[wat0n]

Almost all of the attacks have killed or injured innocent civilians

Not really, the figures as quoted above don't support this claim. But if you think you can find other figures, please, be my guest

and they are targeting innocent civilians.

That is you assumption, which you haven't been able to prove. Neither did Solastalgia for that matter

Genocide does not have to be a stated goal either. Mind you remember that the gas chambers in Germany was a secret until the war was over.

Yet it also included official government propaganda calling for the extermination of the Jews.

The ethnic cleansing has completely stunted the growth of Palestinian demographics.

The Palestinian population has grown steadily for decades now, and if anything Palestinians have increased their share of the overall population in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Under a genocide it should, you know, actually decrease in absolute terms or at least in relative ones.

[U185]

Speaking of human shields the Israelis are known to use Palestinians as human shields.

The Mission received allegations that in two areas in north Gaza Israeli troops used Palestinian men as human shields… The Mission found the foregoing witnesses to be credible and reliable. It has no reason to doubt the veracity of their accounts and found that the different stories serve to support the allegation that Palestinians were used as human shields.

Not really, the figures as quoted above don't support this claim. But if you think you can find other figures, please, be my guest

That is you assumption, which you haven't been able to prove. Neither did Solastalgia for that matter

The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian people and the conflict it produces has in the past week taken on a horror-film aspect, as reprisal killings against children and teens have proliferated. But these killings and clashes did not begin with the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli youth a week ago Rather, Israel itself has a long history of capturing and sometimes of killing Palestinian children and youth. In all the ideology and ethnic rancor, it is important to remember we are talking about real human beings here, not statistics. And above all, real, cute, children and teenagers, who aren’t there any more, leaving a hole and an ache in the hearts of parents and of whole peoples.

It was predictable that the far rightwing Israeli government’s massive land theft and push to settle squatters on Palestinian land, and its torpedoing of John Kerry’s peace initiative, would produce another round of violence. While Palestinian militants also bear some blame, the lion’s share of responsibility here rests with the Likud Party and its often even more rabid coalition partners.

Although the two populations are about the same size– 6.1 million Israeli Jews and roughly 6.1 million Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza– the Israelis kill and detain many times more Palestinians than the reverse. Since January of 2009, Israelis have killed 575 Palestinians, while Palestinians have killed 28 Israelis. The Israeli narrative is that Palestinians are violent and Jews are victims, but this statistical result undermines that narrative, indeed, reverses it. Turns out Palestinians are mostly victims and Israelis often behave thuggishly toward them. Israelis point to thousands of small rockets coming out of Gaza in the past decade, but neglect to mention that they mostly don’t hit anything and have caused only a small number of deaths. They don’t go on to recognize that Israeli jets routinely bomb Palestinians in Gaza and they really do kill people with their thousands of bombing raids– lots of people, mainly non-combatants and including significant numbers of children.

The news that Palestinian Muhammad Abu Khdeir, age 16, was kidnapped from his father’s shop in East Jerusalem and then doused with gasoline (including in his mouth) and then set on fire and burned alive (presumably by militant Israeli squatters on Palestinian land) is just as creepy as last week’s horror story about the killing of three Israeli youth by, presumably, Palestinian militants (though there is no evidence Hamas in specific was behind it).

Then the Israeli police compounded things by arresting Abu Khdeir’s cousin Tareq, an American who whose trip to Palestine was a reward for earning straight A’s. Israeli police beat and stomped on him so badly his own mother called him “unrecognizable.”

Here are some numbers, Harper’s style, to put these events in context:

Number of Palestinian children Israel has arrested since 2010: 3,000

Palestinian children arrested, detained and prosecuted in the Israeli military detention system each year: 500-700

Percentage of these arrested Palestinian children who have been subjected to physical abuse and/or torture: 75%

Percentage of arrested Palestinian children who face Israeli military trials: 25%

Number of Palestinian children killed by Israelis since 2000: 1,500

Number of Israeli children killed by Palestinians since 2000: 132

Number of Palestinian children now in Israeli jails: 200

1,500 Palestinian children compared to 132 Israeli children. That means Israel has killed over 1,000% more Palestinian children than vice versa. Targeted innocent children is an Israeli practice.

The Israeli army is both respected and feared as a fighting force. But now the country's military is facing a backlash at home and abroad for its treatment of children in the West Bank, occupied territory.

Coming up, a joint investigation by Four Corners and The Australian newspaper reveals evidence that shows the army is targeting Palestinian boys for arrest and detention. Reporter John Lyons travels to the West Bank to hear the story of children who claim they have been taken into custody, ruthlessly questioned and then allegedly forced to sign confessions before being taken to court for sentencing.

He meets Australian lawyer Gerard Horton, who's trying to help the boys who are arrested, and talks to senior Israeli officials to examine what's driving the army's strategy.

The program focuses on the stories of three boys. In two cases the army came for the children in the middle of the night, before taking them to unknown locations where they are questioned. A mother of one of the boys described the scene:

"Every soldier stood at the door of a room. I was telling him 'What do you want with him?' He said 'Shut up woman.' And then they started hitting him and pulling him out of bed."

"They started kicking me with their boots in my stomach, slaps on my face. They pulled me up by my t-shirt and took me out of bed." Arrested boy

Is this, as many Israelis suggest, simply part of the drive to maintain security? Or is it, as Palestinians claim, part of a much wider plan to make life in the West Bank intolerable for them?

"I think that they want to kick us out of here and drive us away because they don't want Arabs in this area."

It's a claim that's dismissed out of hand by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

"Let me say this very clearly. There is no such policy. A policy to create fear? There is no such thing. The only policy is to maintain law and order, that's all. If there's no violence, there's no law enforcement." Yigal Palmor

The United Nations children's agency (UNICEF) has been investigating these claims and last year released a scathing report finding that "children have been threatened with death, physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault."

As Four Corners discovered, though, Palestinian children have more to fear than the Israeli army. Reporter John Lyons shows clear evidence that Israeli settlers in the West Bank regularly attack Palestinian school children, knowing the authorities will not intervene. He also discovers there are two legal systems operating. One for Israeli children and one for young Palestinians. It's an impossible situation that may provide temporary security for Israel, but in the long term may well breed a new generation of Palestinians prepared to do anything to gain retribution.

