Intifada 3? Kidnapped Israeli citizens might be a flashpoint

[Grumman]

About a week ago, I pointed out that proportionally the attacks on Gaza are worse than a hundred 9/11 attacks.

Proportionally, the attacks on Gaza are a response to a bombardment of 23,000 rockets, so quit saying retarded things.

[cosmicalstorm]

Well they are back at war.

[eyl]

Hm.

Well, Hamas would have considerably more freedom to import heavy weapons, so they would have more of them. The arms mix probably wouldn't be that different from what it is in real life, because Hamas already has about the heaviest kinds of weapons they can feasibly operate: truck-launched rockets, mortars, that sort of thing. Large amounts of heavy artillery, or tanks, or things of that nature would be a waste of money for them because it'd be too hard to supply and get them into action, and too easy for the Israelis to blow them up.

So they'd have about the same capacity they do now, only more so. They would probably still be skimming off the best construction materials and other supplies for violent, expensive boondoggles like the cross-border tunnels into Israel.

While Hamas probably wouldn't have heavier gear, they could have improved versions of what they have now. More accurate and powerful rockets, for example. Also, a major concern is that they'll manage to import MANPADS.

On the other hand, Egypt already allows humanitarian supplies through the checkpoint at Rafah, after inspection by the Egyptian authorities. It might be somewhat less work to get the humanitarian supplies into Gaza, but not vastly less work, and the same goes for construction materials. Obviously, movement of goods across the longer border with Israel would still be stupidly slow and cramped.

Of course, one thing about the customary international laws regarding neutral powers is that while neutral powers are allowed to engage in commerce with belligerent countries, that commerce IS subject to interception, interdiction, and attack by the warring nations. Since Hamas and the Gaza Strip are in a real sense at war (or trying to be at war) with Israel, the Israelis might interpret Egypt abandoning its role in the blockade in that light. The Israelis would fear (not without reason) the prospect of masses of heavy weapons crossing the border from Egypt into Gaza with effectively no customs inspections to control the imports. In which case the Israelis would have a strong incentive to try to shut down cross-border traffic by attacking the border checkpoints. It'd cause massive collateral damage, but they've long since stopped caring about that.

Another point is that the Egyptians themselves (and for that matter other Palestinian factions like the Palestinian Authority) may want the blockade to stay in place for their own reasons. For example, the Egyptians have an incentive to NOT want an active smuggling subculture growing up on their border with Gaza, because weapons (or other dangerous things) could easily be smuggled back across the border from Gaza to Egypt and not just the other way around.

The Egyptians have shut down the smuggling tunnels since Sisi came to power.

About a week ago, I pointed out that proportionally the attacks on Gaza are worse than a hundred 9/11 attacks.

What is, for all intents and purposes, a war is more destructive than a major terrorist atatck? Color me surprised.

And given the response to 9/11, I'm not sure you really want to go to proportional 9/11 comparisons..


As for today's news:

There were a number of rockets fired during the night or early morning. The cease-fire ended at 08:05, and there's been rocket fire since. The IDF hasn't responded so far.

[Elfdart]

About a week ago, I pointed out that proportionally the attacks on Gaza are worse than a hundred 9/11 attacks.

Proportionally, the attacks on Gaza are a response to a bombardment of 23,000 rockets, so quit saying retarded things.

Which only goes to prove what an atrocity the latest Gaza massacre is. In order to fight back against what are little more than bottle rockets, the IDF just slaughtered about 2000 people, including hundreds of children.

What is, for all intents and purposes, a war is more destructive than a major terrorist atatck? Color me surprised.

Which one is the war and which one the "terrorist attack"?

Mohammed Atta and his thugs attacked the Pentagon, a military target. The WTC had military personnel and police in the buildings, as well as in numerous locations nearby. So going by the "rules of engagement" of the IDF, the World Trade Center was a valid target too -no matter how many civilians got killed.

And given the response to 9/11, I'm not sure you really want to go to proportional 9/11 comparisons..

