Support NeoGAF

[LNBL]

So you think the IDF has a mission to hunt down Palestinian children despite the fact that they have nothing to gain from that, because everyone in it is a heartless monster. However they can't kill children all the time as that would be bad press, so what they do is give warnings, drop pamphlets and cancel airstrikes some of the time, and then intentionally order strikes on children other times, just to keep it interesting. This is clearly much easier to believe than it being an operational mistake.

Please show me where I said Israel is actively hunting children.

 

[sindbadthesailor]

Saying that the IDF doesn't purposely targeting children isn't bias, it's just plain fact. If it was all children in Gaza would be dead by now.

The killing of these poor kids is a grave mistake and a tragedy. I would like to hear any alternatives Israel has to airstrikes at this point though.

Excellent strawman, but not the point. Whether they intentionally target civilians and kids is not something you'd know unless you're standing there while they pick their targets and fire.

But what can be said, safely and backed by a tremendous amount of bloody evidence, is that they couldn't care in the slightest whether they hit civilians or not. The point of these air strikes is not to eliminate rocket launch sites which are mobile, but to collectively intimidate the entire population; to beat them into submission so their territory and labour can be exploited to an even easier degree.

That's what been going on for decades and they've successfully managed to grab even more land and take away even more rights from the occupied populations. And of course, the small cost of increased antagonism against them is always waived away as 'terrorism.'

 

[DECK'ARD]

According to several Dutch journalists on Twitter, this picture will be on the frontpage on the NYT tomorrow. The picture was made by Tyles Hicks , Staff photographer of the NYT, he witnesse the bombing as the children ran off the beach. If it actually gets the frontpage, it's going to bring forward some shocking reactions.

Horrible

 

[Quotient]

How can such an advanced military organization "misidentify" children playing football as resistance fighters. Riddle me.

The US army has misidentified both civilians and troops - it's not the first time an army has misidentified and mistakenly killed civilians.

 

[TarNaru33]

Does it even matter?

Firing on children = evil

Firing on unidentified people = evil

So your argument to defend the IDF is, that one thing could be interpreted as "less evil" than the other? Who the fuck cares. Both scenarios are evil.

Really? I thought most people put intent and context of the scenario into the equation of what is right and wrong? Especially when you are trying to argue that something is evil. Seems like I am mistaken

 

[encephalon]

They probably just thought they could get away with it. When people see other people as sub-human, they tend to do these kind of things.

Really? I thought most people put intent and context of the scenario into the equation of what is right and wrong? Especially when you are trying to argue that something is evil. Seems like I am mistaken

What exactly are you arguing here? That firing on children doesn't require the necessary "intent" for "evil," or that firing without concern with what you are firing at is not evil? This has to be one of the worst things I have ever read on GAF.

 

[squidyj]

Really? I thought most people put intent and context of the scenario into the equation of what is right and wrong? Especially when you are trying to argue that something is evil. Seems like I am mistaken

road to hell something something best intentions? ends something something means?

what their intent was doesn't really matter if their practices are abhorrent. and the practice of not taking care to properly identify targets because your intent is to kill terrorists, is fucking abhorrent.

 

[RustyNails]

The US army has misidentified both civilians and troops - it's not the first time an army has misidentified and mistakenly killed civilians.

US army has misidentified large gatherings, such as weddings. But I don't think they've fired at 4 children playing football on a beachfront.

 

[encephalon]

The US army has misidentified both civilians and troops - it's not the first time an army has misidentified and mistakenly killed civilians.

Civilians with tiny bodies?

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Really? I thought most people put intent and context of the scenario into the equation of what is right and wrong? Especially when you are trying to argue that something is evil. Seems like I am mistaken

Uh what? In what world is killing unidentified people *not* evil? There is no context needed.

My point is that some people here are basically saying. "Ok the IDF killed people without caring who they were, which is pretty fucking evil, but they did not know that they were kids, which would have been more evil". How on earth is this a viable "defense" of what the IDF did??

 

[Cromat]

You know what truly angers me is that we could have avoided this horrible discussion at all if Hamas would have accepted the ceasefire that they have been offered twice. Can anyone please give any justification for that except for the stupid "they weren't even consulted!". It isn't that difficult: you cease firing and then both sides will meet in 48 hours to discuss the issues. The only reason we are in this pointless operation is because that stupid organization values its own political image more than anything else.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Yep, it's Hamas' fault that those kids are dead. Unbelievable.