This 71-page report provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government.

You can download the report in the link provided.

Here’s how the relationship between Israel and Gaza works: successive “cease-fires” are repeatedly adopted and continuously violated, leading more often to skirmishes than to lulls in violence. Israel bombs Gaza with airstrikes, Gaza shoots rockets into Israel. Then a new “cease-fire” is imposed.

If you were to ask anyone, from a casual observer to a ‘well-informed’ media commentator, which side violates the ceasefires more often, they would almost surely say Gaza. The newspapers and network news media constantly inform the American people when a rocket is hurled from Gaza into Israel. Both Israeli and American politicians cite this phenomenon in speeches and press conferences to justify Israel’s continuing economic blockade of Gaza, among other things. With regard to the Gaza situation, practically all we hear about is rockets.

In an ongoing study of violence between Israel and Gaza, The Jerusalem Fund, a non-profit in Washington, D.C., has catalogued cease-fire violations on either side. The principal finding is as follows: “Palestinian launches have been rare and sporadic and occurred almost always after successive instances of Israeli cease-fire violations.” Despite this, in the diplomacy on Mid-East peace, we invariably hear about Israel’s security concerns, while that of the Palestinians’ is hardly mentioned.

Here is a graph of the findings:



Yousef Munayyer, Executive Director of The Jerusalem Fund, explains how it typically works: Israel can “fire into Gaza without accountability, provoke a reaction and then claim self-defense.” See here for his explanation of the methodology.

I have written about previous cases in which Israel breaks the cease-fire with bombings, shootings, or territorial incursions, and then uses the retaliation from Gaza as a justification to launch a deeper bombing campaign here and here.

Israel violates the cease-fires more often, bombs Gaza more times than Gaza rockets Israel, and kills more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis. But these findings are not what is striking. What is striking about this is that almost everybody believes the opposite of the reality. Here’s Munayyer with more on that:

So how have these cease-fire dynamics been covered? We’ve tracked New York Times coverage of the cease-fire during this period. The New York Times is representative of the mainstream and extremely important for shaping public discourse on events and thus an important window into broader mainstream coverage. The Times also has multiple reporters covering these events including a bureau in Jerusalem and a correspondent in Gaza. Finally, we simply can’t track everything so the Times, with its easily searchable history, is an effective example to use.

Of the nearly 120 Israeli cease-fire violations during this period the New York Times reported on 17 of them. Additionally, most of these stories (eleven) came either during the first week of the cease-fire, when the issue was still fresh in readers’ minds, or since the escalation on December 20th. That means for the bulk of this period, during which Israel committed 87 cease-fire violations and causing some 91 Palestinian casualties over nearly a one year period there were only six stories on the topic. This represents a systematic failure to cover Israeli cease-fire violations.

Making matters worse is the way events are covered in the rare instances they are covered. In most cases, Israeli actions are described as a response to Palestinian actions. So while most Israeli cease-fire violations are not covered at all, those that are are explained as justified retaliation. Thus the reader is completely misled about the dynamics of fire, why the cease-fire is threatened and exactly what is going on in and around Gaza.

The biggest challenge to the cease-fire agreement is persistent Israeli violation and the lack of any accountability for them. The politics of the Gaza Strip are complex. Israel says it wants Hamas to control projectile fire from other factions and yet it persistently violates the truce putting Hamas in a position of having to defend Israel’s violations. By targeting groups other than Hamas and by expecting Hamas to crack down on their responses, Israel is playing a dangerous and deadly game of divide and conquer in Gaza that will likely lead to the unraveling of the cease-fire. Once again, Israel has proven security is not its aim, subjugation is.

Defending the Holy Land:

most of the wars in which Israel was involved were the result of deliberate Israeli aggressive design . None of these wars – with the possible exception of the 1948 War of independence – was what Israel refers to as Milhemet Ein Berah (war of necessity). They were all wars of choice.

I review a number of peace-related opportunities ranging from the Zionist-Hashemite collusion in 1947 through the collapse of the Oslo Process in 2000. In all those cases I find that Israeli decision makers – who had been willing to embark upon bold and daring military adventures – were extremely reluctant to make even the smallest concessions for peace . I also find in many cases Israel was engaged in systematic violations of agreements and tacit understandings between itself and its neighbors.

The number of West Bank settler housing starts grew by 132 percent in the first three quarters of this year, compared with the same time period in 2012, while the number of finished homes rose by only 1.2%, according to data published Thursday by the Central Bureau of Statistics.

The pace of settler construction differs markedly from the rest of the country, which registered 5.5% growth in housing starts in the first three quarters of this year compared with the same period in 2012, and 12.4% growth in the number of finished units.

Work began on 2,159 new homes in the first nine months of this year, compared with the ground that was broken for 928 units in that same period in 2012.

The growth spurt restores the number of settler housing starts to a level similar to that which existed prior to the 10 month moratorium on such units – imposed on the West Bank from November 2009 to September 2010.

The moratorium created an immediate 64% drop in the number of housing starts that fell from 1,963 units in 2009 to 737 starts in 2010. They later rose to 1,109 units in 2011 and 1,122 units in 2012, but still lagged far behind the pre-moratorium building – in 2008, there were 2,332 housing starts.

If the number of housing starts continues at a similar pace in the last quarter of 2013 then the total annual figure could be the highest it’s been in over a decade.

Yet the rate of growth has been slowing down, dropping in each quarter of 2013: from 967 starts in the first quarter to 692 in the second quarter to 500 in the third quarter.

The number of finished homes in the West Bank settlements has been more constant, with 1,601 units completed in 2008, 2,071 in 2009, 1,670 in 2010 and 1,682 in 2011.

There was a 24% drop in 2012, with the completion of 1,271 homes.

This year 256 homes were finished in the first quarter, 410 in the second and 403 in the third, for a total of 1,069 completed units in 2013.

It is a 1.2% increase over last year, in which 1,056 homes were finished in West Bank settlements in the first three quarters of 2012.

Yet it also included official government propaganda calling for the extermination of the Jews.

That's not the truth.

[wat0n]

Speaking of human shields the Israelis are known to use Palestinians as human shields.

