Israel/Gaza

1…1718202223

Comments

  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,154
    Forgive me, but you're all evading the point. For the sake of argument I will assume for the moment that everything you all say about Israel is true and that the only reason Hamas was founded was in reaction to the Israeli occupation. None of that should excuse Hamas' actions.

    So they were elected...so what? The Nazis were also elected. So was the Israeli government that you all seem to think are a bunch of war criminals. So were the American and Canadian governments that you've been criticizing. Being elected doesn't mean that Hamas isn't still a repressive and violent terrorist organization. It just means that they have (or had at the time) the support of the majority of the Palestinian electorate.

    So they provide social services...again, so what? So does Israel to its citizens. So did the Nazis to theirs. Again, just cause a group does some good things doesn't mean they don't also do lots of terrible things.

    Now let's address the contention that they are only a reaction to the occupation. Perhaps. But if you actually take a comprehensive look at what Hamas says (and not what western apologists say for them) it's clear that the issue is more complicated than that. There is a very good argument to be made that Hamas is not aimed at ending only the occupation, but is aimed at establishing Palestinian Muslim control over all of what is currently Israel, so that even if the organization was started in reaction to the occupation it's goals, and its animating animosity, reach much further than that. Moreover, it's pretty well accepted that the Nazis were a reaction to the incredibly harsh and unjust conditions imposed on Germany at Versailles at the end of WWI. Does the fact that Nazism was a reaction to injustice render it immune to criticism?

    The claim that Hamas has indicated that they would accept a permanent ceasefire is likewise ambiguous. Notice that they've never said they would make peace with Israel under any conditions, and notice too the incongruity in the notion of a "permanent" ceasefire, given that the very notion of a ceasefire implies only a limited cessation of hostilities. Moreover, other statements by Hamas representatives have indicated that Hamas will never make peace with Israel, or recognize its right to resist, or give up its goal of reconquering the lands lost in 1948, so to focus entirely on the one already ambiguous statement that indicates some moderation is at best naive or ill-informed and at worst disingenuous.

    No, B, I don't agree with that statement, nor do I think that I have ever given you reason to believe that I would, so I'd thank you if you wouldn't imply otherwise. That said, Hamas' ideology, growing out of the Muslim Brotherhood, contains some pretty fucked up notions, a fact that you avoid entirely by focusing only on the exagerations of your interlocutor.

    Ignoring Israel for a second, how does Hamas treat women, or homosexuals, or political opponents? What's their record on press freedom, or due process of law, or freedom of religion? I think that anyone who looks at Hamas with clear eyes can see that they're awful on every count. Attributing this to Israel is nothing more than blatant apologetics.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    yosi wrote:
    Ignoring Israel for a second, how does Hamas treat women, or homosexuals, or political opponents? What's their record on press freedom, or due process of law, or freedom of religion? I think that anyone who looks at Hamas with clear eyes can see that they're awful on every count. Attributing this to Israel is nothing more than blatant apologetics.

    this is very confusing ...

    i don't think there is anyone here who thinks hamas is a good thing ... nor does anyone hold hamas as some beacon of justice or champion of human rights ... by that token - it serves the opposite purpose to label the faction and in some people's eyes (all islamists) as murderers, rapists and torturers ... so, if by decrying those generalizations we come across as holding hamas in some alternate light - it's simply not true ...

    this is ultimately about WHO is oppressing who and who has the power to end the violence ... the clear answer is Israel ... you know that ... we all know that ...
  • dimitrispearljam
    dimitrispearljam Posts: 139,725
    polaris_x wrote:
    [.

    this is ultimately about WHO is oppressing who and who has the power to end the violence ... the clear answer is Israel ... you know that ... we all know that ...
    i really believe that too
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    dimitrispearljam wrote:
    i really believe that too

    it's plain for everyone to see ... it is why the majority of the world is united in it's condemnation of many israeli actions ... having the US garners israel no moral credibility whatsoever ...
  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,154
    Look, I agree 100% that no peace is possible without Israel changing its course of action. But it's also true that no peace will be possible if Hamas doesn't also change course. Even if Israel and Abbas were to come to an agreement, if Hamas continued to pursue violence (or it stood by while others in the territory it controls did so) the peace could only hold so long before the Israeli public (understandably, I think) would demand that the government take action to protect them.

