Skip to main content

View Diary: Shame on Those Here that Smear Elie Wiesel (455 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, it is true. Merely placing (22+ / 0-)

    those rockets in civilian areas IS a per se violation of international humanitarian law.

    Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:34:22 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  no it isn't (36+ / 0-)

      Gaza is tiny, so Israel claims al weapons are in civilian areas.   And Israel was indiscriminately shelling guys on motorcycles. They were naming all adult men "Hamas combatants."  Shooting rockets into civilian areas, whether from Gaza toward Israel or from Israel toward Gaza is a violation of international humanitarian law, which would make them equal, except one sides has the dome and the other side doesn't, and one side has sophisticated weapons and the other side doesn't. the crime is the same, but the effects are 'disproportionate.'

      plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

      by anna shane on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:45:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are wrong. And, having worked (19+ / 0-)

        as a war crimes prosecutor, I can assure that you are most definitely wrong.

        Article 51, Section 7 of the First Geneva Protocolstates:  

        7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
         
        That does not mean that Israel is absolved of their responsibilities in attacking those sites.   But, it is a CLEAR violation of international humanitarian law and one for which the perpetrators can be held independently liable for the resulting deaths.  That means, quite frankly, that both the IDF AND Hamas can be held liable for those deaths.

        Each firing of a rocket from a civilian area by Hamas constitutes TWO per se violations of international humanitarian law -- the prohibition against the use of human shield and the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks.   Retaliation by the IDF is a separate matter.  

        Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

        by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:55:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Selective choice (7+ / 0-)

          of international law.  You're leaving out the entire proportionality concept, which overrides everything.

          •  It does not "override everything". Israel's (8+ / 0-)

            retaliation must be proportional, otherwise it is culpable under international law.  That, however, does not IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM diminish Hamas' culpability.  Binary thinking says that only one side can be in the wrong.  Both can be.  Israel is not absolved from a proportional response and one which seeks to minimize and avoid civilian casualties by the siting of the rockets in civilian areas.  And Hamas is not absolved of their crime in firing from under the cover of a civilian area by a disproportionate response by Israel.   BOTH are culpable.

            Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

            by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:14:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the fact of firing rockets that can't be aimed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              frostbite

              is a crime, the fact of having people that Israel pretends are used as shields is not a crime.  So far no one has proven any such thing, and there have been many international observers, and if there were even one instance of that happening, it would be big news.  Gaza is tiny, living in an apartment over a member of Hamas's home is not Hamas using human shields, it's living. In contrast Israeli troops have used Palestinian civilians go 'go first' into dangerous zones.  

              Hamas is high-minded, they gave up Syrian arms and money because they would not rubber stamp killing civilians.  They are bad because of their rockets not being aimable, not because Gaza is tiny and under siege, and they think they'll be continuously starved unless Israel comes to respect them as potentially dangerous and so in need of diplomacy.  They look to the West Bank and see the continued humiliations and land grabs and they see no alternative.

              Is there an alternative to resisting occupation? (and yes, they are still 'occupied' since they still have no control of borders or airspace or use of the sea)

              plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

              by anna shane on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:56:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  If you worked as a war crimes prosecutor ... (15+ / 0-)

          then you know that Israel has committed serious war crimes in the past month. Palestine has joined Geneva Convention as of April 2nd.

          There are rules regarding occupied territories. Israel has violated them.

          There are rules regarding destruction and appropriation of property. Israel has violated them.

          If you indeed worked as a war crimes prosecutor, you must now join in the call for Israel to be held to account for its war crimes against Palestine.

          Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

          by edg on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:51:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I believe that there is reason to conduct (16+ / 0-)

            an investigation into grave violations of international humanitarian law by BOTH the IDF and Hamas.  And, I have said so repeatedly here.  However, there is this one-sided echo chamber here that refuses to recognize that BOTH sides can be held culpable for crimes against humanity and war crimes.  It is against that one-sided response that I cry -- usually to stupid responses that seek to put all the blame on one side.  

            Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

            by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:16:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  of course both (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JoanMar

              the rockets from Gaza can't be aimed, that's war crime by definition. But that's it, they haven't used civilians as shields, that's just the Israelis blaming Hamas for Israelis killing children.  

              plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

              by anna shane on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:57:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again, you are simply WRONG. (7+ / 0-)

                Merely firing the rockets from a civilian area is a per se violation.  As I pointed out to you in another comment.  With a citation to the specific point of law.

