Israel live-tweets Gaza offensive

Brian Fung at the Atlantic writes: "Over the past six hours, Israel's military has been hammering Gaza with a barrage of missiles. The IDF's public relations team, meanwhile, has just as steadily been covering the offensive -- updating its Twitter handle, @IDFSpokesperson, with the play-by-play on Operation Pillar of Defense. Within moments of the opening salvo, IDF officials announced that they'd killed the top operative in Hamas' armed services."


  1. You forgot to mention that Israel has been under a barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza over the last week.

    1. She forgot to detail the whole history of Israel, Gaza, Palestine, Jordan, and the surrounding countries to ancient times. True, this is basically a story about social media, but that doesn’t mean you can get away with leaving out the detailed political context.

      I mean, what if someone reads this, and doesn’t understand that Israel and Gaza have history together? They might end up confused, or worse, end up talking about the article.

    2. You forgot to mention how the people doing the rocketing were displaced from their homes and moved into a ghetto (much like the ones the Nazi’s set up in WW2) by the people they are doing the rocketing towards.

      1. What do you mean “much like the ones the Nazi’s[sic] set up in WW2”? It’s EXACTLY the same. 

        The only slight differences are that in the Nazi ghettos population growth was -20% a year (-40% in the Warsaw ghetto) while in Gaza it’s one of the highest in the world at around 7%, that in the Nazi ghettos tens of thousands of people died of hunger, while Gaza has one of the highest obesity levels in the Arab world, and the really insignificant fact that it took the Nazis less than 4 months from the time an uprising started until they completely liquidated (as in killed everyone in) the ghetto, while the population of Gaza has more than doubled since the first intifada. 

        But other than that it’s EXACTLY the same. The ghettos, like Gaza, had borders with friendly nations, they regularly shot rockets from the ghettos at population centers, the Jews in the ghettos kidnapped Nazis in order to bargain for Jewish prisoners who deliberately killed German civilians, etc, etc.

        1. Well, if it’s not actually as bad as the holocaust, then taking people’s property and herding them into camps is just hunky dory.

          Pro tip: talking about how Gazans are fat and breed too much doesn’t do your argument any favors.

          1. I was just replying to a silly comparison. I’m sorry you didn’t like my response, as I’m sure you’re completely open minded about the whole issue.

            Remind me exactly who herded them into camps? I forget.

          2.  It’s funny that you equate an obesity rate with health, also funny that you talk about them like they’re vermin.

          3.  oh, of course, because you deserve more respect and understanding that you offer.

            I can see how you’re drawn to commenting on this topic. Hope it pays off for you.

          4. 1. “if it’s not actually as bad as the holocaust…”

            It’s not. If what was happening in Gaza was even remotely “as bad as the holocaust” there would be no Palestinian Arabs left in Gaza. They’d all be dead, plus or minus a few living in basements or sewers. Instead, they’ve got double-digit population growth and economic conditions that are better than in Egypt and Turkey — and are not even remotely as bad as places like Haiti or Afghanistan.

            Naturally, the main reason Gazans don’t live as well as they’d like is because their territory is run by Hamas. If your neighborhood was run by jihadist terrorists, you’d have lots to complain about, too.

            2. “Pro tip: talking about how Gazans are fat and breed too much doesn’t do your argument any favors.” That seems to be a deliberate misreading of what rigs is saying.

            It’s common among “human rights activists” to talk about a “humanitarian catastrophe” and “starvation” that simply does not exist. There are problems in Gaza but malnutrition is not one of them. And it’s not like Israeli soldiers are force-feeding Palestinians into an obesity epidemic any more than Taco Bell employees are force-feeding Americans into their own “lifestyle choice. So rigs was simply refuting a pervasive lie.

          5. Naturally, the main reason Gazans don’t live as well as they’d like is because their territory is run by Hamas. 

            …and the explanation for the situation before Hamas was elected?  (This argument seems to ignore the fact that the election of Hamas had its own causal antecedents.) 

            There are problems in Gaza but malnutrition is not one of them.


