How low can Israeli supporters sink

[segnosaur]

not withsatnding the palestinians are notorious for staging victims parades.

Right? And you have fact to back that up?

How about this case... Its a story (run on CNN) that shows a supposed Palestinian funeral where the 'victim' ends up getting up and walking away.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/03/jenin.tape/

"I'm not dead yet... I'm getting better!"

You are of course aware that Israel does everything it can to confiscate cameras, and deny the UN presence and foreign journalists in Palestine?

Hmmmm... so Israel doesn't want yet more innocent people in the way. Ever think that perhaps they are simply trying to avoid getting blamed for causing more unnecessary deaths should a reporter end up in the middle of some confrontation?

But hey, don't ask questions why, just believe what the Israeli media and their supporters tell you.

You are making the mistake of assuming that people who support Israel have not 'asked questions'. Many of us have examined the situation, weighed all evidence, applied a healthy dose of skepticism and logic, and still have come to the conclusion that Israel is morally right regarding the conflict.

I wouldn't say that we all do. There seem plenty here who don't seem to care how many children are killed.

And in the middle east, that seems to be the Palestinians who don't care how many children are killed.

Israelis lie. They lie about everything in regards to Palestine.

Perhaps before you go accusing the Israelis of lying you should consider the case of Jenin.

Jenin was a refuge camp in the west bank, and was often used for launching suicide attacks against Israel. In 2002, Israel launched an attack against the camp. Palestinians claimed 'hundreds' were killed, Israel said the number was closer to 50. It wasn't until later that the Palsestinians, the U.N. and human rights groups admitted that Israel was right and that the Palestinians were greatly over-estimating the casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin

So before you accuse Israel of 'lying', keep the Jenin death toll in mind.

Even when there is evidence, Israelis lie, and claim that it is faked footage etc.

Sometimes news reports are faked (see: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/211256 Yes, a 'blog' isn't the best source of information, but Slashdot is normally a non-biased source.)

Sometimes information is taken out of context. (Like your pictures of Rachel corrie 'standing' in front of a bulldozer)

And believe it or not, when Israel makes mistakes, the often DO own up to them.

We know that a lot of children are dying and we know that many of them are dying in painful, grotesque ways. The Palestinans are trying to show that to the world so that somebody helps them, so that the international community puts pressure on Israel to stop.

Yes, and so that Hamas can continue sending rockets into Israel with no interferance.

[KeyStone]

Yet, it is so...

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispat...ves/000237.html

Well, I don't give any credibility to anything that the Canadian Jewish Congress has to say in regards to Jews, Israel, Palestinians, Arabs etc, because obviously we know they are biased.

Tom Gross, on the other hand, is a world-renowned academic and is not focused solely on defending Israel. Therefore, I do accept what he has to say on the matter. So, he has clearly shown that there are some links between the two.

But really, so what? KKK supports Republicans - does that make them the bad guys? I'm sure a lot of them in Canada vote for the CPC because they are the least encouraging of new immigrants. What does that prove? There is no telling where the nutjobs are going to pop up, or who they will align themselves to. Their support does not undermine the group in any way, unless their support is encouraged.

I still see no evidence to the accusation that KKK were in Toronto's Gaza rally and accepted by the protesters.

Is there evidence coming, or is this just the usual Israeli attempt to obfuscate the fact that they are killing hundreds of innocent children?

Edited January 14, 2009 by KeyStone

[segnosaur]

Well, I don't give any credibility to anything that the Canadian Jewish Congress has to say in regards to Jews, Israel, Palestinians, Arabs etc, because obviously we know they are biased.

Wait a second.... let me get this straight...

You suggest that Canadian Jewish Congress is biased, so you don't believe what they say. Yet earlier in the thread you posted a link to 'electronic intifada' as a source of information?

You don't think Electronic Intifada would have a reason to be biased?

"Dear kettle:

I wish to make a statement about your current hue...

- Signed... the pot."

[KeyStone]

I have no connection to the state of Israel. I am not jewish (I am atheist). Yet I feel that Rachel Corrie was in the wrong here.

Well, I have no connection to Palestine or the USA and am not Muslim. Yet I feel that Rachel Corrie was wronged.