                And, as I have repeatedly said througout this thread, the fact that Hamas has committed TWO war crimes by firing a) indiscriminately and b) from a civilian area, in no way shape or manner absolves Israel of its obligations, when retaliating, from seeking to avoid civilian deaths.  BOTH can be found legally culpable for the very same deaths.

                Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

                by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:01:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Have you addressed ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  frostbite, JoanMar

                  the destruction of property? Practice Relating to Rule 50. Destruction and Seizure of Property of an Adversary

                  Israeli destruction of the property of alleged militants and the relatives of alleged militants is clearly a violation.

                  Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

                  by edg on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:12:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Again. That is a matter that (8+ / 0-)

                    can be a part of an investigation.  But, the point I have been making, ad nauseum, is that both sides are culpable for grave violations of IHL.  Focusing on one side, to the exclusion of the other, demonstrates a desire to justify war crimes.  Far too many people here give Hamas a pass because of ridiculouos justifications.  My point is that admitting the potential culpability of Hamas for war crimes and crimes against humanity does not absolve Israel of its culpability.  But the majority of commentors on this subject seem to think that it does, so they come up with absurd justifications.  That is excusing war crimes.  Period.

                    Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

                    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:36:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  EDT, Please name one person on this site that fits (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Johnny Nucleo

                      your charge that

                      Far too many people here give Hamas a pass because of ridiculouos justifications.

                      War is costly. Peace is priceless!

                      by frostbite on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:44:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  The subject of this diary ... (5+ / 0-)

                      and the contention of Mr. Wiesel is not that both sides are culpable. It is that only Palestinians are the guilty party. Perhaps that is what drives people to justify or ignore Hamas actions. An attempt to counter the one-sided presentation from Israel supporters.

                      Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

                      by edg on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:30:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  what do you think is going on here on DK... (0+ / 0-)

                      ... to motivate all this binary thinking?

                      I'm inclined to believe one factor at work is the standard progressive value of sympathy for underdogs, translated to whichever side of the conflict each person believes is the underdog here:  

                      Those who support Israel see the history of statements from Arab leaders about "pushing the Jews into the sea," and see Israel under relentless attack from terrorists.

                      Those who support the Palestinians see them as subject to the crushing force of Israel's superior military strength.

                      And then it polarizes further and ratchets up.

                      What do you think is involved?

                      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                      by G2geek on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:51:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, both are culpable (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poco

                      But the question is, where is the accountability for Israel?  You keep talking about investigations, and groups like Human Rights Watch have done investigations, which as you say find both parties culpable.  But while Hamas gets deservedly smacked down (along with the rest of the Gazan population undeservedly), Israel gets paid.  

                      I should also say this...from my view, the only difference between terrorism and war crimes is whether you are a state actor or not.  It's the same actions (in this case, needlessly targeting civilians), it just depends on whether you're wearing a uniform.  So why are Hamas and the IDF treated in the such different ways by the international community?  

                •  Could anyone point to a single DKos comment (0+ / 0-)

                  that suggested that  

                   

                  retaliating, from seeking to avoid civilian deaths.
                  was bad. That's a strawman argument.

                  War is costly. Peace is priceless!

                  by frostbite on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:40:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That was not my argument. You have (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mets102, gooderservice, JNEREBEL

                    taken stray words out of their context.  THAT is a strawman argument.   Where is the strawman, and please point out where I referred in that comment to  "a single DKos comment".

                    As any fair reader of my comment would attest, my comment was a description of the obligations under international humanitarian law of both parties.   Taken in context, your "strawman argument" comment is totally nonsensical.

                    Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

                    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:46:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you make a false equivalence (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poco

                      only Israel fired their rockets into Palestinian civilian areas, and only Hamas fired into Israeli civilian areas.

