Did you know?

[Guest American Woman]

You're just babbling now. Trying to mask your failure to back-up your claims and your inability to have an honest discussion with a bunch of rubbish.

Tell me when you're ready to have a real discussion, instead of wasting time.

If there were a Mapleleafweb dictionary, the definition of "babbling" would be "accusation naomiglover makes whenever she can't refute what's been said, followed by accusations of dishonesty and inability to have a real discussion."

[M.Dancer]

Tell me when you're ready to have a real discussion, instead of wasting time.

Dodge.

Unable to show why the Goldstone hearsay anthology is not up to legal scratch, yet willing to use it as proof that Israel is involved in illegal warfare...Naomi scurries away to hide among the civilians...

[DogOnPorch]

...Naomi scurries away to hide among the civilians...

[PIK]

NEVER AGAIN is what the Isreali's motto is. You still have people that survived the holocaust, that are never going to trust anyone or take crap off anyone. Lodge one rocket and they will come back 10 times harder. What do you except from them. And the point is the other side knows it and put their own people at risk just to get the isreali's to react and then off they go to the UN and cry about it and the UN sucks it up.

[DogOnPorch]

NEVER AGAIN is what the Isreali's motto is. You still have people that survived the holocaust, that are never going to trust anyone or take crap off anyone. Lodge one rocket and they will come back 10 times harder. What do you except from them. And the point is the other side knows it and put their own people at risk just to get the isreali's to react and then off they go to the UN and cry about it and the UN sucks it up.

Yup. Plus you have things like Pallywood just to stir the pot a bit more. Is Israel not killing enough civilians for one's Jihadi liking? Hit the morgue for some corpses and you'll have a bonified massacre on yer hands. Then make sure you film it all and give it to the gullible media.

Edited February 9, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

If there were a Mapleleafweb dictionary, the definition of "babbling" would be "accusation naomiglover makes whenever she can't refute what's been said, followed by accusations of dishonesty and inability to have a real discussion."

Cool...I was thinking the very same thing. Well done.

[segnosaur]

The reasons that we have denounced the video are given by multiple posters throughout this thread. For example, go to post #5 (by me) or post #6 (by Gabriel).

Which, of course, as we already explained, does not tell the entire truth.

No it doesn't. I don't think anyone here claimed that the video told the entire truth. It's a short video which cannot detail everything.

That particular piece of video ran less than 6 minutes. A youtube video can be roughly 10 minutes. There was more than enough time to illustrate Palestinian aggression within that video if they wished. Its only "short" because they want to give a distorted picture of the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

You want to discuss the matter, this thread is your opportunity.

Really? Gee... the moment any of us started to deal with this horribly biased video you accuse is of being "storm troopers" (while at the same time ignoring the points we brought up.) Doesn't sound like you have much interest in 'discussing' things.

I don't think there is any dispute here that launching rockets are illegal and wrong. I'm sure most people in this thread, including muyself agree that Hamas committed war crimes by launching the missiles.

You see, if you well and truely believe that Hamas was wrong in launching missiles, you should immediately stop posting.

Why? Because the missiles were clearly launched before the Israeli incursion into Gaza, and in general a group which initiates hostilities should receive little sympathy if/when they end up having more damage inflicted on them than they inflicted on others.

(This of course has been pointed out to you before. However, rather than you trying to 'discuss' the issue, you resorted to name-calling.)

The investigation in regards to Hamas using civilians as shields came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that it took place.

First of all, as I pointed out, any interviews that were carried out were done so with Hamas people present, not exactly a situation where people can talk freely.

Secondly, and most importantly, I have provided evidence (in the form of an article in a main-stream media source) which shows that yes, indeed Hamas did use human shields. See post 5 for details. (There is no guarantee that any 'investigation' will uncover all the evidence, and that is especially true when it is run by "useful idiots". In this case, it definitely looks like they've overlooked evidence.

I thought you were actually going to come up with some rebuttles. Instead, you sent me to an opinion page by some Melanie Phillips. That's all it was.

That "opinion page" was from a main stream media source (i.e. the Sepectator) by an actual journalist who has done the research in order to point out specific actions and events. Do you have any evidence that the events and/or quotations provided in the article are in any way incorrect?

In fact, did you actually read the article? She goes into detail about:

- The initial mandate (Giving an actual quote from a UN release)

- The fact that members investigating the committee had previously signed letters condemning Israel (suggesting a bias on their part), and that there were significant ties between the investigation group and groups with a known anti-Israeli bias

By the way, do you, in any way, find it hypocritical that you would complain about my source, yet you started this thread with a Youtube video, bastion of 9/11 truthers and other such questionable sources.

No one said the video has documented everything. What it did was give numbers about the attack on Gaza. You want to go into depth of the attack on Gaza, then read the report, which covers Hamas' war crimes...

No, it covers only part of Hamas' war crimes, since obviously they didn't feel it necessary to, you know, interview people when Hamas solders were not around.

Lastly, the 'information' used is rather suspect. For example:

- The report does not include claims of the user of human shields, but any civilians that were approached had Hamas soldiers watching them (can you say "indimidation"?)

That's not true.

Actually, yes it is true. Sorry about that.

By the way, here's a suggestion... go to Post #5. Read the references I provided. They show that, regardless of what the report says, human shields were used. The references I provided came from PBS, an organization which is generally viewed as honest.

- Many groups testifying in front of the group had long histories of making anti-Israeli statements (many of which had since proven to be false.)

What? Where do you come up with these things?

By, you know, actually having a clue what is going on in the world.

UN was established 3 years before Israel came to be. Besides the resolutions like Resolution 54, what else could they have done?

The U.N. is composed of member states, any one of which could have intevened to defend Israel if they so chose.

- When Israel went into Lebannon last time, the U.N. repeatedly allowed themselves to be attacked and used as human shields by Hezbollah (see: http://www.washingto...-093558-9976r/)

Silly. No one allows themselves to be attacked. If you want to be taken seriously, stop making comments like that.