It's similar enough: The Cheney-Bush Junta used the 9/11 attacks to justify the rape of Iraq, something they'd been licking their chops over for years, even though they knew Iraq had nothing to do with it. Netanyahoo used the abduction and murder of three boys to justify an incursion into the West Bank (terrorizing Palestinians in general, kidnapping hundreds of alleged Hamas members) and another massacre in Gaza -two things The Yahoo had been licking his chops to do.

[Simon_Jester]

About a week ago, I pointed out that proportionally the attacks on Gaza are worse than a hundred 9/11 attacks.

Would you mind defining "proportionate?" Whether or not your pointing-out means anything depends on whether your use of the word "proportionate" means anything.

About a week ago, I pointed out that proportionally the attacks on Gaza are worse than a hundred 9/11 attacks.

Proportionally, the attacks on Gaza are a response to a bombardment of 23,000 rockets, so quit saying retarded things.

Which only goes to prove what an atrocity the latest Gaza massacre is. In order to fight back against what are little more than bottle rockets, the IDF just slaughtered about 2000 people, including hundreds of children.

"Little more than bottle rockets."

Bullshit.

No, seriously, bullshit.

A bottle rocket is typically a few inches long and about half an inch wide.

A Qassam rocket is typically around a hundred inches long and four or five inches wide. It is literally a thousand times bigger than a bottle rocket.

A bottle rocket has NO exploding warhead or shrapnel built into it.

A Qassam rocket carries five to twenty kilograms of explosives and shrapnel designed to knock down structures and kill people unfortunate enough to be standing near the point of impact.

A bottle rocket is designed to burn out harmlessly in midair and hurt no one.

A Qassam rocket flies anywhere from 5-15 kilometers and is designed to hurt bunches of people- if it should be accurate enough to land on them.

If you are ignorant enough, or disingenuous enough, to compare Qassam rockets to harmless fireworks, you have no standing to even be participating in a conversation on this subject. I might as well compare the IDF's bombs to firefighting planes dropping harmless buckets of water.

And to describe the Israeli response, you go immediately to 'massacre,' the lovely loaded word 'massacre.' As though the Israelis had simply rounded up 2000 random Palestinians, herded them into a square, and machine-gunned them.

You do this instead of actually... even remotely beginning to consider the realities of trying to fight someone who fires rockets from dispersed locations, often near civilian buildings, in a very densely populated territory where every shot that misses is very likely to land on some poor soul nearby.

I don't know what you think the alternative is. Do you think Israel can just let these "harmless fireworks" fall on their land with ten kilogram bombs blowing up left and right all over the place? Are they not supposed to fight back for some bizarre reason?

This is just so flagrantly stupid that I'm going to say to you more or less what I said then, with a different twist.

Go find your warm anticolonialist fuzzies somewhere else. You are not prepared to deal with this issue objectively.

You are using stupidly loaded words and stupidly ignorant analogies. You are using them in an attempt to portray this conflict as one of ogres preying on innocents, when in fact it is two groups of more or less normal people led by two groups of belligerent jackasses with nothing to lose by fighting... predictably coming into a conflict that no one in charge on either side has any logical motive to end. At least not as long as Hamas remains in power by letting Israelis beat on the people of Gaza and provoking them into doing it harder.

What is, for all intents and purposes, a war is more destructive than a major terrorist atatck? Color me surprised.

Which one is the war and which one the "terrorist attack"?

Mohammed Atta and his thugs attacked the Pentagon, a military target. The WTC had military personnel and police in the buildings, as well as in numerous locations nearby. So going by the "rules of engagement" of the IDF, the World Trade Center was a valid target too -no matter how many civilians got killed.

You are not grasping the point.

The point is that war, organized widespread violence aimed at achieving a goal that affects the fate of an entire nation, over a persistent, prolonged time period, is more destructive than an isolated attack designed to create fear, chaos, and political disruption.

Any war is going to be more destructive than any terror attack, or any campaign of terror attacks, fought with the same weapons. Because wars are seriously intended to wipe out armed forces that have thousands of armed soldiers and all manner of heavy weapons. This requires a lot more destruction than blowing up a few skyscrapers or walking into a few crowds and machine-gunning them at random, because you're going after a bigger target.

Now, when the war is being fought against an enemy that basically lives in a large, urbanized area and is firing from within the urban area, often deliberately putting their shooters in big buildings that soldiers normally don't shoot at (like hospitals)... what the hell is supposed to happen?

