Arab and Iranian press, from 2007:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/ascartoons2007.html

Here's a link about what is called "new antisemitism"... I know it's from Wikipedia, but it's pretty encompassing and contains some informative links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

[GeekOut]

I'm really sorry, GeekOut, but you clearly have no perception of the situation whatsoever. It is not like having a little dirt kicked on your shoe, it's more like having a barriage of dozens of destructive rockets raining down on your house every day, completely disrupting your daily routine. Your kids can't go to school, you can't go to work, your business will go under, and you can't really go anywhere because you spend all day in the bunker. Not to mention that at any given point and without warning, a rocket could hit and totally destroy your house, and god forbid you or anyone will be inside when it happens. It's not "no biggie" when innocent civilians, against which these rockets are target, are killed or mortally wounded. It's very easy for you to say that if your neighbour fired one bullet into your house each day for eight years, you'd live with it. It may even be easy for you to say that if your neighbour launched 60 rockets at your house each day for eight years you'd live with it. But I have friends and relatives in Ashkelon and Beer Sheba. And I'm sure that if you come over here and experience the reality that they live in if just for ONE day, you'd realize that the situation is far more serious than you make it out to be.

And I agree that the Palestinians are poor, and I'm sure that all they want is their land back but it should be remembered that the people preventing them from getting their land back is not Israel, but Hamas. Hamas refuse to hold talks with Israel and refuse to recognize its right to exist, and so how exactly are we supposed to reach any sort of agreement with anybody as long as they are in power? Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas seem keen and sincerely willing to reach a long-term agreement for long-lasting peace, but Hamas refuse to cooperate.

And if by "their land" you mean the land currently occupied by the internationally recognized state of Israel and housing over 8 million Jews and Israeli-Arabs, then don't even get me started. I regret more than anything that of all places on earth we chose this one to build a country on, and I realize that there were people living here already - but if you're incinuating the relocation of the entire Jewish population to another location, then don't even get me started. What happened in history is exactly that - history, it's in the past and it's irreversible, and now if the Palestinian authorities and Hamas showed even a shred of responsibility for their people, they'd come to that fairly obvious conclusion, stop acting like children and try to reach a COMPROMISE that will finally help the Palestinian people and get them out of the mess they're in right now.

I wasn't serious about that bullshit I was spouting.

Now, if we could only stop Jews from making pastries from the blood of Arab children.

[someguy]

Monotreme, do you really think that THC is denying/arguing that antisemitism no longer exists today?

[Monotreme]

Monotreme, do you really think that THC is denying/arguing that antisemitism no longer exists today?

No, but from his arguements I got the impression that he feels that antisemitism has nothing to do with the biased and prejudiced global perception of the events in Gaza, while I believe that it has everything to do with it.

Also, GeekOut, I appologize if you were joking, it's just that you know, it's sometimes a little difficult to pick up sarcasm on the internet...

[TheAxeGrinder]

Not to detract from the conversations going on here, but I figured I had to get my two cents in here, in that both the Palestinians and the Israelis are to blame. The Palestinians, specifically Hamas, for continuing to fire rockets into Israel, even after repeated calls for them to stop, and the Israelis themselves, for failing to curb their aggressive response, which has done more harm than the rockets fired on them.

While Hamas is largely a terrorist organization, and Israel has a right to defend itself, there are innocent civilians on both sides that are caught up in the crossfire, and have paid the ultimate price for the hatred and outright stupidity in the region.

[The Heart Collector]

No, but from his arguements I got the impression that he feels that antisemitism has nothing to do with the biased and prejudiced global perception of the events in Gaza, while I believe that it has everything to do with it.

I already gave you a plethora of evidence of why me and the international community believes Israel acts very poorly. These same sources that I used also have released a plethora of reports regarding Palestinians' own blatant human rights abuses.

But after I've posted all that, you are still insisting that the global perception of events and the bias against Israel has "everything" to do with antisemitism, therefore trivializing the actual facts of the matter. You keep arguing about this antisemitism.

Here is a Pew Research Center poll titled "A Year After The Iraq War", from 2004. Among the findings: "Despite concerns about rising anti-Semitism in Europe, there are no indications that anti-Jewish sentiment has increased over the past decade. Favorable ratings of Jews are actually higher now in France, Germany and Russia than they were in 1991. Nonetheless, Jews are better liked in the U.S. than in Germany and Russia. As is the case with Americans, Europeans hold much more negative views of Muslims than of Jews."