Actually they do. U.N. "peacekeeping" missions are notorious for not taking action. (Some are mentioned on Wikipedia; unfortunately, while the wikipedia article does contain references to UN documents, the UN site had removed/archived the articles.)Another example is how the U.N. allowed some of their peacekeepers to be killed during the Rwanda genocide.

By the way, here are a few quotes, from the U.N. itself regarding the actions of Hezbollah:

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=630

Asked about Hezbollah tactics near UN positions, the spokesperson said that Hezbollah sometimes uses UN positions as a shield.

Israel is no longer the victim.

Really? So you don't think having thousands of rockets/mortars raining down on your country, or of being subject to suicide bombings and kidnappings makes someone a victim? What exactly does it make you then?

This is all about real estate.

Well, its about real-estate in the sense that Hamas has made it a goal to take all of Israel's real estate away from them. Its actually in Hamas' charter.

If you look at what the Palestinian land size was in 1948, then in 1967 and what it is now, and you were an honest person, you would know who the aggressor is and who the victim is.

Here's a little history lesson...

In each of those wars, it was the Arab nations that were taking offense (usually starting the war themselves). If one party decides to instigate a war and looses (i.e. the Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries) they cannot go and complain "unfair!" Had Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and all the other Arab neighbors decided to just sit around and not attack Israel, then Israel would be a lot smaller than it is today.

Israel also behind targeting civilians...

Actually, no they're not.

Yes, civilians die as the result of Israeli actions, but they are not specifically targeted.

Don't you think that if Israel really wanted to kill civilians, with all their firepower, that they wouldn't have racked up a much higher body count? Really.. apply a little logic here. Try Occam's razor. It works wonders.

Well, mainly the Nuclear Non-poliferation treaty. Any party signing on to the treaty agrees not to pursue nuclear arms, and in exchange they get assistance in the peaceful use of nuclear power.

Thing is, Iran signed the treaty, therefore they should be subject to its terms. Israel, on the other hand, never signed, so they are not subject to its terms.

So we've gone from moral equivalence to a 'signed' treaty. So if Iran pulls out of the NPT, you would be okay with Iran having nuclear weapons?

Nope, because:

A: They were members, benefiting for years from whatever the treaty provided them

B: They are a murderous theocratic dictatorship who's leaders have expressed a desire to "wipe Israel from the map". Most people would consider that a "bad thing".

When it comes to domestic law and as long as the judgement is about Jews in Israel, Israel is decent democratic nation, however, when it comes to international law, they continue to violate numerous laws.

Actually, its more accurate to say they get accused of "violating laws", mostly by "useful idiots" such as your self who are only too happy to act as a pawn and parrot whatever anti-Israeli claims are made without examining context.

Iran is a brutal dictatorship, run by Islamic extremists, who's leaders have made comments regarding a desire to "wipe Israel of the map".

No one here is defending Iran's government.

Yet you're claiming they are somehow "nicer" than Israel (e.g. wouldn't use nuclear arms.)

Looking at Israel's repeated violations of international law and their aggressive military approach both now and in the past, and taking into consideration Iran's history of wars, without hesitation, I would bet on Israel to use nuclear weapons.

I see... so a country that has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", who has had its own long history of fighting border wars (repeated skirmishes with Iraq, leading up to the Iran/Iraq war), who is run by religious fanatics, who has regularly resisted/defied the U.N. (over its nuclear program, human rights, and attempts to stop wars) is somehow a 'safer' country to have nuclear weapons than Israel.

Just out of curiosity, since you don't think being subject to 8000 rocket attacks is worth fighting back over, tell me, just how many rocket attacks/suicide bombings/kidnappings should Israel be expected to put up with before you will think its justified in fighting back? Got a number?

(edited to fix grammar)

Edited February 9, 2010 by segnosaur

[M.Dancer]

Is your real name Job?

such patience...

[segnosaur]

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Ours was a fact finding mission, it wasn't a criminal investigation, it wasn't a judicial or even a quasi-judicial investigation. We came to conclusions on the facts that we were able to gather.

The key phrase there is the facts they were "able to gather". Meaning... they never bothered to get the complete story.

It there are to be prosecutions either in an international court, or I would hope in an domestic court, whether in Israel or in Gaza against people who are suspected of having committed any violations of international law, these facts that we found would have be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which clearly wasn't a standard that we used.

So, what he's saying is that stuff that went in his report could be as flimsy as wet toilet paper (certainly not to the standard that could be used in court). Frankly, if there's some report that your condemning Israel on, I'd want a little higher burdern of proof. At least Goldstone is being honest when he admits that his report could be full of false claims because it "wasn't a standard they used".

And I've already pointed out that while there was the testimony from multiple groups, many of those groups have repeatedly illustrated an anti-Israeli bias, and have often made allegations that were later found to be incorrect. Multiple testimonies from individuals who all have similar flaws is not really that convincing.

Where do you get this information? Anything to back up your claims?

Well, Human Rights Watch was one of the major contributors (and some people doing the 'investigation' had ties to the organization.)

Know who Robert Bernstein is? He was the founder of Human Rights Watch. You'd think he would know something about the organization. What does he have to say?

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

...

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

...

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas...And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

Now, normally I wouldn't use an opinion piece as "proof", but Bronstien is the founder of HRW. You'd think that he knows a little about human rights, wouldn't you?

All I can say to that is... Who cares?

Who cares? I do ...

Well, good for you. You must be very happy with yourself.

So do people who care about justice. What is wrong with you?

Simple, I have a brain and I use it.

You were the one that brought up Goldstone's history of dealing with former Nazis as "proof" of his abilities. What I'm still trying to find is where its written that doing well in one endeavor automatically means that all future endeavors will also be correct.

Guess that concept is a little much for you to handle.

Tell me when you're ready to have a real discussion, instead of wasting time.