 

[Quotient]

Ok, so let's talk about this in a less "IDF IS ALL ABOUT KILLING THE CHILDREN" vs. "IDF IS WONDERFUL DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM" kind of way. It still looks bad for Israel. So they believed there was a weapon placement there. Let's take that as a given, even though presumably if there were, the press who were filming this happening would have noticed it. Let's also take as a given that Hamas is using civilians as shields. Basically, full credit to the Israeli side of the dispute.

So they shelled it, presumably hit dead on what they thought was a launcher of some sort. They saw people scrambling away. They turned their guns on the people fleeing, who they know full well might be civilians trying to get away from the shelling and not operators of the launcher. But still, they turn the guns and fire at them.

This seems completely unnecessary, even if they *weren't* kids. The civilians in Gaza are Israel's responsibility, whether they like it or not, because they are an occupying force. That they've removed themselves from securing the lives of those they occupy does not remove this responsibility.

You make some good point. I can't disagree with anything you just stated. They need to be 100% sure on the targets they are firing on, if there is an iota of doubt then they should abort

As much as Hamas's rockets gives the Israeli right political ammunition, the death of innocents is fueling the already intense hatred that is feeding Hamas.

 

[LNBL]

You know what truly angers me is that we could have avoided this horrible discussion at all if Hamas would have accepted the ceasefire that they have been offered twice. Can anyone please give any justification for that except for the stupid "they weren't even consulted!". It isn't that difficult: you cease firing and then both sides will meet in 48 hours to discuss the issues. The only reason we are in this pointless operation is because that stupid organization values its own political image more than anything else.

They were not consulted, there is nothing stupid about that answer. The details surrounding that peace offer would change nothing for the people of Gaza.

 

[encephalon]

You know what truly angers me is that we could have avoided this horrible discussion at all if Hamas would have accepted the ceasefire that they have been offered twice. Can anyone please give any justification for that except for the stupid "they weren't even consulted!". It isn't that difficult: you cease firing and then both sides will meet in 48 hours to discuss the issues. The only reason we are in this pointless operation is because that stupid organization values its own political image more than anything else.

This reads like PR.

 

[RustyNails]

You know what truly angers me is that we could have avoided this horrible discussion at all if Hamas would have accepted the ceasefire that they have been offered twice. Can anyone please give any justification for that except for the stupid "they weren't even consulted!". It isn't that difficult: you cease firing and then both sides will meet in 48 hours to discuss the issues. The only reason we are in this pointless operation is because that stupid organization values its own political image more than anything else.

Would Israel except a unilateral deal by Egypt, Hamas and Arab League without being consulted (without their concerns being addressed), which they hear it for the first time from the news media, and not their cabinet.

 

[Cromat]

Yep, it's Hamas' fault that those kids are dead. Unbelievable.

Stop distorting what I've said. Those kids were killed by the IDF and this should be investigated.
Hamas is ABSOLUTELY responsible for this operation and specifically its continuation past the ceasefire agreement. Please provide any justification for rejecting the ceasefire and explain what you think this refusal achieved for the people of Gaza and Israel.

 

[TarNaru33]

What exactly are you arguing here? That firing on children doesn't require the necessary "intent" for "evil," or that firing without concern with what you are firing at is not evil? This has to be one of the worst things I have ever read on GAF.

road to hell something something best intentions? ends something something means?

what their intent was doesn't really matter if their practices are abhorrent. and the practice of not taking care to properly identify targets because your intent is to kill terrorists, is fucking abhorrent.

I am saying his statement is too strong with absolutes. We as human beings do not determine that something or someone is evil just because they done something terrible.

Would you call killing a kid that is about to shoot you evil of the man defending himself? Would you call killing a man who in the midst of civilians was going to activate a suicide bomb and end up killing a few civilians in the process evil? Technically he was aiming at the suicide bomber, but he still fired on others to do so.
People defending their homes, by killing an unidentified intruder before they could make a move, after warning them not to. Is this evil as well?

Be realistic

Yes doing all of those things are tragic foremost, however, evil requires intentions and knowledge of the situation. Everything should be done to prevent those things he stated in his posts, but accidents will occur no matter what and things like he stated will happen due to incompetence and fear.