Small little note: The term 'useful idiots' was applied by supporters of the former Soviet government to those people in the west who were naive in supporting actions by the communist block and/or criticizing the west. Given that definition, the term 'useful idiot' applies more to Rachel Corrie than to people who happen to support israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

I am well aware of the fabricated origin of 'useful idiot'. If you actually take the time to read your own link, you'll see that the whole attribution to Lenin is completely made up. I am expanding its use.

Well, first of all, your source is a pro-Palistinian/anti-Israeli web site. That should make you at least a little skeptical about what they are presenting.

Pictures are pictures. If a pro-Palestinian site doesn't publish them who will. In fact, a site that has these pictures, is pretty much pro-Palestinian by definition. How exactly is a site supposed to defend anything Palestinian if people like you are going to dismiss them simply by the fact that they are pro-Palestinian. Obviously, any biased source needs to be looked at with some scrutiny, but pictures are pictures.

Ok, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and say that these pictures are true... the problem is, they are still pictures. Yes, at one point I'm sure she was standing up... but there is nothing to say that she was standing at the time she was run over. In fact, the last picture where she was showing standing was taken between 3 and 4pm, and she wasn't run over until 45 minutes later.

So, let's take a look at your criticisms, because this is exactly what I am talking about when I ask how low Israeli supporters can sink.

1) You don't like the fact that the pics are from a site that is pro-Palestinian, as if all pictures from supporters of Palestine are doctored.

2) You don't like that they are from a still camera - because why didn't the Palestinians break out one of their many video cameras?

3) She was standing then, but you think perhaps she might have just decided to take a nap in front of the bulldozer.

4) You cite a time difference in the time of the pictures and time of death, as if somehow in that 45 minutes she took off her bright orange vest, dropped her megaphone, and concealed herself in the rubble. No doubt she was hoping to get run over so she could be a martyr.

You see, the pro-Israeli bloggers would have us think that Israel never does anything wrong and any photos or videos or wrongdoing are staged, faked or doctored.

If a US protester gets killed - it's because the bulldozer couldnt see her, because she inexplicably chose to lie down in the rubble.

If a child is killed and shown - its a staged event. Fake blood. Bodies carted around for years and held up to the cameras.

It really is quite despicable.

[M.Dancer]

Right? And you have fact to back that up?

How about this case... Its a story (run on CNN) that shows a supposed Palestinian funeral where the 'victim' ends up getting up and walking away.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/03/jenin.tape/

"I'm not dead yet... I'm getting better!"

It's as if the Palestinians are intent to make themselves funnier than Larry Curley and Moe...

[segnosaur]

Well, I have no connection to Palestine or the USA and am not Muslim. Yet I feel that Rachel Corrie was wronged.

I never said you did.... but earlier on you pointed to "sick disgusting Israelis try to dominate the blogosphere", as if someone who doesn't think the sun shines out Hamas's behind is somehow under some Zionist mind control.

Sorry, some of us have looked at the data (an not just pro-Palestinan web sites), and have come to our conclusions through logic and a proper application of skepticism.

I am well aware of the fabricated origin of 'useful idiot'. If you actually take the time to read your own link, you'll see that the whole attribution to Lenin is completely made up.

Except nowhere in my post do I ever attribute the term 'useful idiot' to Lenin. How are those strawmen doing? Falling down before your mighty abilities?

Pictures are pictures. If a pro-Palestinian site doesn't publish them who will. In fact, a site that has these pictures, is pretty much pro-Palestinian by definition.

Not really...

Believe it or not, there ARE many pictures/videos that are coming from the area that are appearing in mainstream media. If it appears on CNN, one of the major TV networks, a well respected daily, etc. you can assume the story is a little bit closer to the truth than some 'jewsareevil-israelmustdie' web site.

How exactly is a site supposed to defend anything Palestinian if people like you are going to dismiss them simply by the fact that they are pro-Palestinian.

I'm not dismissing them simply because they're 'pro-palestine'. I'm dismissing them because the information they present does not stand up to proper skeptical scrutiny.

So, let's take a look at your criticisms, because this is exactly what I am talking about when I ask how low Israeli supporters can sink.

1) You don't like the fact that the pics are from a site that is pro-Palestinian, as if all pictures from supporters of Palestine are doctored.

