Support NeoGAF

[Dai101]

But this at the very least lends some credibility to the claims made by IDF that civilian facilities are being used to store weapons?

I'm not saying that justifies killing civilians, but it does paint a less black and white picture, as far as IDF intentions are concerned.

More like credibility sounds like retaliation. Also is not the first time the idf has bombed civilian or other UN buildings before for dubious claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fakhura_school_incident

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Yeah why would they suspect Hamas of such a thing. I'm surprised by the amount of defenders the group has.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.600759#!



We didn't do it but... good job.

Lol Yes because being opposed to a massacre of civilians = defending Hamas, right?



You also need to look at the context he used. Hamas got 1000+ Palestinians freed in exchange for Shalit. So in his comments are the same line of thinking. That said he also is not calling for their deaths but as bargaining chips.

 

[Chumly]

But this at the very least lends some credibility to the claims made by IDF that civilian facilities are being used to store weapons?

I'm not saying that justifies killing civilians, but it does paint a less black and white picture, as far as IDF intentions are concerned.

Not even in the slightest does it lend any credibility. IDF intentions are collective punishment. They could not make that more clear with their actions.

 

[kmag]

More like credibility sounds like retaliation. Also is not the first time the idf has bombed civilian or other UN buildings before for dubious claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fakhura_school_incident

Strange coincidence, Israel typically 'mistakenly' hits UN facilities in the immediate aftermath of the UN releasing statements or reports moderately critical of Israel. The day before the latest 'mistake' you had the UNWRA essentially accusing the IDF of war crimes.

 

[zer0blivion]

But this at the very least lends some credibility to the claims made by IDF that civilian facilities are being used to store weapons?

I'm not saying that justifies killing civilians, but it does paint a less black and white picture, as far as IDF intentions are concerned.

This kind of destroys that credibility.

Israel used fabricated images to justify bombing al-Wafa hospital
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs...cated-images-justify-bombing-al-wafa-hospital
And this:
CNN camera catches Israeli soldier who fired at killed Palestinian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o29CJRZEf4

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Posted and discussed. Go read that discussion and come back if you have anything to add to it.

Would you mind linking me to the discussion? I've gone through the thread and didn't find much of a discussion..

Holy shit WOW 2 abandoned schools! I feel insulted for thinking 200 fully functional kindergarten schools instead. Hamas are really bad at endangering schoolchildren.

Note: No one is saying they are angels, but lets keep things in perspective.

Why is it automatically assumed the missiles were placed in the school after it was abandoned?
Do you have proof of that? If not, the option that they were there before should also be considered.
Also, what makes you so sure these were the only civilian facilities housing missiles? Usually when you find evidence for a phenomenon, the natural thing to assume is that there are additional undiscovered incidences.

More like credibility sounds like retaliation. Also is not the first time the idf has bombed civilian or other UN buildings before for dubious claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fakhura_school_incident

I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

Not even in the slightest does it lend any credibility. IDF intentions are collective punishment. They could not make that more clear with their actions.

I don't believe it works like that.

This kind of destroys that credibility.

Israel used fabricated images to justify bombing al-Wafa hospital
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs...cated-images-justify-bombing-al-wafa-hospital

I don't understand your reasoning. The missiles were discovered by UNWRA and the report I linked to was from UNRWA's website. Are they not an objective source of information?

 

[pgtl_10]

Then read up on your history.
Number one: There was no state of Palestine before 1948. It was under a brittish mandate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Number two. The map doesn't mention the 1948 arabic-Israel war, where Israel got attacked by nerealy every single arabic state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_war

Number 3. It doesn't mention that Gaza and the west bank was under Egypt and Jordanian control between 1948-1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_Egypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank


Do you want me to go on?

So an indigenous people can lose their homes? That ridiculous!

It is that logic that allowed white people to steal Native American land.

Also by the time Israel had fought a war in 1948, some 150,000 Palestinians had already fled their homes. The Deir Yassin had taken place.

After the war Israel used a series of laws to confiscate land.