Is the existence of all those civilians in the area supposed to let Hamas shoot at Israel with impunity? Because if that's not what you're arguing, I can't for the life of me understand what internally consistent position you could have on the issue given your previous statements.

[Beowulf]

Proportionally, the attacks on Gaza are a response to a bombardment of 23,000 rockets, so quit saying retarded things.

Which only goes to prove what an atrocity the latest Gaza massacre is. In order to fight back against what are little more than bottle rockets, the IDF just slaughtered about 2000 people, including hundreds of children.

If used as designed, a bottle rocket won't hurt anyone. If used as designed, the rockets fired from Gaza will kill people. That they haven't killed many is due to a combination of Palestinian incapability (the rockets and launchers kinda suck), and Israeli capability (shelters, Iron Dome, etc).

It seems like you'd be happier if the Israelis didn't take action to protect their people, and higher civilian casualties were sustained by the Israelis. That's what you mean by proportionate, right? That more Palestinians died than Israelis, right?

The WTC had military personnel and police in the buildings, as well as in numerous locations nearby. So going by the "rules of engagement" of the IDF, the World Trade Center was a valid target too -no matter how many civilians got killed.

Prove it. Which floor was rented to the Department of Defense (or one of it's components) in 1 WTC or 2 WTC?

[eyl]

Bullshit.

No, seriously, bullshit.

A bottle rocket is typically a few inches long and about half an inch wide.

A Qassam rocket is typically around a hundred inches long and four or five inches wide. It is literally a thousand times bigger than a bottle rocket.

A bottle rocket has NO exploding warhead or shrapnel built into it.

A Qassam rocket carries five to twenty kilograms of explosives and shrapnel designed to knock down structures and kill people unfortunate enough to be standing near the point of impact.

A bottle rocket is designed to burn out harmlessly in midair and hurt no one.

A Qassam rocket flies anywhere from 5-15 kilometers and is designed to hurt bunches of people- if it should be accurate enough to land on them.

If you are ignorant enough, or disingenuous enough, to compare Qassam rockets to harmless fireworks, you have no standing to even be participating in a conversation on this subject. I might as well compare the IDF's bombs to firefighting planes dropping harmless buckets of water.

Besides that, Qassams aren't the end-all of what Hamas has. They have 120mm mortars, which are straight-up military munitions (they're imported from Iran, mostly), as well as the bigger Grad rockets, which have ranges of up to ~40 km, and longer range rockets which have reached almost to Haifa.

Note that while mortars are short-range weapons, they're sufficient to reach a number of Israeli towns.

The point is that war, organized widespread violence aimed at achieving a goal that affects the fate of an entire nation, over a persistent, prolonged time period, is more destructive than an isolated attack designed to create fear, chaos, and political disruption.

Any war is going to be more destructive than any terror attack, or any campaign of terror attacks, fought with the same weapons. Because wars are seriously intended to wipe out armed forces that have thousands of armed soldiers and all manner of heavy weapons. This requires a lot more destruction than blowing up a few skyscrapers or walking into a few crowds and machine-gunning them at random, because you're going after a bigger target.

Now, when the war is being fought against an enemy that basically lives in a large, urbanized area and is firing from within the urban area, often deliberately putting their shooters in big buildings that soldiers normally don't shoot at (like hospitals)... what the hell is supposed to happen?

This.

[cosmicalstorm]

Most of those killed were militants, not very shocking. Considering the immense propaganda value of dead civilians for Hamas even these numbers might be wrong.

War zones are not easy places to collect statistics.

In the Gaza conflict, most news organisations have been quoting from the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which leads a group of humanitarian organisations known as the Protection Cluster.

Its recent report said that as of 6 August, 1,843 Palestinians had been killed and 66 Israelis and one Thai national since Israel launched Operation Protective Edge on 8 July.

Of those Palestinians, the status of 279 could not be identified, at least 1,354 were civilians, including 415 children and 214 women, the UN body reported.

So there were 216 members of armed groups killed, and another 725 men who were civilians. Among civilians, more than three times as many men were killed as women, while three times as many civilian men were killed as fighters.

