Kerry called Netnyahoo to let him know next time they meet he wont do anal without lube and said neither will Obomba...Netnyahoo hung up on him. All of a sudden when Israel isnt so popular US officials dont want to take it in the ass from Israel.
Kerry called Netnyahoo to let him know next time they meet he wont do anal without lube and said neither will Obomba...Netnyahoo hung up on him. All of a sudden when Israel isnt so popular US officials dont want to take it in the ass from Israel.
What ever cause you believe in, when you mention lewd acts like this, you contribute less than nothing to the discussion, and degrade the caliber of your own voice. Of all the valuable things you could've said, you opted for this?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Kerry called Netnyahoo to let him know next time they meet he wont do anal without lube and said neither will Obomba...Netnyahoo hung up on him. All of a sudden when Israel isnt so popular US officials dont want to take it in the ass from Israel.
What ever cause you believe in, when you mention lewd acts like this, you contribute less than nothing to the discussion, and degrade the caliber of your own voice. Of all the valuable things you could've said, you opted for this?
yes... its metaphorical of course, dont have such a filthy mind
"We will not rest until we liberate our occupied land," Gaza fighter says The Electronic Intifada 6 August 2014
'...After repeated attempts, The Electronic Intifada managed to get hold of Abu Muhammad, one of the fighters of the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades.
A sense of security and caution is essential during military escalations, so being hidden from camera-equipped drones is a tough mission.
Abu Muhammad — not his real name — is forty years old and a father of five children, the eldest of whom is ten years old. He has been engaged in the fighting since the start of Israel’s large-scale offensive last month.
He said that he told his children that he is traveling out of Gaza for medical reasons in order to obscure his disappearance — and in case something happened to him. But his wife knows that he is a resistance fighter and might not come back.
“I miss my family very much, but I’m on a duty to defend my people and retaliate against the invaders’ attacks that killed hundreds of civilians,” Abu Muhammad said. “I try not to contact them a lot — when I speak to my children, I calm them down and say that things will be alright. My wife starts crying whenever I call; emotions run high. I try to make my calls very short.”
Although the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades is the armed wing of Fatah, Hamas’ political rival, during times of Israeli attacks all factions and parties unite under coordinated command.
Wearing a black and yellow face mask and carrying an automatic rifle, Abu Muhammad said he has been a fighter for the past twenty years. He opposes Fatah’s relinquishing of the armed liberation struggle in favor of endless negotiations.
“Our enemy only understands the language of power. Look what happened during the past twenty years of peace talks: more colonization and land theft, killing and destruction — and look now how the resistance is imposing its conditions. The resistance is an asset to the Palestinian people,” he said.
The right to resist
I asked him what he thinks of Israel’s main condition in order to end its hostilities: that Palestinian resistance factions must disarm.
“Whoever agrees to this condition is a traitor,” he said. “We have the right to resist and defend ourselves. Our enemy has nuclear warheads and the most advanced weapons in the world; why is this entity allowed to arm itself? We are under military occupation and have the right even under international law to resist the occupiers.”
Of the approximately 1,885 Palestinians killed and in the last month of Israeli attacks, more than four hundred were children, according to the United Nations. It’s not yet known how many of the victims were fighters and to which factions they belonged.
Soon after the Egypt-mediated 72-hour humanitarian ceasefire went into effect on Tuesday, the Qassam Brigades published the story of 29 of its fighters who fought fierce clashes and managed to stay alive for several days inside a tunnel 25 meters deep in the eastern part of al-Qarara near Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip.
Al-Qassam added that fighters ate just half of one date each per day and drank only half a cup of water.
Israel says that 64 of its soldiers were killed and hundreds were injured. Most of the fierce confrontations took place along the boundary line in northern and eastern areas of the Gaza Strip, including Beit Hanoun, east of Shujaiya, east of Khan Younis and east of Rafah.
Abu Muhammad said that he will not return home until the battle is officially over, but added that he cannot wait to hug his children and have a meal with his family.
“We will not rest until we liberate our occupied land,” Abu Muhammad said. “Resistance is a winning card — politicians, especially Fatah leaders, must understand that the olive branch will not liberate Palestine. We gave the olive branch and peace process more than twenty years, but we still live under Israeli occupation.”
Send dissidents to "detention centers," says Israeli columnist 08/05/2014
In an article titled, “Arrest Gideon Levy and Haneen Zoabi,” Matti Golan, a columnist for the Israeli business daily Globes, has called for the establishment of camps modeled after the internment camps the United States established in World War II.
Golan wrote that Levy, a dissident Israeli journalist who writes for Haaretz; Palestinian member of the Knesset Zoabi and Amira Hass, Haaretz’s other dissenting journalist; should all be rounded up since they are “agitators.”
The article is not available on the Globes English website but I have translated it in full below. It was published on 20 July, two days after Zoabi was arrested at a Haifa protest against the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Soon after, she was suspended from the Knesset.
Golan positively portrays the United States’ internment camps for people of Japanese descent living on the West Coast, as well as some Italians and Germans affiliated with fascist movements during World War II. However, after campaigns led by Japanese Americans, nearly fifty years later the US government paid reparations to camp survivors in recognition of their suffering.
Golan’s column doesn’t appear to have a lot of traction but is part of a rising tide of extreme right-wing Israeli discourse. This trend has called for everything from returning Israeli soldiers and settlers to Gaza to outright genocide.
Before dismissing Golan’s view as peripheral, it is worth remembering the context: tens of thousands of Palestinians are already imprisoned in Israeli jails for political activity over the last few decades, and many African migrants and refugees are in concentration camps at this very moment.