    Given this, and the perception of the Israelis that Hamas is dedicated to pursuing violence and isn't interested in a permanent peace, they're reluctant to make concession that could affect security that they don't think are going to get them any closer to peace. I think this is shortsighted, but I can understand the impulse.

    My point is that in the long run, for there to be peace, Hamas has to either exit the picture or fundamentally change. AND I think that when Hamas surveys the state of international opinion and sees that people are doing exactly what people here are doing, namely, reacting to outbreaks of violence by placing all the blame on Israel, they come to the not-illogical conclusion that violence is strategically beneficial to them. Since I think its clear that the only solution that will work in the long run is a negotiated solution I think its important to hold Hamas to account, rather than merely excusing their violence as a reaction to Israel's actions.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    yosi wrote:
    Look, I agree 100% that no peace is possible without Israel changing its course of action. But it's also true that no peace will be possible if Hamas doesn't also change course. Even if Israel and Abbas were to come to an agreement, if Hamas continued to pursue violence (or it stood by while others in the territory it controls did so) the peace could only hold so long before the Israeli public (understandably, I think) would demand that the government take action to protect them.

    Given this, and the perception of the Israelis that Hamas is dedicated to pursuing violence and isn't interested in a permanent peace, they're reluctant to make concession that could affect security that they don't think are going to get them any closer to peace. I think this is shortsighted, but I can understand the impulse.

    My point is that in the long run, for there to be peace, Hamas has to either exit the picture or fundamentally change. AND I think that when Hamas surveys the state of international opinion and sees that people are doing exactly what people here are doing, namely, reacting to outbreaks of violence by placing all the blame on Israel, they come to the not-illogical conclusion that violence is strategically beneficial to them. Since I think its clear that the only solution that will work in the long run is a negotiated solution I think its important to hold Hamas to account, rather than merely excusing their violence as a reaction to Israel's actions.

    which brings me to the point that Israel needs Hamas ... the current course Israel has long adopted requires justification ... what better justification than Hamas!? ... you very well know that if Hamas ceased to exist tomorrow ... that Israel would simply look for another reason to continue its oppression ...

    the hard-right people that are dictating israeli policy are not interested in peace ... you know that ... how long should the palestinians continue to accept this regime in silence? ... israel can't even control the ultra-orthodox settlers that are terrorizing palestinians everywhere ... and you want Hamas to stop? ... it's just not realistic ...

    this isn't a what came first - the chicken or the egg ... we know what the situation is like right now and that is Israel continues to violate human rights and their terrorizing of palestinian people far outweigh any thing coming back ...

    Israelis need to hold their gov't accountable ...

    * acknowledge your crimes
    * stop expansion
    * negotiate borders on good faith

    peace is very easy to accomplish here once israel acknowledges their actions
  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,154
    I agree with you that the current govt. isn't interested in peace, and that they def. need to start cracking down on the settlers. And I agree that if Hamas disappeared tomorrow that wouldn't all of a sudden mean that peace would instantly occur. My point is that Hamas isn't going anywhere, and that the reality is that it is also a key player whose actions affect the possibilities for peace, and it is therefore irresponsible and unrealistic to expect that peace can be made without addressing the obstacle posed by Hamas.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JC29856 wrote:
    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has definitely crossed an international red line to vindicate a swift and firm rejection from Israel’s closest allies when he announced plans recently to build a new settlement on a corridor of occupied Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, which will render any prospective Palestinian contiguous state territorially impossible.

    Daniel Seidemann, the Israeli founder of Terrestrial Jerusalem, has condemned it as “the doomsday settlement” and “not a routine” one...

    You have a link for this?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    Forgive me, but you're all evading the point. For the sake of argument I will assume for the moment that everything you all say about Israel is true and that the only reason Hamas was founded was in reaction to the Israeli occupation. None of that should excuse Hamas' actions.

    So they were elected...so what? The Nazis were also elected. So was the Israeli government that you all seem to think are a bunch of war criminals. So were the American and Canadian governments that you've been criticizing. Being elected doesn't mean that Hamas isn't still a repressive and violent terrorist organization. It just means that they have (or had at the time) the support of the majority of the Palestinian electorate.

    So they provide social services...again, so what? So does Israel to its citizens. So did the Nazis to theirs. Again, just cause a group does some good things doesn't mean they don't also do lots of terrible things.