The UN report carries a caveat with its figures: "Data on fatalities and destruction of property is consolidated by the Protection and Shelter clusters based on preliminary information, and is subject to change based on further verifications."

There has been some research suggesting that men in general are more likely to die in conflict than women, although no typical ratio is given.

Nonetheless, if the Israeli attacks have been "indiscriminate", as the UN Human Rights Council says, it is hard to work out why they have killed so many more civilian men than women.

Matthias Behnk, from OHCHR, told BBC News that the organisation would not want to speculate about why there had been so many adult male casualties, adding that because they were having to deal with a lot of casualties in a short time, they had "focused primarily on recording the casualties".

"As such, we have not at this stage conducted a detailed analysis of trends of civilian casualties, for example in relation to the reasons why different groups are affected and the types of incidents, but hope to carry this out at some point in the coming future," he said.

"However, even in the compiling of these preliminary figures, we cross-verify between different sources, not only media and several different human rights organisations, but also use other sources, including, for example, names of alleged fighters released by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and notices by armed groups in Gaza claiming someone as a member."

A number of other news organisations have been considering the civilian-to-fighter ratio.

An analysis by the New York Times looked at the names of 1,431 casualties and found that "the population most likely to be militants, men ages 20 to 29, is also the most overrepresented in the death toll. They are 9% of Gaza's 1.7 million residents, but 34% of those killed whose ages were provided."

"At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71% of the population and 33% of the known-age casualties."

The list of names and ages of the dead published by al-Jazeera also found men aged between 20 and 29 to be significantly overrepresented.

The IDF say they have killed at least 253 Hamas operatives, 147 Islamic Jihad operatives, 65 "operatives of various organisations" and 603 "operatives whose affiliation is unknown", although they also stress that this is not a final number.

Spokesman Capt Eytan Buchman told BBC News that "the UN numbers being reported are, by and by large, based on the Gaza health ministry, a Hamas-run organisation".

He said that part of the reason for the discrepancy between the figures was "when militants are brought to hospitals, they are brought in civilian clothing, obscuring terrorist affiliations".

"Hamas also has given local residents directives to obscure militant identities," he said.

"It's important to bear in mind that in Operation Cast Lead [the last Israeli ground offensive in December 2008-January 2009], Hamas and Gaza-based organisations claimed that only 50 combatants were killed, admitting years later the number was between 600-700, a figure nearly identical to the figure claimed by the IDF."

In conclusion, we do not yet know for sure how many of the dead in Gaza are civilians and how many were fighters. This is in no sense the fault of the UN employees collecting the figures - their statistics are accompanied by caveats and described as preliminary and subject to revision.

But it does mean that some of the conclusions being drawn from them may be premature.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28688179

[Grumman]

Most of those killed were militants, not very shocking.

This is not necessarily true. It might be, especially for things like counterbattery fire, but it stands to reason that in a firefight a male civilian in his twenties is more likely to be misidentified as a combatant and killed than a child or a woman is.

[Crown]

Most of those killed were militants, not very shocking. Considering the immense propaganda value of dead civilians for Hamas even these numbers might be wrong.

Wait, the UN is reporting 1,843 Palestinian fatalities of which 1,354 were civilian ... and the argument to debunk this is; 'well we've killed more men (over the age of 15!) than demographics say we should so clearly they were well trained Hamas militants and no other reasonable explanation could possible work'.

[eyl]

Precedent from Cast Lead would suggest to take the initial Palestinian civilian numbers cautiously. Hamas initially reported around 50 dead, with the UN and various NGOs placing the number of dead militants at around 300 (out of about 1400, give or take 50-100 for all figures depending on the source). Later, Hamas admitted the number was 600-700 (IDF estimate of 709).

[Omeganian]

A lot of people criticize Israel for not conducting the operation properly. Curiously, few of these provide historical examples of properly conducted operations, and fewer still are expressing willingness to go into Gaza and demonstrate how it's supposed to be done.

[Crown]

Precedent from Cast Lead would suggest to take the initial Palestinian civilian numbers cautiously. Hamas initially reported around 50 dead, with the UN and various NGOs placing the number of dead militants at around 300 (out of about 1400, give or take 50-100 for all figures depending on the source). Later, Hamas admitted the number was 600-700 (IDF estimate of 709).

