Jump to content

Israeli War Crimes - Part 2

Recommended Posts

The u.S. did nothing with arms or financially to help Israel in 1948 or 1967..

Not to mention, the Camp David Accords and related deals are 'blowing' an equal amount of US dollars in the Arab countries that signed on.

Nice new shiny US military gear in Egypt, Jordan, etc. Not so many old MiGs from the Woodstock era, anymore.

Only the terrorists and Syrians (what's left of them) haven't made peace. Funny that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 647
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It should be the right of anyone to deny anything they want too, even the Holocaust. If there are people out there who wish to deny something, then someone or some website must have given them a good explanation and reason to do so.

Everybody denies the Battle of Midway happened.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UN with its OIC didn't withdraw the false report. But Goldstone, himself, sure did...and he wrote it. The OIC was happy with more ammo to throw at Israel and wanted to keep said report 'as is' rather than spread the blame around to those who actually started the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, marcus said:

There is no debate.

You said Goldstone withdrew the report, when he didn't. The report still stands.

End of story.

Your pat denial is not working.

It is a fact, Goldstone withdrew the entire premises and conclusion of his report.

It is a fact, the UN no longer relies on the report because of that.

It is a fact the entire report relied on second hand heresay allegations that were never proven and have subsequently

been proven as false or inaccurate as independent third party evidence has surfaced.

It is a fact the original Goldstone report make subjective bias assumptions never proven.

It is a fact the UN you claim did not withdraw the report now does NOT rely on it because it can not

reply on it.. .

Its precisely why it was never brought to any so called international tribunal and used as legal evidence.

Lol. Go on. Explain how even though Goldstone has publically repudiated his own findings they are still reliable

and for that matter not withdrawn by him.

Go on, explain how a report repudiated by its own author its still credible.

Explain how unproven, second hand heresay evidence is accurate when it was never tested.

Go on. Finish what you started.

Playing semantics and trying to argue the report still stands and is credible because it "wasn't withdrawn by the UN" when

its actual author repudiated it is hilarious.

The fact is you, Dre, Eye, Big Guy Ghost, Cactus, Hudson Jones,  all joined in the first of these threads quoting Goldstone and at that time

as the basis for your allegations.

None of you when asked on that first thread, could explain  how second hand unsubstantiated heresay evidence was reliable. No one of you.

Lol. Now you mysteriously omitted any reference to this report even though as you point out it was not withdrawn by the UN.

Why noy? If its credible say so. Explain how.

Hmmm? What stopped you?

This isn't the end of the story Marcus, it is just the beginning in a response to the constant belittling and bullying of Jews and

Israelis on this thread..

Let me also remind you in Canada, under our laws of admissible evidence and the fundamental rules of natural justice subjective

unsubstantiated allegations first hand or second hand are not admissible or considered credible or reliable.

Until such time as you or any of the rest of you provide one piece of objective evidence all you do is name call.








Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the long list of Israeli war crimes: The illegal settlements

The settler colonialists have once again decided to steal more land, against the wishes of the country that recently gifted them a record $38bn worth of military assistance over the next 10-year period--the largest such gift ever by the US tax payers --with which Zionists can maim and murder more Palestinians more effectively.

Some think that Obama will leave with a bang and take action against the rogue state --something other presidents never dared to do:

The very harsh tone of the statement has fueled speculation that the US may support an anti-settlement resolution in the UN Security Council.

Using unusually sharp language, and citing both the recently signed military aid package and Shimon Peres’s death, the US State Department on Wednesday slammed Israel’s intention to build homes in the Shiloh settlement, located in Samaria, as a possible site to relocate 40 families from the Amona outpost.

“We strongly condemn the Israeli government’s recent decision to advance a plan that would create a significant new settlement deep in the West Bank,” 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2016‎-‎10‎-‎07 at 11:16 PM, marcus said:
On ‎2016‎-‎10‎-‎07 at 11:16 PM, marcus said:


Goldstone never withdrew anything in the report. The report has never been changed. The report still stands.



Your denying he did after being shown he did speaks for itself. Here is exactly what he said which in fact repudiates the

report and renders it unreliable. The UN dominated by Arab nations, Pakistan and China at the Human Rights Comission

refused to withdraw the report but his repudiation renders it meaningless. Go on deny away. Your pat denial will not make it go away.