If there is some sort of global antisemitism that is resulting in this institutional bias, why isn't it offset by the much greater anti-muslim resentment in the western world? The majority of stories of discrimination coming out of Europe and the United States are of fear of muslims. This should be obvious to anyone paying attention. Yet if the Western world is afraid of muslims much more than they might be afraid of jews, why is it that suddenly in the case of Israel they completely go against these trends and start defending muslims? Of course, no one is going to argue that there isn't antisemitism in the Middle East. In the same way, i don't think any sane person is going to argue that there is a disturbing amount of antimuslim sentiment here in the west.

If you are going to argue that anti-semitism is the root of negativity and erroneous perception, then you are also going to have to conclude that anti-muslim beliefs would tilt the scale in favor of Israel, not against. There is no way to escape this..

Here are some good words from Roman Bronfman, at the time of the Second Intifada.

Even a quick glance at the newspapers in recent weeks indicates the worrisome change in world public opinion: Israel as a symbol - and Jews, in general - have been transformed from the helpless victims of the Nazi extermination machine into "the most dangerous country to world peace," as defined by the latest European Union Commission survey. This was a problematic survey from a structural point of view, so I shall reword the statement - Israel has become the most hated nation in the world.

How can this hatred toward us be explained, particularly in the developed European states? And why is it being expressed specifically now, and with such intensity? At first, Israel officially assumed that these were only marginal expressions of radicalization toward Israel. But when the waves of hatred spread and appeared on all the media networks around the world and penetrated every home, the new-old answer surfaced: anti-Semitism.

After all, anti-Semitism has always been the Jews' trump card because it is easy to quote some crazy figure from history and seek cover. This time, too, the anti-Semitism card has been pulled from the sleeve of explanations by the Israeli government and its most faithful spokespeople have been sent to wave it. But the time has come for the Israeli public to wake up from the fairy tale being told by its elected government.

The rhetoric of the perpetual victim is not a sufficient answer for the question of the timing. Why all of a sudden have all the anti-Semites, or haters of Israel, raised their heads and begun chanting hate slogans? Enough of our whining, "The whole world is against us."

After all, every country first takes care of its national interests and no other country has to be included among the fans of the Zionist effort. The time has come to look at the facts and admit the simple but bitter truth - Israel has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the world and we are guilty for what has happened. This generalization is a bit harsh for me, so I will be more precise - not all of us, but our government. Even though I am absolutely certain that each one of its ministers really wants what is best for the country, the government is mistaken and is bringing calamity upon us.

The government is mistaken because it is conducting a destructive policy. No government in Israel has succeeded in solving the tragedy of the two peoples - the occupier and the occupied. Governments have had 36 years to do this, and no government has figured out how to be rid of the territories.

But this government, which Prime Minister Ariel Sharon heads, has brought the Palestinians' despair to new depths. Considering the criticism of the international community, there is only one nation left that insists on believing in the government's path - the Jewish nation, which backs up the government's actions time after time.

Where do we get our pretentiousness for such sympathy at a time when the Sharon government is conducting an unethical and inhumane policy? This is the answer to all the surveys that have been published around the world lately. This is the answer to all those "anti-Semitic" statements that have been voiced lately. This is the answer to all the arsons, the murders and the terror attacks we have suffered.

The Jewish people, who went through a Holocaust just decades ago - a short moment in historical terms - must not oppress another people and deny them their rights and any shadow of hope for a future. We must not be blinded by the unrestrained support from "Uncle Sam" - even the United States is being run by a radical, aggressive government that is, therefore, also failing.

It is this government that entangled the "leader of the free world" in an unnecessary and painful war, and this government is responsible for the erosion of America's status in the world.

True, the roots of anti-Semitism are planted very deeply in the culture and history of Christian Europe. It is also reasonable to assume that even the ideas of the liberals, who wanted to sever ties with traditional nationalism, will be unable to pull out these roots. But if anti-Semitism was until now found exclusively in the extreme political fringes, Israel's continued policy of the cruel occupation will only encourage and fan the spread of anti-Semitic sentiments.