   (check the conclusions section of the abstract to see why occupation would affect nutrition)


            Given the ease with which evidence for malnutrition in Gaza can be adduced (these are literally the top 3 google results after searching for “gaza nutrition”) I’d request that you back up your claim with some hard evidence.

          6. economic conditions that are better than in Egypt and Turkey — and are not even remotely as bad as places like Haiti or Afghanistan.

            Hilarious. You think that’s a positive. You may remember that Egyptians were just dying in the streets trying to better their situation, and as far as I know, Turkey isn’t being bombed by Israel all the time and the people don’t live in what’s essentially a prison camp.

            I’ve got your tourist slogan for you:

            Gaza under Israeli apartheid: A bit better than Haiti or Afghanistan!


        2. It’s late, I have work to do, and might reply in a more nuanced way later, though I think antinous basically pulled a good enough ‘snap’… but, ALL of israel (minus certain small parts of the population) is the Israeli military… the only way out of service is by being a hard core orthodox type, and they are basically the arm chair generals… so your flawed attempt at sarcasm fails. Palestinians were displaced and mistreated regardless of whether they were of fight’n age etc etc etc

          When you get down to it, the only claim to israel that Jews not actually born there before the ‘founding’/stealing of the nation have , is that sky god in the book said it was so. What makes that even more silly is that is at the heart of the claim, for even the VAST numbers of secular israelis.

          Anyways, three cheers for Jews for Peace!

          If you don’t treat people like dogs, maybe they will stop launching rockets at you like tech advanced dogs etc….

          And one more thing, so by criticizing the way Hamas is acting, you are basically saying that any Jew in, for example, the Warsaw Ghetto, who dared to fight back against the Nazis was a terrible person?

          Israel is simply more PR savvy than the Nazis, and is playing a much longer game. But the game is a terrible one, and they intend to win, and you are a big fat anti-semite for calling them on it, and if you are Jewish, you are a big fat self-hating Jewish person!

          1. So basically you’re making two points above:

            1. There is no such thing as an Israeli civilian, including children, the elderly, people who never served in the military, etc. Obvious point being that it’s ok to shoot rockets into Israeli population centers. Any other country that applies to?
            2. That _Jews_ born in Israel since 1948 have no claim to live there. 

            Why would anyone call you a big fat anti-semite?

          2. Your (2) is inaccurate.  zombiebob specifically pointed out that those born in Israel after 1948 do have a claim to live there.  Given the fact that you’re either unwilling or unable to honestly assess zombiebob’s argument you seem pretty fucking partisan on this issue.  My advice: cut the “anti-semite” and “closed-minded” bullshit since you seem to have taken up residence in a glass house.

          3. I don’t know where you live, but if it’s North America and you aren’t descended from the Native Americans/First People, then I think you should probably move back to Europe, Asia or Africa, wherever your ancestors came from, before you start saying that no Jew has a right to live in Israel.

            Did Israel engage in some ethnic cleansing in connection with its founding?  Yes, just like almost every other nation-state on earth that ever fought and won a war for territory.  That doesn’t make ethnic cleansing a rightful or good thing (it’s a horrible thing and I wish they hadn’t done it), but it’s a fact of history that we usually allow to fade into history almost everywhere–except Israel.

            Why are the Palestinians the only people in the world with hereditary refugee status and their own UN refugee agency (UNRWA) that’s separate from the UN agency (UNHCR) serving every other refugee group in the world?  Why shouldn’t Germans have a right of return to Königsberg?  Why shouldn’t the Lenape have a right of return to Manhattan? 

            I don’t believe that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitism.  Israel more than deserves much of the criticism that is directed toward it, and the Palestinians clearly deserve much better than the status quo. 

            But the idea that Israeli civilians deserve to have
            rockets rain on them from the sky until all the Jews simply pick up and
            leave the neighborhood?  That’s pretty vile.

          4. Did Israel engage in some ethnic cleansing in connection with its founding?  Yes, just like almost every other nation-state on earth that ever fought and won a war for territory.

            Yeah, thank God that’s over………

          5. Did Israel engage in some ethnic cleansing in connection with its founding? Yes, just like almost every other nation-state on earth that ever fought and won a war for territory.