I have placed in bold the words rendering the report what it always was, a farse:

Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes

By Richard Goldstone  April 1, 2011


Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html?utm_term=.eb296a7f9bb


We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.


The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

For example, the most serious attack the Goldstone Report focused on was the killing of some 29 members of the al-Simouni family in their home. The shelling of the home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack. While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly. The purpose of these investigations, as I have always said, is to ensure accountability for improper actions, not to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, commanders making difficult battlefield decisions.

While I welcome Israel’s investigations into allegations, I share the concerns reflected in the McGowan Davis report that few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded and believe that the proceedings should have been held in a public forum. Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.

Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas (although Hamas may have reason to inflate the number of its combatants).

As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.

Some have charged that the process we followed did not live up to judicial standards. To be clear: Our mission was in no way a judicial or even quasi-judicial proceeding. We did not investigate criminal conduct on the part of any individual in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. We made our recommendations based on the record before us, which unfortunately did not include any evidence provided by the Israeli government. Indeed, our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.

Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.

In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.

I continue to believe in the cause of establishing and applying international law to protracted and deadly conflicts. Our report has led to numerous “lessons learned” and policy changes, including the adoption of new Israel Defense Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare and limiting the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. The Palestinian Authority established an independent inquiry into our allegations of human rights abuses — assassinations, torture and illegal detentions — perpetrated by Fatah in the West Bank, especially against members of Hamas. Most of those allegations were confirmed by this inquiry. Regrettably, there has been no effort by Hamas in Gaza to investigate the allegations of its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

Simply put, the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies. Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict. Only if all parties to armed conflicts are held to these standards will we be able to protect civilians who, through no choice of their own, are caught up in war.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the report of Richard Kempt which repudiated the Goldstone report and also rendered

it a farse:


Here is a report also pointing our point by point the false and unsubstantiated allegations in the Goldstone report:



The flawed report is a lesson as to how people so quick to make allegations can't back them up.


As the flawed report shows, anyone can make allegations, obtaining actual objective proof of those allegations is another story.\ 

The analogy directly holds with this thread that like the Goldstone report is full of allegations and not one, not one item of objective

evidence proven by an independent third party to indicate a war crime by Israel, not one.


Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a specific explanation by the man in the IDF who drafted its Ethics Code and what he has tried to deal with

when defining acceptable war conduct by the IDF:


Here is one issue he grappled with:

"Let us begin with a sense of the moral stakes. What was mainly a clash between states and armies has turned into a clash between a state and paramilitary terror organizations, Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north. This new form of struggle is now called “asymmetrical war.” It is defined by an attempt on the part of those groups to erase two basic features of war: the front and the uniform. Hamas militants fight without military uniforms, in ordinary and undistinguishing civilian garb, taking shelter among their own civilian population; and they attack Israeli civilians wherever they are, intentionally and indiscriminately. During the Gaza operation, for example, some Hamas militants embedded in the civilian population did not carry weapons while moving from one position to another. Arms and ammunition had been pre-positioned for them and stored in different houses."

Here is what the author then said of how Goldstone dealt with the above issue because in the Goldstone report Goldstone stated that even though Hamas dresses like civilians and attacked from civilian sites, there was no evidence of it. When shown speeches by Hamas saying in fact they were using citizens as shields and as martyrs, Goldstone said that still was not evidence.

" In addressing this vexing issue, the Goldstone Report uses a rather strange formulation: “While reports reviewed by the Mission credibly indicate that members of the Palestinian armed groups were not always dressed in a way that distinguished them from the civilians, the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from the attack.” The reader of such a sentence might well wonder what its author means. Did Hamas militants not wear their uniforms because they were inconveniently at the laundry? What other reasons for wearing civilian clothes could they have had, if not for deliberately sheltering themselves among the civilians?"