In this case, the pictures do not need to be doctored to be misleading and/or taken out of context.

2) You don't like that they are from a still camera - because why didn't the Palestinians break out one of their many video cameras?

The fact that they are still pictures means that we do not know what happened prior to or during the time she was run over. I'm not blaming the Palistinainans for not having a video camera, I'm pointing out that the 'analysis' of the situation is prone to abuse without such a video.

3) She was standing then, but you think perhaps she might have just decided to take a nap in front of the bulldozer.

Uhhh... no. I never claimed that. But way to attack those straw men. They must be trembling in their boots.

You had argued earlier that she was standing at the time she was run over, and that somehow implies that the driver should have been able to see her. The pictures show someone well in front of the bulldozer that suggests she should have been seen. But without actual video evidence, we can't tell whether, at the time she was run over, whether she was actually standing or had fallen, or whether she was actually behind any debris.

All we have is a picture taken an hour or so before showing her standing, and one of her after she had been run over. And we are just supposed to accept the word of some sort of anti-Israeli web site about exactly what happened between those 2 pictures.

4) You cite a time difference in the time of the pictures and time of death, as if somehow in that 45 minutes she took off her bright orange vest...

Vest is irrelevant if the driver can't see her. Or do you expect all IDF drivers to have X-ray vision?

dropped her megaphone,

No evidence that she was actually using it at the time she was run over, or whether a driver would have been able to hear her over the sound of the engine, or even been able to identify it as an indication someone was being injured.

Or are you assuming the megaphone was some magical item that was supposed to protect her from all harm?

If a US protester gets killed - it's because the bulldozer couldnt see her, because she inexplicably chose to lie down in the rubble.

Again, no need to 'lie down' in the rubble... losing footing, being behind a wall, etc. would have also caused her to be out of the field of vision.

Even Mother Jones (a magazine that is more noted for taking a 'left wing' stance) suggests that the Israeli version (an accident caused by a limited field of view) makes sense. Here's a segment of the article where one of the ISM people (who initially blamed the Israelis) changes his mind... Oh, and keep mind that this is someone who was actually there...

..."Smith" later gave an interview in which he acknowledged that the bulldozer operator could well have lost sight of Corrie after she tumbled down the dirt pile. And the infamous photo series turned out to be misleading. In fact, the megaphone photo was taken hours before Corrie's death; she had handed the loudspeaker to a colleague some time before she was run over, and she was kneeling, not standing...

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/20.../ma_497_01.html

Oh, and by the way, if you do read that article, you'll note that her death was covered by Reuters. So, unlike your assertion that "only" pro-Palestinian sites will carry this type of news, it looks like, if you really want, you can find your 'evidence' in other locations if you really wanted.

Edited January 14, 2009 by segnosaur

[KeyStone]

Rocket attacks had been going on for quite some time. Whatever Fatah and the rest of the world were doing, it was not stopping said attacks.

But what prompted the rocket fire?

Surely, if we can attempt to justify the killing of hundreds of children, then we can attempt to justify the rocket fire as well.

Let's take a look at the most recent cause going back to the ceasefire in June.

The ceasefire held for the most part until November when Israel killed six members of Hamas.

But, Israel never lived up to the terms - not lifting the blockade of Gaza, and keeping the Palestinians in poverty.

Were there a few rockets launched during that time from Gaza? Yes, but not by Hamas - by other groups which Hamas condemned.

Furthermore, Israel never lived up to their end of the bargain.

While rocket fire decreased by 98% - Israel only increased supplies by 20%.

"Over the one month period from 4 November to 8 December, about 700 truck loads of goods went into Gaza, which is about the amount of material that would have gone through in a single day without a blockade."

"So tell me, just how long should Israel have allowed the rocket attacks to continue before taking action? A month? A year? A decade?"

They should have lived up to their end of the bargain. Clearly Hamas put in great efforts to live up to theirs.

How long should Hamas wait for Israel to live up to their end? A month? A year? A decade? What should they do?

You know, it may be a little inaccurate to say the 'whole world' was silent regarding rocket attacks by Hamas, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone else was willing to actually do anything useful to stop such attacks.