Indeed, they have done it in the past and it is just as condemnable as when Hamas does it.

But it seems that while Zionists can actually acknowledge Israeli wrongdoing, anti-Zionists cannot acknowledge Hamas' wrongs.

You can download the report in the link provided.

That doesn't really prove anything. Palestinians have more children than the Israelis, Palestinian minors do tend to engage in actions against Israel and, as the HRW report I posted shows, attacks against Israel do occur from civilian areas.

That explains why, exactly, 45-58% of the Palestinians killed by Israel since the Second Intifada were civilians while 68% of the Israelis killed by Palestinians in the same period were civilians according to BTselem [1][2][3].

Here’s how the relationship between Israel and Gaza works: successive “cease-fires” are repeatedly adopted and continuously violated, leading more often to skirmishes than to lulls in violence. Israel bombs Gaza with airstrikes, Gaza shoots rockets into Israel. Then a new “cease-fire” is imposed.

If you were to ask anyone, from a casual observer to a ‘well-informed’ media commentator, which side violates the ceasefires more often, they would almost surely say Gaza. The newspapers and network news media constantly inform the American people when a rocket is hurled from Gaza into Israel. Both Israeli and American politicians cite this phenomenon in speeches and press conferences to justify Israel’s continuing economic blockade of Gaza, among other things. With regard to the Gaza situation, practically all we hear about is rockets.

In an ongoing study of violence between Israel and Gaza, The Jerusalem Fund, a non-profit in Washington, D.C., has catalogued cease-fire violations on either side. The principal finding is as follows: “Palestinian launches have been rare and sporadic and occurred almost always after successive instances of Israeli cease-fire violations.” Despite this, in the diplomacy on Mid-East peace, we invariably hear about Israel’s security concerns, while that of the Palestinians’ is hardly mentioned.

Here is a graph of the findings:



Yousef Munayyer, Executive Director of The Jerusalem Fund, explains how it typically works: Israel can “fire into Gaza without accountability, provoke a reaction and then claim self-defense.” See here for his explanation of the methodology.

I have written about previous cases in which Israel breaks the cease-fire with bombings, shootings, or territorial incursions, and then uses the retaliation from Gaza as a justification to launch a deeper bombing campaign here and here.

Israel violates the cease-fires more often, bombs Gaza more times than Gaza rockets Israel, and kills more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis. But these findings are not what is striking. What is striking about this is that almost everybody believes the opposite of the reality. Here’s Munayyer with more on that:

So how have these cease-fire dynamics been covered? We’ve tracked New York Times coverage of the cease-fire during this period. The New York Times is representative of the mainstream and extremely important for shaping public discourse on events and thus an important window into broader mainstream coverage. The Times also has multiple reporters covering these events including a bureau in Jerusalem and a correspondent in Gaza. Finally, we simply can’t track everything so the Times, with its easily searchable history, is an effective example to use.

Of the nearly 120 Israeli cease-fire violations during this period the New York Times reported on 17 of them. Additionally, most of these stories (eleven) came either during the first week of the cease-fire, when the issue was still fresh in readers’ minds, or since the escalation on December 20th. That means for the bulk of this period, during which Israel committed 87 cease-fire violations and causing some 91 Palestinian casualties over nearly a one year period there were only six stories on the topic. This represents a systematic failure to cover Israeli cease-fire violations.

Making matters worse is the way events are covered in the rare instances they are covered. In most cases, Israeli actions are described as a response to Palestinian actions. So while most Israeli cease-fire violations are not covered at all, those that are are explained as justified retaliation. Thus the reader is completely misled about the dynamics of fire, why the cease-fire is threatened and exactly what is going on in and around Gaza.

The biggest challenge to the cease-fire agreement is persistent Israeli violation and the lack of any accountability for them. The politics of the Gaza Strip are complex. Israel says it wants Hamas to control projectile fire from other factions and yet it persistently violates the truce putting Hamas in a position of having to defend Israel’s violations. By targeting groups other than Hamas and by expecting Hamas to crack down on their responses, Israel is playing a dangerous and deadly game of divide and conquer in Gaza that will likely lead to the unraveling of the cease-fire. Once again, Israel has proven security is not its aim, subjugation is.

I remember that study. It didn't really consider instances in which Israel carried out preemptive strikes against Palestinians on their way to launch rockets or Palestinians building tunnels into Israeli territory as Palestinian violations of the ceasefire, even if they clearly were.

most of the wars in which Israel was involved were the result of deliberate Israeli aggressive design . None of these wars – with the possible exception of the 1948 War of independence – was what Israel refers to as Milhemet Ein Berah (war of necessity). They were all wars of choice.

I review a number of peace-related opportunities ranging from the Zionist-Hashemite collusion in 1947 through the collapse of the Oslo Process in 2000. In all those cases I find that Israeli decision makers – who had been willing to embark upon bold and daring military adventures – were extremely reluctant to make even the smallest concessions for peace . I also find in many cases Israel was engaged in systematic violations of agreements and tacit understandings between itself and its neighbors.

So the Yom Kippur War was started by Israel now?

The number of West Bank settler housing starts grew by 132 percent in the first three quarters of this year, compared with the same time period in 2012, while the number of finished homes rose by only 1.2%, according to data published Thursday by the Central Bureau of Statistics.

The pace of settler construction differs markedly from the rest of the country, which registered 5.5% growth in housing starts in the first three quarters of this year compared with the same period in 2012, and 12.4% growth in the number of finished units.

Work began on 2,159 new homes in the first nine months of this year, compared with the ground that was broken for 928 units in that same period in 2012.

The growth spurt restores the number of settler housing starts to a level similar to that which existed prior to the 10 month moratorium on such units – imposed on the West Bank from November 2009 to September 2010.

The moratorium created an immediate 64% drop in the number of housing starts that fell from 1,963 units in 2009 to 737 starts in 2010. They later rose to 1,109 units in 2011 and 1,122 units in 2012, but still lagged far behind the pre-moratorium building – in 2008, there were 2,332 housing starts.

If the number of housing starts continues at a similar pace in the last quarter of 2013 then the total annual figure could be the highest it’s been in over a decade.