That picture is logical and not misleading. The West had no right to divide people's land just because they think themselves "civilised".

 

[mugurumakensei]

Strange coincidence, Israel typically 'mistakenly' hits UN facilities in the immediate aftermath of the UN releasing statements or reports moderately critical of Israel. The day before the latest 'mistake' you had the UNWRA essentially accusing the IDF of war crimes.

Hmm... I wouldn't read the same into it.

Two unnamed residents, who spoke to an Associated Press reporter by phone on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said a group of militants had been firing mortar shells rounds from a street close to the school.[16][17] Jonathan Miller wrote in a Channel 4 story that "local residents in the street told me that militants had been firing rockets – as the IDF claimed – and having been targeted in retaliatory fire by the IDF, they ran down the street past the school."[18][19] Residents of the neighborhood said two brothers who were Hamas fighters were in the area at the time of the attack.[20] The Israeli military identified the brothers as Imad Abu Asker and Hassan Abu Asker, and said they had been killed.[20] Residents also said that the mortar fire had not come from the school compound, but from elsewhere in the neighborhood.[20]

OCHA also reported on 6 January that the missile strikes had been outside the school.[34] In its report of the following day, however, it said the school itself had been shelled.[35] Three weeks later, this error was corrected by Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator, who stated that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school.[36] As a result, several news agencies claimed that the UN had backtracked from its original claim that the strike had hit the school[37] Abraham Rabinovich of The Australian also criticized John Ging and other UN officials claiming they did not "dispel widespread suspicions" and that one of Ging's statement implied the school was hit directly.[38]

 

[KingK]

Rula Jebreal Calls out MSNBC: Whoever’s Doing Their PR ‘Needs to Rethink’ Things

Former MSNBC foreign affairs commentator Rula Jebreal appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday morning to discuss her tumultuous week that saw her criticizing MSNBC on one of its own shows for neglecting Palestinian voices, having her subsequent appearances on the network canceled, and then being labelled a “Palestinian journalist” when she returned to debate the incident with Chris Hayes.

It was this last part that seemed to really anger Jebreal. “I felt terrible,” she said. “I was hired by MSNBC and for two years I was labelled as analyst, journalist, foreign policy expert. I was never labelled a Palestinian journalist…Who does that? Is this how we label people? Whoever is doing this PR campaign for MSNBC needs to rethink these issues.”

Jebreal was an MSNBC contributor until her contract expired last month.

“Did I become Palestinian because this way you can describe me as emotional and as biased, and can avoid debate as to who is really biased on these issues?” she continued. “They need to give these answers not to me, but to their audience.”

Video inside the article here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rula-jeb...evers-doing-their-pr-needs-to-rethink-things/

I love how the media's response to claims of bias is always "Well we tried to get Hamas officials on air, but it's too hard. How could we possibly give any context to the situation without Hamas officials accepting our invitations! Now here's an Israeli spokesmen who will speak, unchallenged, about the situation for the next ten minutes."

It's the same excuse Chris Hayes used when he interviewed her.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Rula Jebreal Calls out MSNBC: Whoever’s Doing Their PR ‘Needs to Rethink’ Things

It was this last part that seemed to really anger Jebreal. “I felt terrible,” she said. “I was hired by MSNBC and for two years I was labelled as analyst, journalist, foreign policy expert. I was never labelled a Palestinian journalist…Who does that? Is this how we label people? Whoever is doing this PR campaign for MSNBC needs to rethink these issues.”

“Did I become Palestinian because this way you can describe me as emotional and as biased, and can avoid debate as to who is really biased on these issues?” she continued. “They need to give these answers not to me, but to their audience.”

The rest of her issues are legit but taking being called a Palestinian Journalist as insult is kind of weird considering her official website has this as its title.

Rula Jebreal | Palestinian Journalist Author and Screenwriter

 

[pgtl_10]

Poll 86% of Israelis don't want ceasefire:

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Poll-865-percent-of-Israelis-oppose-cease-fire-369064

 

[pgtl_10]

The rest of her issues are legit but taking being called a Palestinian Journalist as insult is kind of weird considering her official website has this as its title.

