I wasn't picking.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Matthew - I haven't slated you. Merely calmly highlighted a character deficiency - moral cowardice - due to your disingenuous postings professing to care about ordinary Palestinians whilst not wanting them to have their own country which is exactly what they care about the most.

And you can't even bring yourself to admit it freely.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

I don't disagree with the essence of your analysis. But just on two points:1.genocide
2.war crimes

1. It is not genocide. I won't repeat what I wrote earlier in the thread at greater length.It can be read if anyone is interested. It is brutal oppression, like a whole load of other appalling stuff that's going on around the world. That doesn't make it good or better, but it is no reason to bandy terms around that we should steer well clear of when what's happening isn't the case. It is really important people don't devalue terms like grenocide, not least so we don't equate things that are were genocide with things that aren't (and so devalue them) and to retain the specific opprobrium attaching to the term should it happen again.

2.war crimes. Again, this tends to be a term bandied around. From a legal point of view looking at actions etc (and leaving out disparities in military strength/casualties and who committed more or less crimes), my guess is what has happened this time is no different to the conclusions reached by the UN fact-finding mission re what happened in Gaza in 2009:in terms of international law, both sides engaged in war crimes. Morality in this context (as opposed to morality re the justice of the Palestinians having a viable state)is not divisible, otherwise we are on a long slippery slope...

"From UN website:

15 September 2009 – The United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict at the start of this year has found evidence that both Israeli forces and Palestinian militants committed serious war crimes and breaches of humanitarian law, which may amount to crimes against humanity.

“We came to the conclusion, on the basis of the facts we found, that there was strong evidence to establish that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian law and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza,” the head of the mission, Justice Richard Goldstone, told a press briefing today.

“The mission concluded that actions amounting to war crimes and possibly, in some respects, crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israel Defense Force (IDF).”

“There’s no question that the firing of rockets and mortars [by armed groups from Gaza] was deliberate and calculated to cause loss of life and injury to civilians and damage to civilian structures. The mission found that these actions also amount to serious war crimes and also possibly crimes against humanity,” he said."

Edited by legaleagle (02 Aug 2014 1.07am)

This article is interesting in showing how moral perversity may generally have become a currency not restricted to one side. And the fact the authors are pro-Israeli (and it is utterly one-sided)is not a basis to dismiss everything in it per se as simply propaganda any more than vice versa would be.

The international PR war on both sides (crucial to HAMAS' future prospects and the current Israeli government's in the longer term) and is not to be underestimated.

I've copied it in full rather than a link because the link goes to a restricted "pay to view" site.

The Australian,31 July:

"HAMAS is not just targeting Israel­i civilians, threatening Gaz­ans and using them as humans shields.

It has another terror tactic: intim­idating foreign journalists.

Journalists who have taken pictures of Hamas operatives preparing to shoot rockets from civilian structures and/or fighting in civilian clothing have been threatened by Hamas operatives and had their equipment confiscated.

Reporter Peter Stefanovic, of the Nine Network’s news, stationed in Gaza, received a surge of abuse and threats when he tweeted that he had seen rockets fired into Israel from near his hotel, in a civilian area.

Pro-Hamas tweeters said Stefanovic was “passing and fabricating information to Israel ... from GAZA”. Another account wrote: “You are a cretin. Are you working for the IDF” and “in WWII spies got shot”.

John Reed, a reporter for Britain’s Financial Times, tweeted about seeing “two rockets fired toward Israel from near al-Shifa hospital (the largest in Gaza), even as more bombing victims were brought in”. He was also subject to threats and abuse.

The Wall Street Journal’s reporter Nick Casey fell foul of Hamas by reporting that Shifa hospital was Hamas’s control centre. On July 21, Casey posted a photo on Twitter of a chief Hamas spokesman being interviewed from a room in Shifa hospital in front of a makeshift backdrop of a photo of a destroyed house.

Casey tweeted the image with the caption: “You have to wonder (with) the shelling how patients at Shifa hospital feel as Hamas uses it as a safe place to see media.”

Almost immediately, Casey received a flood of online threats. Two days later, the tweet was deleted — yet pro-Palestinian Twitter accounts continued to attack Casey, including him on lists of “journos in Gaza (who) lie/fabricate info for Israel” and “must be sued for crimes”.