That do not make the person or the act they did "evil". I do say they should be held responsible though if they were so incompetent enough to fail all procedures to avoid such a incident.

 

[artist]

According to several Dutch journalists on Twitter, this picture will be on the frontpage on the NYT tomorrow. The picture was made by Tyles Hicks , Staff photographer of the NYT, he witnesse the bombing as the children ran off the beach. If it actually gets the frontpage, it's going to bring forward some shocking reactions.

Will it though?

Fuck these murdering cunts.

 

[Quotient]

Would Israel except a unilateral deal by Egypt, Hamas and Arab League without being consulted (without their concerns being addressed), which they hear it for the first time from the news media, and not their cabinet.

You make it sound like there 2 equal sides. They are not. I don't know if Hamas is going to have much choice, it's either accept a truce or watch while your people around you die and your infrastructure falls into further decay and rubble.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Stop distorting what I've said. Those kids were killed by the IDF and this should be investigated.
Hamas is ABSOLUTELY responsible for this operation and specifically its continuation past the ceasefire agreement. Please provide any justification for rejecting the ceasefire and explain what you think this refusal achieved for the people of Gaza and Israel.

Excuse me? You were trying to spin this in a way that it looks like it was the fault of Hamas. Your. Own. Words:

You know what truly angers me is that we could have avoided this horrible discussion at all if Hamas would have accepted the ceasefire that they have been offered twice

 

[WayneMorse]

You know what truly angers me is that we could have avoided this horrible discussion at all if Hamas would have accepted the ceasefire that they have been offered twice. Can anyone please give any justification for that except for the stupid "they weren't even consulted!". It isn't that difficult: you cease firing and then both sides will meet in 48 hours to discuss the issues. The only reason we are in this pointless operation is because that stupid organization values its own political image more than anything else.

Yeah and none of this would be happening if Israel had just ended the Gaza blockade and opened the border crossings.

 

[LNBL]

Will it though?

Fuck these murdering cunts.

I'm not sure, hoping someone can verify tomorrow.

 

[wonzo]

"oh if only hamas would negotiate with us" *drops bombs on kids*

 

[Cromat]

This is the full text of the Egyptian proposal. Please read it and point out any part which would justify the continuation of a pointless war. I seriously want to hear what you think will be achieved by the continuation of this conflict. You guys won't even concede that in hindsight Hamas should have taken the deal... it's completely baffling.

Owing to Egypt’s historical responsibility, and its belief in the importance of achieving peace in the region, protecting the lives of innocents, and ending the bloodshed -- Egypt calls upon Israel and all of the Palestinian factions to enact an immediate ceasefire, due to the fact that escalation and mutual violence, and the victims that will result, will not be in the interest of either party; as such, during the period of the ceasefire, both sides shall abide by the following:

a. Israel shall cease all hostilities against the Gaza Strip via land, sea, and air, and shall commit to refrain from conducting any ground raids against Gaza and targeting civilians.

b. All Palestinian factions in Gaza shall cease all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel via land, sea, air, and underground, and shall commit to refrain from firing all types of rockets, and from attacks on the borders or targeting civilians.

c. Crossings shall be opened and the passage of persons and goods through border crossings shall be facilitated once the security situation becomes stable on the ground.

d. Other issues, including security issues shall be discussed with the two sides.


Method of implementation of the initiative:

a. It has been decided to initiate implementation of the de-escalation agreements at 9:00 a.m. on July 15th, 2014, pending the implementation of a full ceasefire within twelve hours of the announcement of the Egyptian initiative and its unconditional acceptance by both sides.

b. High-level delegations from both the Israeli government and the Palestinian factions shall be hosted in Cairo within 48 hours of the initiation of the initiative’s implementation, in order to conclude talks for the consolidation of the ceasefire and resume confidence-building measures between the two sides; talks shall be held with each of the two sides separately (in accordance with the agreements for the consolidation of de-escalation in Cairo in 2012).

c. Both sides shall commit to refrain from taking any actions aimed at undermining the implementation of the agreements; Egypt shall receive guarantees from both sides of their commitment to implementing what has been agreed upon, and shall follow up on its implementation and engage with either side in the case of any action that impinges on its stability.