I think the way MSNBC used it was to show that she is bias so don't listen to her. Also it sounds like MSNBC doesn't want to respect her as an equal at the network.

 

[werks]

 

[inm8num2]

Maybe people will stop trusting and watching the major news networks given how biased and imbalanced their coverage of Gaza is?

Nah...

 

[Zen]

this fucking pic again! It is so full of bullshit and is so misleading.

Care to point them out?

 

[docbon]

Care to point them out?

He already did a few posts up.

 

[Messofanego]

This kind of destroys that credibility.

Israel used fabricated images to justify bombing al-Wafa hospital
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs...cated-images-justify-bombing-al-wafa-hospital
And this:
CNN camera catches Israeli soldier who fired at killed Palestinian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o29CJRZEf4

Hadn't seen that second video before, just remember the CCTV but not the CNN catching the exact moment Israeli soldier shot the teenager. Man.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Are you here to troll? They elected a terrorist organization that launches rockets at one neighbor and blows a hole in the border of the other. Neither of which like them much to begin with. But at least Iran and Syria try and arm them... thus causing a blockade.

I wonder what you would call an organisation that bulldozed the houses of 10's of thousands of people, stole their water, malnutrition children, and bombed and killed those children based on a convenient and fabricated pretence?

 

[zer0blivion]

Would you mind linking me to the discussion? I've gone through the thread and didn't find much of a discussion..

I don't understand your reasoning. The missiles were discovered by UNWRA and the report I linked to was from UNRWA's website. Are they not an objective source of information?

I'm on mobile right now, search for your links.

I don't dispute those reports one bit. In the first report the missiles were removed and handed over to authorities. In the second in the second report, the missiles went missing. I have yet to see any evidence of missiles in UN buildings or hospitals that are occupied. If they were, UNRWA would certainly report it.

My point is that the IDF has no credibility.

 

[jakonovski]

Poll 86% of Israelis don't want ceasefire:

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Poll-865-percent-of-Israelis-oppose-cease-fire-369064

Israel wants more blood, now it's just a question of what Netanyahu fears more: US pressure or voter pressure.

In concrete terms, how many hundreds or thousands more dead Palestinians?

 

[zeroOman]

He already did a few posts up.

But here is Dr Hani Faris who is using it for info .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzWJDqYx6NM&feature=youtu.be

is it still false?

 

[Zen]

Then read up on your history.
Number one: There was no state of Palestine before 1948. It was under a brittish mandate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Number two. The map doesn't mention the 1948 arabic-Israel war, where Israel got attacked by nerealy every single arabic state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_war

Number 3. It doesn't mention that Gaza and the west bank was under Egypt and Jordanian control between 1948-1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_Egypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank


Do you want me to go on?

I dont see how these events are particularly relevant? Obviously the situation is far more nuanced than three stills, but the more important ones, giving 1967 as a reference point to ~now~ 2006, are kind of the main point. I mean it is slightly misleading, but not grievously so.

 

[zer0blivion]

Does anyone still think Israel wants peace?

Netanyahu stops pretending to support sovereign Palestinian State

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, he told reporters last week in remarks that largely have been overlooked.
http://www.imemc.org/article/68636

 

[funkypie]

But this at the very least lends some credibility to the claims made by IDF that civilian facilities are being used to store weapons?

I'm not saying that justifies killing civilians, but it does paint a less black and white picture, as far as IDF intentions are concerned.

you completely ignore the fact that the links you have posted have been proven as bullshit.

 

[zer0blivion]

you completely ignore the fact that the links you have posted have been proven as bullshit.

The UNRWA reports are definitely not bullshit, but his spin is.

 

[pgtl_10]

Two Palestinians severely beaten by Jewish mob:

http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Two-Palestinians-hospitalized-after-being-severely-beaten-by-Jewish-mob-in-Jerusalem-369021

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

The UNRWA reports are definitely not bullshit, but his spin is.

what spin?