Yet the rate of growth has been slowing down, dropping in each quarter of 2013: from 967 starts in the first quarter to 692 in the second quarter to 500 in the third quarter.

The number of finished homes in the West Bank settlements has been more constant, with 1,601 units completed in 2008, 2,071 in 2009, 1,670 in 2010 and 1,682 in 2011.

There was a 24% drop in 2012, with the completion of 1,271 homes.

This year 256 homes were finished in the first quarter, 410 in the second and 403 in the third, for a total of 1,069 completed units in 2013.

It is a 1.2% increase over last year, in which 1,056 homes were finished in West Bank settlements in the first three quarters of 2012.

I'm not sure of what you are trying to say here. I agree though that Israel should stop building settlements, though Hamas isn't really fighting Israel because of that.

That's not the truth.

Do I really need to bother on Nazi anti-semitism?

[U185]

Indeed, they have done it in the past and it is just as condemnable as when Hamas does it.

But it seems that while Zionists can actually acknowledge Israeli wrongdoing, anti-Zionists cannot acknowledge Hamas' wrongs.

Israel uses human shields. Deflecting and bringing up the propaganda line that Hamas does it too is disingenuous.

That doesn't really prove anything.

I was talking about this.

This 71-page report provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government.

The the report can be found in the link. It's a pdf file.

Palestinians have more children than the Israelis, Palestinian minors do tend to engage in actions against Israel and, as the HRW report I posted shows, attacks against Israel do occur from civilian areas.

Because of the dense population there is nowhere else to launch the useless attacks. It shows that Israel is intentionally targeting Palestinian children.

I remember that study. It didn't really consider instances in which Israel carried out preemptive strikes against Palestinians on their way to launch rockets or Palestinians building tunnels into Israeli territory as Palestinian violations of the ceasefire, even if they clearly were.

Great rationalizing to try to defend Israel.

So the Yom Kippur War was started by Israel now?

Can't provide a source or a counter argument?

I'm not sure of what you are trying to say here. I agree though that Israel should stop building settlements, though Hamas isn't really fighting Israel because of that.

You are not sure? Israeli settlers kick out and abuse Palestinians. It's pretty clear cut. Hamas is not fighting Israel because of that? That's news to me.

Do I really need to bother on Nazi anti-semitism?

I'm not denying that the Nazi's were anti-Semitic but they were not open about exterminating Jews. They tried to keep that as much of a secret as possible. Deportation and relocating Jews is the line they pushed.

[wat0n]

Israel uses human shields. Deflecting and bringing up the propaganda line that Hamas does it too is disingenuous.

Not at all, particularly since this thread is about the use of human shields by Hamas, which it does even according to Human Rights Watch.

I was talking about this.

I addessed this on the other thread. But anyway, it would be illegal if WP was used to hit people (including combatants BTW). If it was used as a flare, for example, it is legal if done in open areas though its legality in this case is not clear as HRW et. al. argue it should be illegal to do so in urban areas but there is no prior legal precedent on the matter AFAIK.

It should be noted that NATO members use the same munitions acording to HRW as I showed in the other thread.

Because of the dense population there is nowhere else to launch the useless attacks. It shows that Israel is intentionally targeting Palestinian children.

Hamas can launch rockets from rural areas within Gaza. Yes, there are rural areas in the Gaza Strip in case you didn't know.

Great rationalizing to try to defend Israel.

So, Israel should let them launch the rocket to keep you happy?

Can't provide a source or a counter argument?

It is common knowledge that the war started as a surprise attack against Israel.

You are not sure? Israeli settlers kick out and abuse Palestinians.

They are not the IDF.

It's pretty clear cut. Hamas is not fighting Israel because of that? That's news to me.

Then you should read their statements regarding their goals. What about that?

I'm not denying that the Nazi's were anti-Semitic but they were not open about exterminating Jews. They tried to keep that as much of a secret as possible. Deportation and relocating Jews is the line they pushed.

Because they totally didn't have an ideology that called for the Jews' removal. Okay

[Solastalgia]

Are you suggesting Common Dreams is not an anti-Zionist source?

The only thing I was suggesting about Common Dreams is that it doesn't have a stake in this fight the way that your IDF official propaganda outlet has. The only Common Dreams citation in here was to the four boys being killed the other day by the IDF. If that makes CD an anti-Zionist outlet, then I guess all major media is anti-Zionist as well.

Of course I'm talking hypothetically, the school was probably not used in a normal setting but this is not a normal setting, you know.

You simply cannot provide a report of an abandoned school being used to house munitions, and then say that it proves Hamas uses occupied schools. Just because you hypothetically think that can happen because they used an abandoned school, doesn't mean anything. I don't recognize your hypothetical here at all.

And you will still pretend that the evidence I've posted suggests Palestinian armed groups won't really hesitate to use houses if they need to.

No, you are simply being pedantic here as I've made my case even by restricting myself to sources you like.

I don't "pretend", I straight up told you, that your evidence of firing from the grounds of a power plant, and storing munitions in an abandoned school doesn't mean that Hamas has used houses to do the same thing. Your idea that this evidence proves that Hamas wouldn't hesitate to use a house doesn't mean a thing. I asked you from the beginning, to provide some proof of Hamas using a house, and instead you provide examples of a power plants grounds being used to fire rockets from, and an abandoned school to store munitions. Why do you expect me to then agree that Hamas definitely uses houses, because of those two examples?

I'm not being pedantic in taking that stance...That fact that you even think that, shows that you really don't even know what pedantic means. You're mistake here is not just some little thing. Also, you haven't made your case by restricting yourself to sources that I like. You've sourced to the IDF official propaganda outlet, which is not a source I like at all, for this conflict.

I don't think I said ALL civilian casualties are because of the dual use civilian infrastructure is getting. I did say however that its use may explain at least a fraction of them.

I'd even go as far as to say that maybe most can be explained due to that.

Oh, give me a break. First it's not all, then it's a fraction, and now it's most. The bottom line here, is that when Zionists like you, constantly argue the dual use of civilian infrastructure, you're implying (whether you realize it or not) that almost all civilian casualties are due to this. Now, you even admit, that you think most may be due to this, without any proof whatsoever. I'm not even going to ask you for proof now, because you'll just provide a couple examples that aren't even actually proof of this, just as you've done already.