Would it help if I called you a "storm trooper"? After all that's what you did in one of your first responses in this thread. Is that what you would characterize as having a "real discussion"?

[naomiglover]

That particular piece of video ran less than 6 minutes. A youtube video can be roughly 10 minutes. There was more than enough time to illustrate Palestinian aggression within that video if they wished. Its only "short" because they want to give a distorted picture of the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

It's about the numbers. It's obvious that the video was put out to give attention to the one-sided attack on Gaza. What better way than to use numbers. Numbers that you cannot dispute.

Really? Gee... the moment any of us started to deal with this horribly biased video you accuse is of being "storm troopers" (while at the same time ignoring the points we brought up.) Doesn't sound like you have much interest in 'discussing' things.

The stormtroopers did not dispute any of the information in the video because the numbers are facts that are internationally recognized.

You see, if you well and truely believe that Hamas was wrong in launching missiles, you should immediately stop posting.

Why? Because the missiles were clearly launched before the Israeli incursion into Gaza, and in general a group which initiates hostilities should receive little sympathy if/when they end up having more damage inflicted on them than they inflicted on others.

Hamas is not receiving sympathy. It's the Palestinian civilians, including over 300 children who were killed by the Israeli military who are receiving sympathy. Maybe not from you, DogOnPorch, Dancer or American Woman, but from those who care for innocent civilians' lives being lost.

First of all, as I pointed out, any interviews that were carried out were done so with Hamas people present, not exactly a situation where people can talk freely.

The report and the conclusions of the fact finding mission were not based on just interviews. The least you can do is to read up on the methodology of the report. I've already taught Dancer about this, but I guess there are a lot of you around. The Goldstone report is based on witness testimony, medical evidence, video and photographic archives, satellite imagery, forensic analysis of weapons remnants and damage, and public hearings. The investigation and the report is not as simple as you think.

Secondly, and most importantly, I have provided evidence (in the form of an article in a main-stream media source) which shows that yes, indeed Hamas did use human shields. See post 5 for details. (There is no guarantee that any 'investigation' will uncover all the evidence, and that is especially true when it is run by "useful idiots". In this case, it definitely looks like they've overlooked evidence.

Your article says the following:

Israeli intelligence officials say that Hamas leaders are operating out of a bunker underneath Shifa Hospital–Gaza’s largest–while above, doctors are struggling to handle the flood of casualties from Israel’s ongoing military operation.

“Shifa Hospital has long ago ceased to be just a hospital,” Israeli Public Security Minister and former intelligence chief Avi Dichter said on Monday. “It is somewhat of an open secret that Hamas commanders walk around the hospital, in some instances wearing doctor’s robes,” Dichter said.

The allegations have not been independently confirmed by reporters on the ground–the Israeli military has banned foreign media from the Gaza Strip in what the Foreign Press Association has called an “unprecedented restriction of press freedom.”

But WIDE ANGLE reached a doctor in Gaza who believes Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel. The doctor, who asked not to be named, added that he believes Hamas is aware that they are putting civilians in harm’s way.

That is your evidence against the Goldstone Report? Get real.

That "opinion page" was from a main stream media source (i.e. the Sepectator) by an actual journalist who has done the research in order to point out specific actions and events. Do you have any evidence that the events and/or quotations provided in the article are in any way incorrect?

In fact, did you actually read the article? She goes into detail about:

- The initial mandate (Giving an actual quote from a UN release)

Did you read the article?

The article was written before the Goldstone report was put out. You are wasting time with your weak debating skills.

Keyword: Initial. Was Goldstone willing to accept the mandate under the initial mandate? No. So whatever point you are trying to make is moot.

- The fact that members investigating the committee had previously signed letters condemning Israel (suggesting a bias on their part), and that there were significant ties between the investigation group and groups with a known anti-Israeli bias

By the way, do you, in any way, find it hypocritical that you would complain about my source, yet you started this thread with a Youtube video, bastion of 9/11 truthers and other such questionable sources.

No, it covers only part of Hamas' war crimes, since obviously they didn't feel it necessary to, you know, interview people when Hamas solders were not around.

Actually, yes it is true. Sorry about that.

By the way, here's a suggestion... go to Post #5. Read the references I provided. They show that, regardless of what the report says, human shields were used. The references I provided came from PBS, an organization which is generally viewed as honest.

By, you know, actually having a clue what is going on in the world.

The U.N. is composed of member states, any one of which could have intevened to defend Israel if they so chose.

Actually they do. U.N. "peacekeeping" missions are notorious for not taking action. (Some are mentioned on Wikipedia; unfortunately, while the wikipedia article does contain references to UN documents, the UN site had removed/archived the articles.)Another example is how the U.N. allowed some of their peacekeepers to be killed during the Rwanda genocide.

By the way, here are a few quotes, from the U.N. itself regarding the actions of Hezbollah:

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=630

Asked about Hezbollah tactics near UN positions, the spokesperson said that Hezbollah sometimes uses UN positions as a shield.

Really? So you don't think having thousands of rockets/mortars raining down on your country, or of being subject to suicide bombings and kidnappings makes someone a victim? What exactly does it make you then?

Well, its about real-estate in the sense that Hamas has made it a goal to take all of Israel's real estate away from them. Its actually in Hamas' charter.

Here's a little history lesson...

In each of those wars, it was the Arab nations that were taking offense (usually starting the war themselves). If one party decides to instigate a war and looses (i.e. the Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries) they cannot go and complain "unfair!" Had Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and all the other Arab neighbors decided to just sit around and not attack Israel, then Israel would be a lot smaller than it is today.

Actually, no they're not.

I don't have the time you seem to have to type. There is just too many half-truths, misinformation and myths to reply to. For example, you keep going on and on about 'kidnappings', like there aren't thousands of Palestinians sitting in Israeli prisons after being abducted by the IDF? Ones who have either received no hearings or have received the typical Israeli military kangaroo court hearings.

