Support NeoGAF

[zer0blivion]

That's a lot of people marching. Things could get really bad. The Palestinians seem woefully under equipped though. Fireworks and rocks as their most dangerous combat tools whilst the opposition has automatic weapons, riot gear and tanks. For some reason it all sort of reminds me of Snowpiercer.

I really hope it's a non-violent march.

 

[Dai101]

That's a lot of people marching. Things could get really bad. The Palestinians seem woefully under equipped though. Fireworks and rocks as their most dangerous combat tools whilst the opposition has automatic weapons, riot gear and tanks.

And the deadliest of all, the american media in their pocket.

Also the american politicians too.

 

[Zen]

We know Hamas is using human shields. But - Again - how many causalities does it take for you to consider that maybe, maybeeeee this is not all on Hamas? That maybe the IDF is not doing anything it can? Seriously, how many? How many children needs to die before we can consider the fact that maybe notifying people with no where to go is not actually an excuse?

We don't know this. Not that it does not feasibly happen here and there. There has been exhaustive investigation into if Hamas orchestrated Human Shields during the last go around, and all accounts say that they did not. There is a difference between Hamas advocating or praising those who stand on top of their homes as to deter Israeli rockets and ~using human shields~ as an enforced tactic. Those people do not suddenly become ~Hamas~ or not ~Hamas~ depending on if they are standing on a roof or not.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ6S0-o3uFI

This is not ~Hamas uses Human Shields~ per say, although it could suggest it (that they are advocated and potentially organizing this time around).

Given the random appearance of this video I would be hopeful that someone fluent can attribute the validity/reliability of the channel, as well as confirm tha the subtitles are actually accurate.

 

[Aaron]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28476882

Any leader who shifts the blame of civilian deaths his troops caused onto the enemy is a monster, pure and simple. This lack of remorse suits a serial killer, and makes it clear the killing won't stop until outside forces make Israel stop.

 

[zer0blivion]

And the deadliest of all, the american media in their pocket.

Also the american politicians too.

Edit:
Brokers of Deceit: As Obama Visits Israel, Scholar Rashid Khalidi on How the U.S. Undermines Peace
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/19/brokers_of_deceit_as_obama_visits
Part 2: Rashid Khalidi Details How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/20...he_us_has_undermined_peace_in_the_middle_east

 

[Box]

How much longer will this go on?

 

[theignoramus]

Dunno if it were in afghanistan, but the US did nomb funerals of people they bombed away, yes? And they bombed people who were trying to help people who were hit by the original strike.

But yeah, this isn't about the war crimes of the US military. Its about the IDF. And the IDF is doing a lot of wtong rightnow.

Those are drone strikes in Pakistan and as far as I know, the CIA is responsible for that.

 

[zer0blivion]

How much longer will this go on?

Forever*



*As long as the US is complicit and the rest of the world looks the other way.

 

[m_shortpants]

Those are drone strikes in Pakistan and as far as I know, the CIA is responsible for that.

I believe the funeral/wedding drone bombings were in Yemen.

 

[makingmusic476]

I have a friend who went to the West Bank to visit his family for Ramadan right before all this started. I hope he's alright. And I hope he can get out. He's a teacher and the schoolyear isn't far off...

=(

 

[unpopularblargh]

Jeremy Scahill was on Huffington Post's live show. He basically agreed w/Rula Jebreal. Now I have to look for the BBC4 interview with Jon Snow (the reporter not the character from ASOIAF) that he talked about.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/hi...acre-in-gaza/53d0258efe3444760d00015a?cn=tbla

Edit: Here's the Jon Snow interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_-76H-YRjs

 

[vas_a_morir]

Edit: Here's the Jon Snow interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_-76H-YRjs

eh, that guy doesn't know anything.

 

[theignoramus]

So honest question here. Do people believe that the bombers flying into gaza are doing so with the intent to kill civilians?

seems like an irrelevant question to me, but no I dont think the intent is to simply kill civilians. But neither do I think there's much intent to avoid the killing of civilians.Israel has made that perfectly clear with its words and its actions.

What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on," said Gadi Eisenkot, head of the army's northern division.


We will apply disproportionate force and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases," Eisenkot told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

"This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved," Eisenkot added.

 

[zer0blivion]

eh, that guy doesn't know anything.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[victreeb3l]

Would you care to elaborate?