Goldstone himself disavowed the report in 2011.

Yeah, after buckling under political pressure from Israel constantly berating him, he wrote an op-ed that didn't cite any facts, whatsoever. All of the other co-authors of the report, rejected his new unsubstantiated stance, and wrote their own op-ed in response to it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nt-un-gaza

We concur in our view that there is no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report as nothing of substance has appeared that would in any way change the context, findings or conclusions of that report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict. Indeed, there is no UN procedure or precedent to that effect.

We consider that calls to reconsider or even retract the report, as well as attempts at misrepresenting its nature and purpose, disregard the right of victims, Palestinian and Israeli, to truth and justice. They also ignore the responsibility of the relevant parties under international law to conduct prompt, thorough, effective and independent investigations. We regret the personal attacks and the extraordinary pressure placed on members of the fact-finding mission since we began our work in May 2009. This campaign has been clearly aimed at undermining the integrity of the report and its authors. Had we given in to pressures from any quarter to sanitise our conclusions, we would be doing a serious injustice to the hundreds of innocent civilians killed during the Gaza conflict, the thousands injured, and the hundreds of thousands whose lives continue to be deeply affected by the conflict and the blockade.

And yet you still haven't proven the Dahiya doctrine is being applied in the current round.

You are simply assuming it is.

The Dahiya doctrine is never proven to be used in the middle of a conflict. It takes massive fact finding missions, and reports put together and presented after the dust has settled, to determine whether or not the dahiyda doctrine was used, as it has in the past.

And yet it does suggest that there could be rockets in occupied schools, particularly if they were placed there before the current round of violence began.

I'm sorry, but providing an example of an abandoned school being used to house munitions, does not suggest that there's rockets in occupied schools.

I know you will insist it is insufficient, however, as you are unable to admit you are wrong. But I don't find it surprising coming from someone who consdiers a bullshit blog like Common Dreams to be an objective, reliable source

It is insufficient! Anyone reading this, can see that. You simply cannot say that because there was munitions stored in an abandoned school, that therefore there must be rockets in an occupied school. You also cannot say that because you found an example of rockets being fired from the grounds of a power plant, that this shows Hamas is willing to fire from a civilian's house. This isn't about me, being unable to admit being wrong. This is about you, being unable to admit when you're wrong.

Also, again, Common Dreams is not a blog (let a lone bullshit), as it's one of the most well-respected progressive independent non-profit news outlets out there, that's been around for close to 20 years. There's a big difference between that, and you and dcomplex's Zionist little blogspots and wordpresses with the quotes from Israeli intelligence.

Also, I never said that Common Dreams is objective. If you knew my stance on media (which is similar to Greenwald's) I don't think any media or journalist is objective. I already told you that Common Dreams is a progressive news outlet. But regardless, I didn't cite an opinion piece from them, I cited their reporting of the four boys killed by the IDF, which all other major media outlets reported on, as well.

The HRW and plenty of evidence show Palestinian militias don't really have any qualms on firing from populated areas, thus exposing even neighboring houses to danger and can help to explain some of the civilian casualties. In fact, the HRW report and the UNRWA school case also show that those rockets can be stored or fired from civilian buildings as well.

It's not necessarily the case, that they have no qualms with firing from populated areas. It's that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on the planet. So there's obviously bound to be militias firing from populated areas, no matter what. You say this is exposing civilian neighbors to being collateral damage, but then why are homes being directly bombed? Israel has pretty precise munitions. What gives?

Sure, some civilian causalities are collateral damage, being too close to military installments. But what about the rest of these families who are bombed in their own homes?

No, it seems you are way too keen on disregarding the evidence you don't like as it undermines your narrative that the IDF is so obviously targeting Palestinian civilians and that civilian casualties can be so obviously explained by this, even when it comes from sources you approve of.

I'm disregarding the evidence? No, you simply haven't provided the evidence. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain to you that just because you show an example of rockets being fired from a power plant, doesn't mean that they're being fired from houses (as you ask me to accept). Just because you show an example of munitions being stored in an abandoned school, doesn't mean they're also in occupied schools (as you ask me to accept). Do you not understand that you're drawing conclusions that aren't supported by your evidence. You said earlier that your evidence (of the power plant and abandoned school) suggests that Hamas uses houses to store and fire munitions from. But it doesn't. So if anyone is disregarding the evidence here, it is you, sir. You disregard the evidence and draw bogus conclusions from it to support your own narrative.

Since the beginning of this thread, I asked you to provide evidence of a house being used to store and/or fire munitions from. You provided evidence that doesn't prove this (power plant's grounds and abandoned school), and then have the gall to say that I'm disregarding the evidence. Anyone reading this, can understand this.

And then you have the nerve to call other people pedantic

Yes, redcarpet making a huge four-post fuss over the label of a video, that wasn't really mislabeled at all, but could be misinterpreted due to not the most precise wording, was being pedantic. You, calling me pedantic for not accepting your bullshit conclusions from evidence that doesn't support your argument, is not being pedantic. Again, you show that you don't even know what pedantic means, and that you're just throwing it at me as an empty insult.

[wat0n]

The only thing I was suggesting about Common Dreams is that it doesn't have a stake in this fight the way that your IDF official propaganda outlet has. The only Common Dreams citation in here was to the four boys being killed the other day by the IDF. If that makes CD an anti-Zionist outlet, then I guess all major media is anti-Zionist as well.

You are evading the point. You are saying Zionist blogs should not be used because of their editorial line (and thus bias), yet in this case you take CD as objective despite its anti-Israel stance.

You simply cannot provide a report of an abandoned school being used to house munitions, and then say that it proves Hamas uses occupied schools. Just because you hypothetically think that can happen because they used an abandoned school, doesn't mean anything. I don't recognize your hypothetical here at all.

It proves some Palestinian groups do use civilian infrastructure, however, and that includes ones that could be occupied as well.