My point is that the IDF has no credibility.

I really don't understand how the UNRWA reports possibly decrease the credibility of IDF

you completely ignore the fact that the links you have posted have been proven as bullshit.

You should really stop posting if that's the kind of stuff you have to contribute. You do a disservice to your peers by spreading ignorance.

 

[zer0blivion]

what spin?

Your assertion that the UNRWA reports lend credibility to the IDF.

I really don't understand how the UNRWA reports possibly decrease the credibility of IDF

They don't, the other examples I posted do. Care to comment on them?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Your assertion that the UNRWA reports lend credibility to the IDF.

IDF: "Hamas hide missiles in civilian facilities."

UNRWA: "we have found Hamas missiles in two of our schools."

Can we at least agree on the two above statements?

 

[werks]

Does anyone still think Israel wants peace?

Netanyahu stops pretending to support sovereign Palestinian State

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, he told reporters last week in remarks that largely have been overlooked.
http://www.imemc.org/article/68636

Netanyahu stops pretending to support sovereign Palestinian State
by Ryan Grim & Paul Blumenthal - Huffington Post Report

“There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan," he said July 11 at a press conference. But if Israel doesn't relinquish security control, Palestinians cannot establish a state. The alternative, then, would be a single state in which Palestinians are residents but not full citizens.

"That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” summed up Times of Israel editor David Horovitz, whom Ha'aretz described as a Netanyahu supporter.

“If we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria, like they tell us to, there’d be a possibility of thousands of tunnels," Netanyahu explained. "At present we have a problem with the territory called Gaza." Giving the West Bank back to Palestinians would "create another 20 Gazas," he said.

As Horovitz writes in the Times of Israel, "[Netanyahu] made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank."

None of this should be terribly surprising, as Netanyahu had long opposed a two-state solution before his recent engagement with the Obama administration on the issue. Of course, while he was supposedly negotiating a two-state solution in good faith, his administration doubled settlements in the West Bank and created a far-right-wing governing coalition largely opposed to a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu's statements come as this far-right coalition has begun to fracture in light of the current military operations in Gaza. The leaders of rival right-wing parties now critical of Netanyahu also have their own notions, none of them positive, for the future of a Palestinian state.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose far-right Yisrael Beiteinu Party split up with Netanyahu's Likud Party over the Gaza operation, called for Israel to send ground troops to annex Gaza and place it back under occupation.

"Israel must go all the way," Lieberman said in a press conference on Tuesday. In a radio interview with Army Radio, he stated plainly, "We need to decide whether we are going with an alternative that entails fully conquering the Gaza Strip." The Israeli occupation of Gaza ended in 2005 when the government of Ariel Sharon unilaterally pulled out. Israel still controls Gaza's airspace and borders, and imposes import and travel restrictions.

Lieberman has been joined by Economic Minister Naftali Bennett, head of the settler-dominated Jewish Home Party, in criticizing the Netanyahu government for its "restraint" in punishing Gaza. Bennett said in a July 5 press release that "restraint in the face of rockets on women and children is not power." In later statements he called for the Iron Dome, Israel's defensive missile and rocket interception system that is funded by the United States, to be turned into "an Iron Fist -- a weapon of offense."

Lieberman and Bennett were the only two members of Netanyahu's security council to vote against a recent ceasefire agreement that ultimately did not materialize.

The public statements outlining Netanyahu's opposition to a two-state solution come as these rivals present a clear challenge to his political position, and at a time when Israel is moving further to the right.

Both Lieberman and Bennett already held positions on a two-state solution that were further to the right of anything Netanyahu said this week.

Lieberman ostensibly supports the creation of a Palestinian state, but his plan would involve a territorial swap that would exchange Israeli areas occupied by Arabs for all the West Bank territories occupied by Israeli settlers, Lieberman among them. This would entail stripping Israeli Arab citizens of their citizenship as they are transferred into a Palestinian state, and is widely opposed by Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.