This is a perfect example of you turning a blind eye what Israel does and applying the typical double standards that stormtroopers like to flood the world with.

Yes, civilians die as the result of Israeli actions, but they are not specifically targeted.

The report has come to the conclusion that Israel specifically targeted civilians. The report that you haven't read.

Don't you think that if Israel really wanted to kill civilians, with all their firepower, that they wouldn't have racked up a much higher body count? Really.. apply a little logic here. Try Occam's razor. It works wonders.

So because they didn't kill more people, they didn't really mean to kill close to 1000 civilians in a few weeks? Right. Thanks for applying your logic.

Nope, because:

A: They were members, benefiting for years from whatever the treaty provided them

B: They are a murderous theocratic dictatorship who's leaders have expressed a desire to "wipe Israel from the map". Most people would consider that a "bad thing".

Actually, its more accurate to say they get accused of "violating laws", mostly by "useful idiots" such as your self who are only too happy to act as a pawn and parrot whatever anti-Israeli claims are made without examining context.

Yet you're claiming they are somehow "nicer" than Israel (e.g. wouldn't use nuclear arms.)

When did I claim this? I said Israel is most likely to use nukes against another nation as they have broken many international laws and have attacked many of their neighbours.

I see... so a country that has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", who has had its own long history of fighting border wars (repeated skirmishes with Iraq, leading up to the Iran/Iraq war), who is run by religious fanatics, who has regularly resisted/defied the U.N. (over its nuclear program, human rights, and attempts to stop wars) is somehow a 'safer' country to have nuclear weapons than Israel.

As far as I know, Iran was attacked by Iraq. Unless you have a different version of history, please share.

Israel has done the following:

- Attacked its neighbours

- Not allow inspectors into their nuclear facilities despite their calls to do so

- Defied the UN over human rights and international law in general

I think Iran's government is despicable. I also find the Israeli government to be despicable. One treats its own citizens like crap, the other treats those that it is occupying like crap. Only 1 has a history of aggressive military behaviour against its neighbours. Only one has been repeatedly breaking international law across its borders. So any logical person can conclude that there is a better chance that Israel would use its nukes to attack another country.

Just out of curiosity, since you don't think being subject to 8000 rocket attacks is worth fighting back over, tell me, just how many rocket attacks/suicide bombings/kidnappings should Israel be expected to put up with before you will think its justified in fighting back? Got a number?

(edited to fix grammar)

I would engage in talks if there is a conflict.

Here is some interesting information. List of rocket attacks on Israel, in 2008:

Jan / Feb / Mar / Apr / May /June /Jul / Aug / Sept/ Oct / Nov / Dec

136 / 228 / 103 / 373 / 206 / 158 /004 / 008 / 001 / 001 / 125 / 361

Here is a chart showing the numbers.

It's a little strange that Israel decided to attack Gaza even though Hamas had agreed to a ceasefire and had stopped launching rockets for 4 months (the few that were fired were by small militant groups) when suddenly Israel unleashed and started the carnage.

What's your excuse for this?

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a little strange that Israel decided to attack Gaza even though Hamas had agreed to a ceasefire and had stopped launching rockets for 4 months (the few that were fired were by small militant groups) when suddenly Israel unleashed and started the carnage.

What's your excuse for this?

The "excuse" is well documented: Hamas had no intention of renewing the expired ceasefire without other demands being met and the rocket attacks continued, not to mention mortar attacks, which you didn't bother to include.

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

Edited February 10, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[naomiglover]

The "excuse" is well documented: Hamas had no intention of renewing the expired ceasefire without other demands being met and the rocket attacks continued, not to mention mortar attacks, which you didn't bother to include.

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

According to many, Israel's attack and killing of Hamas members was the trigger and the end to the truce.

GAZA — Hamas militants pounded southern Israel with a barrage of rockets Wednesday, hours after Israeli soldiers killed six gunmen in new violence that threatened a five-month-old truce that has brought relief to both Gaza and southern Israel.

The clashes began late Tuesday after Israeli forces burst into Gaza to destroy what the army said was a tunnel being dug near the border to kidnap Israeli troops.

Despite the outbreak of violence, both the Israeli authorities and officials with Gaza's Hamas government said they wanted to restore the calm that has largely prevailed for five months.

After the Israeli incursion, Hamas gunmen battled Israeli forces and Gaza residents reported hearing explosions, gunshots and helicopter fire. One Hamas fighter was killed, prompting a wave of mortar fire at nearby Israeli targets.

An Israeli airstrike then killed five Hamas militants who the army said were preparing to fire mortar shells. Hamas responded with the rockets.

A spokesman for Hamas, Fawzi Barhoum, said the rockets were in "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce."

"The Israelis began this tension, and they must pay an expensive price," Barhoum said. "They cannot leave us drowning in blood while they sleep soundly in their beds."

The Israeli military said 35 rockets were fired, including one that reached the coastal city of Ashkelon, about 15 kilometers, or 10 miles, north of Gaza - underscoring the militants' growing ability to strike deeper into Israel.

The police said the rocket landed in an empty area and there were no reports of injuries or property damage. But the army said four soldiers were wounded, two moderately, in the border fighting.

The violence was the worst since Israel and Hamas agreed to an Egyptian-mediated truce in June.

NY Times

[bush_cheney2004]

According to many, Israel's attack and killing of Hamas members was the trigger and the end to the truce.

No, the ceasefire (not truce), and already brokered on shaky terms, was scheduled to expire in December. Israel wanted to extend it under similar terms...Hamas declined for whatever reasons, and in the end, could not or would not stop the rocket and mortar attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel-Hamas_ceasefire

Edited February 10, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[naomiglover]

No, the ceasefire (not truce), and already brokered on shaky terms, was scheduled to expire in December. Israel wanted to extend it under similar terms...Hamas declined for whatever reasons, and in the end, could not or would not stop the rocket and mortar attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel-Hamas_ceasefire

"Whatever reason"? You know the reason.

