Today's news in Gaza massacres

Amazing how often Israel "accidentally" hits U.N. targets ,isn't it?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/i dUSTRE5053R720090106


Israeli tank shells killed at least 40 Palestinians on Tuesday at a U.N. school where civilians had taken shelter, medical officials said, in carnage likely to boost international pressure on Israel to halt a Gaza offensive.

This was "friendly fire".  Is that correct?  Aren't friends people you, you know, don't kill?

Inane poll below.

Tags: Israel, offensive, U.N. (all tags)

Comments

38 Comments

Re: Today's news in Gaza massacres

I can't help but ponder that- if there were no missiles being fired for years into Israel. they would have been no such incident today.

Let me ask you in another way. know of any country than has not had such incidents ( not purposefully)taken place during an offensive?

by MumbaiBurns 2009-01-06 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Today's news in Gaza massacres

Do you have any idea who is responsible for, who caused, those "relatiatory" attacks. You only hear that word used in the European and the Middle Eastern press. Israel felt it could kill Palestinians in the territories including Gaza, could starve and cause the death of over 290 medical patients, stop electricity and water to Gaza, and do it without impunity. Even Israel knows otherwise.

Every year B'Tselem reports that from 5-600 Palestinians are killed in the territories, more during 2006 when Israel attacked Gaza in operation Summer Rains under the cover of the Lebanon conflict. Most of the person killed are civilians and a quarter of those, like we are seeing today, are children.

Israel's military occupation and attempt to colonize the remainder of Palestinian lands is ultimately at the bottom of this strife. Bush offered a peace deal in 2007 but Israel brushed him off.

So give us a break. Want to condone the killing of 40 Palestinian children in a school, do so. But don't expect much concordance among the American people.

by MainStreet 2009-01-06 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Today's news in Gaza massacres

Do you have any idea who is responsible for, who caused, those "relatiatory" attacks. You only hear that word used in the European and the Middle Eastern press. Israel felt it could kill Palestinians in the territories including Gaza, could starve and cause the death of over 290 medical patients, stop electricity and water to Gaza, and do it without impunity. Even Israel knows otherwise.

Every year B'Tselem reports that from 5-600 Palestinians are killed in the territories, more during 2006 when Israel attacked Gaza in operation Summer Rains under the cover of the Lebanon conflict. Most of the person killed are civilians and a quarter of those, like we are seeing today, are children.

Israel's military occupation and attempt to colonize the remainder of Palestinian lands is ultimately at the bottom of this strife. Bush offered a peace deal in 2007 but Israel brushed him off.

So give us a break. Want to condone the killing of 40 Palestinian children in a school, do so. But don't expect much concordance among the American people.

by MainStreet 2009-01-06 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Today's news in Gaza massacres

Or perhaps if Israel hadn't blockaded Gaza, there would not have been rockets landing in Israeli towns.

Either way, 40 innocent people were killed in an attack on a U.N. structure today.

by the mollusk 2009-01-06 09:25AM | 0 recs
They are bombing

Islamist radical terrorist jihadists. HAMAS was the group firing at innocent Israelis first. Thank them for any damage. Israel will NEVER SURRENDER, and HAMAS WILL!

by Lakrosse 2009-01-06 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: First no. Israel first and continuously for...

the past 40 years of military occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands.

Do you have any idea who is responsible for, who caused, those "relatiatory" attacks on Israel? You only hear that word used in the European and the Middle Eastern press. Israel felt it could kill Palestinians in the territories including Gaza, could starve and cause the death of over 290 medical patients, stop electricity and water to Gaza, and do it without impunity. Even Israel knows otherwise.

Every year B'Tselem reports that from 5-600 Palestinians are killed in the territories, more during 2006 when Israel attacked Gaza in operation Summer Rains under the cover of the Lebanon conflict. Most of the person killed are civilians and a quarter of those, like we are seeing today, are children.

Israel's military occupation and attempt to colonize the remainder of Palestinian lands is ultimately at the bottom of this strife. Bush offered a peace deal in 2007 but Israel brushed him off.

So give us a break. Want to condone the killing of 40 Palestinian children in a school, do so. But don't expect much concordance among the American people.

by MainStreet 2009-01-06 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: They are bombing

Or was it the Israelis shooting at hordes of rock-throwing men?  Or was it Hamas sending suicide bombers to civilian cafes?  Or was it Israelis missiles killing innocent civilians in an effort to take out a terrorist leader?  Or was it Palestinian militancy at being occupied?  Or was it illegal Isreali settlement building?  Or was it....?

Just take today's headline:  Israel kills 40 civilian refugees in a U.N.-run school.  Israel is clearly in the wrong.

Just take the headlines from a few weeks ago:  Hamas is firing rockets into Israeli towns.  Hamas was clearly in the wrong.