The idea that accurate reporting in war is an inaccurate science isn't what's being discussed here. What is being discussed is why of the 1,300ish civilian fatalities being reported by the UN most of these conveniently happen not to be civilian at all but Hamas militants (according to Israel) simple because the death demographics do not align with the civilian demographics as if that is the only possible reason.

[Grumman]

Precedent from Cast Lead would suggest to take the initial Palestinian civilian numbers cautiously. Hamas initially reported around 50 dead, with the UN and various NGOs placing the number of dead militants at around 300 (out of about 1400, give or take 50-100 for all figures depending on the source). Later, Hamas admitted the number was 600-700 (IDF estimate of 709).

The idea that accurate reporting in war is an inaccurate science isn't what's being discussed here.

That isn't what Eyl was discussing either. Hamas's initial claims were an order of magnitude away from the truth, but if counting Hamas casualties is difficult it apparently didn't stop the IDF, because Hamas evidently admitted that the IDF numbers about their own organisation's casualties were basically spot on.

[Crown]

Precedent from Cast Lead would suggest to take the initial Palestinian civilian numbers cautiously. Hamas initially reported around 50 dead, with the UN and various NGOs placing the number of dead militants at around 300 (out of about 1400, give or take 50-100 for all figures depending on the source). Later, Hamas admitted the number was 600-700 (IDF estimate of 709).

The idea that accurate reporting in war is an inaccurate science isn't what's being discussed here.

That isn't what Eyl was discussing either. Hamas's initial claims were an order of magnitude away from the truth, but if counting Hamas casualties is difficult it apparently didn't stop the IDF, because Hamas evidently admitted that the IDF numbers about their own organisation's casualties were basically spot on.

But it's OHCHR who are providing the figures, and they weren't off by an order of magnitude last time either. The article is trying to obfuscate Israel's culpability in the deliberate targeting and murder of civilians by claiming 'hey, it's not that bad'.

[eyl]

That isn't what Eyl was discussing either. Hamas's initial claims were an order of magnitude away from the truth, but if counting Hamas casualties is difficult it apparently didn't stop the IDF, because Hamas evidently admitted that the IDF numbers about their own organisation's casualties were basically spot on.

But it's OHCHR who are providing the figures, and they weren't off by an order of magnitude last time either. The article is trying to obfuscate Israel's culpability in the deliberate targeting and murder of civilians by claiming 'hey, it's not that bad'.

My point was that last time everyone (except the IDF) - including the UN (And a lot of their figures are coming from the Hamas-controlled government in the first place) was drastically overcounting the proportion of civilian deaths.

[Omeganian]

The article is trying to obfuscate Israel's culpability in the deliberate targeting and murder of civilians by claiming 'hey, it's not that bad'.

Unless you prove that such operations have a tendency to go better in that regard, what reason is there to call it anything else?

[Dominus Atheos]

Most of those killed were militants,

Are you retarded? That's the exact opposite of what the article says, even among men.

...while three times as many civilian men were killed as fighters.

[eyl]

Are you retarded? That's the exact opposite of what the article says, even among men.

...while three times as many civilian men were killed as fighters.

That's from the report quoted at the start; the entier point of the article is raising questions regarding that determination.

[Elfdart]

About a week ago, I pointed out that proportionally the attacks on Gaza are worse than a hundred 9/11 attacks.

Would you mind defining "proportionate?" Whether or not your pointing-out means anything depends on whether your use of the word "proportionate" means anything.

Is English a second language for you, fucktard?

About a week ago, I pointed out that proportionally the attacks on Gaza are worse than a hundred 9/11 attacks.

Proportionally, the attacks on Gaza are a response to a bombardment of 23,000 rockets, so quit saying retarded things.

Which only goes to prove what an atrocity the latest Gaza massacre is. In order to fight back against what are little more than bottle rockets, the IDF just slaughtered about 2000 people, including hundreds of children.[/quote]

"Little more than bottle rockets."

Bullshit.[/quote]

I guess English is a second or third language for you, given your hostility for paragraphs. Or is this bullet point presentation done for dramatic effect?

No, seriously, bullshit.