    Now let's address the contention that they are only a reaction to the occupation. Perhaps. But if you actually take a comprehensive look at what Hamas says (and not what western apologists say for them) it's clear that the issue is more complicated than that. There is a very good argument to be made that Hamas is not aimed at ending only the occupation, but is aimed at establishing Palestinian Muslim control over all of what is currently Israel, so that even if the organization was started in reaction to the occupation it's goals, and its animating animosity, reach much further than that. Moreover, it's pretty well accepted that the Nazis were a reaction to the incredibly harsh and unjust conditions imposed on Germany at Versailles at the end of WWI. Does the fact that Nazism was a reaction to injustice render it immune to criticism?

    The claim that Hamas has indicated that they would accept a permanent ceasefire is likewise ambiguous. Notice that they've never said they would make peace with Israel under any conditions, and notice too the incongruity in the notion of a "permanent" ceasefire, given that the very notion of a ceasefire implies only a limited cessation of hostilities. Moreover, other statements by Hamas representatives have indicated that Hamas will never make peace with Israel, or recognize its right to resist, or give up its goal of reconquering the lands lost in 1948, so to focus entirely on the one already ambiguous statement that indicates some moderation is at best naive or ill-informed and at worst disingenuous.

    No, B, I don't agree with that statement, nor do I think that I have ever given you reason to believe that I would, so I'd thank you if you wouldn't imply otherwise. That said, Hamas' ideology, growing out of the Muslim Brotherhood, contains some pretty fucked up notions, a fact that you avoid entirely by focusing only on the exagerations of your interlocutor.

    Ignoring Israel for a second, how does Hamas treat women, or homosexuals, or political opponents? What's their record on press freedom, or due process of law, or freedom of religion? I think that anyone who looks at Hamas with clear eyes can see that they're awful on every count. Attributing this to Israel is nothing more than blatant apologetics.

    So let me get this right: Hamas were elected in a free and fair election, but they are, like the Nazis, dictators.

    They provide vital social services, and are supported by the majority of Palestinians, but 'so what?'

    The Hamas charter states they won't be happy until they've conquered all of Israel proper, despite the fact they've conquered absolutely nothing of Israel, and have in fact been under Israeli occupation for the past 60 years - if you count the land stolen by Israel during the 1948 war that fell outside of the Partition plan. But for arguments sake, let's just focus on the occupation as it pertains to the land stolen in June 1967. Hamas, along with the whole World (excluding the U.S), have stated explicitly they support U.N 242 which calls for a full and immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces to the '67 borders. Israel has never accepted this offer of a peaceful settlement, and so it has never allowed Hamas the chance to prove it's sincerity on this point. And as for Hamas not being happy until they've conquered all of Israel, I notice that you make no mention of the Zionist leaderships statements on this matter. The Zionist leadership have made it perfectly clear down the years that they want to seize all of the land between the Jordan river and the Sea. And yet, unlike the Palestinians, they have never refuted these ambitions, and never made any offers of a permanent peace based on international law.

    Lastly, as how Hamas treats 'political opponents, [...]their record on press freedom, [...]due process of law, [and] freedom of religion', yes, they have a lot to answer for. But then this is a regime under military occupation, and under attack from Israel's proxies - i.e, Fatah. If you take a look at the history of resistance movements throughout the World you'll notice they all follow a similar pattern. I suppose this is due largely to necessity. Then again, Israel's record re: it's opponents, press freedom, due process of law, and freedom of religion, isn't exactly rosy either, is it? And yet, what's their excuse?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    Look, I agree 100% that no peace is possible without Israel changing its course of action. But it's also true that no peace will be possible if Hamas doesn't also change course. Even if Israel and Abbas were to come to an agreement, if Hamas continued to pursue violence (or it stood by while others in the territory it controls did so) the peace could only hold so long before the Israeli public (understandably, I think) would demand that the government take action to protect them.

    Given this, and the perception of the Israelis that Hamas is dedicated to pursuing violence and isn't interested in a permanent peace, they're reluctant to make concession that could affect security that they don't think are going to get them any closer to peace. I think this is shortsighted, but I can understand the impulse.