I don't "pretend", I straight up told you, that your evidence of firing from the grounds of a power plant, and storing munitions in an abandoned school doesn't mean that Hamas has used houses to do the same thing. Your idea that this evidence proves that Hamas wouldn't hesitate to use a house doesn't mean a thing. I asked you from the beginning, to provide some proof of Hamas using a house, and instead you provide examples of a power plants grounds being used to fire rockets from, and an abandoned school to store munitions. Why do you expect me to then agree that Hamas definitely uses houses, because of those two examples?

I'm not being pedantic in taking that stance...That fact that you even think that, shows that you really don't even know what pedantic means. You're mistake here is not just some little thing. Also, you haven't made your case by restricting yourself to sources that I like. You've sourced to the IDF official propaganda outlet, which is not a source I like at all, for this conflict.

I expect you to agree that civilian casualties can be explained, at least in part, by rocket fire from urbanized areas and by the dual use of civilian infrastructure by Palestinian militias, and that as such you are in no position to assume that Israel is targeting civilians based on what we know alone.

If you don't think most of them can be explained by it, it's OK and we'll agree to disagree as long as you admit the issue needs to be further investigated.

Oh, give me a break. First it's not all, then it's a fraction, and now it's most. The bottom line here, is that when Zionists like you, constantly argue the dual use of civilian infrastructure, you're implying (whether you realize it or not) that almost all civilian casualties are due to this. Now, you even admit, that you think most may be due to this, without any proof whatsoever.

I'm not really implying anything besides the fact that you cannot really assume intent based on casualties alone, in light of the evidence I have provided to you. Will you admit this, at last?

Yeah, after buckling under political pressure from Israel constantly berating him, he wrote an op-ed that didn't cite any facts, whatsoever, to back his new position. All of the other co-authors rejected his new unsubstantiated stance, and wrote their own op-ed in response to it.

Am I supposed to believe the report itself was made by impartial authors or commissioned by an impartial body? That there weren't any political pressures involved?

The Dahiya doctrine is never proven to be used in the middle of a conflict. It takes massive fact finding missions, and reports put together and presented after the dust has settled, to determine whether or not the dahiyda doctrine was used, as it has in the past.

And so, you are assuming it is.

I'm sorry, but providing an example of an abandoned school being used to house munitions, does not suggest that there's rockets in occupied schools.

It suggests there could be, that it is not really an impossibility since schools have been used for that.

It is insufficient! Anyone reading this, can see that. You simply cannot say that because there was munitions stored in an abandoned school, that therefore there must be rockets in an occupied school. You also cannot say that because you found an example of rockets being fired from the grounds of a power plant, that this shows Hamas is willing to fire from a civilian's house. This isn't about me, being unable to admit being wrong. This is about you, being unable to admit when they're wrong.

Also, again, Common Dreams is not a blog (let a lone bullshit), as it's one of the most well-respected progressive independent non-profit news outlets out there, that's been around for close to 20 years. There's a big difference between that, and you and dcomplex's Zionist little blogspots and wordpresses.

Also, I never said that Common Dreams is objective. If you knew my stance on media (which is similar to Greenwald's) I don't think any media or journalist is objective. I already told you that Common Dreams is a progressive news outlet. But regardless, I didn't cite an opinion piece from them, I cited their reporting of the four boys killed by the IDF, which all other major media outlets reported on, as well.

"My" blogs? Is the HRW report a blog now?

It's time to to get a grip already, if you'll say all sources are biased and reject the ones whose bias you don't like, I can do the same as well.

It's not necessarily the case, that they have no qualms with firing from populated areas. It's that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on the planet. So there's obviously bound to be militias firing from populated areas, no matter what. You say this is exposing civilian neighbors to being collateral damage, but then why are homes being directly bombed? Israel has pretty precise munitions. What gives?

Sure, some civilian causalities are collateral damage, being too close to military installments. But what about the rest of these families who are bombed in their own homes?

Shrapnel, ever heard of it? Seriously

Also, Gaza does have rural areas rockets could be fired from. The Strip isn't one single giant city.

I'm disregarding the evidence? No, you simply haven't provided the evidence. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain to you that just because you show an example of rockets being fired from a power plant, doesn't mean that they're being fired from houses (as you ask me to accept). Just because you show an example of munitions being stored in an abandoned school, doesn't mean they're also in occupied schools (as you ask me to accept). Do you not understand that you're drawing conclusions that aren't supported by your evidence. You said earlier that your evidence (of the power plant and abandoned school) suggest that Hamas uses houses to store and fire munitions from. But it doesn't. So if anyone is disregarding the evidence here, it is you, sir. You disregard the evidence and draw bogus conclusions from it to support your narrative, propped up by IDF propaganda outlets that you cite.

Actually, yes, you are disregarding the evidence that doesn't support your assumption that Israel is targeting civilians.

I also ask you to accept there is a realistic chance that occupied structures could be used with a military purpose.

Yes, redcarpet making a huge fuss over the label of a video that wasn't really mislabeled at all, but could be misinterepreted due to wording, was being pedantic. You, calling me pedantic for not accepting your bullshit conclusions from evidence that doesn't support your argument, is not being pedantic. Again, you show that you don't even know what pedantic means, and that you're just throwing it at me as an empty insult.

I would say that focusing on a specific point, asking evidence from sources you like and only those and then ignoring it when you realize it doesn't support the core of your argument, and then pretending you have a leg to stand on is as pedantic as it can get.

[Solastalgia]

You are evading the point. You are saying Zionist blogs should not be used because of their editorial line (and thus bias), yet in this case you take CD as objective despite its anti-Israel stance.

I'm not evading the point. I addressed it directly. Again, I simply said that Common Dreams doesn't have the same stake that the IDF official propaganda outlet has in this conflict. Furthermore, I explained to you why I (like Greenwald) don't see any media or journalist as being entirely objective. So to continue to use this straw man on me, saying that I think CD, let a lone anyone is objective here, is wrong. Also, please show me where Common Dreams has been anti-Israel. I'd like to see that please. If you cannot provide proper citation, then you should drop that label immediately. Reporting (just as the rest of major media did) on the four boys killed by the IDF, doesn't make you anti-Israel.

It proves some Palestinian groups do use civilian infrastructure, however, and that includes ones that could be occupied as well.