What is it exactly that you want them to do? Maybe the UN should condemn Hamas? Maybe countries should say they are terrorists?

Maybe they shouldn't sell them weapons? Maybe they should kick Palestine out of the UN and not recognize them as a country.

It's not as if things in Palestine could get any worse - other than killing children and bombing the sh*t out of them.

Except for the fact that Israel HAS been paying attention to Palestinan concerns... they negotiated with the PLO, they have dealt with the authorities in the west bank...

Yes, peaceful arrangements are possible, but with the greed of the Israelis - probably short lived.

Those responsible for launching the rockets have as their goal the destruction if Israel. Kind of hard to negotiate around that. "Ok, you can wipe us out, but only on every second week."

Some. Yes. And Israel is creating more with that mindset on a daily basis.

However, as was shown during the ceasefire and at other times, Hamas can be negotiated with.

Unfortunately, Israel feels that they are negotiating with power, and therefore feel they can call the shots and set one-sided deals.

The difference is, in a western-style democracy (such as Israel), anyone who has the 'drive' to exact revenge through violence will likely be marginalized by society, and quite possibly arrested by the government. In the Gaza strip, those who want violence (e.g. Hamas) are not only NOT margianalized, they enjoy widespread support

Israel is certainly the more advanced of the two societies. Presumably, giving them enough prosperity for basic health care and education might move things along a little quicker. However, Hamas was attempting to shut down and arrest anyone firing rockets at Israel during the ceasefire agreement. Clearly, if their demands are met (and they are quite reasonable) , they will try to stop the rockets.

The fact that you cannot understand the difference between a group which attempts to minimize civilian deaths (Israel, who sometimes even drops leaflets warning about upcoming attacks) and one that actually WANTS to cause civilian deaths is rather, ahem, disturbing.

The fact that you are fooled by alleged intentions, when the numbers clearly show that regardless of intent, Israel is killing far more people, far more civilians, far more women and far more children.

If the 'horrible lefties' didn't complain about it, and the UN didn't put pressure on Israel, there is no telling how many people they would kill.

Maybe all of 'em. You can talk all you want about what Israel is allegedly trying to avoid. But 300 dead children and a bombed UN school say otherwise.

[M.Dancer]

But what prompted the rocket fire?

Surely, if we can attempt to justify the killing of hundreds of children, then we can attempt to justify the rocket fire as well.

Yhe only just justification for firing rockets would be to retaliate against .....rocket attacks.

Every other excuse is simply an exercise in (a)moral equivalence.

Or if you like, if there is another less bellicose reason for their aggression, then the Hamas rocket and mortar attacks are a grossly disproportionate and asymetrical response ....and deserve the ass whooping they get for their efforts.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

While rocket fire decreased by 98% - Israel only increased supplies by 20%.

"Over the one month period from 4 November to 8 December, about 700 truck loads of goods went into Gaza, which is about the amount of material that would have gone through in a single day without a blockade."

Why do you keep talking this blockade being the reason for firing off rockets?

Is denying free trade a good reason to launch attacks? I suspect Israel didn't want to deal with terrorists (Hamas) so they decided to block trade with them... let someone else do business with terrorists if anybody wants to.

Why don't they attack Egypt? Egypt keeps the border closed too...

[KeyStone]

How about this case... Its a story (run on CNN) that shows a supposed Palestinian funeral where the 'victim' ends up getting up and walking away.

Who knows? Israel wasn't letting foreign journalists or UN fact-finders in at the time, so they can pretty much make up anything that they want.

Does it look suspicious? Absolutely? Do I know the context? Nope.

Would I put it past Israel to stage the whole thing, so that they can go on pretending no one dies in Palestine? Nope.

Hmmmm... so Israel doesn't want yet more innocent people in the way. Ever think that perhaps they are simply trying to avoid getting blamed for causing more unnecessary deaths should a reporter end up in the middle of some confrontation?

Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that Palestinians are dying, although the number can certainly be disputed.

Despite this, pretty much every time they show a dead Palestinian, there are 200 bloggers popping up at random to say that the footage is faked. Why is it faked? Why not take real footage of dead people? Even if it were faked, there must be some need - such as Israel confiscates all video cameras - to make sure that they can continue their one-sided coverage, forcing them to take footage after the fact, and after all the IDF are gone.