Full article
Arrest Gideon Levy and Haneen Zoabi
In and outside the halls of Knesset the main topic of conversation these days is the handcuffing of Haneen Zoabi after her arrest on suspicion of routine involvement in riots, incitement, assault and related acts.
The debate in the Knesset and on the street is of course a matter of democracy. Is it okay, illegal, immoral, to arrest and handcuff a Knesset member and a journalist for expressing their opinion?
But I have another question: If it’s ok with Zoabi, then why not Gideon Levy, for example (and Amira Hass and others)? Is it because one is Arab and the other Jewish? Is it because one is amongst the elected officials while the other is a journalist?
Levy’s Jewishness
That Levy is Jewish gives much greater weight to his incitement. Yet certainly Zoabi’s words don’t carry any less weight as she is a member of the Israeli Knesset. Her case is just the same.
Both of these inciters achieve the same effect on Jews and the Palestinians. Levy’s Jewishness allows those who want to, say, “Look, it’s not just Palestinians, but a top Jewish journalist who writes for thoughtful Jews, i.e., a person worth relating to.” In Zoabi’s case, one can say she was elected to the Knesset in Israel, by Israeli voters, meaning that her words carry weight.
What the reporter is allowed to say
I’m really not happy to write these things. Democracy is for me what the Bible is to the Ultra-Orthodox or the Quran to the Muslim, and I recoil from altering it, or certainly damaging it. But what happens to us, especially in times of war, it is not a matter of democracy, but of geography.
Hindering journalists is very extreme step. But the law recognizes that there are limits to what a journalist is allowed to do and say. For example, they are forbidden to slander, and when they do, they are punished. They are not allowed to invade the privacy of citizens and the law provides for other restrictions. All of this stems from the understanding that words can hurt, and sometimes hurt hard. Therefore, the it is in the public interest to be protected from them.
On the verge of treason
The actions of Levy, Zoabi, and those like them are on the verge of wartime treason. Granting them permission to roam free and spread poisonous teachings has nothing to do with democracy, and it causes a lot of damage to the country.
During World War II the United States and other Western countries established detention centers, and incarcerated people to protect the country from the harm they could cause. The place of people like Zoabi and Levy is in such detention centers where they will stay till the end of the war, after which it will be decided whether or not to put them on trial. But to leave them free as they are today, is a sin by the leadership against a public entitled to protection.
Here we see a rocket site being set up in Gaza and later used. This is in the heart of a populated area, with many residences and hotels surrounding the launch point. Any Israeli response or return of fire would come down directly on this population center.
Here we see a rocket site being set up in Gaza and later used. This is in the heart of a populated area, with many residences and hotels surrounding the launch point. Any Israeli response or return of fire would come down directly on this population center.
Jimmy, this is getting silly. I suspect you and I both can predict exactly what will be said in response to this. We're having the same carbon copy of a discussion over and over again.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Here we see a rocket site being set up in Gaza and later used. This is in the heart of a populated area, with many residences and hotels surrounding the launch point. Any Israeli response or return of fire would come down directly on this population center.
Jimmy, this is getting silly. I suspect you and I both can predict exactly what will be said in response to this. We're having the same carbon copy of a discussion over and over again.
Oh certainly, we can predict the response. That does not mean I should not still speak.
I personally have not seen a video like this in any of the many threads on this topic. Perhaps they are there and I have missed them, and perhaps this very one has been posted and it simply slipped by me. I posted this because there has been a deluge of posts depicting Israeli's disgusting tactics. I hadn't seen one, like this, that clearly depicts forces in Gaza launching rocket strikes from a civilian area. We have discussed it over and over, for sure, but I personally had not seen it myself. It has relevance.
Justice, Israel-style. So if you abduct an Arab from the street in Israel, pour petrol down his throat and burn him alive, and then dump his body by the side of a road, it's o.k for you to walk the streets for a year. I wonder if the same would have been the case if the boy had been Jewish?
Khdeir Murder Suspects Released Until End of Proceedings August 07, 2014
The Israeli Central Court of Jerusalem decided, on Wednesday, not to hold three young suspects accused of killing 16-year-old Muhammad Abu Khudeir this past month, according to the PNN.
The boy was kidnapped near his East Jerusalem home, in early July, by a group of Israeli settlers who brutally tortured and later burned him alive.
On July 27, the suspects were brought in for arraignment. In a statement, Shin Bet said that all suspects had confessed to the murder, apparently having decided to kill an Arab and equipping themselves with cable ties, petrol and other materials and, then, randomly choosing Abu Khdeir as their victim.
The day prior, according to Ma'an, the suspects had attempted to kidnap an 8-year-old child in another part of the city, but were fended off by the child's mother.
According to Israeli media, the prime suspect, 29-year-old Yoseph Ben David, would basing his defense on a case of mental instability, as he had undergone psychiatric treatment in the past, in connection with another incident in which he attempted to strangle his own infant daughter.
Ben David, when appearing for the arraignment, was reported to say at the entrance hall: "I am the messiah."
The three youth who took part in the killing are now to be released.
According to their lawyer, it could take more than year and a half for trial proceedings to end, adding that they were too young to stay in jail for that long.
Justice, Israel-style. So if you abduct an Arab from the street in Israel, pour petrol down his throat and burn him alive, and then dump his body by the side of a road, it's o.k for you to walk the streets for a year. I wonder if the same would have been the case if the boy had been Jewish?