            They’re still doing it, Mister Selective Vision.

          6. @Navin_Johnson and
            @Antinous_Moderator:disqus :  If you’re talking about the settler enterprise, I agree that it resembles ethnic cleansing and is extremely damaging to any chances for peace that may exist.

            But consider the flip side:
            1) There are no settlers in Gaza.  Israel forcibly removed every last settler.  And the blockade (as problematic as it is) only began after Hamas took over Gaza and started the rocket campaign post-withdrawal.  It’s a game of chicken and somebody needs to give, because innocents on both sides are suffering.  But if your next door neighbor has repeatedly tried to kill you in the past and continues to swear he’s going to kill you, wouldn’t you do everything in your power to stop him from getting better weapons? 

            2) Should Jews not be allowed to live in the West Bank?  I’m not a fan of Israeli settlement policy and in the interest of peace would go so far as to say that settlements shouldn’t exist in the West Bank (i.e., Jews shouldn’t live there) if they can only exist in the context of what’s effectively an apartheid system (yes, I’ll use that word for the West Bank).  But step back a second and consider who exactly is doing the ethnic cleansing if the international community effectively decrees that all Jews have to leave the West Bank.

            If, on the other hand, you’re arguing that ethnic cleansing continues by the mere existence of a Jewish state on any of the land between the sea and the river, then I vehemently disagree.  Israel’s policies in the occupied territories (which were Egyptian and Jordanian prior to 1967, not Palestinian) are hugely problematic and need to change drastically if there is to be any hope of peace.  But Israel within the 1948-1967 borders (and many parts of Jerusalem where Jews were once again allowed to visit and live after 1967) are a very different story.  There are problems there, too, that need fixing.  But those problems are more akin to problems we have in the US with racism, sexism and political division.

          7. They take land from Palestinians, bulldoze the buildings and give the land to ultra-orthodox Jewish nutjobs to build settlements. There’s not really any nuance in any of this.

            Israel’s problem is that a tiny and largely non-contributory portion of the population has vast and undue influence over how the country is run. Even more than in the US. Align Israel’s internal population with political influence and it would be a progressive, democratic, secular state within a year.

          8. @Antinous_Moderator:disqus   Can you cite an example from the last 40 years where they’ve bulldozed a Palestinian building to build a Jewish home?  It certainly happened in the years leading up to 1948 and to a much more limited extent in 1967.  But since then? 

            Israel has had a (problematic) policy of bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers (I’m not sure of the current status of that policy), but they didn’t give the homes to Jews.  There were some cases where the building of the separation barrier divided villages from their farmland.  And in Hebron (home to a particularly obnoxious band of settlers, most of whom are American-born) there have been some Palestinian families effectively forced from their homes due to the settlers’ presence making them unlivable, and some of the settlers have tried to occupy those homes. But the IDF actually kicks those settlers out.

            There have also been some eminent domain cases in Israel proper where Bedouin Israeli citizens were kicked out of illegal squatter villages to make way for highways.

            But I can’t think of any remotely recent example where the Israeli government actually took land from the Palestinians, bulldozed the buildings, and gave it to Jews.

          9. According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem: From October 2001 to December 2005, Israel has demolished 668 homes as punishment, leaving 4,182 people homeless. Israel has demolished 1,746 homes for alleged military purposes since B’Teselem started keeping statistics in this category in 2004. According to the United Nations, about 1,500 homes were demolished by the IDF in the Rafah area in the period 2000–2004….

            A number of human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, oppose the practice. Human Rights Watch has argued that the practice violates international laws against collective punishment, the destruction of private property, and the use of force against civilians….

            Amnesty International has criticised the lack of due process in the use of house demolitions by Israel. Many demolitions are carried out with no warning or opportunity for the householder to appeal….

            However, Israel, which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, asserts that the terms of the Convention are not applicable to the Palestinian territories on the grounds that the territories do not constitute a state which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention.[17][18][19] This position is rejected by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, which notes that “it is a basic principle of human rights law that international human rights treaties are applicable in all areas in which states parties exercise effective control, regardless of whether or not they exercise sovereignty in that area.”