From the same NYT article:

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information was classified, said Defense Minister Ehud Barak approved the operation Tuesday. Defense officials said they knew the raid could jeopardize the cease-fire, but concluded that Gaza's Hamas rulers would have an interest in restoring the calm.

Hamas fired the rockets after the IDF attacked them and killed 6 of their members. It's quite clear how the bloodbath was triggered and it's quite clear that Israel could have prevented it.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Hamas fired the rockets after the IDF attacked them and killed 6 of their members. It's quite clear how the bloodbath was triggered and it's quite clear that Israel could have prevented it.

Irrelevant...the ceasefire had been violated several times by both parties. Hamas failed to completely stop the attacks and Israel acted on the previously stated "zero tolerance" policy. Why would Israel want to prevent it?

Can you legitimately argue that the Gaza smackdown would still have happened absent the history and continuation of mortar and rocket attacks? Entertain us....

[segnosaur]

That particular piece of video ran less than 6 minutes. A youtube video can be roughly 10 minutes. There was more than enough time to illustrate Palestinian aggression within that video if they wished. Its only "short" because they want to give a distorted picture of the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

It's about the numbers.

Nope, this issue is not about "numbers". Numbers don't tell you about context. Numbers don't tell you that the Gaza was the source of continued terrorist attacks against Israel. Those are the key issues.

As we have already explained to you (which you do not seem to want to address)... if any country is subject to repeated attacks, they should not be condemned if they decide to take action to protect its own citizens.

Let me put this into proper context... that 'video' spent time pointing out the farm animals killed in Gaza. It made no mention of the fact that rocket attacks from the Gaza strip often damaged Israeli schools. So, the people that made that video felt Palestinian chickens were more important than Israeli children.

Hamas is not receiving sympathy. It's the Palestinian civilians...

Yet Hamas' actions seem to be whitewashed (both by you and the video).

And, as I mentioned before, Hamas was elected by the people in the Gaza strip. If the majority of Palestinians did not want to be associated with a group which regularly fires rockets into civilian areas in Israel, why did they vote for such a party?

The Goldstone report is based on witness testimony, medical evidence, video and photographic archives, satellite imagery, forensic analysis of weapons remnants and damage, and public hearings. The investigation and the report is not as simple as you think.

Never thought it was simple. But it was incredibly biased.

Most importantly, little to no input was taken from the Israelis. Granted, it was a decision by the Israeli government not to co-operate (but given the general Anti-Israeli bias, and the fact that the initial mandate was to only investigate Israeli actions and not those of the palestinians, its certainly understandable.)

Oh, and by the way, Goldstone himself admits that he didn't get full cooperation from the Palestinains:

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=77618:

While the Palestinians were keen for the exposure, their behaviour was not perfect, either, Goldstone says when asked.“... Let me put it this way — there were some areas of information where we did not receive full co-operation.”

Oh, and you seem to have ignored the fact that other members that were doing the investigation had questionable motives. For example, one of the investigating members, Chinkin, had signed a letter condemning Israel before any investigation began. Really says a lot if one of your lead investigators has already come out and condemned one side. (Yeah, I realize Goldstone has whitewashed the situation, but if this were a real court of law she would likely have been removed.)

Your article says the following:

Israeli intelligence officials say that Hamas leaders are operating out of a bunker underneath Shifa Hospital–Gaza’s largest–while above, doctors are struggling to handle the flood of casualties from Israel’s ongoing military operation.

...WIDE ANGLE reached a doctor in Gaza who believes Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel. The doctor, who asked not to be named, added that he believes Hamas is aware that they are putting civilians in harm’s way.

That is your evidence against the Goldstone Report? Get real.

Sorry if it contradicts your warped view of reality. But as I said, PBS is a fairly well respected news organization.

Oh, and if you want more cases, consider the video released by Israeli defense forces showing rockets were being launched from civilian areas (including schools)....

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3466387,00.html

(Human Rights Watched has acknowledged that this video may be correct, but its not a bad thing for Hamas to have done, since the schools 'appeared' to be deserted at the time.)

And then there was the Arab reporter who acknowledged that at least one rocket was launched from areas near where Foreign reporters were stationed:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057129.html

And just in case you don't like the previous examples because they come from Israeli sources, how about this one:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/180691

The incessant sorties of Israeli jet bombers stopped almost immediately, but then suddenly there was a terrific whoosh, louder even than a bomb explosion. It was another of Hamas's homemade Qassam rockets being launched into Israel—and the mobile launchpad was smack in the middle of the four buildings, where every apartment was full...

You really think launching rockets from areas adjacent to apartment buildings is a wise thing to do? (Oh, and by the way, the article also points out how Hamas stationed fighters near schools.)

There is just too many half-truths, misinformation and myths to reply to. For example, you keep going on and on about 'kidnappings', like there aren't thousands of Palestinians sitting in Israeli prisons after being abducted by the IDF? Ones who have either received no hearings or have received the typical Israeli military kangaroo court hearings.

I see... and your evidence that they are "kangaroo court hearings" is where?

This is a perfect example of you turning a blind eye what Israel does and applying the typical double standards that stormtroopers like to flood the world with.

Ah , there's the name calling that we've come to know so well. Great debating tactic!!!! Really shows off your intellect!!!

Oh, and do you not recognize the hypocracy of complaining about others "turning a blind eye", when you started this topic with a video that showed more concern over Palestinian chickens than it did over Israeli children?

The report has come to the conclusion that Israel specifically targeted civilians. The report that you haven't read.

A report that doesn't seem to put much stock in the fact that while Israel was supposedly "targeting civilians" (as seems to be claimed), they were actually dropping millions of leaflets and making thousands of telephone calls to civilians advising them to clear out of areas where operations were taking place.

The report that was written, in part, by someone who had already signed a letter condemning Israel before she was even put on the team.

The report that didn't get the Israeli side of things.