    My point is that in the long run, for there to be peace, Hamas has to either exit the picture or fundamentally change. AND I think that when Hamas surveys the state of international opinion and sees that people are doing exactly what people here are doing, namely, reacting to outbreaks of violence by placing all the blame on Israel, they come to the not-illogical conclusion that violence is strategically beneficial to them. Since I think its clear that the only solution that will work in the long run is a negotiated solution I think its important to hold Hamas to account, rather than merely excusing their violence as a reaction to Israel's actions.

    What does any of this have to do with Israel not only maintaining the illegal settlements, but building new ones?
    Seriously, even if Hamas began wearing Nazi uniforms and devils horns and tails, how would their actions excuse or justify stealing their land?
    The Israeli's could dismantle, and/or evacuate their racist Jewish-only settlements tomorrow. They could then fortify their internationally recognised border. But they won't. And their reasons for not doing so, and in fact their reasons for recently declaring that they will in fact build 3000 more illegal homes, has absolutely nothing to do with Hamas. Nothing whatso-fucking-ever.
  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,154
    B, you are nothing if not predictable:

    "Quote the other guy"

    Ask some rhetorical questions so as to imply that quoted points are baseless, but never seriously engage with substance or import of said points.

    Quickly change the subject to how bad Israel is.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    Drowned Out wrote:
    .....do you think you can trust our government to align itself with the moral majority and be an honest broker for peace?..... or to act in the best interests of the people who sign their cheques? You might want to factor the answer to that question into your evolving opinion on the occupation :)

    to ask another silly question.......who is "signing our cheques", and for what? I still don't understand Canada's interest in keeping Israel in charge over there. Just to keep in line with what the US wants? Because we didn't join them when they wanted our help in Iraq.
    My statement was pretty broad, I suppose....a figure of speech used to show Harper's subservience to interests other than the peoples' will.
    No, I don't think this is solely to appease the US. Tho anytime Harper has a chance to please our biggest trade partner, he jumps at it, that's for sure...Still, Canada has a long tradition of backing Israel, often more fervently than the US does.
    From one of the articles linked in my last post: "he blocked the planned recommendations on Mideast peace talks even though the terms are a key part of U.S. President Barack Obama's campaign to revive negotiations as pro-democracy movements sprout in the Arab world".....a Canadian undermining American attempts at peace negotiations? ouch....



    Check out this article for more statements re: Harper's support for Israel:


    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 44315.html

    The (Jerusalem) Post described Canada as "the gold standard" of support for Israel. "There is not a government on the planet today more supportive of Israel than Harper's Canada."

    Baird repeats this phrase at every opportunity. "I think the US is a good friend, too. I like to think we are better - a stronger friend."

    During the visit, Israel Hayom, Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, said: "When he discusses the Palestinian issue, Baird sounds like he could have voted in this week's Likud primaries."

    Likudniks agree. At a reception for Baird before departing Israel, Likud Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz mocked in jest, "I think Canada's an even better friend of Israel than we are."

    Netanyahu singled out the prime minister at the UN in September. "Same heart and same values," said Netanyahu of Harper.

    After Thursday's vote, Saeb Erekat, the most conciliatory of Palestinian politicians in regard to Israel, said Canada was being "more settler than the [Israeli] settlers".

    Canada's diplomatic support for Israel is not limited to the United Nations. In September, Canada recalled its diplomats and shuttered its Tehran embassy, declaring it unsafe. The move prompted former CBC and AJE chief, Tony Burman, to quip: "Canada appears to have a new foreign minister. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu."

    But the implications of Canada's disposition are potentially deeper than diplomatic verbiage. Classified defence department documents obtained by the Canadian Press detailed a 2011 visit to Israel during which Defence Minister Peter MacKay told Israeli army chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, "a threat to Israel is a threat to Canada".

    The defence minister's phrasing was a slightly toned down version of a provocative statement made earlier by former junior foreign affairs minister, Peter Kent, that "an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada". The minister described the statement as a paraphrasing of the prime minister's policy.

    The consequences of the Harper government's unconditional fawning of Israel have begun to surface. Perhaps most prominently, this one-sided approach played a central role in Canada being denied an elected seat on the United Nations Security Council - for the first time ever.