          10. @Antinous_Moderator:disqus  Not a single one of those homes was demolished to make way for a Jew to live in its place.

            The “punishment” demolitions were the problematic demolition policy I was referring to, which I guess is still in full force.  The “alleged military purposes” part is mostly very real military purposes (the Rafah demolitions, for example, were done to clear the Philadelphi Route, and were considered necessary to prevent the free flow of weaponry into Gaza).

            That’s not to say I think the demolitions are just or right.  B’tselem, AI and HRW all have very good reason to be keeping tabs on–and criticizing–these actions as they’re not without controversy.   And I applaud all three organizations for the good work they do.

            Israel can be very heavy-handed (sometimes unacceptably so) in the methods they use to defend their country.  But this isn’t about ethnic cleansing.

          11. Not a single one of those homes was demolished to make way for a Jew to live in its place.

            No, they were just conveniently demolished for REALLY, REALLY GOOD REASONS, and then the land was turned over to regular folks.

            Your disingenuousness in the face of human misery makes me want to scrub myself with iodine.

          12. @Antinous_Moderator:disqus  Come on, you’re better than that (you’ve beaten me in arguments more than once before).  I’m not saying people aren’t suffering.  I’m not saying Israel shouldn’t be doing much, much better than they are.

            But you said that Israel continues to engage in ethnic cleansing, that they bulldoze Palestinian buildings to make way for Jews to live.  They don’t.

            I honestly don’t know what happens to homes that are demolished for so-called “punitive” reasons.  They probably just get rebuilt by the same people who lived there before.  But they aren’t given to Jews (it is, after all, a crime punishable by death under Palestinian Authority law to sell land to a Jew).  The ones demolished for “alleged military reasons” are generally not replaced.  The vast majority were demolished to clear the Philadelphi Route, which is clear.  Some were probably demolished to make way for the West Bank separation barrier.  But not because Jews wanted to live on that land.

            I’m not blind to human misery.  The Palestinians have it bad.  Very bad.  And the Israelis shoulder much of the blame for it.  But take a step back and ask yourself what you would do if you were an Israeli.

          13. I wont try to convince you that Gaza isn’t like the Nazi ghettos, because if you genuinely believe they are the same, then it just shows your ignorance about what these ghettos actually were and what was the holocaust was all about. or maybe you are just ignorant about the Gaza situation.. I don’t know.. but it’s your problem and folly.
            you just come across as a spoiled westerner who thinks he is advocating a cause he clearly knows very little about and who throws slogans which he then tries to defend by showing his ignorance even more, all the while slapping in the face of those millions who actually suffered in the Nazi ghettos (many of them weren’t even Jews) by belittling their horrendous suffering.
            good luck with that.

            “When you get down to it, the only claim to Israel that Jews not actually born there before the ‘founding’/stealing of the nation have , is that sky god in the book said it was so”

            Oh, so more then 120 years of nation building and 65 years of actually being a nation, doesn’t count? oh well… wait a second while I tell all the Israelis, most of them were already born there for 2 or 3 generations, to just pack and leave because they have no claim. what nonsense.

          1.  It’s a common result of poverty. It happens when you can’t afford or obtain nutritious food, and have to live mainly on cheap carbs. The high carbohydrate diet predisposes your metabolism to fat storage and type 2 diabetes. The Guardian has an article on the rise of obesity due to the increase in poverty in the UK (not that it is comparable with the Gaza Strip & West Bank).

      1. You know, justifying it only means you think one side (yours) has a right that the other does not

        If there are different rules, then you’re the bully.

        1.  I suspect Navin_Johnson is simply leaning back against the rather one-sided reporting and commentary on this issue within the USA.  The argument is that Israel is justified in its rather one-sided military actions against Gaza because the Gazans started it! (pout), and I think this is just a rebuttal to that, not a justification for killing Israelis.

          1. I agree! It’s still expecting one side to behave differently. That will never solve anything if resentment is the root on both sides.

    3. You forgot to mention they refuse to let Palestinians return to their homeland and instead stick them in a ghetto.

  2. Yeah- I vote that Israel defends itself by coming to a settlement with Palestine. People tend to get ornery when you wall them up.