GoT reference

Spoiler

I think

 

[LNBL]

Jeremy Scahill was on Huffington Post's live show. He basically agreed w/Rula Jebreal. Now I have to look for the BBC4 interview with Jon Snow (the reporter not the character from ASOIAF) that he talked about.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/hi...acre-in-gaza/53d0258efe3444760d00015a?cn=tbla

Edit: Here's the Jon Snow interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_-76H-YRjs

There you have the discussions we have on gaf in video form. Atleast now i know where all those pro israel arguments come from.

 

[nib95]

Jeremy Scahill was on Huffington Post's live show. He basically agreed w/Rula Jebreal. Now I have to look for the BBC4 interview with Jon Snow (the reporter not the character from ASOIAF) that he talked about.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/hi...acre-in-gaza/53d0258efe3444760d00015a?cn=tbla

Edit: Here's the Jon Snow interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_-76H-YRjs

Saw the Jon Snow segment live (guy is a legend in the UK), fantastic interview, and he absolutely had the courage to ask the questions that all journalists should be asking. Thanks for the other link. We need more journalists like Jeremy Schahill and Rula Jebreal in the US, just for the interests of journalistic impartiality.

 

[theignoramus]

https://twitter.com/rulajebreal/status/492501293542703104

Edit:
West Bank Rises, Tens Of Thousands Join Largest March Since Last Intifada
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5619332?utm_hp_ref=tw

oh wow.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Would you care to elaborate?

He is naive about the lives of the non-affluent (especially on the other side of 'the wall'), having grown up in a privileged environment. Furthermore, he continually misunderstands the subtleties of social interaction in matters pertaining to the opposite sex.

 

[unpopularblargh]

UK parliament condemns Israel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJWNE83j__k

I wish Canada wasn't such a lame duck regarding this whole affair. Damn you Harper. Lester B. Pearson is rolling in his grave how far back Canada has fallen in regards to international affairs.

Saw the Jon Snow segment live (guy is a legend in the UK), but thanks for the other link. We need more journalists like Jeremy Schahill and Rula Jebreal, just for the interests of journalistic impartiality.

I'd highly recommend checking out Dirty Wars both the book and the documentary film. Really good look at the United States drone war campaign and covert ops in the Middle East. Should be on Netflix.

 

[m_shortpants]

He is naive about the lives of the non-affluent (especially on the other side of 'the wall), having grown up in a privileged environment. Furthermore, he continually misunderstands the subtleties of social interaction in matter pertaining to the opposite sex. He knows nothing, that Jon Snow.

Oh, you.

 

[speculawyer]

How much longer will this go on?

Well, we just need to let Israel scrape off the Dome of the Rock, rebuild the temple, and breed a perfect red heifer, and say some voodoo and then Jesus comes back. At that point lots of Jews die in fire but some that convert will be saved. Then it will be all over.

Yes . . . that is really what some people think.

Edit: We are almost there guys! Someone says they have the perfect red cow

Up until now, one of the major barriers to the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem has been the lack of a red heifer. A qualified red heifer has not been seen in the land of Israel for nearly two thousand years, and without one it would not be possible to resume Temple worship.
Before the Temple can be rebuilt and Temple worship can be resumed, a perfect red heifer must be found and offerred as a purification sacrifice.
And now one has been discovered.
The Temple Institute in Jerusalem has released stunning video footage of a red heifer that they believe meets the Biblical requirements.

http://www.silverdoctors.com/red-he...-the-rebuilding-of-the-jewish-temple-removed/

Bring on the rapture!

 

[zer0blivion]

Jeremy Scahill was on Huffington Post's live show. He basically agreed w/Rula Jebreal. Now I have to look for the BBC4 interview with Jon Snow (the reporter not the character from ASOIAF) that he talked about.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/hi...acre-in-gaza/53d0258efe3444760d00015a?cn=tbla

Edit: Here's the Jon Snow interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_-76H-YRjs

Thanks for posting this. Much respect to Jon Snow and Jeremy Scahill.

There you have the discussions we have on gaf in video form. Atleast now i know where all those pro israel arguments come from.

I think this one may be more analogous these discussions, with more ad hominem attacks.

Can diplomacy end the conflict in Gaza? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXmKVHPf10o

 

[vas_a_morir]

Well, we just need to let Israel scrape off the Dome of the Rock, rebuild the temple, and breed a perfect red heifer, and say some voodoo and then Jesus comes back. At that point lots of Jews die in fire but some that convert will be saved. Then it will be all over.

Well, duh. But, we are looking for calender dates here, people.

 

[Box]

Forever*



*As long as the US is complicit and the rest of the world looks the other way.