                      I believe you are agreeing with Bibi in blaming Hamas for Israel's killing Palestinian civilians, but saying that Israel may also be to blame.  No one ever says Hamas is guilt-free, only they aren't terrorists, or like ISIS, they are resisting occupation   and their method of firing rockets without being able to aim them is against international law.  Israel is capable of aiming but aims at civilians anyway, even when given the coordinates several times a day they manage to kill kids sheltering in UN facilities.  Or on the beach.

                      plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

                      by anna shane on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:53:56 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  not for the deaths (0+ / 0-)

                  in your dreams the same deaths.  Hamas can be held accountable only for the rockets that hit some civilian, not for Israeli blood lust. You don't get it, justifying killing children because Hamas is tiny and their rockets (that haven't killed anyone) were moved around is crazy, on face.  delusional

                  plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

                  by anna shane on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:31:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Your quote involves the "movement" and directin... (0+ / 0-)

          Your quote involves the "movement" and directing the movement of civilian populations to subvert military objectives. I would agree that such coordination would constitute and require the term "human shields".

          But hospitals and houses and UN schools don't move. They can not be "directed" or implemented in the coordinated "movement" of the civilian populace. They are the static forms of civilized life. Consequently, they become civilian targets and not human shields.

          I'm sorry that the incredible difficulty of this sticky dilemma is so fucking inconvenient for the IDF, but it is the reality of the war they wage and I strongly suggest that they come up with another fucking plan for their problem that doesn't include waging war on civilian targets and wracking up a 70 fucking % civilian casualty toll.

      •  not to mention... (9+ / 0-)

        that one side has our "unconditional love" and the other side doesn't

        Isn't it time we stop enabling them?  

        "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

        by Sybil Liberty on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:09:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  well here is some discussion on the matter (8+ / 0-)

      http://www.cnn.com/...
      http://gawker.com/...
      http://www.independent.co.uk/...

      However, in light of world skepticism regarding IDF claims of human shields, the IDF now claims to have captured a Hamas operational manual which details when, where and how Hamas operatives should use human shields:
      http://www.independent.co.uk/...

      Funny thing about this manual is that it seems to acknowledge that the IDF is trying to avoid civilian casualties and discusses how Hamas fighters can optimize civilian casualties.  That this document comes to light seems to be most fortuitous for the IDF  

      •  I'm sure India and France (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, IL clb, Mets102, Red Sox, JNEREBEL

        are in on the conspiracy also:

        http://www.nytimes.com/...

        http://www.jta.org/...

        What's freeking hilarious is how many people believe whatever vomit hamas spits out without question but the Israeli's do nothing but lie.  That's what is freeking hilarious.

        •  nice to see you are objective; pity more (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PrahaPartizan, poco, frostbite

          people here are not as objective.

          However, if this is an operations manual, it seems a bit odd that the author would acknowledge that the IDF is playing by all the rules so Hamas has to move the goalposts.

          http://www.juancole.com/...

          •  Juan Cole? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102, Red Sox, JNEREBEL

            I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that.  The topic was hamas using human shields.  The links point to the truth of that.  That you can't handle it is entirely your problem.

            •  Whom do you recommend in your objective (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco

              analysis of if Hamas uses human shields?  (BTW, simply conducting operations in a civilian setting does not de facto constitute human shields.  If Israel were concerned about civilians, it seems they would allow noncombatants to flee and not keep them bottled up.

              If you would, it would seem the problem is Israel is holding the noncombatants as hostages vs Hamas using human shields

              •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mannie

                If hamas is hiding among civilians and shooting off rockets from areas heavy with civilians, it's entirely hamas's fault for any harm that comes to them.  Let's remember, hamas IS the government in Gaza, not some out of control hooligans their government is fighting.

                •  so why won't Israel let the population leave? (0+ / 0-)

                  I am sure the civilians would be happy to relocate to the Sinai or to WB but the borders are closed.  So long as the IDF keeps the population bottled up, casualties are a result of their policies.

                  Also Hamas is not the only one firing rockets.  There are half a dozen or so militias operating in Gaza, some Hamas, some Fatah affiliated and some non-affiliated.

                  Our own Pentagon predicts that if Hamas is destroyed, a more extreme group will take power.  Now consider dealing with ISIS for example, which would then control 2 fronts from which to hit Israel

                  (BTW, you still have not named a reliable, objective ME expert I should rely upon for information)

                  •  Why are you pretending Israel (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mannie

                    has anything to do with the Egyptian border (where Sinai is)?  How nice of you to prove Israel's point that hamas isn't the only problem in gaza and any peace deal is doomed to fail because of all the different factions.

                    As far as reliable reporting - that's hard to come by on this issue but I watch BBC world religiously (pun intended).