Khdeir Murder Suspects Released Until End of Proceedings August 07, 2014
The Israeli Central Court of Jerusalem decided, on Wednesday, not to hold three young suspects accused of killing 16-year-old Muhammad Abu Khudeir this past month, according to the PNN.
The boy was kidnapped near his East Jerusalem home, in early July, by a group of Israeli settlers who brutally tortured and later burned him alive.
On July 27, the suspects were brought in for arraignment. In a statement, Shin Bet said that all suspects had confessed to the murder, apparently having decided to kill an Arab and equipping themselves with cable ties, petrol and other materials and, then, randomly choosing Abu Khdeir as their victim.
The day prior, according to Ma'an, the suspects had attempted to kidnap an 8-year-old child in another part of the city, but were fended off by the child's mother.
According to Israeli media, the prime suspect, 29-year-old Yoseph Ben David, would basing his defense on a case of mental instability, as he had undergone psychiatric treatment in the past, in connection with another incident in which he attempted to strangle his own infant daughter.
Ben David, when appearing for the arraignment, was reported to say at the entrance hall: "I am the messiah."
The three youth who took part in the killing are now to be released.
According to their lawyer, it could take more than year and a half for trial proceedings to end, adding that they were too young to stay in jail for that long.
Don't you ever get sick of lying and distorting facts? You get worse and worse as time goes by. The article, that you posted, says nothing of the sort of your opening comment. It says in the last. Sentence that THE ACCUSEDES LAWYER says they are too young to spend the time of the proceedings in jail. I assume that he was referring to the two minors accused of assisting in the murder and not to the 29 year old that the article discusses. For what it's worth, i believe that in cases like this it is too bad that we do not have the death penalty in israel.
Still can't believe I met Mike Mccready at the Guggenheim and got a pic with him!!!!!
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
I assume that he was referring to the two minors accused of assisting in the murder and not to the 29 year old that the article discusses.
You assume that do you? Personally, I'd prefer to go by what's actually stated in the article rather than making self-serving assumptions. Here's what the article says:
"The Israeli Central Court of Jerusalem decided, on Wednesday, not to hold three young suspects accused of killing 16-year-old Muhammad Abu Khudeir this past month, according to the PNN."
I assume that he was referring to the two minors accused of assisting in the murder and not to the 29 year old that the article discusses.
You assume that do you? Personally, I'd prefer to go by what's actually stated in the article rather than making self-serving assumptions. Here's what the article says:
"The Israeli Central Court of Jerusalem decided, on Wednesday, not to hold three young suspects accused of killing 16-year-old Muhammad Abu Khudeir this past month, according to the PNN."
If that's the case, then that's real fucked up. Wow, it's like the Israeli government wants a NEW response from Hamas to make the case to continue this onslaught. Let's poke them by letting these 3 go. Don't have to look far to understand that thinking ey Rodney King? Everybody or most should be able to remember what happened after those 3 officers were released, and that was just a single case, not a 60+ year occupation.
I assume that he was referring to the two minors accused of assisting in the murder and not to the 29 year old that the article discusses.
You assume that do you? Personally, I'd prefer to go by what's actually stated in the article rather than making self-serving assumptions. Here's what the article says:
"The Israeli Central Court of Jerusalem decided, on Wednesday, not to hold three young suspects accused of killing 16-year-old Muhammad Abu Khudeir this past month, according to the PNN."
I stand by my statement that these are lies. I read my news in hebrew, so no link to an english article, but I will translate a story on the subject from the newspaper today (yisrael hayom, page 23). I am not translating the parts not relevant to this discussion (basicly it says what else they are accused of and that the murdered boys father attended the court proceedings for the first time):
"County court judge in Jerusalem, David Mintz, extended until the end of proceedings, by agreement, yesterday the arrest of 29 year old yosef ben david, from the town of Adam, who is accused along with two 16 year old minors from Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh, of the kidnapping and brutal murder of Muhamed Abu Hadir, of Shoafat. The three are accused of burning him alive. [...] Court proceedings will begin again on August 13th, in a closed door session, concerning the request to keep the two minors under arrest until the end of all proceedings."
Still can't believe I met Mike Mccready at the Guggenheim and got a pic with him!!!!!
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
Here we see a rocket site being set up in Gaza and later used. This is in the heart of a populated area, with many residences and hotels surrounding the launch point. Any Israeli response or return of fire would come down directly on this population center.
Here we see a rocket site being set up in Gaza and later used. This is in the heart of a populated area, with many residences and hotels surrounding the launch point. Any Israeli response or return of fire would come down directly on this population center.
please allow me.. a few things... in order to discuss "human shields" it must be defined so that i know what you refer to and you know what i refer to. i dont think anyone in this thread denied that rockets are fired from populated areas? do you consider "human shields" as firing rockets in populated areas? i personally dont expect a resisting force to go in the middle of nowhere and fire rockets but i also dont expect them to fire from the roofs of hospitals and schools either. what else would fall under "human shields"? if israel bombs a hamas leaders house is that a human shield? the house could be considered a command center and fired upon or bombed, but it is still a house with 13 innocent civilians living there. are the children of hamas leaders considered enemies, innocent civilians/human shields? is the entire neighborhood considered a military target because a hamas leader lives here and another one lives 4 streets away? or what if 2 hamas leaders live in an apartment complex 10 stories high? is it a human shielded military target? its complicated which makes it easy to distort.
