Point taken.

I agree. The difference is, Hamas has piss ant homemade rockets and Israel has the best military equipment Americans could buy.

I found this to be interesting. Israel has sirens that go off and let people know that there is an incoming. Gaza does not have any warnings for it's people.

the difference is not katyushas versus tanks,

the real difference is that the israeli defense
actions are not indiscriminate whereas the rocket
firings are indiscriminate.

the israelis always have a clear military objective
of attacking Hamas fighters, weapons and facilities
and they document this.

the israelis make the distinction between combatants
and civilians where Hamas does not. in fact, Hamas
publicly states with pride how they will make unwilling
martyrs of the Palestinian people and sickeningly,
they do so.

So the bombing of the UN schools and shooting at Red Cross aid workers wasn't indiscriminate?

or this, this is a deliberate action then?

UN accuses Israel of herding 110 Palestinians into a house and then shelling it, leaving 30 dead

UK Daily Mail
Friday, Jan 9, 2008

The United Nations has cited witnesses accusing Israel of killing 30 people inside a house filled with Palestinians who had been evacuated there by Israeli troops.

The witnesses told the UN that Israel had evacuated about 110 Palestinians into the house - then repeatedly shelled it 24 hours later, killing the civilians inside.

The UN was quoted by the AFP as saying: ‘according to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitun (half of whom were children) warning them to stay indoors

‘Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing approximately 30.’
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) called it ‘one of the gravest incidents since the beginning of operations’ by Israeli forces in Gaza on December 27, AFP said.

‘Those who survived and were able walked two kilometres to Salah Ed Din road before being transported to hospital in civilian vehicles. Three children, the youngest of whom was five months old, died upon arrival at the hospital,’ OCHA was quoted as saying in a report on the situation in the battered Gaza Strip.

The Israeli military told the AFP that it was investigating the allegation.

The accusation came as a 'credible' report from Gaza claimed one third of the 760 reported killed in the conflict have been children.

As of Thursday, 257 children were among the approximately 760 reported dead in Gaza. There were another 1,080 children among the 3,100 injured in the conflict, according to statistics from Gaza's health ministry.

The UN's top humanitarian official, John Holmes, described the numbers as 'credible' and deeply disturbing. UN officials say about half of the casualties were civilians.
Another report claimed Barack Obama is set to open up low-level talks with Hamas when he takes over the presidency.
With agreement growing in Washington that the Bush policy of excluding Hamas is counter-productive, the Guardian cited transition sources who claimed the President-Elect is being advised to open clandestine talks with the Islamist organisation - possibly through European channels.

And last night the 15-member UN Security Council overwhelmingly passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire and Israel to fully withdraw from Gaza.
Fourteen members of the Council voted for the resolution - with the United States abstaining.
'At last...the United Nations is speaking clearly with one voice,' said British Foreign Minister David Miliband.
'It's speaking clearly for a ceasefire, clearly for action on smuggling of arms, clearly on the opening of the crossings.
'And it's trying to speak up for the people of the Middle East, whether they live in Gaza or in Israel, because, in the end, they're going to have to live next door to each other.'
He added: 'Finally we have a consensus in the international community about the need for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire.

'That needs to be translated on words on the UN page to change on the ground.'

Hours after the resolution was passed, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Israel would act only in its own interests.

'Israel has acted, is acting and will act only according to its considerations, the security needs of its citizens and its right to self defence,' a statement said.

It made no direct reference to how Israel would treat the call for a ceasefire.
Hamas is said to be examining the resolution.

Livni, along with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, convened in session today to discusss the Security Council resolution and their next moves in the conflict.
Also today the UN Human Rights Council is due to hold a special session on the conflict examining a motion by Egypt, Pakistan and Cuba seeking condemnation of the Israeli offensive.
An unofficial copy of the draft resolution expected to be presented to the world body's rights assembly called for 'international action to put an end to grave violations by the occupying power, Israel, in the occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip.'