Well I was thinking more about how much longer this operation will go on. They can't keep blowing up Gaza at this rate for months, can they?

 

[RustyNails]

Saw the Jon Snow segment live (guy is a legend in the UK), but thanks for the other link. We need more journalists like Jeremy Schahill and Rula Jebreal, just for the interests of journalistic impartiality.

Jon Snow ripped Mark Regev to shreds. It was awesome

 

[unpopularblargh]

The funny thing about searching for the Jon Snow interview is that the first couple of videos that popped up were of him doing the exact same thing multiple times in the past. The guy's a bad ass.

 

[Aaron]

Well I was thinking more about how much longer this operation will go on. They can't keep blowing up Gaza at this rate for months, can they?

Israel will eventually stop, and find some excuse to do it again in a few year's. It's their world cup.

 

[ASIS]

Jon Snow ripped Mark Regev to shreds. It was awesome

That, was, amazing!

 

[foxtrot3d]

Jon Snow ripped Mark Regev to shreds. It was awesome

Eh, I didn't think that interview was too great. He failed to acknowledge any of Regev's points and instead simply went purely on the attack with pleas to emotion. A good interviewer understands how to take into account the points brought up by their counter part and remain objective. He also repeatedly interrupts Regev and refuses to let him finish answering the questions. It's easy for anyone to simply say "You're killing children! Why does Israel support killing children?" And then just continue that line of questioning as if they have the moral high ground, followed by a call to peace to end the interview. It felt more like "this is my opinion of the conflict," than an interview.

Also, asking why don't you just talk to Hamas? Is like asking why the U.S. doesn't directly talk with Iran or N. Korea, international relations are far more complex than simply sitting down and talking with the other side. While Israel hasn't spoken directly with Hamas it is not as if they do not have communication with them, it's simply handled through intermediaries. The same way diplomacy is conducted around the world when two states do not have formal diplomatic ties.

 

[unpopularblargh]

So there's a petition to end U.S. military aid to Israel and push for a ceasefire. It's a long shot that anything will come of this but it's something. If you're American I urge you take look into this. I've also posted it on Twitter and Facebook.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-military-aid-israel-our-tax-dollars/GFMHZq8Z

P.S. Just saw Jeremy Clarkson (Top Gear) promoting it on Facebook.

 

[foxtrot3d]

So there's a petition to end U.S. military aid to Israel and push for a ceasefire. It's a long shot that anything will come of this but it's something. If you're American I urge you take look into this. I've also posted it on Twitter and Facebook.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-military-aid-israel-our-tax-dollars/GFMHZq8Z

P.S. Just saw Jeremy Clarkson (Top Gear) promoting it on Facebook.

Why would I care about what Jeremy Clarkson is promoting, especially as an American? I'm all for a ceasefire and tougher relations with Israel, but I'm not for cutting off our aid to them. I think for too long we have bent backwards to the Israeli lobby and fail to question in anyway our alliance with Israel even while they bash us in their media, violate international law and disrupt our efforts to make a lasting peace. We need to let Israel know that America is no longer just going to sit by and tacitly support every action they take, that their will be consequences to repeatedly ignoring our demands.

 

[zer0blivion]

So there's a petition to end U.S. military aid to Israel and push for a ceasefire. It's a long shot that anything will come of this but it's something. If you're American I urge you take look into this. I've also posted it on Twitter and Facebook.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-military-aid-israel-our-tax-dollars/GFMHZq8Z

P.S. Just saw Jeremy Clarkson (Top Gear) promoting it on Facebook.

There's one here too (with enough signatures already):https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...olations-against-palestinian-peoples/CjmPSCsG and an Amnesty International campaign http://act.amnestyusa.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1839&ea.campaign.id=30408

Edit: Someone should make a thread for "I want to help Palestinians, but I don't know how"

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Jon Snow ripped Mark Regev to shreds. It was awesome

I love Jon.

 

[RustyNails]

Eh, I didn't think that interview was too great. He failed to acknowledge any of Regev's points and instead simply went purely on the attack with pleas to emotion. A good interviewer understands how to take into account the points brought up by their counter part and remain objective. He also repeatedly interrupts Regev and refuses to let him finish answering the questions. It's easy for anyone to simply say "You're killing children! Why does Israel support killing children?" And then just continue that line of questioning as if they have the moral high ground, followed by a call to peace to end the interview. It felt more like "this is my opinion of the conflict," than an interview.