From this, I conclude that if Israel wants to be embraced by the family of nations as a full member, it must learn how to behave according to the accepted rules around the world - rules of ethics, fairness and justice.

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/palestine/1282.html

And I would also recommend this article from The Nation (hardly an "antisemitic" magazine):

"The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040202/klug/single

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I support the two-state solution and believe that Israel does have a right to defend itself against Hamas or any of the numerous potential threats. However, I don't think I'm speaking from an anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli point of view when I say that Israel has been going a little nuts lately. There is one story that the "pro-Palestinian/Hamas/anything Muslim" media has only slightly mentioned, and that was the U.S. rejecting Israel's plea to attack Iran's nuclear facilities last year. That's right: Israel actually approached President Bush and requested permission to bomb Iran's facilities. It's quite alarming that Israel could so nonchalantly request permission to do something that could very well suck not only the U.S., but the entire world into another war. The consequences of this could have been even worse than those of a nuclear Iran.

People can blame the media all they want for the perceptions of the conflict in Gaza. There is little doubt about Hamas' failure to comply with ceasefire agreements, or the fact that their very existence hinders any chance of a real peace solution in the region. The world peception of the conflict doesn't really matter because Israel can't survive for the next fifty years based on U.S. support alone. Israel's very existence will always draw ire from groups like Hamas, but if they step too far out of bounds then it might prompt the more moderate of the Muslim world to take a more hardline approach against Israel, and that's when it becomes even more of a global problem.

[Preston_79]

I already gave you a plethora of evidence of why me and the international community believes Israel acts very poorly. These same sources that I used also have released a plethora of reports regarding Palestinians' own blatant human rights abuses.

But after I've posted all that, you are still insisting that the global perception of events and the bias against Israel has "everything" to do with antisemitism, therefore trivializing the actual facts of the matter. You keep arguing about this antisemitism.

Here is a Pew Research Center poll titled "A Year After The Iraq War", from 2004. Among the findings: "Despite concerns about rising anti-Semitism in Europe, there are no indications that anti-Jewish sentiment has increased over the past decade. Favorable ratings of Jews are actually higher now in France, Germany and Russia than they were in 1991. Nonetheless, Jews are better liked in the U.S. than in Germany and Russia. As is the case with Americans, Europeans hold much more negative views of Muslims than of Jews."

If there is some sort of global antisemitism that is resulting in this institutional bias, why isn't it offset by the much greater anti-muslim resentment in the western world? The majority of stories of discrimination coming out of Europe and the United States are of fear of muslims. This should be obvious to anyone paying attention. Yet if the Western world is afraid of muslims much more than they might be afraid of jews, why is it that suddenly in the case of Israel they completely go against these trends and start defending muslims? Of course, no one is going to argue that there isn't antisemitism in the Middle East. In the same way, i don't think any sane person is going to argue that there is a disturbing amount of antimuslim sentiment here in the west.

If you are going to argue that anti-semitism is the root of negativity and erroneous perception, then you are also going to have to conclude that anti-muslim beliefs would tilt the scale in favor of Israel, not against. There is no way to escape this..

Here are some good words from Roman Bronfman, at the time of the Second Intifada.



http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/palestine/1282.html

And I would also recommend this article from The Nation (hardly an "antisemitic" magazine):

"The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040202/klug/single


So a good portion of the international community thinks Israel acts poorly. Obviously not all of the international community thinks this and no ones made the argument that Israel acts poorly all the time. No ones head is so deep in the sand that they think Israel's hands are clean. So far the amount of evidence you stacked against Israel, just doesn't out weight what's terribly wrong with Hamas and the authorities that allow them to fuck with Israel the way they do daily. Hamas is a bigger problem than Israel's occasional fuck ups.

That pew poll you quote doesn't address how Muslim nations view Jews and Israel, just some some European ones made up mostly white Catholics populations. Antisemitism has decreased as you point out in those countries, but has been over all stable since 1991. That leads be to believe that while things are better in parts of Europe and the United States, they're worse in Muslim nations.

[Homyrrh]

I feel THC and Monotreme are having a decidedly "epic" and, from the outside, enjoyable go on the issue. I'm not saying a damned thing...just gonna watch and read. I definitely respect the amount of research inherent of the topic that's actually been done.