He goes on to say:

"By disguising themselves as civilians and by attacking civilians with no uniforms and with no front, these paramilitary terrorist organizations attempt nothing less than to erase the distinction between combatants and noncombatants on both sides of the struggle. Suicide bombers exploded themselves on buses and in restaurants in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Dimona, Eilat, and many other places. Qassam rockets and Katyushas were fired randomly at various Israeli civilian centers, as far as their range allowed. So the war had no defined place and was waged by unidentified murderers. It justifiably felt like a change in the very nature of warfare. The goal of this momentous transformation was to create a war of all against all and everywhere. It aimed at shifting the Israeli population from a healthy sense of cautious fear attached to a particular place-a border, a security zone--to a generalized panic that has no location. Everywhere and everyone is now regarded as dangerous. This is not paranoia. It has a basis in a new reality, and is the outcome of a new strategic paradigm."

So to deal with the tactic of Hamas and Hezbollah and other Palestinian terror cells dressing up as civilians and using civilians and their homes, hospitals, schools, moques as shields, the code of Ethics of the IDF has tried according to the author to do this when defining acceptable conduct:

"The aim of the IDF ethics code is to strike a coherent and morally plausible position that provides Israel with the effective tools to protect its citizens and win the war while also setting the proper moral limits that have to be met while legitimately securing its citizens. In debating the code, I heard many times that it imposes constraints upon Israeli action that would limit the capacity of the army to win the battle and to provide security. In fact, the moral constraints and the strategic goals are mutually reinforcing. Radical groups such as Hamas start their struggle with little support from their population, which tends to be more moderate. They increase their base of support cynically, by murdering Israeli civilians and thereby goading Israel into an overreaction (this is not to deny, of course, that Israel can choose not to overreact) in a way that ends up causing suffering to the Palestinian civilians among whom the militants take shelter. The death and the suffering of the civilian Palestinian population, in the short run, is a part of the Hamas strategy, since it increases the sympathy of the population with the movement’s aims. An Israeli overreaction also leads to the shattering of Israel’s moral legitimacy in its own struggle. In a democratic society with a citizen’s army, any erosion of the ethical foundation of its soldiers and its citizens is of immense political and strategic consequence.

And so, Israel’s goal in its struggle with Hamas and Hezbollah is to reverse their attempt to strengthen themselves politically by means of their morally bankrupt strategy. Rather than being drawn into a war of all against all and everywhere, Israel has sought to isolate the militants from their environment: to mark them and “clothe” them with a uniform, and to force them to a definite front. The moral restraints in this case are of great strategic value. I am convinced, for this reason, that targeted killing, especially of the militants’ leadership, is an effective and legitimate endeavor. It is for this same reason that I believe that Israel’s siege of Gaza, and its harsh effectupon general civilian life, is morally problematic and strategically counterproductive."
















Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can come on this board and scream out Israel is a criminal. Anyone. To discuss however what is actually happening with terrorists and the struggle the IDF has to go through when examining its conduct when dealing with terrorists is something none of these anti Israeli counter intelligence experts have a clue about.

In their world is black and white. Its all Israel's fault for existing. If Israel did not exist, the world would have no Muslim terrorists.

On this forum the word "exist" is couched, or replaced with the code word "occupy". If only Israel did not "occupy" becomes the code word amongst the anti Israelis nudge nudge wink wink for existence.

The dialogue is simple. We pretend the PA, Hamas, Hezbollah have no problems with Israel's existence. We ignore their charters and daily calls in their media, on their radio and TV's in their sham political assemblies of suited "members" calling for the destruction of not just Israel but Jews world wide as part of a greater Muslim battle for a world caliph council of Muslim clergy. Oh we just skip that. We pretend Abbas only has a problem with occupation nothing else. Hamas-hey now, they are misunderstood. They only dig holes and shoot missiles at Jews because he you know how Jews are when they insist on being a nation.

The diference is Hamas, Hezbollah, the PA, the countless other cells of Muslim terrorists don't think let alone try define or postulate as to what is acceptable behaviour.

They don't have moral codes, courts of law to hold Hamas or Hezbollah terrorists accountable for killing civilians as Israel does.