    Harper is an evangelical christian, a member of the christian and mission alliance....brought to the church thru his guru - preacher/reform leader Preston Manning. evangelicals traditionally have a way higher level of support for Israel than other demographics...primarily because many of these extreme sects believe that the jews return to the holy land is prerequisite to the second coming of Jesus. I can't say for sure if that's part of the christian mission alliance's dogma, but I can say for sure that they believe in the second coming....so it makes sense that they'd be a christian zionist organization, helping the world toward end times and their rapture. He is a dispensational premillenialist. How's that for a mouthful?
    A probably not entirely insignificant factor is the resource connections to the middle east. Harper is an oil guy. Having strong allies in the resource rich middle east is not a bad thing. Israel keeps middle east nationalism in check, which is important to western imperialists. Neocons use force to impose their economic will....neo-libs use underhanded trade practices. Harper is pure neocon. He's a fideist, evangelical climate denier, drug warrior, military and prison industrial complex bitch....basically a total piece of shit corporate shill, masquerading as a man of god.
    One more point to your quote above - it wasn't Harper's government that kept us out of Iraq. That was Chretien's big 'legacy' decision. I shudder to think what would have happened had Harper been at the helm back then.



    yosi wrote:
    B, you are nothing if not predictable:

    "Quote the other guy"

    Ask some rhetorical questions so as to imply that quoted points are baseless, but never seriously engage with substance or import of said points.

    Quickly change the subject to how bad Israel is.
    He did nothing of the sort. He thoroughly schooled you in his last responses and you have nothing to offer in return but personal attacks. If you'd like to talk predicatbility, how about the way you attempt detente to begin every post, agreeing to certain points to appear reasonable, then spending the rest of your post actually conceeding nothing, and defending your stance. Soon you'll tell us how its impossible to debate the topic here because we're all one-sided and unreasonable...then you'll disappear until the next bout of Israeli war crimes, at which point you'll reappear with the latest Hasbara talking points at the ready.
    How'm I doin?
    Fun, right?
    Now shall we get back on topic?
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JC29856 wrote:
    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has definitely crossed an international red line to vindicate a swift and firm rejection from Israel’s closest allies when he announced plans recently to build a new settlement on a corridor of occupied Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, which will render any prospective Palestinian contiguous state territorially impossible.

    Daniel Seidemann, the Israeli founder of Terrestrial Jerusalem, has condemned it as “the doomsday settlement” and “not a routine” one...

    You have a link for this?
    written by Nicola Nasser, carried by counterpunch, globalresearch, pravda, and others.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/06/ ... ettlement/
  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,154
    You're entirely right. The statement/question "So let me get this right: Hamas were elected in a free and fair election, but they are, like the Nazis, dictators" is a reasoned and substantive response to a point about electoral success and immorality not being mutually exclusive. And "They provide vital social services, and are supported by the majority of Palestinians, but 'so what?'" is likewise a well thought out and convincing response to the point that the same group can do good things in some respects and do really bad things in others. My bad for thinking that these obviously convincing retorts actually failed to offer any sort of substantive response whatsoever.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,154
    You also do very well fostering an environment of respectful debate by implying that any agreement or moderation in view by your interlocutor is actually just a ruse, and by suggesting that he is simply parroting a bunch of centrally disseminated talking points.

    Did the Hamas spokesman tell you to say that?
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    B, you are nothing if not predictable:

    "Quote the other guy"

    Ask some rhetorical questions so as to imply that quoted points are baseless, but never seriously engage with substance or import of said points.

    Quickly change the subject to how bad Israel is.

    I engaged with every one of your points, as anyone who reads this can see.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Drowned Out wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JC29856 wrote:
    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has definitely crossed an international red line to vindicate a swift and firm rejection from Israel’s closest allies when he announced plans recently to build a new settlement on a corridor of occupied Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, which will render any prospective Palestinian contiguous state territorially impossible.

    Daniel Seidemann, the Israeli founder of Terrestrial Jerusalem, has condemned it as “the doomsday settlement” and “not a routine” one...

    You have a link for this?
    written by Nicola Nasser, carried by counterpunch, globalresearch, pravda, and others.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/06/ ... ettlement/

    Cheers.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    yosi wrote:
    I agree with you that the current govt. isn't interested in peace, and that they def. need to start cracking down on the settlers. And I agree that if Hamas disappeared tomorrow that wouldn't all of a sudden mean that peace would instantly occur. My point is that Hamas isn't going anywhere, and that the reality is that it is also a key player whose actions affect the possibilities for peace, and it is therefore irresponsible and unrealistic to expect that peace can be made without addressing the obstacle posed by Hamas.