So because they didn't kill more people, they didn't really mean to kill close to 1000 civilians in a few weeks?

You know, I've been letting that little 'claim' slide, but I guess I'd better address it...

The claim that '1000 civilians' were killed is questionable at best. Hamas fighters did not always dress in identifiable uniforms. According to the IDF, there were around 1200 casualties, and over 700 of them were Hamas fighters. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-162420292.html)

Now, I'm sure you'll white-wash this, saying "Oh, those are only Israeli claims, but why exactly would you trust the figures coming from the Palestinian side any more? (In the past, Israel has been a lot more honest than the Palestinians at dealing body counts... See, for example, Jenin, where the Palestinians wildly exaggerated casualty counts; the current accepted number is closer to what the Israelis claimed at the start.)

Furthermore, I wonder just how many of those casualties Israel actually called. Amnesty international has criticized Hamas for killing other Palistinians during the Gaza conflict. At least some of those deaths could be a case of Hamas fighers killing rivals, and blaming Israel for the deaths. (See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-10-hamas-amnesty_N.htm)

Lastly, why exactly do you expect conflicts to be casualty free? If I'm the leader of a country, I am going to take whatever steps are required to protect my own people from an aggressive foe (such as the Palestinians lobbing rockets and mortars into school yards) , even if it means defense of the country will lead to greater casualties on the opponent's side.

When did I claim this? I said Israel is most likely to use nukes against another nation as they have broken many international laws and have attacked many of their neighbours.

Showing of course, your lack of understanding.

Iran has also "broken internatinoal laws"

Iran has also been involved in wars with its neighbors.

Of course, Iran, unlike Israel, has publically stated a desire to "wipe Israel off the map". And Iran, unlike Israel, is a theocracy. Guess those things don't seem to matter to you.

As far as I know, Iran was attacked by Iraq. Unless you have a different version of history, please share.

Actually, Iran and Iraq had multiple border skirmishes long before the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq may have launched the initial invasion, but Iran was certainly not blameless.

Israel has done the following:

- Attacked its neighbours

Once again, how many times does Israel have to be bombarded by rockets and mortars hitting school yards before you think they're justified in taking actions?

Most reasonable people would assume that lobbing high explosives for years and years is not exactly the neighbourly thing to do.

- Not allow inspectors into their nuclear facilities despite their calls to do so

Again, Israel did not sign the Nuclear NPT and is under no legal requirement to allow any inspectors in.

Compare that to Iran, who is required to cooperate (under the terms of the agreement they themselves signed on to) and yet has failed to do so.

- Defied the UN over human rights and international law in general

As opposed to Iran defying human rights and flouting the UN over and over again?

I would engage in talks if there is a conflict.

Spoken like a true "useful idiot".

Let me remind you... it is in Hamas' charter that Israel be destroyed. How exactly do you negotiate with that?

Here is some interesting information. List of rocket attacks on Israel, in 2008:

Jan / Feb / Mar / Apr / May /June /Jul / Aug / Sept/ Oct / Nov / Dec

136 / 228 / 103 / 373 / 206 / 158 /004 / 008 / 001 / 001 / 125 / 361

It's a little strange that Israel decided to attack Gaza even though Hamas had agreed to a ceasefire...

As others have pointed out, your figures do not include Mortar attacks.

And, as others have pointed out, the cease fire was due to expire, and Hamas had stated they would not be renewing it.

And by the way, Operation Lead Cast started in December. Notice that, accoring to the figures you provided, whatever 'lull' that had existed earlier in the fall was gone, and rocket attacks were very frequent even before Israel invaded.

Oh, and while I'm at it, while Hamas supposedly had their 'cease fire' going, they were digging tunnels under the Gaza/Israel border, and had engaged in kidnapping.

...the few that were fired were by small militant groups

Ummm... so? Hamas was elected by the Gaza residents to run the place. That means they are responsible for the conduct of its citizens/civilians. As such, it is responsible for stopping all such attacks, and the individuals involved should be prosecuted. If a country or region fails to act to prevent damage to neighboring countries, then they shouldn't be surprised if the region being attacked decides to take matters into its own hands.

To my knowledge, not one member of any of these "small militant groups" has ever been brought to trial in the Gaza strip over their non-sanctioned rocket/mortar attacks.

[DogOnPorch]

To my knowledge, not one member of any of these "small militant groups" has ever been brought to trial in the Gaza strip over their non-sanctioned rocket/mortar attacks.

Quite the opposite. They are revered as heros...both in Lebanon and in the WB/Gaza. Especially child murderers.

Plus...many still recall this wee gem from the innocent Palestinian citizens,

[PIK]

naomiglover, do you even know what a stormtrooper is?

[DogOnPorch]

naomiglover, do you even know what a stormtrooper is?

Sure she does...but she likes disinformation. Plus she really likes to deny elements of the Holocaust involving the Palestinian Arabs and friends.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/17089176.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUEx1cKUlg

[segnosaur]

According to many, Israel's attack and killing of Hamas members was the trigger and the end to the truce.

From the New York Times...

GAZA — Hamas militants pounded southern Israel with a barrage of rockets Wednesday, hours after Israeli soldiers killed six gunmen in new violence that threatened a five-month-old truce that has brought relief to both Gaza and southern Israel.

The clashes began late Tuesday after Israeli forces burst into Gaza to destroy what the army said was a tunnel being dug near the border to kidnap Israeli troops.

Ummm... just out of curiosity, just how many times has a country tunneled into an adjacent country with which they were "friends"?

Maybe the Hamas fighters digging those tunnels were doing so in order to bring cake and ice cream to all the good Israeli children.

You know, if any Americans start digging tunnels under the border into Canada, I'd hope that the Canadian government take at least some action.

[fellowtraveller]

We have never had a Canadian government, majority or minority, who has turned a blind eye to the injustices that has and continues to occur and who has so blatantly taken a side.

What a shame.