  3. Once Obama was elected and it was clear that America was not about to launch an assault with Israel on Iran as some were awaiting, Syria started sending mortars into Israel to ask Israel if it would like help getting into conflict with Syria’s neighbor and supporter, Iran.

    Israel is accepting Syria’s invitation, and is proceeding to “retaliate” offensively “against” Syria, so that Iran is drawn into their conflict as all sides desire.

    Israel is upramping “Plan-B” to increase how much it is victimized according to it’s offensive military objectives, and needs, and to increase conflict and regional spillover so that it can march in the direction it wants to, unilaterally.

    Israel’s adventure is watched with interest.

    1. So let me get it straight:Syria shots mortars at Israel time and again, Israel warns once, twice and a third time, and when Israel finally responds it is not, god forbid, because it seeks to protect it’s citizens and territory  but because it only uses the occasion to further some more sinister grandiose cause?

      And to even larger extent, Gaza shots 100+ rockets on Israeli civilians for a week while Israel shows restraint (not to mention the 750 rockets already thrown since the beginning of 2012) and when Israel finally responds in order to stop the attacks, it again only doing so as a means of starting a much wider conflict with Iran…

      What would convince you that Israel may have straight forward goals, as the politicians, media and its own civilians say (to stop attacks on civilians)? when 1500 will be shot from Gaza? 2500? 10,000? or maybe you would like Israel to wait to accumulate more civilian death until it responds… then, maybe, you would believe that it have a legitimate reason to respond. or maybe not..

      1. Hi Roy,

        Israel’s response to Syria’s mortar’s is appropriate, and has been very restrained, and legitimate.  Syria’s reasons for firing the mortars at Israel has been invitational, where Syria knows Israel wants to arrive at active assault upon Syria’s friend, Iran, and may easily arrive at such a showdown by arriving at conflict with Syria, merely by Israel legitimately responding to Syria’s mortars to escalate conflict between them.

        Whether Israel opportunes to arrive at legitimate conflict with Syria to leverage such to arrive at their desired strike on Iran, or whether Israel increases conflict on some other legitimate front to such end is left to be seen.

        1. Hi Gordon.

          My problem with your line of argument is that it assumes some ulterior motive to Israel actions when there is much simpler and obvious motives to their actions (protecting their civilians and sovereignty).
          It also neglects the possibility that a full scale war is not in Israel best interests, aka war = death. why would you assume that Israel wants full scale war when it can be avoided (achieving the goal of ending Iran nuclear program with precision attack which may not result in a war, as it did in the past with Iraq and Syria).
          To sum it up, your line of argument assume that Israel seeks a full blown war by disregarding the price such war would entail. I would argue that Israel appreciate the lives of their people and solders much more then that.

          1. Hi Roy,

            No argument. I do note however that Syria is doing the same thing as Israel, “protectingit’s people and sovereignty from terrorists”, yet the international community is on the side of the terrorists, according to Syria’sdefinition.

            As per your comment about suggesting alterior motive being behind what Syria and Hamas are doing to Israel, and Israel’sengagement of it being some design to enter into wider conflict with Iran, it stands to reason that given the sensitivities in the region, at this time, that -ANY- escalation of regional conflict can -easily- lead to (perhaps undesired) engagement with Iran.

            At this time, the leader of Israel only has a limited time in power remaining in which to do things he would -really- like to about Iran. Waiting for sanctions to work with Obama now that Obamawon, is not acceptable to the leader of Israel, who needs some new avenue to arrive at his strike on Iran, where a surgical strike is a pipe-dream givenhow Iran is ready to respond, and the whole region would burst into conflict.

            The leader of Israel waited to see if George’s new guy would win and thenthey could all go after Iran if he did. That did not happen, and so both Syria and Hamas are poking the caged lion to give it a reason to unleashregional conflict, and to be provoked is to step into a trap.

            We can only watch to see how much restraint the leader of Israel now exercises where we know howmuch he needs some war activity in the time he has remaining. It’s about the sensitivities there,where restraint is a greater show of force than retaliation, under the present conditions.