what i think most people are outraged over is the repeated disproportional response and lack of care for innocent civilians, most notably children, by israel (over and over and over again). in any case lets take the video you posted as an example. i assuming its hamas firing rockets near buildings and houses in a populated area, what some consider human shields. the question i ask what should be an acceptable level of response? to bombard every building within a quarter mile radius from the firing site, a half mile just to be sure? to level everything 1 block north south east and west of firing site, 2 blocks? is it ever acceptable to knowingly (israel was given the coordinates to the un shelter 17-33 times depending on who your listening to) bomb innocents? to me it seems like a excuse to knowingly and admittedly kill innocent civilians when the numbers dont lie (check the civilian casualty ratio!). kinda like collateral damage but more agregiuous.
again, lets take your video... what if that rocket was fired at the Israeli Defense Ministry in tel aviv or the Shin Bet in jerusalem, both densely populated areas, can hamas claim Israel is using human shields? tel aviv and jeruslame are highly populated civilian areas? can hamas consider every building within a quarter mile radius from the military center, or a half mile away a target? can they fire at everything 1 block north south east and west of the military center, 2 blocks?
now lets ignore your youtube video and ask who else has claimed hamas is using human shields other than israel and the US? has any humanitarian organization made the claim or offered proof that hamas is using human shields? its already been shown that the UN, HRW, and other humanitarian organizations including the high court of israel, says israel is guilty of using human shields. simply put israel and US claiming the use of human shields is justification for knowingly and admittedly killing innocent civilians.
Rule 97. Human Shields Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited. Summary State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. International and non-international armed conflicts In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).[1] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[2] The prohibition of using human shields is contained in numerous military manuals, many of which extend the prohibition to all civilians.[3] Using human shields constitutes a criminal offence under the legislation of many States.[4] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I or to the Statute of the International Criminal Court.[5] In 1990 and 1991, there was extensive condemnation by States of the use of prisoners of war and civilians by Iraq as human shields, and the United States declared that such use amounted to a war crime.[6] The use of prisoners of war as human shields during the Second World War was the subject of war crimes trials by the UK Military Court at Lüneberg in the Student case in 1946 and by the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in the Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) case in 1948.[7] In the Karadžić and Mladić case in 1995 before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the accused were charged with war crimes for using UN peacekeepers as human shields. In its review of the indictments the Tribunal upheld this charge.[8] With respect to non-international armed conflicts, Additional Protocol II does not explicitly mention the use of human shields, but such practice would be prohibited by the requirement that “the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations”.[9] It is significant, furthermore, that the use of human shields has often been equated with the taking of hostages,[10] which is prohibited by Additional Protocol II,[11] and by customary international law (see Rule 96). In addition, deliberately using civilians to shield military operations is contrary to the principle of distinction and violates the obligation to take feasible precautions to separate civilians and military objectives (see Rules 23–24). Several military manuals which apply in non-international armed conflicts prohibit the use of human shields.[12] The legislation of several States criminalizes the use of human shields in non-international armed conflicts.[13] The use of human shields in non-international armed conflicts has been condemned by States and by the United Nations, for example, with respect to the conflicts in Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan and the former Yugoslavia.[14] No official contrary practice was found. The ICRC has reminded parties to both international and non-international armed conflicts of the prohibition of using human shields.[15] International human rights law does not prohibit the use of human shields as such, but this practice would constitute, among other things, a violation of the non-derogable right not to be arbitrarily deprived of the right to life (see commentary to Rule 89). The UN Human Rights Committee and regional human rights bodies have indicated that this right involves not only the right not to be killed, but also the duty of States to take measures to protect life.[16] In Demiray v. Turkey, in which the applicant submitted that her husband had been used as a human shield, the European Court of Human Rights stated that “Article 2 may … imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual for which they are responsible”.[17] Definition of human shields The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21] In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22] It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.
Human Shields The New York Times earlier this month defended Hamas against charges that the group uses human shields by offering an overly narrow definition that appears to mislead readers about international law. After quoting Israeli criticism of Palestinian use of human shields, reporters Anne Barnard and Jodi Rudoren countered, "There is no evidence that Hamas and other militants force civilians to stay in areas that are under attack — the legal definition of a human shield under international law."
Where does their definition come from? Is there a definitive definition of "human shield" in international law at all? The newspaper did not respond to multiple requests for substantiation of the reporters’ claim. It is clear, though, that many authoritative sources referencing human shields contradict the newspaper’s purported definition. An International Committee of the Red Cross database of customary international law, for example, includes a page dedicated to what it calls "Rule 97: Human Shields," which explains, "Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, 'utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations' constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."
Under the subheading "Definition of human shields," the ICRC likewise asserts,
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.
The definition section, and the page itself, closes by summarizing: "It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives."
So three times in its discussion of human shields, the ICRC defines the phenomenon as requiring only the "presence" of civilians, as opposed to civilians being "forced" to stay in an area under attack. And while the page states that most examples of human shielding described in military manuals have been "cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives," a related ICRC page shows that prohibitions in many military manuals are made without regard to whether or not civilians are coerced into remaining near military objectives. (See, inter alia, Spain's laws of armed conflict manual, which states that "Weapons must be deployed on the ground in such a way as to avoid using the civilian population as a shield," and the US Manual for Military Commissions, which says threatens punishment for “Any person subject to this chapter who positions, or otherwise takes advantage of, a protected person with the intent to shield a military objective from attack.")
Perhaps the The New York Times would not substantiate their claim that "the legal definition of a human shield under international law" requires coercion, then, because they cannot substantiate it.