You are right, except for those little buntosses in WW1, WW11, Korea, the Boer War and Afghanistan. We will turn a blind eye to those too.

I demand that Canada withdraw all its troops, warships and warplanes from Gaza immediately.

[ToadBrother]

To my knowledge, not one member of any of these "small militant groups" has ever been brought to trial in the Gaza strip over their non-sanctioned rocket/mortar attacks.

As the Israelis have often noted, jails in the Palestinian Authority are revolving doors. Palestinian governments seem more concerned with harassing members of other parties than they do with terrorists.

[bush_cheney2004]

You know, if any Americans start digging tunnels under the border into Canada, I'd hope that the Canadian government take at least some action.

Well, they already have!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh32FphFao8

Canada builds much nicer drug tunnels than Mexico!

[ToadBrother]

Canada builds much nicer drug tunnels than Mexico!

Cheaper softwood lumber!

Edited February 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[naomiglover]

Nope, this issue is not about "numbers". Numbers don't tell you about context. Numbers don't tell you that the Gaza was the source of continued terrorist attacks against Israel. Those are the key issues.

As we have already explained to you (which you do not seem to want to address)... if any country is subject to repeated attacks, they should not be condemned if they decide to take action to protect its own citizens.

It's not just me that disagrees with what you're saying, but also international law, which Israel is a signatory to disagrees with the point you're trying to make. If Hamas commits a war crime and launches rockets, it doesn't mean that Israel has Carte blanche to break international law.

Same goes with Hamas. If Israel, assassinates Palestinians and makes life hell for the Gazans and creates world's largest open air prison where even the necessities are barely getting to the people of Gaza, it doesn't mean that it's okay for Hamas to launch rockets into Israel.

Let me put this into proper context... that 'video' spent time pointing out the farm animals killed in Gaza. It made no mention of the fact that rocket attacks from the Gaza strip often damaged Israeli schools. So, the people that made that video felt Palestinian chickens were more important than Israeli children.

Or maybe they were pointing out that Israel was interested in collective punishment by destroying whatever they wanted, instead of fighting terrorists.

Yet Hamas' actions seem to be whitewashed (both by you and the video).

I've repeatedly condemned Hamas' actions which has killed only 3 civilians during Israel's attack on Gaza. No one is excusing Hamas' actions, but you keep trying to excuse Israel's, which has left over 300 children killed.

And, as I mentioned before, Hamas was elected by the people in the Gaza strip. If the majority of Palestinians did not want to be associated with a group which regularly fires rockets into civilian areas in Israel, why did they vote for such a party?

Who said they didn't want to be associated with them?

Never thought it was simple. But it was incredibly biased.

Most importantly, little to no input was taken from the Israelis. Granted, it was a decision by the Israeli government not to co-operate

First you complain that no input was taken from the Israelis, then you acknowledge that it was Israel who did not want to give any input? What's wrong with you?

(but given the general Anti-Israeli bias, and the fact that the initial mandate was to only investigate Israeli actions and not those of the palestinians, its certainly understandable.)

You keep bringing up the initial mandate like it matters. Goldstone refused to do this mission unless the mandate was changed. You keep repeating points that are moot, like this one and the one before.

Oh, and by the way, Goldstone himself admits that he didn't get full cooperation from the Palestinains:

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=77618:

While the Palestinians were keen for the exposure, their behaviour was not perfect, either, Goldstone says when asked.“... Let me put it this way — there were some areas of information where we did not receive full co-operation.”

You mean it wasn't perfect? What kind of cooperation did Goldstone receive from Israel?

Oh, and you seem to have ignored the fact that other members that were doing the investigation had questionable motives. For example, one of the investigating members, Chinkin, had signed a letter condemning Israel before any investigation began. Really says a lot if one of your lead investigators has already come out and condemned one side. (Yeah, I realize Goldstone has whitewashed the situation, but if this were a real court of law she would likely have been removed.)

Chinkin also condemned Hamas in the same letter.

Sorry if it contradicts your warped view of reality. But as I said, PBS is a fairly well respected news organization.

Oh, and if you want more cases, consider the video released by Israeli defense forces showing rockets were being launched from civilian areas (including schools)....

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3466387,00.html

(Human Rights Watched has acknowledged that this video may be correct, but its not a bad thing for Hamas to have done, since the schools 'appeared' to be deserted at the time.)

Okay. Moot point #3? Israel has not used deserted schools or mosques to launch attacks? They have used Palestinian civilians as human shields, not only during the latest Gaza attack, but also in the past. I don't care for Hamas, but you're sitting there bringing up something that doesn't even prove any point. Hamas uses a deserted school to launch rockets?

What do you say to Israel's using of civilians as human shield?

And then there was the Arab reporter who acknowledged that at least one rocket was launched from areas near where Foreign reporters were stationed:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057129.html

And just in case you don't like the previous examples because they come from Israeli sources, how about this one:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/180691

The incessant sorties of Israeli jet bombers stopped almost immediately, but then suddenly there was a terrific whoosh, louder even than a bomb explosion. It was another of Hamas's homemade Qassam rockets being launched into Israel—and the mobile launchpad was smack in the middle of the four buildings, where every apartment was full...

You really think launching rockets from areas adjacent to apartment buildings is a wise thing to do? (Oh, and by the way, the article also points out how Hamas stationed fighters near schools.)

No. Even if it is true, it's not okay for Hamas to do this.

I see... and your evidence that they are "kangaroo court hearings" is where?

Here is some reading, which shows the failure of the IDF to investigate criminal acts by its own soldiers. This report was done by an Israeli organization. I know it's useless to give you this reading, because you're not interested in facts. You're interested in babbling and giving your unconditional support for your tribe.

Ah , there's the name calling that we've come to know so well. Great debating tactic!!!! Really shows off your intellect!!!

Stormtrooper not okay? Useful idiot okay?