[Monotreme]

Alright, so in case anyone hasn't heard the recent developments in the region:

Last night Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced a unilateral, one-sided Israeli ceasefire, without the agreement of Hamas, to be implemented at 2:00 AM Israel time (last night). He added that the IDF would remain in Gaza until Hamas accepted the ceasefire, and that the IDF would still respond to rocket attacks - but all acts of aggression would end that night. Hamas initially vowed to fight on, but 24 hours later, at 14:00 in the afternoon Israel time today, Hamas and the other Gaza terrorist groups announced their acceptance of the ceasefire, under the condition that Israel withdraw its troops from Gaza within a week. During the day there were still a few events, including 19 rockets launched by Hamas onto the same Israeli towns that have been suffering under the rocket attacks these past 8 years and in particular these past 3 weeks, and the IDF response to those launches, namely air strike attacks against the rocket launching squads. These past few hours, Israel has been withdrawing massive amounts of its troops stationed in Gaza, hopefully on the way to the final conclusion of this terrible war.

What are the diplomatic implementations of this whole thing? Hopefully, I can explain, although I must add that the following is my personal opinion and interpretation of events, and by no means should be considered cold, hard fact.

By announcing a unilateral cease-fire, Israel has done a really smart thing and has managed to essentially turn the tables. As I write this, the leaders of all the major European countries who in the past three weeks couldn't critisize and denounce Israel enough, are sitting in a joint press conference with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem, in support of the cease-fire. Hopefully, Israel will fulfill its promise, and on the other side, hopefully the world leaders will take special notice of any violations of the cease-fire from Hamas' side, and react accordingly.

With European support, hopefully we, with the help of Egyptian President Mubarak, can reach a world-agreed ceasefire agreement which includes the steps needed in order to finally ensure the safety of Israeli citizens living in the cities around Gaza. Israel should have no problem to dissolve the blockade, withdraw all forces from Gaza and open the checkpoints. These are the demands of Hamas, and as long as our demands are also met, I don't see why Israel shouldn't comply. So what does Israel want out of all this? To create a permanent reality in which Hamas will NOT launch rockets into Israel, targeting innocent Israeli citizens, as they have been doing for the past 8 years. How can that be done? What makes this time different from the other ceasefire agreements with Hamas, which they had no problem violating and renewing the rocket fire a few months after their implementation?

One of the major points in the ceasefire discussions will be international supervision over the checkpoints on the Gaza-Egypt border. It is via smuggling tunnels on this border that Hamas built up its current stockpile of weapons and will be able to re-stock itself for a renewal of the rocket attacks at any point, which is something that we definitely want to avoid. The demand will be the presence of an international supervising force that will monitor and hopefully prevent further smuggling of weapons into Gaza and the re-arming of Hamas. This way, Israel will hopefully be able to ensure the safety of its citizens in the south, and we will be able to avoid further rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians.

Back to the European support, I hope that Israel's announcing of the one-sided ceasefire will perhaps help our cause by gaining European support for Israel's demands ensuring its citizens' security, and I can only further hope that Barack Obama's inauguration on Tuesday will lead into practical, US-supported discussions for a long-term settlement with the Palestinians. I want to express my careful optimism that the Obama administration will be able to finally implement a two-state solution and the formation of a Palestinian state. The thing is, that really depends on how much power Hamas has left, and even more so, how much power Hamas will be able to re-gain under the table during a cease-fire agreement.

Much speculation surrounds the future developments of the situation, so suffice it to say, for now, that I'm just glad the fighting, and the killing of civilians on both sides of the border, is over.

[Pentangeli]

"Israel are acting like Nazis":
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/uk-jewish-mp-israel-acting-like-the-nazis-who-forced-my-family-to-flee-from-poland-14144249.html

[Jon Lyrik]

Kaufman touches upon a great truth in the end of the article.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Well, it's abundantly clear that Sir Gerald Kaufman is an unrepentant antisemite.

[Monotreme]

Seeing as half of my family perished in the holocaust, nothing sickens me more than people comparing Israel to the Nazis. It literally makes me nautious. It does nothing but show not even the SLIGHTEST comprehension of the complexity of the situation. It is so degradingly low, that I don't even think it's worth stooping down to respond to, beyond a dismayed shaking of the head.