You are making the mistake of assuming that people who support Israel have not 'asked questions'. Many of us have examined the situation, weighed all evidence, applied a healthy dose of skepticism and logic, and still have come to the conclusion that Israel is morally right regarding the conflict.

And Palestinian supporters have not? That argument can be applied to pretty much everything.

Frankly, we all know that once people are entrenched in a position, they interpret things differently.

And in the middle east, that seems to be the Palestinians who don't care how many children are killed.

Perhaps before you go accusing the Israelis of lying you should consider the case of Jenin.

Jenin certainly looks like fraud. No argument here.

Those horrible monsters exaggerated the death toll so that humanitarian aid would come faster.

Would you have preferred them to wait until 5000 really were dead?

It's interesting. Israel routinely questions the reality of body counts, actual bodies etc.

But if anyone questions the Holocaust numbers (such as Iran), Israel goes berserk.

[KeyStone]

You suggest that Canadian Jewish Congress is biased, so you don't believe what they say. Yet earlier in the thread you posted a link to 'electronic intifada' as a source of information?

I think that both sources are biased. It's about the type of information that they produce.

Photos, videos, well-researched articles: These are things that stand on their own.

Opinions, theories, eye-witness accounts, unnamed sources, unsubstantiated allegations: These are things where the source matter.

If Electronic Infatada claimed (with no evidence) that Israel was aligned with the KKK, I wouldn't believe that either.

[KeyStone]

Why do you keep talking this blockade being the reason for firing off rockets?

Is denying free trade a good reason to launch attacks? I suspect Israel didn't want to deal with terrorists (Hamas) so they decided to block trade with them... let someone else do business with terrorists if anybody wants to.

Why don't they attack Egypt? Egypt keeps the border closed too...

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for playing.

Go and learn the difference between trade and a blockade.

After you do that, come on back and play again.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The long and the short of this issue is simply that everyone feels that there are sides to be taken. I am as guilty as the next person in this regard. The truth is that the only ones that SHOULD take one side or the other are the people living there. The rest of us are mere arm chair critics, putting our noses where they really don't belong.

Having said that, both sides are in the wrong, and both feel justified in their actions. To each their own I guess. Yet, I for one would take great exception to another nation mounting attacks on my home or my nation. I would feel justified in doing whatever it was that I decided, and I don't think I would give a damn what the people that were not involved in the conflict thought.

[dub]

Having said that, both sides are in the wrong, and both feel justified in their actions. To each their own I guess. Yet, I for one would take great exception to another nation mounting attacks on my home or my nation. I would feel justified in doing whatever it was that I decided, and I don't think I would give a damn what the people that were not involved in the conflict thought.

what other people would think?

israel is breaking international law. why do you seem to be okay with that?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

what other people would think?

israel is breaking international law. why do you seem to be okay with that?

I am okay with that because I agree with their position. Please be so kind as to allow me to explain my view. First of all, you have to admit to yourself that Hamas was breaking international law by firing rockets at Israel. Secondly you have to admit that in the same position you would react in the same manner, striking back. Thirdly you have to admit to yourself that you are an outside observer, nothing more and nothing less and then apply your own morals to the situation, in my case that means treating others as you would have them treat you.

[M.Dancer]

what other people would think?

israel is breaking international law. why do you seem to be okay with that?

Which international law? GATT?

[segnosaur]

But what prompted the rocket fire?

How about the fact that there is a rather large proportion of individuals in the Palistinian (and Arab) world who want Israel eliminated, and unlike western societies where people proposing such destruction are marginalized, in Palestine they often enjoy widespread support.

Surely, if we can attempt to justify the killing of hundreds of children, then we can attempt to justify the rocket fire as well.

Sure, if you are assuming the justification that 'Israel exists at all' is a valid one.

Let's take a look at the most recent cause going back to the ceasefire in June.

The ceasefire held for the most part until November when Israel killed six members of Hamas.

It did? Strange.... even if you look on Wikipedia, you'll see the number of attacks (including both rockets and morter attacks) rising, from 2005 (long before the blockade) until 2008... Don't see much evidence that there was ever any sort of 'peace' from the palestinian side.