The truth to this is not simple; while Hamas does not appear to force civilians into the line of fire, which is the legal definition of human shields, the group is extremely cavalier about indirectly causing Palestinian casualties by firing from civilian neighborhoods and storing rockets in civilian buildings. This is a real, serious form of culpability.
Observers on the ground tend to say that Hamas's actions do not meet the legal definition of human shields. The BBC's Jeremy Bowen recently wrote, "I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel's accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields." The New York Times' Anne Barnard and Jodi Rudoren wrote, "There is no evidence that Hamas and other militants force civilians to stay in areas that are under attack — the legal definition of a human shield under international law."
Amnesty International, which has a number of people on the ground in Gaza and consistently condemns Israeli and Palestinian abuses alike, announced recently on its site that it does not see proof of Hamas using human shield — but they added an important asterisk.
The video clip of the Hamas setting up a rocket in the middle of a populated center is placing civilians at risk- on both sides (even though it has been established their rockets are pretty worthless and Israeli citizens might not have to be too concerned). The response they receive for such action begs for different tactics (such as the tunnel raids).
Before people set their hair on fire... I am not excusing Israel and their heavy handed and ruthless actions- they have acted horrendously in this affair. What I am saying is that it seems as if the Hamas have been either reckless or foolish firing their ineffective rockets at Israel- they haven't exactly been heroes in this dispute either.
I haven't had coffee yet so this may come across a bit clunky.
I wasn't thinking about human shields when I saw that clip so much as I was thinking about deliberately placing civilians in harms way and hoping to create collateral damage. Maybe those terms all mean the same thing, but "human shield" to me has always implied hiding behind civilians in some way. I guess there is an interpretation to be made here about exactly what the missile crew's intentions were.
What I saw was the rocket being set up in the afternoon, wires being run to fire that rocket from another locale, those who were going to fire the rocket leaving Dodge, and then the rocket being fired in the morning. This was in a populated area with at least one hotel containing members of the international press corps. We saw pictures last week I believe of a press hotel being hit by Israel and it got me wondering...did the same thing happen there?
Hamas or whoever else fired that rocket, they were long gone when it went off. The civilians were not. We have heard repeatedly that these rockets are "symbolic", so it almost doesn't matter what the target was. To me, the target of that operation was not Israel. It was the civilians in those buildings who would increase the casualty count, create more horrifying pictures to be spread worldwide, further turn the tide of public opinion against Israel.
Maybe that is the same discussion as the "human shields" conversation. I don't know. Either way, I find it disgusting and reprehensible. Israel's conduct throughout has been heavy handed and horrifying. But seeing some in Gaza deliberately provoking a civilian slaughter - for the first time on video that I had seen - outraged me. That is why I posted it.
JC, I will try to look through your posts with a closer eye later when I have some more time. I'm sure there are many more points there I failed to address.
so who is responsible for civilian deaths 1. the side firing from or near hotels, UN shelters, schools, hospitals (no dead caused by firing from) 2. the side firing at hotels, UN shelters, schools, hospitals (all dead caused by firing at)
Comments
I like this one
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
a chic with balls, my favorite!
Kerry called Netnyahoo to let him know next time they meet he wont do anal without lube and said neither will Obomba...Netnyahoo hung up on him. All of a sudden when Israel isnt so popular US officials dont want to take it in the ass from Israel.
takes a women to ask the tough questions and not let slime squirm out of bullshit lies
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"We will not rest until we liberate our occupied land," Gaza fighter says
The Electronic Intifada
6 August 2014
'...After repeated attempts, The Electronic Intifada managed to get hold of Abu Muhammad, one of the fighters of the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades.
A sense of security and caution is essential during military escalations, so being hidden from camera-equipped drones is a tough mission.
Abu Muhammad — not his real name — is forty years old and a father of five children, the eldest of whom is ten years old. He has been engaged in the fighting since the start of Israel’s large-scale offensive last month.
He said that he told his children that he is traveling out of Gaza for medical reasons in order to obscure his disappearance — and in case something happened to him. But his wife knows that he is a resistance fighter and might not come back.
“I miss my family very much, but I’m on a duty to defend my people and retaliate against the invaders’ attacks that killed hundreds of civilians,” Abu Muhammad said. “I try not to contact them a lot — when I speak to my children, I calm them down and say that things will be alright. My wife starts crying whenever I call; emotions run high. I try to make my calls very short.”
Although the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades is the armed wing of Fatah, Hamas’ political rival, during times of Israeli attacks all factions and parties unite under coordinated command.
Wearing a black and yellow face mask and carrying an automatic rifle, Abu Muhammad said he has been a fighter for the past twenty years. He opposes Fatah’s relinquishing of the armed liberation struggle in favor of endless negotiations.
“Our enemy only understands the language of power. Look what happened during the past twenty years of peace talks: more colonization and land theft, killing and destruction — and look now how the resistance is imposing its conditions. The resistance is an asset to the Palestinian people,” he said.
The right to resist
I asked him what he thinks of Israel’s main condition in order to end its hostilities: that Palestinian resistance factions must disarm.
“Whoever agrees to this condition is a traitor,” he said. “We have the right to resist and defend ourselves. Our enemy has nuclear warheads and the most advanced weapons in the world; why is this entity allowed to arm itself? We are under military occupation and have the right even under international law to resist the occupiers.”
Of the approximately 1,885 Palestinians killed and in the last month of Israeli attacks, more than four hundred were children, according to the United Nations. It’s not yet known how many of the victims were fighters and to which factions they belonged.