[Pentangeli]

Kaufman's own family was partly destroyed by the Nazis, yet he feels the comparison was justified. Good on him for speaking up.

[Preston_79]

In a BBC interview Kaufman said about the rising Palestinian death toll: "Four Jews against 1,000 Palestinians - that is Nazism."

It is? From now on when two countries battle and one clearly kills more of their enemy than the other it's Nazism, regardless of right and wrong? I'd say the same if the Palestinians where the ones taking all the lives. You engage your enemy in battle, so don't cry Nazism when you're the one getting your ass kicked. I also think Nazism is a bad comparison, that was genocide that was happening to the Jews. There was no Jewish army fighting Hitlers Germany. There were no Jewish militants attacking the German infrastructure that sparked Hitlers hatred for them.

Maybe when a shitty rocket gets fired from Gaza and doesn't kill anyone Israel should retaliate with another shitty rocket that doesn't kill anyone just so it's even. Forget the high tech weaponry, because wars should be fair.

There are plenty of valid comparisons that could probably be made to the Nazis. Just killing shit loads of your enemy isn't one of them. How innocent these victims of war are is debatable, but I say if you don't want a bomb dropped on you don't live in an area where militants have control i.e. Gaza strip.

[Criminal Rock]

There is no doubt the Israeli Government made mistakes at the cost of innocent Palestinian lives, and perhaps a different approach to resolve the conflict is necessary if anything is to get resolved... however, as Monotreme suggests, the situation between the two countries is very complex and to mischaracterize Israel's actions, in comparing them to Nazis, is nothing short of pure ignorance.

It should be obvious to any thoughtful person how wrong and unfair of a comparison this is. You know, being that Nazis enslaved, raped, tortured, and killed tens of millions of people because they thought of themselves as a superior race. Whereas Israel doesn't believe in and didn't do any of that shit...

The guy's heart may be in the right place (heavy emphasis on "may be") in suggesting that Israel should take a different course of action, but his comparisons of Israel to Nazis are definitely not applicable in this situation, as it is totally falsified and unjustifiable. Not to mention idiotic...

[Pentangeli]

It should be obvious to any thoughtful person how wrong and unfair of a comparison this is. You know, being that Nazis enslaved, raped, tortured, and killed tens of millions of people because they thought of themselves as a superior race. Whereas Israel doesn't believe in and didn't do any of that shit...

Though I can't speak for Kaufman, I have my doubts that any person --knowledgeable of WWII and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- would compare the Nazi's actions to the Israeli's in terms of size. Of course the Nazi's killed more. But the mentality, or the attitude of Israel in the conflict has many parallels to Nazism -- opression of another race (enslaving); bombing schools (U.N ones at that); killings; acts viewed as ethnic cleansing.

Although Kaufman's right, being Jewish he probably should have been more sensitive to his own ancestry, and not used such an analogy.

[Preston_79]

Though I can't speak for Kaufman, I have my doubts that any person --knowledgeable of WWII and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- would compare the Nazi's actions to the Israeli's in terms of size. Of course the Nazi's killed more. But the mentality, or the attitude of Israel in the conflict has many parallels to Nazism -- opression of another race (enslaving); bombing schools (U.N ones at that); killings; acts viewed as ethnic cleansing.

Although Kaufman's right, being Jewish he probably should have been more sensitive to his own ancestry, and not used such an analogy.


I had no idea Israel was enslaving Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing is a stretch.

The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group"


Not to mention others define ethnic cleansing as the majority being the perpetrators. Jews are anything, but the majority. I'd also say what the Nazi's were doing to Jews was more than just oppressing them. They wanted to rid the world of them and some groups still want to rid the world of Jews.

It's a horrible comparison. We're talking about a group that made lamp shades out of skin. If you want to compare Jews to past oppressors there are scores of them more fitting than Nazi's.

[gayzilla]

Not only is the notion that the Israeli's are behaving Nazi-like completely ludicrous, but it robs the author of any valid points he did have. It's too bad because the Israelis have gone to far and this kind of pandering hyperbole just diminishes his argument to the point of dismissal.

[Criminal Rock]

Though I can't speak for Kaufman, I have my doubts that any person --knowledgeable of WWII and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- would compare the Nazi's actions to the Israeli's in terms of size.