French-Palestinian journalist Radjaa Abu Dagga wrote that he was forcibly blocked from leaving Gaza and detained and interrogated by members of Hamas’s al-Qassam Brigade at a room in Shifa hospital next to the emergency room. His account of his treatment, in the French newspaper Liberation, also has since been taken down from the paper’s website at Dagga’s request.

His story highlights that reporters can be effectively trapped in Gaza, as Hamas makes it difficult to enter and leave areas under its control and that, while there, they are hostages to Hamas’s goodwill.

Italian reporter Gabriele Barbati tweeted on Tuesday: “Out of #Gaza far from #Hamas retaliation: misfired rocket killed children today in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared ­debris.”

He was referring to a strike on Monday at al-Shati refugee camp which, together with a near-simultaneous hit on Shifa hospital, killed 10 people, including a number of children.

Israel vehemently denied responsibility and said it had proof via photos and radar that misfired Islamic Jihad rockets had caused the deaths.

In his tweet, Barbati backed up the Israeli version (the fast clean-up suggests a cover-up) — and implied that he would not have been free to say this had he been in Gaza.

Media coverage of the Gaza war also has been distorted by the use of biased statistics. Widely cited casualty figures for Palestinians, especially claims regarding the percentage of civilians, come from the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is under Hamas control. Some stories cite “UN figures”, but these simply repeat the ministry figures.

The Al Jazeera casualty list includes at least 33 to 42 duplicate names (according to different counts). Some of the names appeared with slight differences in spelling (yet the age and/or location confirm that it is the same person), some listed different loca­tions (yet the name and age are the same). Among the duplicate names are children, listed as fatalities multiple times.

According to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre, out of 775 fatalities analysed (as of July 23), 229 were militants or terrorists, 267 were civil­ians, and 279 could not yet be classified.

The Meir Amit centre examines each reported casualty’s background on Palestinian websites and looks for details about their funerals to determine their occupation and to confirm or rule out any affiliation with terror groups, giving much greater accuracy about whether the person was a civilian.

This is in contrast to reports about civilian casualties not only from the Gaza Health Ministry but also from human rights organisations (such as B’Tselem, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and al-Mezan), which often rely on biased Palestinian sources or plain naivety.

PCHR recently reported that: “At approximately 11.55 (Friday), an Israeli drone fired a missile at a number of Palestinian civilians in al-Zanna area in Bani Suhaila village. As a result, 2 civilians were killed: Mohammed Khalil al-Buraim­, 25; and Mohammed Suleiman Hussein Sammour, 45’’.

In fact, Mohammed Khalil Samour al-Buraim is being celebrated as a mujahed by the Abdel-Qader al-Husseini Brigades. He was apparently a rocket-launcher.

Reporting from Al Jazeera should also be treated with extreme caution. Al Jazeera is funded by the Qatari government, which financially and politically backs Hamas and hosts its leader, Khaled Meshal, in its capital, Doha.

This partisan role is widely reported in the Middle East, yet the ABC and SBS continue to rebroadcast Al Jazeera extensively when less partisan material is available.

Reporting from Gaza is dangerous and difficult.

But our media should acknow­ledge the extent to which intimidation and lack of verifiable, or independent, information limit the completeness of the picture that Australians are getting of the conflict.

Gabrielle Debinski and Or Avi-Guy are policy analysts at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Counci. Tzvi Fleischer is editor of the Australia/Israel Review, published by the AIJAC".

Edited by legaleagle (02 Aug 2014 1.46am)

Edited by legaleagle (02 Aug 2014 1.47am)

I think legaleagle's post highlights the lack of focus and consideration in this thread by 'the usual suspects' on any alternative narrative for some horrid events over the last few days.

Like the twenty four hour news culture they have made their mind up about what happened pretty much as soon as the reports come in......In a display of their own prejudices.....Or just accepting whatever news report comes in as factual.

With hits on hospitals and so on they have instantly blamed the IDF.....No doubt this will be correct sometimes. But nowhere did they consider the alternative of fire by non IDF or indeed comment upon the fact that Hamas could have been fighting from or 'using' these facilities.

In instances where the IDF have fired on UN facilities I'm clear in criticizing them as shelling these areas isn't acceptable......Alternatives need to be found.

However people not considering that Hamas aren't most likely taking advantage of what is.....'an easy win' are just blind to human nature.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)