Soon after the Egypt-mediated 72-hour humanitarian ceasefire went into effect on Tuesday, the Qassam Brigades published the story of 29 of its fighters who fought fierce clashes and managed to stay alive for several days inside a tunnel 25 meters deep in the eastern part of al-Qarara near Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip.
Al-Qassam added that fighters ate just half of one date each per day and drank only half a cup of water.
Israel says that 64 of its soldiers were killed and hundreds were injured. Most of the fierce confrontations took place along the boundary line in northern and eastern areas of the Gaza Strip, including Beit Hanoun, east of Shujaiya, east of Khan Younis and east of Rafah.
Abu Muhammad said that he will not return home until the battle is officially over, but added that he cannot wait to hug his children and have a meal with his family.
“We will not rest until we liberate our occupied land,” Abu Muhammad said. “Resistance is a winning card — politicians, especially Fatah leaders, must understand that the olive branch will not liberate Palestine. We gave the olive branch and peace process more than twenty years, but we still live under Israeli occupation.”
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/jimmy-johnson/send-dissidents-detention-centers-says-israeli-columnist
Send dissidents to "detention centers," says Israeli columnist
08/05/2014
In an article titled, “Arrest Gideon Levy and Haneen Zoabi,” Matti Golan, a columnist for the Israeli business daily Globes, has called for the establishment of camps modeled after the internment camps the United States established in World War II.
Golan wrote that Levy, a dissident Israeli journalist who writes for Haaretz; Palestinian member of the Knesset Zoabi and Amira Hass, Haaretz’s other dissenting journalist; should all be rounded up since they are “agitators.”
The article is not available on the Globes English website but I have translated it in full below. It was published on 20 July, two days after Zoabi was arrested at a Haifa protest against the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Soon after, she was suspended from the Knesset.
Golan positively portrays the United States’ internment camps for people of Japanese descent living on the West Coast, as well as some Italians and Germans affiliated with fascist movements during World War II. However, after campaigns led by Japanese Americans, nearly fifty years later the US government paid reparations to camp survivors in recognition of their suffering.
Golan’s column doesn’t appear to have a lot of traction but is part of a rising tide of extreme right-wing Israeli discourse. This trend has called for everything from returning Israeli soldiers and settlers to Gaza to outright genocide.
Before dismissing Golan’s view as peripheral, it is worth remembering the context: tens of thousands of Palestinians are already imprisoned in Israeli jails for political activity over the last few decades, and many African migrants and refugees are in concentration camps at this very moment.
Full article
Arrest Gideon Levy and Haneen Zoabi
In and outside the halls of Knesset the main topic of conversation these days is the handcuffing of Haneen Zoabi after her arrest on suspicion of routine involvement in riots, incitement, assault and related acts.
The debate in the Knesset and on the street is of course a matter of democracy. Is it okay, illegal, immoral, to arrest and handcuff a Knesset member and a journalist for expressing their opinion?
But I have another question: If it’s ok with Zoabi, then why not Gideon Levy, for example (and Amira Hass and others)? Is it because one is Arab and the other Jewish? Is it because one is amongst the elected officials while the other is a journalist?
Levy’s Jewishness
That Levy is Jewish gives much greater weight to his incitement. Yet certainly Zoabi’s words don’t carry any less weight as she is a member of the Israeli Knesset. Her case is just the same.
Both of these inciters achieve the same effect on Jews and the Palestinians. Levy’s Jewishness allows those who want to, say, “Look, it’s not just Palestinians, but a top Jewish journalist who writes for thoughtful Jews, i.e., a person worth relating to.” In Zoabi’s case, one can say she was elected to the Knesset in Israel, by Israeli voters, meaning that her words carry weight.
What the reporter is allowed to say
I’m really not happy to write these things. Democracy is for me what the Bible is to the Ultra-Orthodox or the Quran to the Muslim, and I recoil from altering it, or certainly damaging it. But what happens to us, especially in times of war, it is not a matter of democracy, but of geography.
Hindering journalists is very extreme step. But the law recognizes that there are limits to what a journalist is allowed to do and say. For example, they are forbidden to slander, and when they do, they are punished. They are not allowed to invade the privacy of citizens and the law provides for other restrictions. All of this stems from the understanding that words can hurt, and sometimes hurt hard. Therefore, the it is in the public interest to be protected from them.
On the verge of treason
The actions of Levy, Zoabi, and those like them are on the verge of wartime treason. Granting them permission to roam free and spread poisonous teachings has nothing to do with democracy, and it causes a lot of damage to the country.
During World War II the United States and other Western countries established detention centers, and incarcerated people to protect the country from the harm they could cause. The place of people like Zoabi and Levy is in such detention centers where they will stay till the end of the war, after which it will be decided whether or not to put them on trial. But to leave them free as they are today, is a sin by the leadership against a public entitled to protection.
The film was recorded by an Indian news crew.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I personally have not seen a video like this in any of the many threads on this topic. Perhaps they are there and I have missed them, and perhaps this very one has been posted and it simply slipped by me. I posted this because there has been a deluge of posts depicting Israeli's disgusting tactics. I hadn't seen one, like this, that clearly depicts forces in Gaza launching rocket strikes from a civilian area. We have discussed it over and over, for sure, but I personally had not seen it myself. It has relevance.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://www.imemc.org/article/68774?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Khdeir Murder Suspects Released Until End of Proceedings
August 07, 2014
The Israeli Central Court of Jerusalem decided, on Wednesday, not to hold three young suspects accused of killing 16-year-old Muhammad Abu Khudeir this past month, according to the PNN.