Well Israel you see does. The IDF code of ethics has three basic principles none of these anti Israelis has a clue about:



(same as above in the other post:  The Gildstone Illusion, by Moishe Halbertal, Bov. 6, 2009) 


n accordance with the just war tradition in Western history and philosophy, three principles are articulated in the IDF code concerning moral behavior in war. The first is the principle of necessity. It requires that force be used solely for the purposes of accomplishing the mission. If, for example, a soldier has to break down the door of a home in order to search for a suspected terrorist, he has no right to smash the TV set on his way in: Such gratuitous use of force has no relation to the mission. This is a straightforward principle, professionally and morally, though its implementation might be complicated if the mission is not well-articulated or if there are serious arguments about what kind of force is necessary to accomplish a given mission. In ordinary war, the collapse of the enemy’s army is a more or less clear event; but in an asymmetrical war, victory is never final--the mission seems not so much to end as to shift; and so it may be difficult to apply the necessity principle.

The second principle articulated in the code is the principle of distinction. It is an absolute prohibition on the intentional targeting of noncombatants. The intentional killing of innocent civilians is prohibited even in cases where such a policy might be effective in stopping terrorism. At the height of the violence in 2002, some suggested that the only deterrence against suicide bombers who wish to die anyway is the killing of their families. But such a policy is blatantly murderous, and it is prohibited. An Israeli soldier is prohibited from intentionally targeting noncombatants, and, in the event that he is given such an order, he must refuse it. He is obligated to engage in fighting only those who threaten his fellow soldiers and civilians.

The implementation of the principle of distinction is also very difficult in an asymmetrical war. Since the enemy does not appear in uniform and there is no specified zone that can be described as the battlefield, the question of who is a combatant becomes crucial. In the process of identifying combatants, a whole causal chain must be established and marked as a legitimate target. This “food chain” of terrorism is made up of people whose intentional actions, one after the other, will end up threatening Israeli civilians or soldiers. This chain includes the one who plans the attack, the one who recruits the bomber, the one who prepares the bomb, the driver of the car that transports the bomber to his or her target, and so on. It is clear that such an attempt gives rise to difficult cases, and even the most scrupulous effort will leave some room for doubt. What about the financer of the bombing, for example?

It is also clear that applying the international law of war to this new battlefield is fraught with problems. Consider a painful issue that comes up in the Goldstone Report--the matter of the Gaza police force. In the first minutes of the war, Israel targeted Hamas police, killing dozens. There is no question that, in an ordinary war, a police force that is dedicated to keeping the civilian peace is not a military target. The report therefore blames Israel for an intentional targeting of noncombatants. But such a charge is only valid concerning a war against a state with a clear and defined military institution, one that therefore practices a clear division of labor between the police and the army. What happens in semi-states that do not have an institutionalized army, whose armed forces are a militia loyal to the movement or party that seized power? In such situations, the police force might be just a way of putting combatants on the payroll of the state, while basically assigning them clear military roles. Israeli intelligence claims that it has clear proof that this was the case in Gaza. This is certainly something that Israel will have to clarify. But it is clear to me that Goldstone’s accusation that targeting of the police forces automatically constitutes an attack on noncombatants represents a gross misunderstanding of the nature of such a conflict.

The third principle,the most difficult of all, is the principle of proportionality, or the principle of avoidance. Its subject is the situation in which, while targeting combatants, it is foreseeable that noncombatants will be killed collaterally. In such a case, a proportionality test has to be enacted, according to which the foreseeable collateral death of civilians will beproportionate to the military advantage that will be achieved by eliminating the target. If an enemy sniper is situated on a roof, and 60 civilians live under the roof, and the only way to kill the sniper is to bomb the roof, which is to say, bomb the house, such bombing is prohibited. The military advantage in eliminating the sniper is disproportionate to the probable cost of civilian life.

In discussing the proportionality constraint, there emerges a natural pressure to provide an exact criterion for measuring the proper ratio between collateral deaths and military advantage. I must admit that I do not know the formula for such a precise calculation, and I do not believe that a clear-cut numerical rule can be established. Different people have different intuitions about strategic value and moral cost. And yet, the Israeli army has traditions and precedents that can be relied upon. In 2002, for example, Israel bombed the Gazan home of Salah Shehadeh, who was one of the main Hamas operatives responsible for the deaths of many Israeli civilians. Fourteen innocent people were killed along with Shehadeh. The Israeli chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, claimed that the collateral deaths were not only unintentional, they were not even foreseeable. The innocent people who were killed lived in shacks in the backyard of the building, which, in aerial photographs, looked like storage units. Yaalon claimed that, had Israel known about this collateral harm, it would not have bombed Shehadeh’s hiding place. It had already aborted such an operation a few times because of concern with foreseeable civilian death. I believe that such care is right. It is better to err on the side of over-cautiousness concerning collateral damage.