A Qassam rocket flies anywhere from 5-15 kilometers and is designed to hurt bunches of people- if it should be accurate enough to land on them.

And here's the crux of the matter: IF the rockets had the accuracy to hit anything. But since they don't -being little more than scaled-up bottle rockets- the hysteria over them would be hilarious were it not for the fact that Netanyahoo used their existence as an excuse for yet another massacre of Gazan civilians.

And to describe the Israeli response, you go immediately to 'massacre,' the lovely loaded word 'massacre.'

A word that just happens to fit the latest round of IDF atrocities.

As though the Israelis had simply rounded up 2000 random Palestinians, herded them into a square, and machine-gunned them.

No, they've herded hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into Gaza and bombed them. How do you think Gaza became so overcrowded with Palestinians in the first place, numbnuts? Feel free to show how a massacre isn't really a massacre if the victims are killed with shrapnel or white phosphorous instead of bullets.

You do this instead of actually... even remotely beginning to consider the realities of trying to fight someone who fires rockets from dispersed locations, often near civilian buildings, in a very densely populated territory where every shot that misses is very likely to land on some poor soul nearby.

Maybe the Israeli government should have thought of this predicament before they carried out the ethnic cleansing that led to Gaza becoming a ghetto in the first place. Or maybe they could at least refrain from bombing/shelling schools and hospitals.

I don't know what you think the alternative is. Do you think Israel can just let these "harmless fireworks" fall on their land with ten kilogram bombs blowing up left and right all over the place? Are they not supposed to fight back for some bizarre reason?

Fight back against whom? Against Hamas, who weren't firing rockets until The Yahoo used the murder of three kids as an excuse to attack Hamas in the West Bank when he knew they had nothing to do with the murders?

In five years, exactly SIX people have been killed by all of Hamas' rockets, from the handful of heavy rockets that have been used up, to the Qassam rockets that make up almost all the rest of Hamas' ordnance. Killing six people is terrible. Laying waste to a ghetto, killing thousands of people that had nothing to do with the rockets, is worse.

[Elfdart]

It seems like you'd be happier if the Israelis didn't take action to protect their people, and higher civilian casualties were sustained by the Israelis. That's what you mean by proportionate, right? That more Palestinians died than Israelis, right?

Another poster in need of a remedial English course.

The WTC had military personnel and police in the buildings, as well as in numerous locations nearby. So going by the "rules of engagement" of the IDF, the World Trade Center was a valid target too -no matter how many civilians got killed.

Prove it. Which floor was rented to the Department of Defense (or one of it's components) in 1 WTC or 2 WTC?

Your sleight of hand is weak. Last time I checked, Al Qaeda destroyed WTC 7 (Building 7), which housed the CIA and DoD on Floor 25.

If IDF attacks on schools, hospitals and refugee centers are justified, then so were the attacks on the WTC.

[Beowulf]

Prove it. Which floor was rented to the Department of Defense (or one of it's components) in 1 WTC or 2 WTC?

Your sleight of hand is weak. Last time I checked, Al Qaeda destroyed WTC 7 (Building 7), which housed the CIA and DoD on Floor 25.

If IDF attacks on schools, hospitals and refugee centers are justified, then so were the attacks on the WTC.

Hey fucktard. I said 1 WTC or 2 WTC. You know, the buildings that actually got hit by planes?

[Elfdart]

Prove it. Which floor was rented to the Department of Defense (or one of it's components) in 1 WTC or 2 WTC?

Your sleight of hand is weak. Last time I checked, Al Qaeda destroyed WTC 7 (Building 7), which housed the CIA and DoD on Floor 25.

If IDF attacks on schools, hospitals and refugee centers are justified, then so were the attacks on the WTC.

Hey fucktard. I said 1 WTC or 2 WTC. You know, the buildings that actually got hit by planes?

I wrote:

The WTC had military personnel and police in the buildings, as well as in numerous locations nearby.

If you want to move goalposts that's tough titty for you.

[Omeganian]

As though the Israelis had simply rounded up 2000 random Palestinians, herded them into a square, and machine-gunned them.

No, they've herded hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into Gaza and bombed them. How do you think Gaza became so overcrowded with Palestinians in the first place, numbnuts?