Bennett, on the other hand, believes in a single state with the annexation of all Israeli settler territories into Israel and "separate rules" for Palestinians living in the West Bank. He recently said the two-state process had reached a "dead end" and that the "Palestinian problem" should be thought of like a "piece of shrapnel" lodged in one's rear end.

These political challenges to Netanyahu's policy in Gaza have not only come from his coalition partners, but also from inside his own Likud Party. On Tuesday, Netanyahu fired Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon for publicly blasting the administration over its "restraint." Danon, the recently elected head of the Likud Central Committee, has previously stated his opposition to a two-state solution, claiming, "There is place only for one state on the land of Israel."

These critics are part of a rising right-wing political bloc whose radicalism has essentially made Netanyahu, despite his opposition to a two-state solution, a political centrist in Israel.

The permanent security occupation of the West Bank that Netanyahu's remarks suggest essentially would be just a more formal continuation of the current occupation policy. And this is exactly the situation feared by officials like Secretary of State John Kerry, in which Israel is a unitary "apartheid state with second-class citizens." Or as former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated, the collapse of the two-state solution would precipitate "a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."

Whether you think Netanyahu's position is "bleak and depressing" or "savvy and pragmatic," Horovitz argues, "Nobody will ever be able to claim in the future that he didn’t tell us what he really thinks."

Wow.

 

[zeroOman]

IDF: "Hamas hide missiles in civilian facilities."

UNRWA: "we have found Hamas missiles in two of our schools."

Can we at least agree on the two above statements?

They were empty school no one was there... but let's talk about the UN building Israel attack?

 

[zer0blivion]

IDF: "Hamas hide missiles in civilian facilities."

UNRWA: "we have found Hamas missiles in two of our schools."

Can we at least agree on the two above statements?

The difference is, one of those entities is trustworthy and the other one is attempting to justify war crimes.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

They were empty school no one was there... but let's talk about the UN building Israel attack?

All I was saying is that we don't know if the missiles were placed before or after the school was empty, and as such, both possibilities should be considered.

The difference is, one of those entities is trustworthy and the other one is attempting to justify war crimes.

Person A who is untrustworthy makes statement.

Person B who is considered much more trustworthy happens to uncover evidence that potentially adds credibility to A's statement.

Your response: "I don't trust person A".

 

[zer0blivion]

All I was saying is that we don't know if the missiles were placed before or after the school was empty, and as such, both possibilities should be considered.

As I've said, if the were ever found in an occupied building, they would have reported it.

 

[zeroOman]

All I was saying is that we don't know if the missiles were placed before or after the school was empty, and as such, both possibilities should be considered.


Person A who is untrustworthy makes statement.

Person B who is considered much more trustworthy happens to uncover evidence that potentially adds credibility to A's statement.

Your response: "I don't trust person A".

They were... can someone send the article.....

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

As I've said, if the were ever found in an occupied building, they would have reported it.

In the case of second school it sounds like the building in question was vacant, but in close proximity to two other buildings serving as shelter for 3000 people. That doesn't seem problematic to you?

They were... can someone send the article.....

Is this also the case with the second school? If so, why would missiles be placed in an empty building that was close to two mass shelters?



edit: Seriously guys, I'm not in here on some crusade to prove Israel are saints. Far from it. I merely want to focus the discussion on the facts. Believe me, there is still plenty of room for legitimate criticism without resorting to illogical arguments.

 

[Sapphire Dreams]

Poor Gaza residents, this is yet another unhappy Eid for them

 

[MacNille]

I dont see how these events are particularly relevant? Obviously the situation is far more nuanced than three stills, but the more important ones, giving 1967 as a reference point to ~now~ 2006, are kind of the main point. I mean it is slightly misleading, but not grievously so.

It is hugely missleding, in it that it portrait the conflict as only Palestine vs Israel. Nowhere on that stupid ass map does it mention the other players in the conflict. That is what piss me off.

 

[zer0blivion]

It is hugely missleding, in it that it portrait the conflict as only Palestine vs Israel. Nowhere on that stupid ass map does it mention the other players in the conflict. That is what piss me off.