 

[RustyNails]

You make it sound like there 2 equal sides. They are not. I don't know if Hamas is going to have much choice, it's either accept a truce or watch while your people around you die and your infrastructure falls into further decay and rubble.

That's not the question. The question is WHY they didn't accept the deal...because they didn't even get to look at the deal. If you think Hamas should accept whatever shit sandwich is given to them, that's not how cease-fires work.

 

[TarNaru33]

Uh what? In what world is killing unidentified people *not* evil? There is no context needed.

My point is that some people here are basically saying. "Ok the IDF killed people without caring who they were, which is pretty fucking evil, but they did not know that they were kids, which would have been more evil". How on earth is this a viable "defense" of what the IDF did??

It isn't once context is taken in... Not sure what measures Israel took when decided to shoot on them, but it definitely seems to be incompetence. There is no defense for this particular instance.

I was mainly pointing out your statement is based in absolutes. Evil doesn't resolve in absolutes, but this may be a difference of opinion of you and I.

 

[LNBL]

This is the full text of the Egyptian proposal. Please read it and point out any part which would justify the continuation of a pointless war. I seriously want to hear what you think will be achieved by the continuation of this conflict. You guys won't even concede that in hindsight Hamas should have taken the deal... it's completely baffling.

Don't you know what the words "was not included in the negotiations" even mean?

 

[Quotient]

That's not the question. The question is WHY they didn't accept the deal...because they didn't even get to look at the deal. If you think Hamas should accept whatever shit sandwich is given to them, that's not how cease-fires work.

As I understand it they were shown the cease-fire agreement.

What are Hamas's other choices, continue to fire rockets knowing full well what Israelis response will be.

 

[damisa]

It isn't once context is taken in... Not sure what measures Israel took when decided to shoot on them, but it definitely seems to be incompetence. There is no defense for this particular instance.

I was mainly pointing out your statement is based in absolutes. Evil doesn't resolve in absolutes, but this may be a difference of opinion of you and I.

Killing 4 children because you couldn't even bother to identify who the target was is EVIL, absolute EVIL. It's not, "oh well honest mistake", it's EVIL.

 

[werks]

The US army has misidentified both civilians and troops - it's not the first time an army has misidentified and mistakenly killed civilians.

They were nine year old kids... without weapons in broad daylight. How the fuck do you "misidentify" that? The IDF didn't misidentify, they just don't identify.

When was the last time an IDF soldier been tried for anything they have done against the palestinians? Because the US Army has tried and convicted it's soldiers for war crimes in Afghanistan.

 

[encephalon]

I am saying his statement is too strong with absolutes. We as human beings do not determine that something or someone is evil just because they done something terrible.

Would you call killing a kid that is about to shoot you evil of the man defending himself? Would you call killing a man who in the midst of civilians was going to activate a suicide bomb and end up killing a few civilians in the process evil? Technically he was aiming at the suicide bomber, but he still fired on others to do so.
People defending their homes, by killing an unidentified intruder before they could make a move, after warning them not to. Is this evil as well?

Be realistic

Yes doing all of those things are tragic foremost, however, evil requires intentions and knowledge of the situation. Everything should be done to prevent those things he stated in his posts, but accidents will occur no matter what and things like he stated will happen due to incompetence and fear.

That do not make the person or the act they did "evil". I do say they should be held responsible though if they were so incompetent enough to fail all procedures to avoid such a incident.

Lol, your strategy is to question what "evil" means and then bring up irrelevant straw men? You're frantically trying to obscure what you directly quoted, but I'll quote it again:

"Firing on children = evil

Firing on unidentified people = evil"

Even if we are to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt, a lack of concern for ascertaining the situation is ethically abhorrent. It does reflect upon someone's will. There is no opportunity for this to be an "honest mistake."

 

[Cromat]

Don't you know what the words "was not included in the negotiations" even mean?

Reading the proposal can you point out a valid reason for rejecting it? Can you at least admit that rejecting it was wrong in hindsight? Anything?

Israel literally agreed to stop fighting and negotiate. It held its fire and did not attack even while rockets were still being fired, until Hamas and the Islamic Jihad officially rejected it. I want to know what the people of Gaza and Israel gained from this - I know what they lost.