It also demanded an immediate end to the military operation and that Israel 'stop the targeting of civilians'.
Israel is not a member of the Human Rights Council, but has the rights to take part in the debate as an interested party.
Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad Maliki was expected to attend the meeting.
Amnesty International has accused both Israel and Hamas of using civilians as human shields.
The Red Cross has criticised Israel for its conduct towards civilians in Gaza during the offensive, accusing it of failing to fulfil its obligation to help the wounded.
Officials, who claim Israel has denied them access to the Gaza area for four days, said medical teams found four young children huddled by the bodies of their dead mothers in a shelled house.
'This is a shocking incident,' Pierre Wettach, Red Cross head for Israel and the Palestinian territories, said. 'The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded.'
Israel's ambassador in Geneva, Aharon Leshno-Yaar, denied his country was failing in its humanitarian obligations.
'Once the military activity was over, then it was possible for humanitarian teams to evacuate the wounded,' he said.

--------------------------------------------------

So what's indiscriminate again?

Israel does not deliberately attack civilian schools or innocent aid workers. It may be that fighters attack from near schools which are hit or that aid workers get caught in cross fire but generally the IDF goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties since it is abhorrent and counterproductive in every way.

Any accusation that Israel would herd civilians into a house for the purpose of shelling it is bound to be a lie. There is no military objective in that and there is no reason for them to do it. Such an accusation reeks of propaganda don't you think? There are many who would try to demonize their opponent unjustly in the press. The UN is very much biased against Israel as has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Lots of things reek of Propaganda, but when a Norweigan Dr. gets on Democracy Now and makes it clear that civilians are being targeted with advanced weaponry, I tend to believe him over any government entity.

What's worse is, much like ourselves, the average Israeli is going to pay the price for this, not the Government that orders these things.

no one is disputing that civilians are being injured
the Norwegian doctor is decrying the injuries. he has
no way of knowing how these poor people were wounded.

it is terrible that Hamas chose to continue rocket attacks,
use innocent Palestinians as shields and put them in harms way.

And herein lies my problem. The Dr. has no way of knowing how these people got hurt?

SO you're saying that a person who comes into the hospital, with a leg missing, is interested in telling the Dr. something false? That they would have that kind of mental werewithal to make something up while staring at the charred stub that once was their leg?

I don't buy it. How is the Dr. supposed to treat them if he can't find out how they were injured, just guess work then?

The whole reason why I'm speaking out against what israel is doing is because of 2 reasons, really. 1( Our media won't do it, our government won't do it and the brainwashed believe what they see on the tube.
2( Israel is using the weapons we gave them, on the taxpayer dollar, to massacre people and kill innocents.

A policy of NonIntervention would make this not as big an issue, but we're responsible, as America, in our own way.

70/30
You confirmed it yourself.
Arent you rambill?
The Jews were in Egypt. When they went into the desert who lived in Palestine and what happened to them?

The Balfour Declaration was after the fact that the British had already began the Zionist movement.

The Balfour Declaration caused a lot of problems within the Middle East. It was originally only a letter that was later made into and official document. Arthur James Balfour sent a letter to Lionel Walter Rothschild, a leader of British Jewry saying that the British supported the Zionist movement. "Balfour Declaration, letter prepared in March 1916 and issued in November 1917, during World War I, by the British statesman Arthur James Balfour, then foreign secretary in the cabinet of Prime Minister David Lloyd George."("Balfour Declaration," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000) The agreement was written November 2, 1917, and it was the British’s attempt to gain support from the Jews. The Declaration was created through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, the Zionist leaders in London, England. Nahum Sokolow and Chaim Weizmman both played influential parts in the actual signing of the agreement. . "He took a prominent part in Anglo-French negotiations leading to the Balfour Declaration of Nov. 2, 1917."

("Sokolow" http://www.iea.org.il/blueprint/bio/p204.htm )

The Balfour Declaration was basically about the British even though they did sign an agreement saying that they would support the Zionist movement, but this document seemed to come with stipulations, disappointments, and they tried to get their way by any means necessary.


Glad to see you are reading though!

Here's more for your education.
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/04/shembo/shembo.htm

When the British originally created the Balfour Declaration they were just looking for support in the World War I, but also had some long term affects in mind. "The immediate purpose was to win for the Allied cause in World War I the support of Jews and others in the warring nations and in neutral countries such as the United States."("Balfour Declaration," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000) "In long-range terms, the motive behind British policy rested on the importance of Palestine as a strategic point on the land and sea routes to India and, above all, as the terminus at the Mediterranean Sea of pipelines from the rich oil-bearing regions of the Middle East."(same site) They knew that the only way they could gain support from the Jews would be to show sympathy to the Jewish cause, and find some way to get Jews to sign an agreement that was going to ultimately benefit the British, but would still leave hope in the Jews minds. "The British government hoped that the declaration would rally Jewish opinion, especially in the United States, to the side of the Allies and that the settlement in Palestine of a pro-British Jewish population might help to protect the approaches to the Suez Canal in neighboring Egypt."("Balfour Declaration" Encyclopedia Britannica Online)

They made a similar agreement with the Palestinians. They signed an agreement saying that they supported the Palestinians movement in keeping the Jews from forming a homeland within Palestine. The British obviously knew that this would cause some turmoil, so they kept it under the table for fear that they would lose Palestinian support. The British had no consideration for anyone else but themselves, because they would do whatever it took to win the war, even when they knew that it would do more harm then good.