Oh, and do you not recognize the hypocracy of complaining about others "turning a blind eye", when you started this topic with a video that showed more concern over Palestinian chickens than it did over Israeli children?

Israeli children were not killed. Tell me when you're ready to talk about the 300+ Palestinian children who were killed.

A report that doesn't seem to put much stock in the fact that while Israel was supposedly "targeting civilians" (as seems to be claimed), they were actually dropping millions of leaflets and making thousands of telephone calls to civilians advising them to clear out of areas where operations were taking place.

How do you know what the report is about when you haven't even read it. Pretty much every comment you've made about the report has been wrong. The reason is because you haven't even looked at it.

Why do you want to have a debate about something that you have no clue about?

The report that was written, in part, by someone who had already signed a letter condemning Israel before she was even put on the team.

She also condemned Hamas.

The report that didn't get the Israeli side of things.

It did get some Israeli side of things, but you keep forgetting the point that Israel 'refused' to share its side. They had ample opportunity to share their thoughts and they refused.

You know, I've been letting that little 'claim' slide, but I guess I'd better address it...

The claim that '1000 civilians' were killed is questionable at best. Hamas fighters did not always dress in identifiable uniforms. According to the IDF, there were around 1200 casualties, and over 700 of them were Hamas fighters. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-162420292.html)

Now, I'm sure you'll white-wash this, saying "Oh, those are only Israeli claims, but why exactly would you trust the figures coming from the Palestinian side any more? (In the past, Israel has been a lot more honest than the Palestinians at dealing body counts... See, for example, Jenin, where the Palestinians wildly exaggerated casualty counts; the current accepted number is closer to what the Israelis claimed at the start.)

According to the Red Cross you're wrong. Red Cross' credibility is a little stronger than IDF. Especially when IDF is investigating its own actions.

Furthermore, I wonder just how many of those casualties Israel actually called.

Read the report. There is some good reading about leaflets and 'calls'. I am bored of discussing this topic with you. The least you can do is read the report before talking about it.

Amnesty international has criticized Hamas for killing other Palistinians during the Gaza conflict. At least some of those deaths could be a case of Hamas fighers killing rivals, and blaming Israel for the deaths. (See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-10-hamas-amnesty_N.htm)

You're really trying hard. Read the report.

Lastly, why exactly do you expect conflicts to be casualty free? If I'm the leader of a country, I am going to take whatever steps are required to protect my own people from an aggressive foe (such as the Palestinians lobbing rockets and mortars into school yards) , even if it means defense of the country will lead to greater casualties on the opponent's side.

Many of casualties, as demonstrated by the report and by several human rights organizations were not accidents. Many were found to have been indiscriminate and some killings of civilians were found to have been done purposely.

Showing of course, your lack of understanding.

Iran has also "broken internatinoal laws"

Iran has also been involved in wars with its neighbors.

Of course, Iran, unlike Israel, has publically stated a desire to "wipe Israel off the map". And Iran, unlike Israel, is a theocracy. Guess those things don't seem to matter to you.

Didn't they say the regime should be wiped off the map? New York Times

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.

Israel has said that 'all options are on the table' when dealing with Iran. Meaning that a nuclear attack on Iran is an option. Isn't that a little threatening?

Actually, Iran and Iraq had multiple border skirmishes long before the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq may have launched the initial invasion, but Iran was certainly not blameless.

Iraq attacked Iran and started the war. I'm not sure why you're bothering with this.

Once again, how many times does Israel have to be bombarded by rockets and mortars hitting school yards before you think they're justified in taking actions?

Most reasonable people would assume that lobbing high explosives for years and years is not exactly the neighbourly thing to do.

You know, Hamas uses the same excuse as Israel. They say they're fighting for the Palestinians when they launch these rockets.

Again, Israel did not sign the Nuclear NPT and is under no legal requirement to allow any inspectors in.

Compare that to Iran, who is required to cooperate (under the terms of the agreement they themselves signed on to) and yet has failed to do so.

So if Iran gets out of the NPT, it's okay for them to have nuclear weapons?

As opposed to Iran defying human rights and flouting the UN over and over again?

Spoken like a true "useful idiot".

Let me remind you... it is in Hamas' charter that Israel be destroyed. How exactly do you negotiate with that?

So? It's in Likud's charter to never allow a Palestinian state to be created. You still have to engage in talks. Hamas has said they're willing to talk numerous times. They've even said that they're willing to accept the internationally recognized 1967 border. If Israel was interested in a just peace, they'd negotiate. Instead, they're trying to force the Palestinians into submission with their military. Something that hasn't worked in decades.

As others have pointed out, your figures do not include Mortar attacks.

Even if you count the mortar attacks, the point still stands. Israel was the provocateur by killing the Hamas members in a tense time. They know that Hamas will retaliate.

And, as others have pointed out, the cease fire was due to expire, and Hamas had stated they would not be renewing it.

The ceasefire was still in effect when Israel killed the Hamas members.

And by the way, Operation Lead Cast started in December. Notice that, accoring to the figures you provided, whatever 'lull' that had existed earlier in the fall was gone, and rocket attacks were very frequent even before Israel invaded.

The rockets by Hamas started after Israel killed 6 of their members. Barak even said that he knew that the killing of Hamas may jeopardize the ceasefire.

Oh, and while I'm at it, while Hamas supposedly had their 'cease fire' going, they were digging tunnels under the Gaza/Israel border, and had engaged in kidnapping.

They engaged in kidnappings? Are you making things up again?

Ummm... so? Hamas was elected by the Gaza residents to run the place. That means they are responsible for the conduct of its citizens/civilians. As such, it is responsible for stopping all such attacks, and the individuals involved should be prosecuted.

Give me a break with your babbling. Like Hamas, with the limited resources they have, can find these homemade rocket launchers.

You're trying to justify what has already been concluded to be war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

No one is excusing Hamas or other militant factions. They're wrong in many ways. This still does not excuse Israel's actions. Read up on international law some time.