Now you're the one evading the point. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that your examples of rockets being fired from the ground of a power plant, and munitions being stored in an abandoned school, does NOT prove that Hamas has used civilian houses to store and/or fire munitions from. You continue to draw unsupported conclusions from your evidence, saying that an example of an abandoned school housing munitions also includes occupied schools.

I expect you to agree that civilian casualties can be explained, at least in part, by rocket fire from urbanized areas and by the dual use of civilian infrastructure by Palestinian militias, and that as such you are in no position to assume that Israel is targeting civilians based on what we know alone.

I'd agree with anything, if you actually provide proper evidence for it. I've told you that from the start, yet you've failed at this task, and then constantly ask me to just agree with your opinion on things.

If you don't think most of them can be explained by it, it's OK and we'll agree to disagree as long as you admit the issue needs to be further investigated.

As I've already said a thousand times here, I'm not worried about opinions, I'm worried about the facts. I, of course, agree that the issue needs to be further investigated, but how can you say that when you're drawing false conclusions from unsupportive evidence? Saying that rockets being fired from the grounds of a power plant, or munitions stored in an abandoned school, show that Hamas has used houses to store and/or fire from, is a big unsupported jump. You simply cannot expect me (or anyone else) to just agree with that.

I'm not really implying anything besides the fact that you cannot really assume intent based on casualties alone, in light of the evidence I have provided to you. Will you admit this, at last?

I don't assume intent on casualties a lone. In light of the evidence you provided? What did that change? But nothing. So what do I have to admit to?

Am I supposed to believe the report itself was made by impartial authors or commissioned by an impartial body? That there weren't any political pressures involved?

I didn't ask you to, did I? There were obviously political pressures involved, as stated in the quote from the article I cited for you. Israel was very much against that report and put public pressure on it, despite the fact that the report was just as harshly critical (if not more) for Hamas. See, Israel, doesn't even want this issue to be two-sided, which is why many Zionists refuse to acknowledge Israeli human shields, when talking about the issue of human shielding in this conflict.

And so, you are assuming it is.

I'm not assuming anything until the proper evidence proves so.

It suggests there could be, that it is not really an impossibility since schools have been used for that.

No, an example of an abandoned school used for munition storage, doesn't suggest that occupied schools are used as well.

"My" blogs? Is the HRW report a blog now?

It's time to to get a grip already, if you'll say all sources are biased and reject the ones whose bias you don't like, I can do the same as well.

I never said HRW was a blog. What's with you and strawmen? How ironic though, for you to make a fake fuss over that, after you call legitimate media outlets like Common Dreams and Democracy Now (in our debate on Honduras) "bullshit blogs." If anyone should be criticized for wrongly using the "blog" label, it is you. The only thing I labelled a blog was this: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.in/2014/07 ... n.html?m=1

..and rightfully so, I mean, it even has the blogspot url still in place. It's a Zionist blog...

Also, I'm sorry that I reject the IDF official propaganda outlet in this conflict, just as anyone should reject the official propaganda outlet of a main culprit involved in any conflict. I'm sure you would normally agree with this, but because you're a Zionist, in this case you make an exception, and accept it.

Shrapnel, ever heard of it? Seriously

Also, Gaza does have rural areas rockets could be fired from. The Strip isn't one single giant city.

I, of course, know that. Why do we need to be so condescending on obviously apparent facts? Bringing up shrapnel, when I asked you to explain all the other families that are directly bombed, doesn't say anything. All it does, is show that you love to make excuses for everything. To say that when it's not human shielding, it's collateral damage, bears about as much weight as the collateral damage argument from America when it comes to drones and the war on terror.

Also, as I explained to you earlier, Hamas has fired from rural areas, as well. But obviously this isn't their mainstay for strategic reasons, as I'm sure anyone could understand. The fact is that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on the planet. So to argue that rockets are being fired from populated areas (as you argue) is a bit ridiculous, as it is obvious.

Actually, yes, you are disregarding the evidence that doesn't support your assumption that Israel is targeting civilians.

Now you're changing the subject. We were talking about disregarding evidence for Hamas using houses to store and/or fire munitions from. Now you're talking about your "evidence" to show that the dahiya doctrine is not being used. Your evidence so far has been cases of leaflets, which I've already explained multiple times, are not mutually exclusive. Israel can do both of these things. The flyers really prove nothing. Most people are trapped and have nowhere to go, anyways. Israel knows this just as well as everyone else.

I also ask you to accept there is a realistic chance that occupied structures could be used with a military purpose.

You continue to ask me to blindly accept this, and I continue to ask you for evidence. That's where this is going. Nowhere. Until you realize that some people won't just bow down to your assertions based on nonsupporting evidence. Providing the example of rockets fired from a power plant's courtyard, and then asking me to accept that this proves in all likelihood Hamas stores and/or fires from houses, is ridiculous.

I would say that focusing on a specific point, asking evidence from sources you like and only those and then ignoring it when you realize it doesn't support the core of your argument, and then pretending you have a leg to stand on is as pedantic as it can get.

Focusing on a specific point? Our entire debate has been about specific points, namely whether or not Hamas uses houses to store and/or fire rockets from, and then the dahiya doctrine. I'm sorry for staying on the subject of these specific points, and not accepting IDF official propaganda, or the other legit examples that don't prove Hamas uses houses to store and/or fire munitions from. To continue and pretend that your example of rockets being fired from a power plants courtyard, and munitions stored in an abandoned schools answers that, is a bit ridiculous. I'm not ignoring that evidence, as I already told you, I don't deny those examples are true, but they don't prove that Hamas has used houses to store and/or fire munitions from (as you're asking me to accept).

[wat0n]

I'm not evading the point. I addressed it directly. Again, I simply said that Common Dreams doesn't have the same stake that the IDF official propaganda outlet has in this conflict.

And yet, you are treating even Zionist blogs, who are not necessarily affiliated with the IDF, just like you treat the IDF.

Furthermore, I explained to you why I (like Greenwald) don't see any media or journalist as being entirely objective. So to continue to use this straw man on me, saying that I think CD, let a lone anyone is objective here, is wrong. Also, please show me where Common Dreams has been anti-Israel. I'd like to see that please. If you cannot provide proper citation, then you should drop that label immediately. Reporting (just as the rest of major media did) on the four boys killed by the IDF, doesn't make you anti-Israel.