Were there a few rockets launched during that time from Gaza? Yes, but not by Hamas - by other groups which Hamas condemned.

You know, I COULD actually ask you to provide proof of this... after all, your claims have so far shown plenty of ignorance on your part. (Rachel Corrie and her famous megaphone being a prime example).

However, even if Hamas did 'condem' the people launching the attacks, they did not effectively stop the attacks.

"So tell me, just how long should Israel have allowed the rocket attacks to continue before taking action? A month? A year? A decade?"

They should have lived up to their end of the bargain. Clearly Hamas put in great efforts to live up to theirs.

How long should Hamas wait for Israel to live up to their end? A month? A year? A decade? What should they do?

Sorry if the Israelis don't want to die. Would that constitute 'living up to the bargin'?. I'm assuming that continued rocket attacks on civilian areas are acceptable to you by the Palestinians.

Yes, peaceful arrangements are possible, but with the greed of the Israelis - probably short lived.

Some. Yes. And Israel is creating more with that mindset on a daily basis.

Israelis who seek the expulsion/extermination of the Palistinians are in a tiny minority and are marginalized.

Palestinians who call for the open destruction of Israel and the death of Jews enjoy widespread support.

And you call the Israelis 'greedy'?

Israel is certainly the more advanced of the two societies. Presumably, giving them enough prosperity for basic health care and education might move things along a little quicker. However, Hamas was attempting to shut down and arrest anyone firing rockets at Israel during the ceasefire agreement.

Ah yes, the whole "we were trying, just never got around it" defense.

Lets see... Israel began attacking Gaza at the end of December.

In the month prior to the attack, there were over a hundred rockets fired from Gaza. During the time when there was supposedly a cease fire, over 300 rockets were fired at Israel from Gaza. Yup, Hamas was doing a bang-up job stopping the attacks.

Clearly, if their demands are met (and they are quite reasonable) , they will try to stop the rockets.

Just have to get over that whole "We want Israel destroyed" that's actually part of the Hamas charter.

The fact that you are fooled by alleged intentions, when the numbers clearly show that regardless of intent,

Actually, it is you that are fooled by the whole 'poor Palestinan' bit. Your naive attitude regarding Rachel Corrie (where you made several claims that were actually debunked by ISM members themselves who were there illustrates that point perfectly.

Israel is killing far more people, far more civilians, far more women and far more children.

Yes they are. Don't think anyone is denying it. But the first priority to any country is to provide for the well being of its own citizens.

If the 'horrible lefties' didn't complain about it, and the UN didn't put pressure on Israel, there is no telling how many people they would kill.

Ah yes, those evil dasterdly Jeeewwws. Heard they also use the blood of Arabs to make their motza.

[segnosaur]

You suggest that Canadian Jewish Congress is biased, so you don't believe what they say. Yet earlier in the thread you posted a link to 'electronic intifada' as a source of information?

I think that both sources are biased. It's about the type of information that they produce.

Photos, videos, well-researched articles: These are things that stand on their own.

Except the problem is, the 'intifada' reference you made for was not well-researched, and certainly did not 'stand on their own'. In fact, material in it was actually contradicted by members of the ISM who were actually there.

Yet you quoted their stuff like it was a respectable news source.

Oh, by the way, several times you've accused Israel of taking actions to affect journalists in the area. Did you ever think that perhaps much (even the majority of the problem) may be due to actions by the Palestinians themselves (and Hamas in particular)?

From : http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25440

The 750 people who worked at the national Palestine Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) TV station in Gaza could not do their jobs after Hamas barred them from the building as soon as it seized power on 14 June.

...

In August, the Islamist leaders said they would apply a 1995 law providing for imprisonment for publication of any news liable to “endanger national unity or incite crime, hatred, division or religious disputes.” This was to discourage journalists from reporting “negative” news about the Hamas police.... Hamas also shut down the Gaza branch of the journalists’ union after it criticised the Hamas crackdown on the media.

...

No foreign reporters are now based in the Gaza Strip, as a result of the 12 March 2007 kidnapping of BBC reporter Alan Johnston and his nearly four-month imprisonment by one of the Strip’s most powerful factions.

I guess freedom of the press is only an issue when people think Israel is the culprit.