The boy was kidnapped near his East Jerusalem home, in early July, by a group of Israeli settlers who brutally tortured and later burned him alive.
On July 27, the suspects were brought in for arraignment. In a statement, Shin Bet said that all suspects had confessed to the murder, apparently having decided to kill an Arab and equipping themselves with cable ties, petrol and other materials and, then, randomly choosing Abu Khdeir as their victim.
The day prior, according to Ma'an, the suspects had attempted to kidnap an 8-year-old child in another part of the city, but were fended off by the child's mother.
According to Israeli media, the prime suspect, 29-year-old Yoseph Ben David, would basing his defense on a case of mental instability, as he had undergone psychiatric treatment in the past, in connection with another incident in which he attempted to strangle his own infant daughter.
Ben David, when appearing for the arraignment, was reported to say at the entrance hall: "I am the messiah."
The three youth who took part in the killing are now to be released.
According to their lawyer, it could take more than year and a half for trial proceedings to end, adding that they were too young to stay in jail for that long.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
"The Israeli Central Court of Jerusalem decided, on Wednesday, not to hold three young suspects accused of killing 16-year-old Muhammad Abu Khudeir this past month, according to the PNN."
"County court judge in Jerusalem, David Mintz, extended until the end of proceedings, by agreement, yesterday the arrest of 29 year old yosef ben david, from the town of Adam, who is accused along with two 16 year old minors from Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh, of the kidnapping and brutal murder of Muhamed Abu Hadir, of Shoafat. The three are accused of burning him alive. [...] Court proceedings will begin again on August 13th, in a closed door session, concerning the request to keep the two minors under arrest until the end of all proceedings."
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
a few things... in order to discuss "human shields" it must be defined so that i know what you refer to and you know what i refer to.
i dont think anyone in this thread denied that rockets are fired from populated areas?
do you consider "human shields" as firing rockets in populated areas?
i personally dont expect a resisting force to go in the middle of nowhere and fire rockets but i also dont expect them to fire from the roofs of hospitals and schools either.
what else would fall under "human shields"?
if israel bombs a hamas leaders house is that a human shield? the house could be considered a command center and fired upon or bombed, but it is still a house with 13 innocent civilians living there.
are the children of hamas leaders considered enemies, innocent civilians/human shields?
is the entire neighborhood considered a military target because a hamas leader lives here and another one lives 4 streets away? or what if 2 hamas leaders live in an apartment complex 10 stories high? is it a human shielded military target?
its complicated which makes it easy to distort.
what i think most people are outraged over is the repeated disproportional response and lack of care for innocent civilians, most notably children, by israel (over and over and over again).
in any case lets take the video you posted as an example. i assuming its hamas firing rockets near buildings and houses in a populated area, what some consider human shields.
the question i ask what should be an acceptable level of response?
to bombard every building within a quarter mile radius from the firing site, a half mile just to be sure?
to level everything 1 block north south east and west of firing site, 2 blocks?
is it ever acceptable to knowingly (israel was given the coordinates to the un shelter 17-33 times depending on who your listening to) bomb innocents?
to me it seems like a excuse to knowingly and admittedly kill innocent civilians when the numbers dont lie (check the civilian casualty ratio!). kinda like collateral damage but more agregiuous.
again, lets take your video... what if that rocket was fired at the Israeli Defense Ministry in tel aviv or the Shin Bet in jerusalem, both densely populated areas, can hamas claim Israel is using human shields? tel aviv and jeruslame are highly populated civilian areas?
can hamas consider every building within a quarter mile radius from the military center, or a half mile away a target?
can they fire at everything 1 block north south east and west of the military center, 2 blocks?
now lets ignore your youtube video and ask who else has claimed hamas is using human shields other than israel and the US? has any humanitarian organization made the claim or offered proof that hamas is using human shields? its already been shown that the UN, HRW, and other humanitarian organizations including the high court of israel, says israel is guilty of using human shields.
simply put israel and US claiming the use of human shields is justification for knowingly and admittedly killing innocent civilians.
i have more but i cannot finish now
Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.
Summary
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
International and non-international armed conflicts
In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).[1] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[2]
The prohibition of using human shields is contained in numerous military manuals, many of which extend the prohibition to all civilians.[3] Using human shields constitutes a criminal offence under the legislation of many States.[4] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I or to the Statute of the International Criminal Court.[5] In 1990 and 1991, there was extensive condemnation by States of the use of prisoners of war and civilians by Iraq as human shields, and the United States declared that such use amounted to a war crime.[6] The use of prisoners of war as human shields during the Second World War was the subject of war crimes trials by the UK Military Court at Lüneberg in the Student case in 1946 and by the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in the Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) case in 1948.[7] In the Karadžić and Mladić case in 1995 before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the accused were charged with war crimes for using UN peacekeepers as human shields. In its review of the indictments the Tribunal upheld this charge.[8]
With respect to non-international armed conflicts, Additional Protocol II does not explicitly mention the use of human shields, but such practice would be prohibited by the requirement that “the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations”.[9] It is significant, furthermore, that the use of human shields has often been equated with the taking of hostages,[10] which is prohibited by Additional Protocol II,[11] and by customary international law (see Rule 96). In addition, deliberately using civilians to shield military operations is contrary to the principle of distinction and violates the obligation to take feasible precautions to separate civilians and military objectives (see Rules 23–24).
Several military manuals which apply in non-international armed conflicts prohibit the use of human shields.[12] The legislation of several States criminalizes the use of human shields in non-international armed conflicts.[13] The use of human shields in non-international armed conflicts has been condemned by States and by the United Nations, for example, with respect to the conflicts in Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan and the former Yugoslavia.[14]
No official contrary practice was found.