    sooo

    you agree that israel isn't interested in peace and you also agree that if hamas ceased to exist tomorrow - there is still no peace ... you also agree that israel's actions have historically and continue to be an obstacle to peace ... yet in all your words - you want hamas to disappear ...

    again - only israelis can save the palestinians that or a full scale american revolution (not likely to happen) ... hamas has about as much influence on whether peace happens or not as sri lanka brokering a peace agreement ... hamas is israel's best friend right now ...

    the agenda has nothing to do with peace ... you know that ... the agenda right now is justification for oppression ...
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/07/wrecking-gaza/


    Writing in the Jerusalem Post last March, Yaakov Katz reported the IDF desire “to do some periodic ‘maintenance work’ in Gaza and to mow the lawn, so to speak, with regard to terrorism, with the main goal of boosting its deterrence.” Thus, the IDF graphically admitted the political goal that requires periodic attacks, destroying Palestinian civilian property, and killing Palestinian civilians.

    International humanitarian law (IHL) establishes rules for armed conflict and military occupation with the purpose of minimizing civilian suffering and casualties.

    These rules apply to a country engaged in an occupation of territory not its own. They apply to states and non-states alike. Thus, the rules apply to both Israeli and Palestinian military forces in territory occupied by Israel, including the Gaza Strip. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israeli military forces retain control over the territory, including its airspace and its land and sea borders. The Israeli military conducts periodic military operations with drones and F-16s and conducts military incursions on a regular basis. Israeli naval forces regularly intercept and shoot at Palestinian fishermen. Israeli forces along the border regularly shoot at farmers attempting to work their land in Gaza along the border with Israel.

    As occupying power, the rules provide Israel with an obligation to protect Palestinian civilians and Palestinian civilian property.

    The Israeli Defense Force web site provides a day-by-day and hour-by-hour report of actions it undertook in Gaza from November 14 to 21. Our observation in Gaza confirms that the Israeli military attacked and completely destroyed the Ministry of Interior, the Prime Minister’s government building, and several police stations. We also observed severe damage to the Ministry of Health, located near the Ministry of Interior. The damage to the Ministry of Health was not mentioned by the IDF website.

    The IDF website also mentions Israeli air force attacks that destroyed or damaged residential housing. On November 17 at 7:10pm it reports that GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Tal Russo addressed the media stating, “Most of the weaponry of the terror organizations is stored in residential houses, from which they launch the missiles and the rockets against Israel.”

    Similarly, on November 19 at 7:10am the IDF website reports, “The IDF targeted buildings owned by senior terrorist operatives, used as command posts and weapon storage facilities.”

    On November 20 at 6:40 am, the website reports, “We also struck the house of several senior officers within the terror organizations, of the rank of company commander and battalion commander.”

    Delegation members visited with Wallid Al Nasassra, a neighbor of one of the 55 houses destroyed by IDF bombs during Operation Pillar of Cloud. An F-16 rocket targeted a home 200 yards away in which his brother, Teewfiq Mamduh Id Abid, Teewfiq’s wife, Amani Ibrm Qader, and 10 of Teewfiq’s children were living. Two of the children were killed in this attack and 7 children were injured. Only one of the children escaped uninjured. The witness’s brother and his wife were both severely injured. The Al Nasassra area is between Rafah and Khan Younis, on land evacuated by Israeli settlers in 2005. Wallid Al Nasassra denied that rockets were stored in the demolished home or that the owners were in any way associated with fighters. Nor, he said, were any of the neighboring homes used for storing rockets. He also said that neighbors would not permit fighters to be in the vicinity of their homes. Israeli forces have so far released no evidence supporting their assertion of rocket storage at this or other residences they destroyed.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    JC29856 wrote:
    Writing in the Jerusalem Post last March, Yaakov Katz reported the IDF desire “to do some periodic ‘maintenance work’ in Gaza and to mow the lawn, so to speak, with regard to terrorism, with the main goal of boosting its deterrence.” Thus, the IDF graphically admitted the political goal that requires periodic attacks, destroying Palestinian civilian property, and killing Palestinian civilians.

    this is what i've been saying ... if we think critically on the situation - there is no other conclusion to this ...

    with corporate media outlets more or less favouring israeli propaganda - we don't hear about this stuff like we would a rocket attack or suicide bombing ...

    this is israel ensuring they have (in their eyes) further justification to their oppression ...

Categories