Well, yes which is why I said what I said... in fact, you quoted my point which had nothing to do with 'size', or "death-count", and had everything to do with the comparison of attitudes between Israel and Nazis and how they are vastly different and non-comparable.

Of course the Nazi's killed more. But the mentality, or the attitude of Israel in the conflict has many parallels to Nazism -- opression of another race (enslaving); bombing schools (U.N ones at that); killings; acts viewed as ethnic cleansing.

Are you suggesting that Israel is guilty of slavery and ethnic cleansing?

Do you have any evidence of this?

[Vong]

Are you suggesting that Israel is guilty of slavery and ethnic cleansing?

Slavery? No.
Ethnic cleansing. In the past, yes. (See First Arab-Israeli War, 1947).

[Criminal Rock]

It was also legal to own slaves in America not long ago, but that doesn't mean we, as in me and the rest of America, are guilty of what happened then.

In any case, I'll rephrase the question if I must: Is the current Israeli Government guilty of slavery and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?

If so, I'd like to see evidence of this.

[Vong]

It was also legal to own slaves in America not long ago, but that doesn't mean we, as in me and the rest of America, are guilty of what happened then.

When a head of state or dignified leader apologizes to a group of people for events that happened decades or even hundreds of years ago, is it because they were the ones responsible for it? No. They are apologizing as a sentiment of good faith towards the group for all the hard-ship and pain they have had to live with since said event.

Regardless of whether it happened 2 weeks ago or 200 years ago, an event can have dire consequences on a group of people for a long time. Take for example the events of the 1947 war between "pre-state" Israel and the people of Palestine. It led to the expansion of Israeli territory through annexation of Palestinian territory and the expulsion of 800,000 Palestinian people creating refugee camps across the Middle East.

The result of the war (and the second war two decades later) shaped the state of Israel and the lives of the Palestinian people to this day. To ignore an event because it happened long ago would remove its significance to the millions of people dramatically affected by it today. Just as you couldn't tell an African American to forget about Black History Month and remembering things that happened hundreds of years ago, where the mentality existed back then still exists to this day.

The Palestinians still are getting "cleansed" to a lesser extent today (see Israeli settlements).

[Pentangeli]

Israel's actions since 1948 up to the present day can be viewed as ethnic cleansing, and are considered so by many. What evidence is there? well certainly no Nazi-esque self incriminating speeches. Israel's actions, and quotes from Israeli leaders, speak volumes about their intent.

[Pentangeli]

To ignore an event because it happened long ago would remove its significance to the millions of people dramatically affected by it today.

True. Many Armenians, for example, are still hurt by the genocide inflicted upon them by the Turks, around 1915. Although most Armenians don't blame the present Turkish government, they still hold out for an apology, or any acknowledgement the tragic events took place.

[Jon Lyrik]

Yeah. Hey, anyone hear of the city of Ani? Was an utterly magnificent medieval city, now in ruins...not even protected by Turkey despite being in their borders. Was ethnically Armenian.

[Preston_79]

When a head of state or dignified leader apologizes to a group of people for events that happened decades or even hundreds of years ago, is it because they were the ones responsible for it? No.


No. If you weren't alive you are not responsible. It's as simple as that. I can't be blamed nor can anyone else for things that happened before their life. But I agree with what you said next that It's a gesture of good faith. You're really apologizing on behalf of others who are dead if it's taking place hundreds of years later. It's like if my great, great, great grandfather killed someone and I apologize to the relatives of the victim years later. I'm not responsible, I'm just clearing the air.

Pentangeli - Israel's actions since 1948 up to the present day can be viewed as ethnic cleansing, and are considered so by many. What evidence is there? well certainly no Nazi-esque self incriminating speeches. Israel's actions, and quotes
from Israeli leaders, speak volumes about their intent.

Tai's just asking for a little proof. Maybe there's a Nazi-esque speech out there from a current Israeli leader? If so I've never seen it. What are their leaders saying that's similar to what a Nazi would say? Just a little proof.

[gayzilla]

Last time I checked, Israelis were not hunting down every living Palestinian; man, woman or child, to round them up, stuff them into rooms and burn them alive. So there really is no valid comparison at all and anyone attempting to make one is a complete ignoramus with a very weak grasp of the facts.