Also, asking why don't you just talk to Hamas? Is like asking why the U.S. doesn't directly talk with Iran or N. Korea, international relations are far more complex than simply sitting down and talking with the other side. While Israel hasn't spoken directly with Hamas it is not as if they do not have communication with them, it's simply handled through intermediaries. The same way diplomacy is conducted around the world when two states do not have formal diplomatic ties.

Only in a loony world does an interviewer asking tough questions to a PR chatterbox is called not that great of an interview. Not saying the talks are not complex, but Israel is in the wrong. Israel talked to PLO, which called for Israel's destruction at one point. Israel talked to Egypt and brokered a treaty. Unlike PLO, Egypt actually had a military. The British and Irish brokered the Good Friday agreement. South African government talked to ANC. By the way, US does talk to Iran.

And so does every nation on earth (except Israel of course). So I am not entirely convinced with your argument on why Israel shouldn't talk to Hamas.

 

[Darkfield]

Well, there are no easy solutions here as long as both sides are too stubborn to realize that an eternal conflict isn't going to fix anything bodies will fall, fires will burn down everything and peace would be something that never crosses anyone's mind. It looks as if they are enjoying these death and destruction mayhem. Hamas hides behind civilians and Israel will continue raining down fire on them in hopes of in every 10 kill there's an actual (perceived) enemy combatant dead.

But you know what's cute? US and EU rise in full force when Russia creates a situation with Ukraine, but when it comes to Israel there are no talks of sanctions, no one threatening anyone with talks of taking action.

When it comes to Iran on suspicion of nuclear weapon program the world rise against them (well us really, Iranian here) with heavy sanctions that crippled our economy in a way that in 2 years 9000 Rials per USD, went up to 50000 rials per USD (it's now 35000-ish Rials) as result of that price of everything sky rocketed. Just because Israel has this paranoia that Iran actually wants to produce nuclear weapon.

All I'm saying is Israel should be subjected to the same treatment as everyone else are having. Turning a blind eye on everything they do is just ridiculous.

 

[theignoramus]

I just read an editorial from the NYT that lamented Hamas' surging popularity in the West Bank and droned on about how damaging the "hardliners" in gaza are versus the "moderates" in the west bank.
As terrible as Hamas has been, they were never given a chance.

In 2006, when they won "the first free and fair democratic elections in the Arab world", the Bush administration tried to overthrow them with a US backed coup, led by a Fatah strongman. Israel, for its part, increased the severity of the blockade.
Jump to 2008 and Hamas is enforcing a 6 month cease fire with Israel until November 4th, when Israel breaks that cease fire in a cross border raid, triggering retaliatory rockets, which then spark Operation Cast Lead.

Fast forward to the Arab Spring, and Hamas joins a unity government with the PA and wants to pursue a diplomatic solution to the conflict at the negotiating table. Israel's response is to begin a series of punitive measures intended to destroy the unity government.

So what we have here is a pattern of Hamas pursuing something in the political and diplomatic arena, then being punished for it. How come the nonviolent political and diplomatic initiatives from Hamas are met with violent or antagonistic behaviour from Israel?
It's almost as if Israel want Hamas to operate exclusively in the theater of violence because that allows Israel to maintain the status quo of stalled peace negotiations and continued settlement building in the West Bank.

 

[tafer]

Can diplomacy end the conflict in Gaza? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXmKVHPf10o

Thanks for sharing, the part where they discuss the potential third party for reaching an agreement was quite interesting and shows that maybe, there is a chance for at least a cease fire.

On the other hand, what the hell was that man thinking with those condescending and terribly offensive comments? That part was bizarre to say the least.

All I'm saying is Israel should be subjected to the same treatment as everyone else are having. Turning a blind eye on everything they do is just ridiculous.

It won't happen, not in this world at this moment. However, it's a great chance to open your eyes and learn how things work, the players and the rules. Naturally, it would be better if you just ignore all that shit since all you will ever do is grow as cynical individual.

 

[RustyNails]

I just read an editorial from the NYT that lamented Hamas' surging popularity in the West Bank and droned on about how damaging the "hardliners" in gaza are versus the "moderates" in the west bank.
As terrible as Hamas has been, they were never given a chance.

In 2006, when they won "the first free and fair democratic elections in the Arab world", the Bush administration tried to overthrow them with a US backed coup, led by a Fatah strongman. Israel, for its part, increased the severity of the blockade.
Jump to 2008 and Hamas is enforcing a 6 month cease fire with Israel until November 4th, when Israel breaks that cease fire in a cross border raid, triggering retaliatory rockets, which then spark Operation Cast Lead.