                    •  Sissi is acting in coordination with Israel (0+ / 0-)

                      Sissi's continued governance depends upon controlling the MB.  That is why Egypt advanced a ceasefire proposal that Israel accepted or why Egypt and Israel long with the Saudis are coordinating their efforts to suppress the Arab Spring
                      http://www.usatoday.com/...
                      https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/... (Sissi and Mubarak have almost identical policies)

                      I note you fail to address why Gazans cannot flee to the WB even if Egypt does not cooperate in Sinai.  Care to address that?

                      BTW while BBC does do outstanding work at time, it was gutted by Tony Blair during the "sexed up portfolio" affair you may remember, with the British version of a Saturday Night Massacre.  I do note that their reporters have a habit of reporting from remote locations instead of from inside "hot zones"  

                      •  I would have thought that (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Mannie

                        obvious.  Since hamas doesn't wear uniforms, it would hardly be in anybody's best interest - Israeli or Palestinians - to allow an open border to the West Bank.  hamas simply cannot be trusted.

                        You're still pretending Israel has something to do with the Egyptian border.  It's not like they can open it.

                        •  so you bottle up the civilians and then complain (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          poco

                          when you kill them?  I guess you missed this
                          http://online.wsj.com/...

                          •  No - you wait for (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mannie

                            Gazans to elect something other than a terrorist organization. Oh wait - hamas (the little darlings) cancelled at least one election that I remember.   It can't possibly be that hamas isn't popular enough to win - at least according to those here.

                            I still see you have virtually nothing to say about Egypt continuing to keep their border closed.  Have you asked yourself why only Qatar is showing any support for hamas?  Don't you find the silence in the Muslim countries in the mid-east surprising at all?  Have you bothered to ask yourself why that is?

                          •  considering the present political alliance (0+ / 0-)

                            not really.  Which countries do you think would support Hamas?  Libya is a mess as is Syria while Iran is taking care of its own presently.  Egypt has cooperated with Israel for decades and Turkey is not going to risk its relationship with the EU.  Jordan is a long time cooperator with Israel as well while SA dominates UAE and Yemen and Bahrain.  We have installed our own governments in Afghanistan and Iran so which country does that leave?

                            Maybe Lebanon?  However the Lebanese have a shaky truce going between the various groups and really is not going to rock the boat with ISIS on their border, so which ME country do you expect to step up.

                            BTW you also continue to ignore that Hamas is a MB offshoot and Sissi is dedicated to destroying the MB as it threatens his cabal's privileged existence.

                            I find it amusing that you endorse monarchies and military juntas but then are upset that Hamas cancels elections once.  Why not mention what happened in Egypt and to Morsi's government?

                            I really suggest you try reading some foreign press sometimes.  It can be an eyeopener.  For example, I guess you missed the list of individuals and groups which the US considered terrorists at one time or the other and then later was embarrassed by history.  Try checking out Central America as a starting point

                          •  Why would you find (0+ / 0-)

                            it amusing when I'm continually reminded that hamas is the elected government of Gaza?  They don't bother to mention that they cancelled at least one election and know they aren't as popular as some people here want to believe.

                            ALL those countries you mentioned (including Egypt and Jordan) have, in the past, shown solidarity with the Palestinians - but not this time.  And that's because they realize how dangerous hamas is for the region.  Nobody here wants to acknowledge that.

                            I don't need a lesson in the US's many fuck ups in Latin America.  I learned a long time ago we don't have allies - we have interests.

                          •  solidarity with PLO or with Fatah I think (0+ / 0-)

                            if you check, except for Egypt where it was the Morsi government which was deposed by Sissi

                            I am sorry if you are offended I am beginning to be amused by some of your stances but in the face of recent ISIS advances, Hamas is dangerous for the region?

    •  What about those 4 boys playing on the beach? (28+ / 0-)

      The ones used for target practice by Israeli gunboats? Was Hamas using them to shield the sand?

      •  Certainly not. (6+ / 0-)

        I'll be the first to stipulate that Israel has behaved in a manner that is unworthy of its supporters, and I count myself as one. Their callous disregard for human life in Gaza is not only vile, but extremely depressing to those of us who generally come out on her side...or to me, anyway. The beach incident was particularly galling.