Besides the difficulties that are raised by the proportionality test, there is a far greater and more momentous issue at stake in the principle of avoidance. The IDF code states that soldiers have to do their utmost to avoid the harming of civilians. This principle states that it is not enough not to intend to kill civilians while attacking legitimate targets. A deliberate effort has to be made not to harm them. If such an active, positive effort to avoid civilian harm is not taken, in what serious way can the claim be made that the foreseeable death was unintended? After all, the death occurred, and could have been expected to occur. So the proper ammunition has to be chosen to minimize innocent deaths; and, if another opportunity is expected to arise for eliminating the target, the operation must be aborted or delayed. Civilians have to be warned ahead of time to move from the area of operation if this is possible, and units have to be well aware that they must operate with caution, even after warning has been given, since not all civilians are quick to move. A leaflet dropped from the sky warning of an attack does not matter to the people--the sick, the old, the poor--who are not immediately mobile.

In line with such principles, the Israeli Air Force developed the following tactic. Since Hamas hides its headquarters and ammunition storage facilities inside civilian residential areas, the Israeli army calls the residents’ telephones or cell phones, asking them to move immediately out of the house because an attack is imminent. But Hamas, in reaction to such calls, brings the innocent residents up to the roof, so as to protect the target from an attack, knowing that, as a rule, the Israeli army films the target with an unmanned drone and will avoid attacking the civilians on the roof. In response to this tactic, Israel developed a missile that hits the roof without causing any actual harm in order to show the seriousness of its intention. The procedure, called “roof-knocking,” causes the civilians to move away before the deadly attack.









Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person I have quoted who drafted the IDF Code of Conduct also stated:

It is my impression that the Israeli army in Gaza did not provide clear guidance on the matter of whether soldiers have to assume risk. Some units took risks in the Gaza in order to avoid the collateral killing of civilians, while some units accepted the policy of no risk to soldiers. This does not amount to a war crime, but it is a wrong policy. It also might be a cause of unnecessary civilian deaths: It could inspire a reason for a misguided order to shoot whoever crosses a certain line on the map in proximity to an Israeli unit. Given the fact that anyone in the battle zone could be a militant, and that warnings were given, such an order might make sense--and yet, the order should refer to someone who seems to pose a threat rather than to anyone who crosses the line, since fear and confusion might cause innocent civilians to move too close to the line and even to cross it.

These are not simple issues. They are also not political issues. They are the occasions of deep moral struggle, because they are matters of life and death. If you are looking for an understanding of these issues, or for guidance about them, in the Goldstone Report, you will not find it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a neutral person examines such issues they see no black and white, right and wrong. They can see however on this thread a blatant double standard when it comes to discussing Israel and the terrorists is forced to defend its people against. The excuse for the double standard is that Israel is expected to be ethical Hamas et al are not, a completely illogical and partisan excuse for blatant bias and it was that very bias that rendered the Gioldstone report a farse the the point where he denied Hamas using civilians as shields happened.


Here is what the person who drafted the code of conduct and the IDF struggled with:

In discussing the code of ethical conduct with Israeli officers, many times I encounter the following complaint: “Do you want to say that, before I open fire, I have to go through all these moral dilemmas and calculations? It will be completely paralyzing. Nobody can fight a war in such a straitjacket!” My answer to them is that the whole point of training is about performing well under pressure without succumbing to paralysis. This is the case with battlefields that have nothing to do with moral concerns. Do I attack from the right or from the left? How do I respond to this new tactic, or to that? And so on. This is why moral considerations have to be an essential part of military training. If there is no time for moral reflection in battle, then moral reflection must be accomplished before battle, and drilled into the soldiers who will have to answer for their actions after battle.