Fast forward to the Arab Spring, and Hamas joins a unity government with the PA and wants to pursue a diplomatic solution to the conflict at the negotiating table. Israel's response is to begin a series of punitive measures intended to destroy the unity government.

So what we have here is a pattern of Hamas pursuing something in the political and diplomatic arena, then being punished for it. How come the nonviolent political or diplomatic initiatives from Hamas are met with violent and antagonistic behaviour from Israel? It's almost as if Israel want Hamas to operate exclusively in the theater of violence because it allows Israel to maintain the status quo of stalled peace negotiations and continued settlement building in the West Bank.

What you described here is called politicide.

 

[Aaron]

Well, there are no easy solutions here as long as both sides are too stubborn to realize that an eternal conflict isn't going to fix anything bodies will fall, fires will burn down everything and peace would be something that never crosses anyone's mind. It looks as if they are enjoying these death and destruction mayhem. Hamas hides behind civilians and Israel will continue raining down fire on them in hopes of in every 10 kill there's an actual (perceived) enemy combatant dead.

Israel has all the power here. There's nothing Hamas can do. And they don't hide behind civilians. An extensive UN study could find no evidence of Hamas using human shields, and the places they put their rockets have always been abandoned. Israel knows this, and shows no interest in causing military casualties. They bomb a hospital and shell a UN shelter with impunity, and might go through the trouble of making up transparent lies afterwards. Their goal is obviously the slow erosion of a region, and they will keep to these tactics as long as they perceive them to be working.

 

[zer0blivion]

Thanks for sharing, the part where they discuss the potential third party for reaching an agreement was quite interesting and shows that maybe, there is a chance for at least a cease fire.

On the other hand, what the hell was that man thinking with those condescending and terribly offensive comments? That part was bizarre to say the least.

Maybe he thought he was on FOX where they would either agree with him or not call him out on it.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Only in a loony world does an interviewer asking tough questions to a PR chatterbox is called not that great of an interview. Not saying the talks are not complex, but Israel is in the wrong. Israel talked to PLO, which called for Israel's destruction at one point. Israel talked to Egypt and brokered a treaty. Unlike PLO, Egypt actually had a military. The British and Irish brokered the Good Friday agreement. South African government talked to ANC. By the way, US does talk to Iran.

And so does every nation on earth (except Israel of course). So I am not entirely convinced with your argument on why Israel shouldn't talk to Hamas.

First, of all simply continually stating "You're murdering children" is not asking tough questions, just as when people who repeatedly shouted that Bush was a "war criminal" or that Obama is some "dictator" are not asking tough questions. They are merely stating their opinion in an extremely hyperbolic fashion and care very little for what the other side has to say, that is not an interview. I also note that you called Regev a "PR chatterbox," tell me then aren't all government officials then the same thing? I've never known a government official of any country to willingly give up information and conduct a very frank and forthcoming interview.

Second, the US does not have formal diplomatic relations with Iran, there is a difference between speaking with a country and have diplomatic relations. One can speak with Hamas for example without having to sit down and chat with their leaders, as the Israeli's do, or as the U.S. does with the Taliban or other groups or nations we do not have diplomatic relations with. And all of the the treaties and talks you referenced did not happen over night, they were a gradual process that came at extreme cost, hence why statements like "why don't you just sit and talk with Hamas," have very little merit.

Again, the two sides are in communications with each other they aren't operating in a vacuum deaf to the other side. Israel has simply chosen not to grant legitimacy to Hamas by conducting full one one one negotiations with them. The same as the U.S. does with Iran.

 

[Darkfield]

Israel has all the power here. There's nothing Hamas can do. And they don't hide behind civilians. An extensive UN study could find no evidence of Hamas using human shields, and the places they put their rockets have always been abandoned. Israel knows this, and shows no interest in causing military casualties. They bomb a hospital and shell a UN shelter with impunity, and might go through the trouble of making up transparent lies afterwards. Their goal is obviously the slow erosion of a region, and they will keep to these tactics as long as they perceive them to be working.

I think I left out an Allegedly somewhere in that sentence, my bad. Apologies.

 

[makingmusic476]

Only in a loony world does an interviewer asking tough questions to a PR chatterbox is called not that great of an interview.

What annoyed me about the interview is that he didn't challenge any of the claims the Israeli made about human shields, etc. Snow's response was pretty much "well, I'm sure you have the technology to only hit the militants, and if you don't then you're going in knowing civilians will die", which gives a sort of indirect approval to the claim that these people are being intentionally put in harms way by Hamas.