        None of that, however, changes the fact that Hamas uses women, children, and other civilians as cover to conduct their terror. To pretend otherwise is the exact kind of Hamas apologia that I only recently (and perhaps foolishly) swore was an anomaly around here.

        Unapologetic Obama supporter.

        by Red Sox on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:27:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What has that to do with firing rockets out (9+ / 0-)

        of civilian areas?  You seem to think that the "human shields" argument requires that someone, probably at gunpoint, force people to shield.  International humanitarian law recognizes that simply co-locating military sites in civilian areas is using those civilian as human shields.  When a rocket is fired from an area next to a mosque, or a hospital, or a school, it invites retaliation.  That is why it is a per se violation.  

        None of that absolves the IDF of ITS responsibility to avoid civilian deaths.  But, they are two different things.  And, under international law, BOTH sides can be found criminally liable for the same deaths, if it can be shown that a) rockets were fired from within a civilian area inviting retaliation; and b) the retaliator did not take all measures required under the law to avoid civilian casualties.

        You seem to think that only one party can be guilty of war crimes here.  That is simply not the case.  

        Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

        by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:29:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hamas really should build some military bases (8+ / 0-)

          That would solve many of these problems!

          "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

          by progdog on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:35:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Did you know ... (13+ / 0-)

          that IDF Headquarters is located in downtown Tel Aviv and is surrounded by civilian homes, businesses, schools, synagogues, and parks?

          Is it a war crime that Israel has co-located a military site in a civilian area and is using those civilians as human shields?

          Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

          by edg on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:59:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The implicit claim by Wiesel, the diarist... (14+ / 0-)

          ...and far too many others is that 2,000 Palestinians, the vast majority of whom were civilians, were killed because they were being used as human shields. The murder of those four boys by the Israeli "Defense" Force proves the lie. As do the murders of those taking shelter in UN-run schools.

          Those boys were used as target practice. They were hunted down, one by one, and killed. That is a war crime. And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Hamas, rockets, human shields, or any of the other crap the apologists want to throw out. It was a war crime.

          •  No, the explicit claim by Wiesel (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102, Wordsinthewind, JNEREBEL, Mannie

            was that civilians were being used as human shields.  Under international law, the conduct of military operations under the cover of civilians is an explicit violation of the laws of war.   By firing rockets from within a civilian area, a force, any force, invites retaliation.  Which is why IHL does not permit it.  

            The general case of rockets being fired under cover of civilian areas does not excuse the killing of the boys.  They are two separate cases.  Just as the IDF cannot be absolved of that crime or any other by the fact that Hamas fires rockets out of civilian areas, Hamas cannot be absolved of their crimes by the fact that the IDF retaliates in a disproportionate manner.  

            It is not a zero-sum game.  Both can be legally and morally culpable.  While Wiesel did not explicitly deal with the IDF culpability, you, and so many others here, refuse to recognize that Hamas has legal and moral culpability for war crimes, as well.  

            Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

            by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:31:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wiesel's complicity in murder of the beach boys (0+ / 0-)

            what a crying shame.

            guy should just get off the stage now before he further sullies his own legacy.

            what a fucking disgrace.

            •  Sure, you can twist it that way if you want. (0+ / 0-)

              It's completely dishonest of you, but I see no reason for you not to do it anyway. It's easier than addressing the lies and racist smears in that ad.

              •  I think the add was disgraceful (0+ / 0-)

                on the lies and racist smears in the add: the papers that ran the add harmed their reputation, at least with me by running the add.

                I will be less likely to buy a NYT or a Washington Post now that they have run the add.

                I'm saying Weisel is complicit in the murder of the kids by smearing their deaths to provide cover for IDF atrocity tactics.

                I believe he has disgraced his own legacy by lending his name to the add.

      •  no civilized society would allow targeting kids (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IndieGuy, Cassandra Waites

        the incident is a blatant war crime.

        the fact that no charges or investigation has been brought against the killers demonstrates the act was not a mistake or an isolated act commited by a soldier defying orders.

    •  There are no other areas in which to place (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      codairem, CenPhx

      rockets.  Sure, Israel would like them segregated so they could more easily wipe them out.  But, almost every square inch of Gaza is populated like a prison.

      Many Israeli military installations are situated in or near civilian populations.  Why are they never accused of using human shields?  Because those with the most guns are never held to account.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site