      2. The entire country was stolen from the Palestinians. Attempts to negotiate a democratic, secular state have been consistently rebuffed in favor of a nation based on a single religious and ethnic identity. The problem isn’t going to go away. It’s just a question of how many people will be left alive.

  4. Gaza is for all purposes the world’s largest open-air jail. So Israel surrounds and controls 1.5 million people within walls & fences then sends rockets and naval artillery shells into the territory? Already children have died. There are two issues of international law & treaty here: one is mass punishment, forbidden by the UN Charter; and, proportional response. It looks a lot like war crimes are being committed (again) to this observer. Remember, in Operation Cast Lead Israel used phosphorous bombs and hit schools & clinics. Are we looking at a repeat performance, just so Netanyahu can get re-elected?

        1.  You may not have said that, but the Hamas charter certainly does, including a reference to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as a textbook describing what the Jews are up to.

          1. Yeah, if the school kids didn’t want their skin burned off with white phosphorous they should have arranged to be born somewhere else.

          2.  How about maybe showing the respect to what was said, that way we can respect what you say?

            Fair deal, or do you deserve more than someone else?

      1. Reminds me of how the US would complain about Indian attacks when they fought against being put on reservations.  We’d send in the army to destroy them for having the temerity to revolt.

      1. Yes, but on purpose. No, what is horribly tragicomic, is that this little bit of sand historically doesn’t belong to either current ‘side’. The Palestinians are just as much carpet baggers as the Israelis.

        1. The Palestinians are just as much carpet baggers as the Israelis.

          Obviously there have been immigrants over the years, but the Palestinians are still largely descended from people who have lived there since remote antiquity.

          1. In 721 BCE the region was overrun by the Assyrians and the Philistines were subdued completely and lost their autonomy. The end of the region known as Palestine, as well as the remaining cultural Philistines, came in 604 BCE when the Assyrians sacked the remaining towns and cities and sold the inhabitants into slavery.

            So, something like 2600 years ago?

  5. I read it as politics.  Israeli election approaching + see what Obama’s next 4 years is going to be like viz-a-viz Israel, and harden /split attitudes of the jewish vote in the USA.  In four years time they’ll want more visible and public support from the US.

    It is horrid, and awful that civilians, especially children, are impacted.

    1. Civillian in Israel means soldier, with few exceptions. Maybe it’s the same in Gaza,

      Children on both sides are victims of their parents choices.

      Which is stronger? Love of your children? or hate of your ‘other’?

  6. I don’t like sideing with any one side if I’m not involved but in this case I’m going with the Palestinians.  Simply there trapped in a shrinking small bit of land blockaded by land air and sea with no way out or any hope of peace so of course there going to react with violence.

    Of course it is stupid of them to use rockets, it does nothing other than invite retaliation and condemnation from other countries they should instead use no violence and sue Israel in the world courts every time it brakes international law eventually Israel will have no leg to stand on legally and anyone that back them will themselves look bad.

    The second reason I’m siding with Palestine on this one is simply that Israel has no legal right to blockade and attack them, there not a legal country there just some people on some land attacking another group and without the legal right of government there just criminals for these acts in the eyes of international community. 

    Why are they not a legal country? Its simple they have not defined there borders. To be a real legal country you must do three things.  1: You must have a permanent population in the area you want to call a country this is your nation 2: You must have a representative of that population i.e. a government this is called the state to interact with other governments and to be acknowledged by them and finally 3: To have a definable territory where there nation lives and who government represents.  Sadly Israel has only done the first two it has not defined its territory so in legal essence its not a real legal country.   If they define there borders they will be but until till then they have no legal ground to stand on for the actions they are doing.

    1. Nowhere in that article does it say Ahmed Jabari was working on a long-term peace initiative.  It says he may have been involved in truce talks.  Important distinction.

      It’s entirely possible (likely, even) that killing Jabari could make peace harder.  But even the activist claiming that Jabari was involved in truce talks says he was not a man of peace.

      1. Oh, so whatever he may have been trying to be is overshadowed by your memory.

        But it’s everyone else who unwilling to compromise that you’re fine with seeing eliminated from this planet?