Watch the video I posted, it explains those maps.

 

[RustyNails]

Why is it automatically assumed the missiles were placed in the school after it was abandoned?
Do you have proof of that? If not, the option that they were there before should also be considered.
Also, what makes you so sure these were the only civilian facilities housing missiles? Usually when you find evidence for a phenomenon, the natural thing to assume is that there are additional undiscovered incidences.

I really don't understand why you're hung up on this. Are you trying to create a straight line from the placement of rockets in an abandoned UN school, to the utter destruction and massacre of civilians that is raging in Gaza right now at the hands of Israel. Because that's what it looks like you are trying to do. In fact, what you're doing here is playing a legal game of exonerating the actions of IDF in the court of law, using the abandoned schools to justify IDF's actions under grounds of technicality. The fact that you bring up "it's not black and white" is an attempt to fog up the actual atrocities that are taking place right now. No one here is defending Hamas using terror tactics like loading rockets in abandoned schools or shooting them indiscriminately over Israel. The conflict did not start when Hamas shot rockets over the desert or when they placed them in the school building. If you're going to prosecute Hamas, this is a really shitty attempt to do so. What people are saying is look at the whole perspective. Pointing out the fact that Hamas placed rockets in empty school does not, under any circumstance whatsoever, give IDF the right to bombard such facilities. You are asking me to prove whether Hamas placed rockets before or after the building was abandoned. Maybe ask UNWRA what their investigation says. So much thought and reasoning is going towards maligning the Palestinians by prosecuting Hamas which in the grand scheme of things constitutes fuck all to the conflict.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

edit: Seriously guys, I'm not in here on some crusade to prove Israel are saints. Far from it. I merely want to focus the discussion on the facts. Believe me, there is still plenty of room for legitimate criticism without resorting to illogical arguments.

What is your argument other than saying Hamas are evil. What conclusions have you drawn. Since Hamas are evil ergo Israel maybe ok for being committing a warcrime?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I really don't understand why you're hung up on this. Are you trying to create a straight line from the placement of rockets in an abandoned UN school, to the utter destruction and massacre of civilians that is raging in Gaza right now at the hands of Israel. Because that's what it looks like you are trying to do. In fact, what you're doing here is playing a legal game of exonerating the actions of IDF in the court of law, using the abandoned schools to justify IDF's actions under grounds of technicality. The fact that you bring up "it's not black and white" is an attempt to fog up the actual atrocities that are taking place right now. No one here is defending Hamas using terror tactics like loading rockets in abandoned schools or shooting them indiscriminately over Israel. The conflict did not start when Hamas shot rockets over the desert or when they placed them in the school building. If you're going to prosecute Hamas, this is a really shitty attempt to do so. What people are saying is look at the whole perspective. Pointing out the fact that Hamas placed rockets in empty school does not, under any circumstance whatsoever, give IDF the right to bombard such facilities. You are asking me to prove whether Hamas placed rockets before or after the building was abandoned. Maybe ask UNWRA what their investigation says. So much thought and reasoning is going towards maligning the Palestinians by prosecuting Hamas which in the grand scheme of things constitutes fuck all to the conflict.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

I'm not trying to create a line between placement of missiles in civilian facilities and justifying killing civilians. But I am absolutely saying that given these two incidents, the possibility of more like them is increased. And I absolutely think it is highly relevant to the nature of this conflict if Hamas are using civilian facilities to store weapons. Be they occupied, vacant, or in the vicinity of other occupied civilian facilities. Air strikes are a horrible, horrible thing. One of the big reasons they are so horrible is because they are based on ground intelligence that can be nearly impossible to verify unless you have a man on the inside, physically looking at the missiles when the strike is ordered. By intentionally blurring the lines between what is considered a likely missile store and what is a shelter, school or otherwise civilian facility, Hamas are adding to the already disproportionately high risk of injury and death in Gaza.

 

[zer0blivion]

Meanwhile...