 

[encephalon]

Reading the proposal can you point out a valid reason for rejecting it? Can you at least admit that rejecting it was wrong in hindsight? Anything?

Israel literally agreed to stop fighting and negotiate. It held its fire and did not attack even while rockets were still being fired, until Hamas and the Islamic Jihad officially rejected it. I want to know what the people of Gaza and Israel gained from this - I know what they lost.

You aren't even responding to the words that you are quoting. And your previous attempt at "you know what really upsets me, [different subject]" was such an obvious attempt at diversion that it could qualify as a textbook example of PR spin.

 

[sindbadthesailor]

You know what truly angers me is that we could have avoided this horrible discussion at all if Hamas would have accepted the ceasefire that they have been offered twice. Can anyone please give any justification for that except for the stupid "they weren't even consulted!". It isn't that difficult: you cease firing and then both sides will meet in 48 hours to discuss the issues. The only reason we are in this pointless operation is because that stupid organization values its own political image more than anything else.

Blame the victims or strawmen instead of those actually responsible.

Wholly expected, sadly typical, and utterly pathetic.

 

[RustyNails]

As I understand it they were shown the cease-fire agreement.

What are Hamas's other choices, continue to fire rockets knowing full well what Israelis response will be.

It doesn't matter. Cease Fire means two parties hashing out an agreement. Not one party dictating the terms.

 

[TarNaru33]

Killing 4 children because you couldn't even bother to identify who the target was is EVIL, absolute EVIL. It's not, "oh well honest mistake", it's EVIL.

I agree with this, I have not said that it isn't.

 

[LNBL]

Reading the proposal can you point out a valid reason for rejecting it? Can you at least admit that rejecting it was wrong in hindsight? Anything?

Israel literally agreed to stop fighting and negotiate. It held its fire and did not attack even while rockets were still being fired, until Hamas and the Islamic Jihad officially rejected it. I want to know what the people of Gaza and Israel gained from this - I know what they lost.

I don't need to look at what else you wrote about the proposal, because the fact is that these terms were not agreed upon after negotiation between Hamas and Israel. I have stated that over 3 times already, but you just ignore this fact.

 

[Hyperactivity]

I am saying his statement is too strong with absolutes. We as human beings do not determine that something or someone is evil just because they done something terrible.

Would you call killing a kid that is about to shoot you evil of the man defending himself? Would you call killing a man who in the midst of civilians was going to activate a suicide bomb and end up killing a few civilians in the process evil? Technically he was aiming at the suicide bomber, but he still fired on others to do so.
People defending their homes, by killing an unidentified intruder before they could make a move, after warning them not to. Is this evil as well?

Be realistic

Yes doing all of those things are tragic foremost, however, evil requires intentions and knowledge of the situation. Everything should be done to prevent those things he stated in his posts, but accidents will occur no matter what and things like he stated will happen due to incompetence and fear.

That do not make the person or the act they did "evil". I do say they should be held responsible though if they were so incompetent enough to fail all procedures to avoid such a incident.

So the kids had guns and were shooting now
OK

 

[Cromat]

You aren't even responding to the words that you are quoting.

Alright let me make it even clearer (though all of you no doubt understand exactly what I'm saying and what I'm asking). Assuming Hamas were not included in the negotiations, after the details of this ceasefire came to light and Israel agreed to it, was there any good reason for Hamas to reject it? Was there any good reason for them to reject it once more the day after, after they were definitely contacted by the Egyptians? In hindsight, is there any good reason for the continuation of the fighting past 09:00AM local time, 15th of July? What did the people of Gaza achieve by this that would justify it?

 

[TarNaru33]

Lol, your strategy is to question what "evil" means and then bring up irrelevant straw men? You're frantically trying to obscure what you directly quoted, but I'll quote it again:

"Firing on children = evil

Firing on unidentified people = evil"

Even if we are to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt, a lack of concern for ascertaining the situation is ethically abhorrent. It does reflect upon someone's will. There is no opportunity for this to be an "honest mistake."

I was mainly referring to his statement... it is full of absolutes

I gave examples to show how it was too strict of a thought, it wasn't a strawman and I wasn't talking about this incident, thank you. Most will say a person's intent in a scenario and taking the full context of the situation is what defines immorality and if they should be punished for it.

Whatever floats your boat though.