  7. If they knew where exactly this guy was (and obviously they did) and he was such a criminal then why didn’t they make any attempt to arrest him?  Don’t tell me Israel couldn’t have.

    1. Why arrest a terrorist when you can kill him?

      I’m not being sarcastic. No point in fighting these wars with one hand tied behind your back. 

      Jabari had a lot of blood on his hands. He was a killer and a leader of killers.

      Re: “Don’t tell me Israel couldn’t have”.

      Yes, Israel could have gone in with ground forces to arrest a known terrorist, which would have begun a wider war with more casualties — not an ideal outcome if it can be avoided.

      I take it you’re also against US drone attacks on Al Qaeda terrorists?

      (“But, but, but, they’re all innocent farmers with no connection to jihad or terrorism and don’t you know that all Pakistanis are armed with grenade launchers and mortars to protect their poor little dirt farm that’s in a cave in the middle of a mountain range?)

      1.  Drone war is illegal, racks up lots of civilian casualties (which are defined by the US government as “militants” by default, so don’t expect any accurate reportage on numbers here), and further radicalizes people who would otherwise just herd their goats and get on with their lives.  Calling them “Al Qaeda” terrorists certainly makes them sound dangerous until you consider the fact that Al Qaeda doesn’t really pose much of a threat to US in the first place and that most people hit by drone strikes probably aren’t even really part of “Al Qaeda” (surprise, surprise: most Jijadis aren’t).

        Let’s be real.  The people getting hit with missiles launched from drones are not a threat to the US.  Not even the least little bit.  They can’t afford to travel to Kabul, much less NYC. 

        That’s barely even the start of the moral case against drone warfare.  I won’t even get into it because it sounds like you’re a hopeless authoritarian and simply constitutionally incapable of understanding anything outside of the framework provided by US news media.

      2.  Jabari had a lot of blood on his hands. He was a killer and a leader of killers.

        Sounds like Netanyahu

    2. Gaza isn’t downtown Tel-Aviv.
      If they would come in to arrest him it could only be achieved with full scale invasion, or a commando operation. either way it would be a bloodbath on both sides.. and then you would accuse Israel of genocide. 
      Your argument is dishonest  no matter how Israel would act, you would always condemn her. if Israel attacks her enemy and kills civilians in the process  she would be accused of war crimes. if Israel attacks it’s enemy with pin-point precision with no civilian casualty, she is still accused of war crimes because she didn’t arrest him (what a ridiculous suggestion by the way.. since when one is supposed to arrest his enemy in a war). if Israel comes in and tries to arrest him  she would still be accused of war crimes since it cant be done without a hard fight (remember Israel pulled out of Gaza?) and that would lead to civilian casualty..
      I think Israel would do better to not listen to your unrealistic advises… 

  8. Abdullah I of Jordan is hardly an unbiased party, considering that he was presently scheming to be the ruler of the entire area. It’s not as though he had roots there either; he was born and lived in Mecca and was only installed as emir (later king) of Transjordan in exchange for his wartime favors to Britain.

    I think that conceptually Israel should be regarded as just one of the many states established in the period stretching from WW1 to around 1950, divided on ethnic lines to prevent friction or protect a minority population. I can’t see any moral basis for distinguishing between Israel and Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or wherever. Particularly Jordan – here’s a country carved out of the British Mandate to be a home for Arabs and not Jews!

    Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is foolish and something which I find personally hurtful. It’s foolish because Israel in fact has a large Arab population, while its neighbours massacred or expelled literally hundreds of thousands of Jews, leaving themselves effectively Judenrein. . Israel is actually the Middle East’s shining beacon of coexistence; nowhere else in the region do you find even the somewhat-compromised intercourse and free association that exists in Israel.

    I find the comparison personally hurtful because my family actually came from Hungary. In three months nearly two thirds of Hungarian Jews were killed by the Nazis – the numbers of course were higher in some countries, lower in others. Comparing this massacre of innocent civilians to anything Israel has ever done is … well, it’s just beyond the realm of reasonable discourse.

Comments are closed.