Besides the great difficulty of adjusting the norms of warfare--the principles of necessity, distinction, proportionality, and avoidance--to a non-traditional battlefield without uniforms and without a front, there is still another pedagogical challenge. In a traditional war, the difficult moral choices are made by the political elites and the high command, such as whether to bomb Dresden or to destroy Hiroshima. But in this new kind of micro-war, every soldier is a kind of commanding officer, a full moral and strategic agent. Every soldier must decide whether the individual standing before him in jeans and sneakers is a combatant or not. What sorts of risks must a soldier assume in order to avoid killing civilians while targeting a seeming combatant? The challenge is to make these rules part of the inner world of each soldier, and this takes more than just formulating the norms and the rules properly. It is for this reason that I looked to the Goldstone Report to learn whether these norms were in fact applied, and in what way Israeli soldiers did or did not succeed in internalizing and acting upon them.

The source for the above is the same as in the other posts I have provided.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah its nice to be an arm chair genius sitting in Canada, far removed from the war claiming to understand what it entails.

The fact is not one of these anti Israeli war crime experts has ventured out of their elitist kingdoms.

My frustration is in explaining what it is like to see terrorism first hand and to realize its not justifiable, its not understandable, its not the simplistic cause and effect reaction to ad policies some may think it is. Its about power, and how certain men want power by any means necessary and if that means killing their own children and civilians let al one Jewish ones, so be it. Its about not having any code of ethics, any sense of morality but one-might is right.

Civilians in both Gaza and the West Bank and Israel all suffer because of Hamas, Hezbollah, the PA and other terrorists who choose violence and war over peaceful dialogue.

Its easy to sit here and say what Israel should not do. Get one of these geniuses to explain what they would do if someone shot at them. Yah I know, They would

ask the person shooting at them, hey man, what's your root cause.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of Marcus et al, I would expect nothing but pat denial. However it does provide an excellent example of how far anti Israelis will go into denying what Israel is up against.

I would contend in the case of Marcus et al, there is no hiding the politically partisan, one sided focus and thus diatribes that provide no objective evidence, juyst subjective opinions and name calling.

However switching to the trendy left wing who jumped onto the pro Hamas, pro Hezbollah, terrorisms are simply misunderstood freedom fighters fighting bad (Zionist) Jews, I respond with these words from Daniel Pipes:

"Israel offers a control case. Because it faces so many threats, the body politic lacks patience with liberal pieties when it comes to security. While aspiring to treat everyone fairly, the government clearly targets the most violent-prone elements of society. Should other Western countries face acomparable danger, circumstances will likely compel them to adopt this same approach.

Conversely, should such mass dangers not arise, this shift will probably never take place. Until and unless disaster on a large scale strikes, denial will continue. Western tactics, in other words, depend entirely on the brutality and competence of the Islamist enemy. Ironically, the West permits terrorists to drive its approach to counterterrorism. No less ironically, it will take a huge terrorist atrocity to enable effective counterterrorism."

(source for the above:http://www.danielpipes.org/12604/islam-role-terror)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ask you to consider this when reading the constant diatribe of anti Jewish and anti Israel, anti-American, anti-Western threads and posts.

Since 9/11. there have been 28,135 terrorist attacks committed by Islamic Jihadists around the world.


How many attacks around the world have been carried out by Jews, Christians, Hindus, Siekhs, Bahaiis, Unitarians, Zoroastreans, atheists, Satanists, Druids,

since that time?


How is it on this forum the same anti Israeli posters have never once discussed the co-relation between Islamic extremist ideology which is at the very core of the anti Israeli beliefs and rhetoric you see on this forum and fuels the anti Zionist canards?


Why the blatant attempt to focus on Jews, Zionists, Israel, the holocaust as if those are the sources and causes of the conflicts we see in the Middle East?


Why the blatant attempts when not blaming Jews to blame the "West" or "Americans" and not discuss the role of Islamic extremism?


Here are articles on the above topic you can bet the anti Israeli entourage will not raise when accusing Israel, the US r the West of evil:









Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much bandwidth has been wasted in talking about Goldstone and a report that was never withdrawn. 

Let's discuss another Israeli war crime: The Illegal Jewish Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Here is a part of the post that some would prefer to drown out with long winded posts and propaganda links:

The settler colonialists have once again decided to steal more land, against the wishes of the country that recently gifted them a record $38bn worth of military assistance over the next 10-year period--the largest such gift ever by the US tax payers --with which Zionists can maim and murder more Palestinians more effectively.