So the kids had guns and were shooting now
OK

 

[RiZ III]

Reading the proposal can you point out a valid reason for rejecting it? Can you at least admit that rejecting it was wrong in hindsight? Anything?

Israel literally agreed to stop fighting and negotiate. It held its fire and did not attack even while rockets were still being fired, until Hamas and the Islamic Jihad officially rejected it. I want to know what the people of Gaza and Israel gained from this - I know what they lost.

It seems wrong but realize that even if Israel stops this current bombardment, they will still continue assassinating Hamas officials, arresting them, and continuing their blockade of Gaza. So basically the 7 year siege on Gaza will continue. What it would result in is an end to this bombing and a continuation of other 'minor' but regular hostilities from Israel. I don't think Hamas will get what they want though. The US has Israel's back and no country is going to come forward to help out Gaza. Israel will go in there with a ground invasion, kill a ton of people over the course of a month and then pull back saying they put down the rebellion, meanwhile the Gazans will hate Israel even more and Hamas will slowly grow back.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Just went on the new york times website and spotted a difference in the headlines between the US and International versions.

Just thought it was curious.

US

International

 

[Kenshin001]

They were not consulted, there is nothing stupid about that answer. The details surrounding that peace offer would change nothing for the people of Gaza.

Yes it would because they wouldn't be getting bombed. Duh. Those arguing it's unfair seem a tad hypocritical. You either save lives or you don't. The Israelis are clearly unfazed by civilian deaths so the onus is on Hamas. If they really cared about Palestinian children they would have agreed, but they don't. If people here really care about Palestinian children they would have been screaming from the rooftops for Hamas to agree to the ceasefire. It seems "winning" is more important.

 

[encephalon]

I was mainly referring to his statement... it is full of absolutes

I gave examples to show how it was too strict of a thought, it wasn't a strawman and I wasn't talking about this incident, thank you. Most will say a person's intent in a scenario and taking the full context of the situation is what defines immorality and if they should be punished for it.

Whatever floats your boat though.

Generally when someone describes an action as "evil" they are dealing with "absolutes." Your problem seems to be with language itself.

 

[Zaph]

Yes it would because they wouldn't be getting bombed. Duh. Those arguing it's unfair seem a tad hypocritical. You either save lives or you don't. The Israelis are clearly unfazed by civilian deaths so the onus is on Hamas. If they really cared about Palestinian children they would have agreed, but they don't. If people here really care about Palestinian children they would have been screaming from the rooftops for Hamas to agree to the ceasefire. It seems "winning" is more important.

I thought I had heard every single Israeli excuse. Until now.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

The IDF are like prison guards in the world's largest open air prison, and they've started shooting the prisoners. Children prisoners :-(

Why are Hamas shooting rockets into Israel? Well, what else are they going to do? They're blocked off by land and sea - trapped. It's a desperate act, they know full well there won't be a military victory against Israel, they're not stupid. They're just desperate.

 

[LNBL]

Just went on the new york times website and spotted a difference in the headlines between the US and International versions.

Just thought it was curious.

US

International

Hmm yeah, seems to be the same authors though. However I would have put "by the IDF" behind it, now it leaves it open for interpretation that it could have been Hamas rockets if the reader does not read the article.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Only thing is a 3rd party investigation...

Like the Goldstone Report?

Yes doing all of those things are tragic foremost, however, evil requires intentions and knowledge of the situation.

From Goldstone:

“The Israeli military conception of what was necessary in a future war with Hamas seems to have been developed from at least the time of the 2006 conflict in southern Lebanon. It finds its origin in a military doctrine that views disproportionate destruction and creating maximum disruption in the lives of many people as a legitimate means to achieve military and political goals.”

“Statements by political and military leaders prior to and during the military operations in Gaza leave little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy.”

This references the Dahiya Doctrine.

Senior Israeli army General Gadi Eisenkot told Haaretz

“What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan.”

So, there is knowledge of the situation. There is policy with specific intent. Is it evil, in your view? If not, why not?

 

[sindbadthesailor]

Israel says it will observe a "humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza on Thursday, after days of deadly rocket and missile exchanges with militants.

Link

Looks like even Israel can identify how the optics of killings four kids playing on the beach will play out internationally.

Sad when the people here can't even do the same.