For people that think Hamas is to blame for civilian deaths under the assumption they're used as shields, I don't think the interview would change their minds.

 

[zer0blivion]

One can speak with Hamas for example without having to sit down and chat with their leaders, as the Israeli's do

Israel talks with Hamas? I thought the talking point was that they are a terrorist organization and they don't negotiate with terrorists?

Edit: By the way, the UN does not consider Hamas a terrorist organization. Only the US and their allies do.

 

[RustyNails]

What annoyed me about the interview is that he didn't challenge any of the claims the Israeli made about human shields, etc. Snow's response was pretty much "well, I'm sure you have the technology to only hit the militants, and if you don't then you're going in knowing civilians will die", which gives a sort of indirect approval to the claim that these people are being intentionally put in harms way by Hamas.

For people that think Hamas is to blame for civilian deaths under the assumption they're used as shields, I don't think the interview would change their minds.

Of course but the interview was pointed enough to make Regev squirm, which is never seen on news media. It's what happens when you push back on the talking points.

 

[zer0blivion]

STATEMENT BY THE UNRWA COMMISSIONER-GENERAL PIERRE KRÄHENBÜHL
http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/offic...-unrwa-commissioner-general-pierre-krähenbühl

The scenes of carnage and human suffering that we witnessed today at our elementary school in Beit Hanoun were so appalling and intolerable, that it is difficult to find the words to convey adequately my indignation. As has happened so many times in this pitiless conflict, civilians are paying the highest price of the current military escalation. I condemn this callous shelling and the extensive loss of life in the strongest possible terms and call for an immediate investigation to ensure that circumstances and responsibilities are comprehensively and irrefutably established.

 

[Opto]

Regev basically admitted those kids died for no reason. Then he said "but a journalist totally believe it was possible there could be militants nearby"

 

[RustyNails]

First, of all simply continually stating "You're murdering children" is not asking tough questions, just as when people who repeatedly shouted that Bush was a "war criminal" or that Obama is some "dictator" are not asking tough questions. They are merely stating their opinion in an extremely hyperbolic fashion and care very little for what the other side has to say, that is not an interview. I also note that you called Regev a "PR chatterbox," tell me then aren't all government officials then the same thing? I've never known a government official of any country to willingly give up information and conduct a very frank and forthcoming interview.

Did you wanted Snow to offer Regev an apple pie and exchange niceties. I think he asked the right questions, matter of fact, I wished he followed up on them. You know when your country has bombed and killed 800 innocent civilians within two weeks, kid gloves better come the fuck off.

All media spokesmen are companymen. But Mark Regev is especially insufferable.

Second, the US does not have formal diplomatic relations with Iran, there is a difference between speaking with a country and have diplomatic relations. One can speak with Hamas for example without having to sit down and chat with their leaders, as the Israeli's do, or as the U.S. does with the Taliban or other groups or nations we do not have diplomatic relations with. And all of the the treaties and talks you referenced did not happen over night, they were a gradual process that came at extreme cost, hence why statements like "why don't you just sit and talk with Hamas," have very little merit.

Again, the two sides are in communications with each other they aren't operating in a vacuum deaf to the other side. Israel has simply chosen not to grant legitimacy to Hamas by conducting full one one one negotiations with them. The same as the U.S. does with Iran.

Those instances you mention of US indirectly negotiating with Taliban aren't in the same category of Israel making peace with Hamas. US does not have to live with Taliban on their doorstep, but Israel has to live with Hamas. The point of diplomatic relations is moot, as long as you sit together and talk. Jon Snow was asking perfectly valid question, and to be honest, if you don't think Israel and Hamas should start talking, you're also part of the problem. Only way to achieve piece is to sit down and talk.

 

[ambientric]

I think it's interesting to consider the concept of "moral authority" and the subsequent "right of intervention".

Throughout the west we have expressed justified outrage at the shooting down of the Malaysian flight over the Ukraine, and issued various demands over the need for Russia to act to remove their support for the separatists etc...

However, until the west ( led by the US ) also condemns the actions of the Israeli military, there will be no moral authority for intervention.

I would argue, the downing of the Malaysian flight was a mistake, and blaming Russia can only be as indirectly responsible. Supplying arms, technical advice, political support etc. by the same measure of culpability, the west (particularly the US) has the same level of responsibility in their continued support of Israel.

ideally condemnation of the actions of Israel and economic/military sanctions would be imposed.