Merciless Israeli mobs are hunting Palestinians
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/merciless-israeli-mobs-are-hunting-palestinians

Haaretz added, “According to the victims, police officers that arrived at the scene did not call an ambulance, and they were instead evacuated by passersby to receive medical treatment at a Beit Khanina [sic] clinic. They were later rushed to Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem in serious condition.”

Though investigators believe the beating to be racially motivated, no one has been arrested. 

 

[Dominican Power]

smh

 

[maharg]

Then read up on your history.
Number one: There was no state of Palestine before 1948. It was under a brittish mandate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Number two. The map doesn't mention the 1948 arabic-Israel war, where Israel got attacked by nerealy every single arabic state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_war

Number 3. It doesn't mention that Gaza and the west bank was under Egypt and Jordanian control between 1948-1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_Egypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank


Do you want me to go on?

Regarding #1: I'm not sure what it matters that Palestine was a 'British Mandate' for any reasonable discussion. As far as I can tell, mandate was basically a fancy term cooked up by the League of Nations to make colonial governance more palatable for the early 20th century. If you refuse to consider any of the lines drawn by colonial powers before any of them achieved some measure of independence then half the world was a "British Mandate" at the time, in fact if not in name, and that's not terribly useful to discussing the nuances of each of those colonies.

Regarding #2 and #3: Since the map is intended to enlighten about the current conflict, I'm not sure how putting a map of the fact that Egypt and Jordan also occupied the area that was intended to become Palestine is particularly relevant, unless you want to go with the narrative that the Palestinians (almost none of whom's parents were probably even alive when it was occupied by anyone other than Israel) are deserving of punishment for the actions of their ancestors and Egypt and Jordan.

It's frankly a little bit disturbing to suggest this, tbh.

 

[zer0blivion]

Is this real, or is Times of Israel some kind of Onion-like parody site?

Protective egg
Owl hurt by Hamas fire recovering
http://www.timesofisrael.com/owl-hurt-by-hamas-fire-recovering/

 

[Dai101]

Documenting death: The man who counts the bodies in Gaza

GAZA CITY (AFP) -- Inside Ashraf al-Qidra's cramped office in Shifa hospital, the phone never stops ringing, with news flooding in of the latest victims of Israel's devastating 20-day military operation.

With over 1,060 people killed and more than 6,000 wounded, counting the dead is a full-time occupation for the 41-year-old spokesman for Gaza's emergency services.

Since the operation began on July 8, Qidra has been sleeping just two hours a night on a mattress in his office, his staff updating him round the clock on the latest victims of the Israeli offensive, his phone constantly ringing with journalists seeking details of the latest toll.

He lies down for a rest, but his much-needed siesta is swiftly interrupted as an aide rushes in.

"Doctor Qidra, there are many many dead and injured in a shelling on Shuhada hospital!" exclaims a breathless assistant.

The 41-year-old immediately begins scribbling down notes as phones ring and a wireless radio crackles with news of more death and injury across war-torn Gaza.

He calls the hospitals, coordinating efforts to keep track of the wounded.

"There's no safe place from the Israeli shelling," says Qudra, a tall man with a neatly-trimmed beard who has been doing the job for four years.

"They targeted Al-Wafa hospital, Shahada hospital and the European hospital, which I feared would happen," he said.

"I don't doubt they'll hit this hospital at some point," he says, watching out the window as an ambulance unloads more of the wounded.

"The enemy has gone beyond insane, there's disaster after disaster."

Unpaid for months

Figures released by the UN's humanitarian agency OCHA indicate nearly three quarters of the victims were civilians and around a quarter of them children.

And it says 18 hospitals, clinics and medical centres have been hit and damaged by Israeli shelling.

Israel has lost 43 soldiers, and three civilians have been killed by cross-border projectiles.

Al-Shifa is the largest of Gaza's seven hospitals, all of which have been working around the clock since the Israel operation began on July 8 with the aim of eradicating cross-border rocket fire, which later expanded into a ground operation.