The atrocities Hitler and the Nazis committed against the human race are among the most vile ever.

[Criminal Rock]

...Regardless of whether it happened 2 weeks ago or 200 years ago, an event can have dire consequences on a group of people for a long time. Take for example the events of the 1947 war between "pre-state" Israel and the people of Palestine. It led to the expansion of Israeli territory through annexation of Palestinian territory and the expulsion of 800,000 Palestinian people creating refugee camps across the Middle East.

The result of the war (and the second war two decades later) shaped the state of Israel and the lives of the Palestinian people to this day. To ignore an event because it happened long ago would remove its significance to the millions of people dramatically affected by it today. Just as you couldn't tell an African American to forget about Black History Month and remembering things that happened hundreds of years ago, where the mentality existed back then still exists to this day.

The Palestinians still are getting "cleansed" to a lesser extent today (see Israeli settlements).

Well, historically speaking, the Arabs were also guilty of ethnic cleansing of Jewish immigrants just as recently as the 1920-30's, instigating pogroms and riots that resulted in many deaths and the expulsion of thousands of settlers within the areas of Hebron, Jerusalem, and many others. Arabs were also guilty of leveraging their political power in an attempt to hinder further Jewish immigration of the region, even though the settlers fled from racism and persecution throughout Eastern Europe (Before, and even during the Nazi invasion of Poland).

That said, I fully understand and have stated before that Israel is guilty of displacing/killing innocent Palestinians, and that perhaps a different approach is necessary if they are to resolve the conflict. Though, looking back it seems I was a bit hasty in my response to your post and did not explain my point clearly, as it was not to undermine historical facts and their relevancy, but to assert that the current state of Israel is not comparable to Nazis... but even in historical contexts, Israel still doesn't compare to any act related to Nazism, i.e. racism, concentration camps, human experimentation, genocide, world domination, superiority of race, etc... you know, what Nazis are known for.

Do you agree, Vong? Or is there something I am missing which explicitly and truthfully compares Israel to Nazism?

[Vong]

Dude, please don't presume to think that I compared Israel to Nazi Germany. Talk to Preston_79 about that comparison, because I never made that kind of connection.

[Criminal Rock]

I didn't presume anything. I was simply asking if you agree or disagree with my arguments.

[The Heart Collector]

Soldiers' accounts of Gaza killings raise furor in Israel
By Ethan Bronner
Thursday, March 19, 2009

JERUSALEM: In the two months since Israel ended its military assault on Gaza, Palestinians and international rights groups have accused it of excessive force and wanton killing in that operation, but the Israeli military has said it followed high ethical standards and took great care to avoid civilian casualties.

Now testimony is emerging from within the ranks of soldiers and officers alleging a permissive attitude toward the killing of civilians and wanton destruction of property that is sure to inflame the domestic and international debate about the army's conduct in Gaza. On Thursday, the military's chief advocate general ordered an investigation into a soldier's account of a sniper killing a woman and her two children who walked too close to a designated no-go area by mistake, and another account of a sharpshooter who killed an elderly woman who came within 100 yards of a commandeered house.

When asked why that elderly woman was killed, a squad commander was quoted as saying: "What's great about Gaza — you see a person on a path, he doesn't have to be armed, you can simply shoot him. In our case it was an old woman on whom I did not see any weapon when I looked. The order was to take down the person, this woman, the minute you see her. There are always warnings, there is always the saying, 'Maybe he's a terrorist.' What I felt was, there was a lot of thirst for blood."

The testimonies by soldiers, leaked to the newspapers Maariv and Haaretz, appeared in a journal published by a military preparatory course at the Oranim Academic College in the northern town of Tivon. The newspapers promised to release more such anecdotal accounts on Friday, without saying how many.

The academy's director, Dany Zamir, told Israel Radio, "Those were very harsh testimonies about unjustified shooting of civilians and destruction of property that conveyed an atmosphere in which one feels entitled to use unrestricted force against Palestinians."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio that he believed such incidents to be exceptions, adding, "The Israeli Army is the most moral in the world, and I know what I'm talking about because I know what took place in the former Yugoslavia, in Iraq."