Some think that Obama will leave with a bang and take action against the rogue state --something other presidents never dared to do:

The very harsh tone of the statement has fueled speculation that the US may support an anti-settlement resolution in the UN Security Council.

Using unusually sharp language, and citing both the recently signed military aid package and Shimon Peres’s death, the US State Department on Wednesday slammed Israel’s intention to build homes in the Shiloh settlement, located in Samaria, as a possible site to relocate 40 families from the Amona outpost.

“We strongly condemn the Israeli government’s recent decision to advance a plan that would create a significant new settlement deep in the West Bank,” 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2016‎-‎10‎-‎08 at 0:18 PM, GostHacked said:

I sure did not quote Goldstone.  Not sure what ass you are pulling that out of.

I in fact said you "joined in the first of these threads quoting Goldstone at that time as the basis of your allegations (against Israel). The first of the threads can be found with "Naomi Glover". I never said you quoted Goldstone, I said you joined in with the anti Israelis relying on this report. I don't know what happened to her or Bud or so many others who started on this forum spewing anti Jewish comments then left. I have no idea of knowing whether they have resurfaced with new names on this forum either.

Please don't play semantics with me. You are well aware you  don't have to quote the report to agree with it given what else you've said and joined in on.

|By the way since you do want to pose as being misquoted by me may I  specificially quote your words from post 92, in the the thread "Does Israel Have The Right To Exist", when you stated :

"Regardless of everything, there is still a decent Jewish population on this planet. They did not survive by being weak or stupid. Manipulative and coercive, sure. But they are not weak or stupid. "

I go by your comments and the timing of your comments.

You want to play victim of a misquote as your position,  please  finish it, repudiate the Goldstone report but don't play victim of misstatement. Its tiresome. You are no victim. You are anti Israeli in view, and anti Jewish in stereotype as spoken on this and other threads.

Please get back to me when you start a thread  to explain how saying Jews are manipulative and coercive doesn't mean you are anti Jewish and anti Israeli.\

I challenge such statements as I do this thread for the same reason-to bring light to the hatred behind these comments and how they fuel the threads..

Oh but please feel free to clarify as to how calling Jews coercive and manipulative is not hateful and is logical discourse and does not fuel your sentiments and comments about all Jews and Israelis.. Please feel free to do that after you repudiate the Goldstone report.









Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Rue said:

Lol. Change the subject because you can't prove any war crimes?

Don't care what name you use with me, the fizzle comes through loud and clear



You go ahead and debate something that didn't happen. It's typical for Zionist propagandists to create an alternate universe in the face of facts just because the facts crushes a false image of Israel they so desperately try to create. 

Israel is no different than the Syrian government that indiscriminatory kill civilians in the name of killing militants/terrorists. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus Goldstone did in fact repudiate his report. Its public knowledge. There's no alternative universe where it happened.,

Unlike you I do more then come on the board and make unsubstantiated allegations that I can't prove.

Until you provide evidence to back up your continual allegations, you have no credibility, no substance-just you name calling.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Rue said:

Until you provide evidence to back up your continual allegations, you have no credibility, no substance-just you name calling.

The evidence is that neither Goldstone or the UN have withdrawn the report. Meaning that your allegation that Goldstone withdrew the report is simply not true. 

Israel continuously commit war crimes with their actions against Palestinians and others around them. From their one-sided attacks on Gaza to the illegal annexation of Palestinian land and transferring of Jewish Israelis into Palestinian land.  

Edited by marcus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2016 at 10:42 PM, Rue said:

The fact is you, Dre, Eye, Big Guy Ghost, Cactus, Hudson Jones,  all joined in the first of these threads quoting Goldstone and at that time


Why do you feel so compelled to lie rue? Just like GH whom you have mentioned I have neve said anything about Goldstone report! I have noticed whenever you go under pressure to come up with a valid couner-argument you go on a ranting mode to name call everyone you disagree with as if by exposing them falsely will give you  a validity in your argument...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
  • Recent Achievements

    • exPS went up a rank
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...