A call comes in on the landline -- five more dead and at least 70 wounded, among them doctors and paramedics in a strike on Shuhada hospital in Khan Younis.

The phone rings again. But this time it's his wife.

Qidra cracks a rare smile and asks after his four children, reassuring them that he's still safe and well.

He has seen his family only once in the past three weeks.

"I miss them," he admits.

And like many ordinary Gazans, he struggles to support them.

Despite his crucial role, Qidra, who recently qualified as a doctor, has not been paid for several months.

Until two months ago, he was spokesman for the Hamas-run health ministry, but the Islamist movement -- which administered Gaza until handing over responsibility to a Ramallah-based government in June -- ran out of funds to pay its government workers.

But he does not consider himself allied to Hamas, insisting his work is a humanitarian duty.

"I believe strongly in my humanitarian mission," he says of a job which involves answering around 700 phonecalls per day.

Emotional impact

Every evening, he holds a news conferences at the hospital at which he reads out the figures and names of the victims.

But long before, every detail is meticulously recorded in near-constant postings in Arabic on both Twitter and Facebook.

For journalists covering the conflict, Qudra is the sole source of information. With numbers rising so quickly, sometimes by 100 deaths per day, it would be an impossible task to independently verify every casualty.

Qidra insists his numbers add up.

"The statistics we use and publish are accurate and objective," he says, proud but weary.

His first experience of a major conflict between Israel and Hamas was in November 2012 when 177 Palestinians and six Israelis were killed in an eight-day confrontation.

This time, he admits, the conflict has definitely affected him emotionally.

"I see corpses and body parts all the time," he says.

"But what really gets to me is the sight of women and children who've been killed in shellings."

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=716622

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=500054466764949

Still alive but nothing remains...

 

[m_shortpants]

Jon Snow returns from Gaza.

http://youtu.be/mR1LGoNg5p4

 

[Yasir]

Jon Snow returns from Gaza.

http://youtu.be/mR1LGoNg5p4

:,(

Eid Mubarak Palestinians.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm not trying to create a line between placement of missiles in civilian facilities and justifying killing civilians. But I am absolutely saying that given these two incidents, the possibility of more like them is increased. And I absolutely think it is highly relevant to the nature of this conflict if Hamas are using civilian facilities to store weapons. Be they occupied, vacant, or in the vicinity of other occupied civilian facilities. Air strikes are a horrible, horrible thing. One of the big reasons they are so horrible is because they are based on ground intelligence that can be nearly impossible to verify unless you have a man on the inside, physically looking at the missiles when the strike is ordered. By intentionally blurring the lines between what is considered a likely missile store and what is a shelter, school or otherwise civilian facility, Hamas are adding to the already disproportionately high risk of injury and death in Gaza.

Yes you are. Maybe it does not seem to you, but you definitely are. You are justifying IDF's actions by stretching the possibility of two fucking abandoned buildings having rockets in them to include all of Gaza buildings as potential arms depots. Hence, Israel gets to wash it's hands clean. At this point I want to ask you for evidence of mass storage of armaments under Gaza hospitals. But that's besides the fact. Whether Hamas has loaded 2 buildings or 200, it does not give IDF the right to destroy hospitals, schools and shelters. This is Israel's PR hook line and sinker. I'm not accusing you of being a parrot, but sadly you are playing to their propaganda and it's sad to see good posters getting caught up with the bad spin that is used to justify atrocities. By saying airstrikes are horrible and Hamas are adding to the confusion, you are placing the entire onus of civilian deaths on Hamas. We have already discussed and dismissed the various attempts by posters to encircle Hamas for the deaths of Palestinians a million times on three different threads. The fact is, Israel is pulling the trigger on these civilian shelters. They get the lion's share of the blame. Yes I agree with you that it does not matter whether the buildings are occupied or vacant, which is why your line of questioning whether Hamas placed the rockets before the building was vacant is irrelevant.

 

[zeroOman]

is this video 100% right I feel like he missing something

here is the link sorry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb6IiSUxpgw&feature=youtu.be