The Balfour Declaration was well written. It never really said the British would create a Jewish home state, but that they would support the Jewish movement. " His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in the Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other."

("The Balfour Declaration", Microsoft@Encarta@Online Encyclopedia 2000;http://encarta.msn.com 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation.)


It specifically says that, all though they favor the establishment of a Jewish Home state, they would not do anything that would violate the rights of the Palestinians. <-----------So much for that. aye?

This was how the British manipulated, and used the Jews. They knew that they were the only option the Jews had. The British knew that they could make their offer to the extent that it was enough for the Jews to go along with them into war, but not so much as to help dethrone the Palestinian government.

Then in 1920, at the end of WWI, Britain was granted Palestine.

Rothschild... isn't that interesting.

the doctor treats the injury. the casualty is wounded by
shrapnel or bullets, or falling walls etc.

often the casualty cannot know exactly how they have been injured - if they are hit behind a wall for example - or if a round lands some distance from them - something blows up and hits them and in most cases they do not know who fired the round or even where the shell was coming from. such is warfare. they assume it is coming from the enemy firing at them but it could just as easily be that they have been caught in crossfire or a rocket launcher is behind them somewhere or they could easily be the victim of friendly fire which happens all the time.

what is certain is that if Hamas had not fired rockets purposefully aimed at injuring innocent israeli civilians then there would be no military action in Gaza today and if Hamas ever ceases firing rockets and bombing israelis then there will be peace but Hamas chooses to continue the conflict regardless of how many innocent people they destroy on either side.

Yes, Interesting how that name shows up over and over.

I find this part very interesting.
To those who think it was always Israel-----


This was how the British manipulated, and used the Jews. They knew that they were the only option the Jews had. The British knew that they could make their offer to the extent that it was enough for the Jews to go along with them into war, but not so much as to help dethrone the Palestinian government.

This is not warfare, its a massacre.

Israels own Government has been saying that it has something like 10 casualties and that the majority of those are from "Friendly Fire"

"what is certain is that if Hamas had not fired rockets purposefully aimed at injuring innocent israeli civilians then there would be no military action in Gaza today and if Hamas ever ceases firing rockets and bombing israelis then there will be peace but Hamas chooses to continue the conflict regardless of how many innocent people they destroy on either side."

And what is also certain is if Isreal hadn't turned the Gaza Strip into a Concentration Camp, they probably wouldn't be getting shot at by overblown bottlerockets.

Both sides have their faults, but some only choose to point out what some Palestinians have been doing. If it's okay to judge and execute an entire population for the crimes of a few, which in my reading and research has been the policy of the Zionist regime, then the Average American had better watch out, because of the Globalists running this country.

WOW!
Someone put the horse and cart in their proper order!

I agree with everything you just said war!
Exactly!!!

What disturbs me, is the ease in which you discount the numerous accounts that Isreal is targeting just about anything moving.

I've seen this Dr. give a couple of interviews now and not once has he said " It may have been this or it may have been that." He is making it clear in his verbiage that these attacks have been direct and with purpose.

To top that off the reports that are getting out, contrary to IDF efforts are that there are hundreds... let me restate that... Hundreds of children being slaughtered.

"As of Thursday, 257 children were among the approximately 760 reported dead in Gaza. There were another 1,080 children among the 3,100 injured in the conflict, according to statistics from Gaza's health ministry.

The UN's top humanitarian official, John Holmes, described the numbers as 'credible' and deeply disturbing. UN officials say about half of the casualties were civilians. "

Granted, the UN are not known to be "pro" Israel, however, if Isreal wanted to avoid these reports, then they shouldn't be blocking aid and journalists into the area.

Whether the Zionists like it or not, you will reap what you sow.

Did you see where they have now closed off the West Bank?