Okay.

Now you're the one evading the point. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that your examples of rockets being fired from the ground of a power plant, and munitions being stored in an abandoned school, does NOT prove that Hamas has used civilian houses to store and/or fire munitions from. You continue to draw unsupported conclusions from your evidence, saying that an example of an abandoned school housing munitions also includes occupied schools.

Yeah, because shooting or storing rockets from power plants or vacated schools means it is completely impossible, or even unlikely, they'd do so with occupied buildings.

Please

I'd agree with anything, if you actually provide proper evidence for it. I've told you that from the start, yet you've failed at this task, and then constantly ask me to just agree with your opinion on things.

Are you seriously arguing I have not provided evidence of Palestinian militias operating from civilian buildings or close to them?

As I've already said a thousand times here, I'm not worried about opinions, I'm worried about the facts. I, of course, agree that the issue needs to be further investigated, but how can you say that when you're drawing false conclusions from unsupportive evidence? Saying that rockets being fired from the grounds of a power plant, or munitions stored in an abandoned school, show that Hamas has used houses to store and/or fire from, is a big unsupported jump. You simply cannot expect me (or anyone else) to just agree with that.

Then, if you care about facts, then you'll acknowledge that:

...civilian casualties can be explained, at least in part, by rocket fire from urbanized areas and by the dual use of civilian infrastructure by Palestinian militias, and that as such you are in no position to assume that Israel is targeting civilians based on what we know alone.

I don't assume intent on casualties a lone. In light of the evidence you provided? What did that change? But nothing. So what do I have to admit to?

What do you mean it has changed nothing? So shooting rockets in the vicinity of a residential building does not endanger the civilians in them?

I didn't ask you to, did I? There were obviously political pressures involved, as stated in the quote from the article I cited for you. Israel was very much against that report and put public pressure on it, despite the fact that the report was just as harshly critical (if not more) for Hamas. See, Israel, doesn't even want this issue to be two-sided, which is why many Zionists refuse to acknowledge Israeli human shields, when talking about the issue of human shielding in this conflict.

In which way was the report as harsh, or harsher, on Hamas?

I'm not assuming anything until the proper evidence proves so.

Which I did.

No, an example of an abandoned school used for munition storage, doesn't suggest that occupied schools are used as well.

Why not? Is it impossible that they put the munitions in the school's premises while it was vacated and that they were used after the fact, with those munitions inside?

I never said HRW was a blog.

Then, since I posted a report from them, you will have to acknowledge I don't source blogs only. In fact I don't think I have done so, not even the IDF's videos are blogs.

What's with you and strawmen? How ironic though, for you to make a fake fuss over that, after you call legitimate media outlets like Common Dreams and Democracy Now (in our debate on Honduras) "bullshit blogs." If anyone should be criticized for wrongly using the "blog" label, it is you. The only thing I labelled a blog was this: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.in/2014/07 ... n.html?m=1

..and rightfully so, I mean, it even has the blogspot url still in place. It's a Zionist blog...

Also, I'm sorry that I reject the IDF official propaganda outlet in this conflict, just as anyone should reject the official propaganda outlet of a main culprit involved in any conflict. I'm sure you would normally agree with this, but because you're a Zionist, in this case you make an exception, and accept it.

Common Dreams and Democracy Now! are no better than a blog, just because they label themselves as reputable news sources doesn't make them so. They do in fact editioralize a lot, and have more slant than most other media.

In fact, since you say the IDF is unreliable, can you prove the videos are doctored in some way?

I, of course, know that. Why do we need to be so condescending on obviously apparent facts? Bringing up shrapnel, when I asked you to explain all the other families that are directly bombed, doesn't say anything. All it does, is show that you love to make excuses for everything. To say that when it's not human shielding, it's collateral damage, bears about as much weight as the collateral damage argument from America when it comes to drones and the war on terror.

Probably because people do die from shrapnel wounds and because Hamas does have the possibility from operating outside of urban areas?

Also, as I explained to you earlier, Hamas has fired from rural areas, as well. But obviously this isn't their mainstay for strategic reasons, as I'm sure anyone could understand. The fact is that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on the planet. So to argue that rockets are being fired from populated areas (as you argue) is a bit ridiculous, as it is obvious.

Exactly, they operate in urban areas as well for strategic reasons. Including, guess what, inside or near civilian buildings to make it harder for the IDF to avoid hitting civilians.

Now you're changing the subject. We were talking about disregarding evidence for Hamas using houses to store and/or fire munitions from. Now you're talking about your "evidence" to show that the dahiya doctrine is not being used. Your evidence so far has been cases of leaflets, which I've already explained multiple times, are not mutually exclusive. Israel can do both of these things. The flyers really prove nothing. Most people are trapped and have nowhere to go, anyways. Israel knows this just as well as everyone else.

If I mentioned Palestinian armed groups shooting from houses, it is because it is clearly part of the topic at hand - namely, shielding and Israel's intent in this war.

You continue to ask me to blindly accept this, and I continue to ask you for evidence. That's where this is going. Nowhere. Until you realize that some people won't just bow down to your assertions based on nonsupporting evidence. Providing the example of rockets fired from a power plant's courtyard, and then asking me to accept that this proves in all likelihood Hamas stores and/or fires from houses, is ridiculous.

Focusing on a specific point? Our entire debate has been about specific points, namely whether or not Hamas uses houses to store and/or fire rockets from, and then the dahiya doctrine. I'm sorry for staying on the subject of these specific points, and not accepting IDF official propaganda, or the other legit examples that don't prove Hamas uses houses to store and/or fire munitions from. To continue and pretend that your example of rockets being fired from a power plants courtyard, and munitions stored in an abandoned schools answers that, is a bit ridiculous. I'm not ignoring that evidence, as I already told you, I don't deny those examples are true, but they don't prove that Hamas has used houses to store and/or fire munitions from (as you're asking me to accept).

In which is it ridiculous, exactly?

If they are willing to face the risk of losing the power plant and with it electricity (with all the humanitarian consequences this has, and which they are very much aware of), what makes you believe it is ridiculous to say they may have a willingness to shoot or store rockets at occupied houses?

[ArtAllm]