Because we convinced them to stay when they wanted to leave, because they huddle in cities rather than spread out and create normal agriculture, and because they have a high birth rate.

Feel free to show how a massacre isn't really a massacre if the victims are killed with shrapnel or white phosphorous instead of bullets.

A terrible massacre, no argument about that. However, since Israel does all in its power to reduce the casualties, and Hamas does all it can to increase them, it's a massacre by Hamas. The fact that it's mostly done by IDF hands and weapons is terrible, but ultimately even less relevant that the difference between bullets and white phosphorus.

Maybe the Israeli government should have thought of this predicament before they carried out the ethnic cleansing that led to Gaza becoming a ghetto in the first place.

Judging from the amount of Arabs living in Israel proper, that was some really weird cleansing.

Or maybe they could at least refrain from bombing/shelling schools and hospitals.

Israel does refrain, the best it can. It's Hamas which doesn't care when their own rocket drops short and blows up some Palestinian children - for them it's a holiday; more deaths to blame on Israel.

Fight back against whom? Against Hamas, who weren't firing rockets until

Resorting to outright lies, eh? Now that's desperate. And low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P ... rael,_2014

The Yahoo used the murder of three kids as an excuse to attack Hamas in the West Bank when he knew they had nothing to do with the murders?

The matter of murderers still remains controversial. As for the question of what Bibi knew and when - as well as his actual motives for the attack - I would ask you to present the credentials of the telepath who read his mind.

Your sleight of hand is weak. Last time I checked, Al Qaeda destroyed WTC 7 (Building 7), which housed the CIA and DoD on Floor 25.

If IDF attacks on schools, hospitals and refugee centers are justified, then so were the attacks on the WTC.

I would like to see an American citizen who wouldn't have demanded the military leadership's blood for not removing these facilities from the Towers and thus causing them to be targeted, and all that in the middle of a full scale war.

[Darth Yan]

As though the Israelis had simply rounded up 2000 random Palestinians, herded them into a square, and machine-gunned them.

No, they've herded hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into Gaza and bombed them. How do you think Gaza became so overcrowded with Palestinians in the first place, numbnuts?

Because we convinced them to stay when they wanted to leave, because they huddle in cities rather than spread out and create normal agriculture, and because they have a high birth rate.

Feel free to show how a massacre isn't really a massacre if the victims are killed with shrapnel or white phosphorous instead of bullets.

A terrible massacre, no argument about that. However, since Israel does all in its power to reduce the casualties, and Hamas does all it can to increase them, it's a massacre by Hamas. The fact that it's mostly done by IDF hands and weapons is terrible, but ultimately even less relevant that the difference between bullets and white phosphorus.

Maybe the Israeli government should have thought of this predicament before they carried out the ethnic cleansing that led to Gaza becoming a ghetto in the first place.

Judging from the amount of Arabs living in Israel proper, that was some really weird cleansing.

Or maybe they could at least refrain from bombing/shelling schools and hospitals.

Israel does refrain, the best it can. It's Hamas which doesn't care when their own rocket drops short and blows up some Palestinian children - for them it's a holiday; more deaths to blame on Israel.

Fight back against whom? Against Hamas, who weren't firing rockets until

Resorting to outright lies, eh? Now that's desperate. And low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P ... rael,_2014

The Yahoo used the murder of three kids as an excuse to attack Hamas in the West Bank when he knew they had nothing to do with the murders?

The matter of murderers still remains controversial. As for the question of what Bibi knew and when - as well as his actual motives for the attack - I would ask you to present the credentials of the telepath who read his mind.

Your sleight of hand is weak. Last time I checked, Al Qaeda destroyed WTC 7 (Building 7), which housed the CIA and DoD on Floor 25.

If IDF attacks on schools, hospitals and refugee centers are justified, then so were the attacks on the WTC.

I would like to see an American citizen who wouldn't have demanded the military leadership's blood for not removing these facilities from the Towers and thus causing them to be targeted, and all that in the middle of a full scale war.

John stewart summed it up best. either way israel gives them little time to flee. They could use more targeted methods. they choose not to. They didn't really pull out of gaza either cause they still control the water and air space and borders.