The ICRC has reminded parties to both international and non-international armed conflicts of the prohibition of using human shields.[15]
International human rights law does not prohibit the use of human shields as such, but this practice would constitute, among other things, a violation of the non-derogable right not to be arbitrarily deprived of the right to life (see commentary to Rule 89). The UN Human Rights Committee and regional human rights bodies have indicated that this right involves not only the right not to be killed, but also the duty of States to take measures to protect life.[16] In Demiray v. Turkey, in which the applicant submitted that her husband had been used as a human shield, the European Court of Human Rights stated that “Article 2 may … imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual for which they are responsible”.[17]
Definition of human shields
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]
It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.
The New York Times earlier this month defended Hamas against charges that the group uses human shields by offering an overly narrow definition that appears to mislead readers about international law. After quoting Israeli criticism of Palestinian use of human shields, reporters Anne Barnard and Jodi Rudoren countered, "There is no evidence that Hamas and other militants force civilians to stay in areas that are under attack — the legal definition of a human shield under international law."
Where does their definition come from? Is there a definitive definition of "human shield" in international law at all? The newspaper did not respond to multiple requests for substantiation of the reporters’ claim. It is clear, though, that many authoritative sources referencing human shields contradict the newspaper’s purported definition.
An International Committee of the Red Cross database of customary international law, for example, includes a page dedicated to what it calls "Rule 97: Human Shields," which explains, "Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, 'utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations' constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."
Under the subheading "Definition of human shields," the ICRC likewise asserts,
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.
The definition section, and the page itself, closes by summarizing: "It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives."
So three times in its discussion of human shields, the ICRC defines the phenomenon as requiring only the "presence" of civilians, as opposed to civilians being "forced" to stay in an area under attack.
And while the page states that most examples of human shielding described in military manuals have been "cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives," a related ICRC page shows that prohibitions in many military manuals are made without regard to whether or not civilians are coerced into remaining near military objectives. (See, inter alia, Spain's laws of armed conflict manual, which states that "Weapons must be deployed on the ground in such a way as to avoid using the civilian population as a shield," and the US Manual for Military Commissions, which says threatens punishment for “Any person subject to this chapter who positions, or otherwise takes advantage of, a protected person with the intent to shield a military objective from attack.")
Perhaps the The New York Times would not substantiate their claim that "the legal definition of a human shield under international law" requires coercion, then, because they cannot substantiate it.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5937119/palestinian-civilian-casualties-gaza-israel
The truth to this is not simple; while Hamas does not appear to force civilians into the line of fire, which is the legal definition of human shields, the group is extremely cavalier about indirectly causing Palestinian casualties by firing from civilian neighborhoods and storing rockets in civilian buildings. This is a real, serious form of culpability.
Observers on the ground tend to say that Hamas's actions do not meet the legal definition of human shields. The BBC's Jeremy Bowen recently wrote, "I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel's accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields." The New York Times' Anne Barnard and Jodi Rudoren wrote, "There is no evidence that Hamas and other militants force civilians to stay in areas that are under attack — the legal definition of a human shield under international law."
Amnesty International, which has a number of people on the ground in Gaza and consistently condemns Israeli and Palestinian abuses alike, announced recently on its site that it does not see proof of Hamas using human shield — but they added an important asterisk.
(we should send the idf to aruba to locate natalie)
http://nypost.com/2014/08/05/hamas-manual-details-civilian-death-plan-israel/
Before people set their hair on fire... I am not excusing Israel and their heavy handed and ruthless actions- they have acted horrendously in this affair. What I am saying is that it seems as if the Hamas have been either reckless or foolish firing their ineffective rockets at Israel- they haven't exactly been heroes in this dispute either.
(Edit: I suppose the bombed-out ruins are likely less populated right now.)
I wasn't thinking about human shields when I saw that clip so much as I was thinking about deliberately placing civilians in harms way and hoping to create collateral damage. Maybe those terms all mean the same thing, but "human shield" to me has always implied hiding behind civilians in some way. I guess there is an interpretation to be made here about exactly what the missile crew's intentions were.
What I saw was the rocket being set up in the afternoon, wires being run to fire that rocket from another locale, those who were going to fire the rocket leaving Dodge, and then the rocket being fired in the morning. This was in a populated area with at least one hotel containing members of the international press corps. We saw pictures last week I believe of a press hotel being hit by Israel and it got me wondering...did the same thing happen there?
Hamas or whoever else fired that rocket, they were long gone when it went off. The civilians were not. We have heard repeatedly that these rockets are "symbolic", so it almost doesn't matter what the target was. To me, the target of that operation was not Israel. It was the civilians in those buildings who would increase the casualty count, create more horrifying pictures to be spread worldwide, further turn the tide of public opinion against Israel.
Maybe that is the same discussion as the "human shields" conversation. I don't know. Either way, I find it disgusting and reprehensible. Israel's conduct throughout has been heavy handed and horrifying. But seeing some in Gaza deliberately provoking a civilian slaughter - for the first time on video that I had seen - outraged me. That is why I posted it.
JC, I will try to look through your posts with a closer eye later when I have some more time. I'm sure there are many more points there I failed to address.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
1. the side firing from or near hotels, UN shelters, schools, hospitals (no dead caused by firing from)
2. the side firing at hotels, UN shelters, schools, hospitals (all dead caused by firing at)