It was clear that Mr. Zamir felt that his concerns, which he had raised earlier in a letter to the military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, had not been taken seriously and that was why he published the testimonies.

Since the war ended, others have raised similar questions, generating a heated debate within military circles.

"According to the code, a soldier has to do his utmost to avoid civilian casualties and that involves taking some risk," said Moshe Halbertal, a Jewish philosophy professor at Hebrew University who, along with three others, rewrote the military ethics code eight years ago. "That is the question we have to struggle with. From the testimonies of these soldiers, it sounds like they didn't practice this norm."

Amir Marmor, a 33-year-old history graduate student in Jerusalem and a military reservist, said in an interview with The New York Times that he was stunned to discover the way civilian casualties were discussed in training discussions before his tank unit entered Gaza in January. "Shoot and don't worry about the consequences," was the message from the top commanders, he said. Speaking of a lieutenant colonel who briefed the troops, Mr. Marmor said, "His whole demeanor was extremely gung ho. This is very, very different from my usual experience. I have been doing reserve duty for 12 years, and it was always an issue how to avoid causing civilian injuries. He said in this operation we are not taking any chances. Morality aside, we have to do our job. We will cry about it later."

Some 1,300 people were killed in the Gaza war, but how many of them were combatants remains a matter of controversy. Israel lost about 10 soldiers in Gaza, some because of fire by its own forces.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which has documented the Gaza deaths, says that about two-thirds of the 1,300 were civilians, among them 121 women and 288 children, which it defines as anyone 18 and younger.

But the Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel said Thursday that it had analyzed the Palestinian center's names and found that some that it listed as civilians were identified as combatants on Hamas-related Web sites. Some listed as children were 17-year-olds with guns, it said, adding that more than 500 of those described by the center as civilians it considered "unknowns" because most were men of combat age whose activities could not be easily traced.

It argued that the proportion of women and children among the dead was relatively low, showing that Israel had not killed in an indiscriminate fashion.

Thursday's revelations caused an immediate uproar here, with some soldiers and reservists said they did not recognize the stories being told as accurate.

Gur Rosenblat, a company commander during the Gaza operation, said in an interview: "To say that people were killed without justification — the opposite was true. We put soldiers at risk to prevent harming their civilians."

Israeli experts noted that Palestinian women had served as suicide bombers in the past so that soldiers in Gaza did not always know when a woman was approaching whether she was a threat.

One of the soldiers' testimonies involved the killing of a family. The soldier said: "We had taken over the house, and the family was released and told to go right. A mother and two children got confused and went left. The sniper on the roof wasn't told that this was O.K. and that he shouldn't shoot. You can say he just did what he was told."

Much of what happened in Gaza, some military experts said, was in reaction to the way events unfolded in the second Lebanon war in 2006 when Hezbollah caused many Israeli casualties.

In that war, when Israeli soldiers took over a house, they sometimes found themselves shot from a house next door. The result was that in Gaza, many houses next to those commandeered by troops were destroyed to avoid that risk.

Still, Israeli ethicists say they are troubled by what they have heard.

"Unfortunately, I think that selective use of killing civilians has been very much on the agenda for fighting terror," said Yaron Ezrahi, a political scientist at Hebrew University who has been lecturing at defense colleges. "The army believes that a weak spot of Israeli deterrence is its strong commitment not to kill civilians, and there has grown the sense that it might have to temporarily overcome that weakness in order to restore deterrence."

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=20941462

[Homyrrh]

When asked why that elderly woman was killed, a squad commander was quoted as saying: "What's great about Gaza — you see a person on a path, he doesn't have to be armed, you can simply shoot him. In our case it was an old woman on whom I did not see any weapon when I looked. The order was to take down the person, this woman, the minute you see her. There are always warnings, there is always the saying, 'Maybe he's a terrorist.' What I felt was, there was a lot of thirst for blood."
I don't know...

[Vong]

I don't know...

That makes two of us...

[The Heart Collector]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Israeli-Army-T-Shirts-Mock-Killing-Palestinian-Women-And-Children-During-Gaza-Offensive/Article/200903315245946?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15245946_Israeli_Army_T-Shirts_Mock_Killing_Palestinian_Women_And_Children _During_Gaza_Offensive

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/15245916.jpg

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/15245919.jpg