[dub]

I am okay with that because I agree with their position. Please be so kind as to allow me to explain my view. First of all, you have to admit to yourself that Hamas was breaking international law by firing rockets at Israel.

i don't think anyone is denying that hamas has broken international law by both firing rockets and carrying out suicide attacks in the past. that i fully agree with you.

Secondly you have to admit that in the same position you would react in the same manner, striking back.

no. i have to disagree. you have to realize that this whole thing did not start with hamas' homemade rockets which has killed less than 5 civilians since the conflict escalated recently. israel has been controlling the airspace, the waters and all the borders for over 4 decades. they have imposed a blockade for a while now where it's become extremely difficult for food and aid to go into gaza. this latest blockade started because israel does not like who the gazans have democratically elected as their government, which is hamas.

so we have to understand that this did not start over some rockets being fired.

however, lets for a second pretend that israel is responding to rockets which, again, have killed less than 5 israeli civilians. would that really justify the over 1000 palestinians dying in the past 2 weeks, where 1/3 of them are children? i don't think so, do you? would that justify demolishing people's lives? would that justify the over 5000 civilians who have been severely injured? i don't think so, do you?

Thirdly you have to admit to yourself that you are an outside observer, nothing more and nothing less and then apply your own morals to the situation, in my case that means treating others as you would have them treat you.

this is not my personal morals that i am applying. i am applying international law which includes the geneva convention. same international rules were applied during the world war where germany declared that they were in danger of the jews taking their country down and that's how they justified the atrocities. i'm not saying that the israelis are treating the palestinians the same way the nazis treated the jews, but we'd have to respect these international laws which most countries, including israel are signatories to.

same argument can be said about south africa where the africans where put into enclaves and the roads, borders and many other things that we take for granted in north america were being controlled by the apartheid government.

we certainly don't support or endorse hamas for breaking international law, but we do support israel which has been breaking international law for close to 50 years.

Edited January 15, 2009 by dub

[jbg]

you have to realize that this whole thing did not start with hamas' homemade rockets which has killed less than 5 civilians since the conflict escalated recently. israel has been controlling the airspace, the waters and all the borders for over 4 decades. they have imposed a blockade for a while now where it's become extremely difficult for food and aid to go into gaza. this latest blockade started because israel does not like who the gazans have democratically elected as their government, which is hamas.

Exactly.

The Gazans "elected" a group whose mantra is the destruction of Israel. THus, the Palestinians have chosen a battle. Now they don't like how it played out.

Cry me a river.

[DogOnPorch]

Now they don't like how it played out.

Cry me a river.

The story is the same with all Arab-Israeli wars.

1. Let's attack the Jews.

2. Attack, attack...bang, boom.

3. Oh, oh...we're losing again.

4. Hammer comes down hard.

5. Cry for a do-over.

--------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[dub]

Exactly.

The Gazans "elected" a group whose mantra is the destruction of Israel. THus, the Palestinians have chosen a battle. Now they don't like how it played out.

Cry me a river.

their mantra is not much different than the israeli government's, which is to never allow a palestinian state.

any time a bill comes up in the kenneset to allow a palestinian state, it is shutdown overwhelmingly.

the occupation and the annexation of palestinian land has been happening for close to 50 years. you're surprised that the people have elected someone who says they'll be fighting against this occupation?

[dub]

The story is the same with all Arab-Israeli wars.

1. Let's attack the Jews.

2. Attack, attack...bang, boom.

3. Oh, oh...we're losing again.

4. Hammer comes down hard.

5. Cry for a do-over.

--------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

the story is quite simple. since 1967, israel has been breaking international law by occupying and annexing palestinian land. why are you not speaking against this violation?

[bush_cheney2004]

the story is quite simple. since 1967, israel has been breaking international law by occupying and annexing palestinian land. why are you not speaking against this violation?

Because that's how Canada and the USA were created?

[DogOnPorch]

the story is quite simple. since 1967, israel has been breaking international law by occupying and annexing palestinian land. why are you not speaking against this violation?

The Arabs massed for attack in 1967 and the Israelis took them out 1-2-3. Land was lost.

5. Cry for a do-over.

-------------------------------------

It's a Daisy.