Why is it so hard to condemn Israeli actions?

by the mollusk 2009-01-06 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: They are bombing

Seems to me Israeli's are the terrorists who have occupied Palestinian territory:

"So, let's have a look at the official statistics of the Ottoman government, to see what the "empty land" of Palestine really looked like when the first Zionist settlers arrived there to pioneer their Jewish state.  The information I'm posting is from The Population of Palestine: Population Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and The Mandate (Ch 1, Table 1.4D) by Prof Justin McCarthy (Columbia University Press, 1990):

The year of the first aliya was 1299 (Muslim calendar), or 1881/2 of the Common Era.  And you can see at a glance that despite what you've been told, Palestine at that time was very far from being a land without a people.  In fact, there were 462,465 people living in Palestine: 403,795 Muslims; 43,659 Christians; 15,011 Jews.  In other words, Zionists were settling in a land where the pre-existing population was just 3.3 per cent Jewish, where a "Jewish state" could not possibly be established and maintained without the dispossession and disenfranchisement of those 96.7 per cent of the population that happen to have the "wrong" ethnic-religious origin, and where that dispossession would have to continue generation upon generation because of the majority population's ability to replenish itself through its high birthrate.
And suddenly, my comparison with the U.S., with its tiny Jewish minority of 2.5%, and the question of how most Americans would react to the imposition of a minority, sectarian state in their midst, doesn't seem so far-fetched after all.
Despite the endless propaganda we are subjected to, about Palestinians (and Arabs and Muslims) being people who are "not like us", whose values are inimical to our own, and with whom we are condemned to be engaged in an endless clash of civilizations, the conflict in Palestine is actually rooted in the fact that Palestinians are exactly like us.
Palestinians do not accept that equal citizenship in their own homeland should be denied them because of their ethnic/religious background, any more than Americans would accept ethnic justifications for denying them equal citizenship in the United States. Palestinians do not accept that a population that is 96.7% Muslim and Christian should be ethnically cleansed to make way for a sectarian Jewish state, any more than we would accept that the 97.5% of Americans who happen to be not-Jewish should be ethnically cleansed to make way for a Jewish state here.  In short, Palestinians reject and resist Zionism because they do not accept being treated in ways that we, likewise, would never accept for ourselves.
This is not difficult to understand. And yet we wrap the Arab-Israeli conflict in complex, ontological constructs about "The Arab Mind", about "Islamofascists" who "hate us for our freedoms", and about mindless, irrational anti-Semites who hate Israel just because it's Jewish and not because the overwhelmingly non-Jewish population there has to be destroyed in order to make it, and keep it, Jewish.  Complicated existential explanations to hide the simple fact that the Palestinians are doing exactly what we would be doing if we found ourselves in their situation.
I understand that if you're a Zionist you have a vested interest in not understanding all this, and in persuading others that it's really very complicated. But for the rest of us, really, how difficult is this to grasp?

by venician 2009-01-06 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: They are bombing

The land was historically Jewish...the Jews were exiled time and time again.

G-d gave the land to the Jews in the covenant.

by kydem 2009-01-06 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: They are bombing

Prove it!

by venician 2009-01-06 11:53AM | 0 recs
not just in the Bible,

but when the British took the land from the Ottoman Empire, ALSO imperialists, the British said in the Balfour Declaration that Palestine was to be a JEWISH STATE. The British, whose land it was chose to give it to the Jews.

by Lakrosse 2009-01-06 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: They are bombing

This is the only context I'm aware of where one side can say that what they do is okay because God told them to, and not be universally (at least not inside the US, anyway) not be known as fundamentalist lunatics.

G_d gave them the land.  Did you write G_d a thankyou note?

by Jess81 2009-01-06 05:45PM | 0 recs
while the comment you...

were responding to is a bit much.  your mocking of a jewish religious norm is repugnant.

by canadian gal 2009-01-06 06:16PM | 0 recs
Herr Goebbels

your swastika is showing!

It was historically a Jewish land, and the Jews deserved a homeland, like every other peoples. After the Holocaust, not having a homeland for the Jews would have been almost as bad a Nazism continued. Trying Eichmann in Israel was one of the greatest moments for the Jews and all of humanity ever.

by Lakrosse 2009-01-06 03:11PM | 0 recs
What's the Tutsi homeland?

What's the Ndebele homeland?  What's the Sioux homeland?  What's the Basque homeland?

by JJE 2009-01-06 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: What's the Tutsi homeland?

Let's think outside the box....

MORE CASINOS!

by QTG 2009-01-07 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the Tutsi homeland?

where is the Roma homeland?  After Hitler the Jews needed a homeland (but so did the Roma) but that does not confer a historical claim, just a European claim on land that was occupied.  Palestine was one of several possibilities for creating a Jewish homeland.  Had Israel accepted their might (they're the forth biggest arms manufacturing nation, and they're filming 'tests' of their weapons right now) and been a good neighbor, or a less selfish neighbor, there might have been shared prosperity and the Palestinians might have something they don't want to lose either. Those people have really nothing.  Our tax dollars go to Israeli defense?  Or aggression?

by anna shane 2009-01-07 09:47AM | 0 recs
Indeed

the world is full of peoples whose claims to a homeland don't hold sway.  The Kurds also come to mind.

The proper place for a Jewish homeland was in Germany.  Unfortunately the denizens of Germany were white Europeans, so displacing them was not acceptable.

by JJE 2009-01-07 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Today's news in Gaza massacres

gotta wonder how some so-called progressive people can rationalize this massacre with their stated beliefs.

by yungblakman 2009-01-06 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Today's news in Gaza massacres

nothing progressive- about sitting with ones thumb up their ass waiting on rockets to pour in daily.

by MumbaiBurns 2009-01-06 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Today's news in Gaza massacres

Do you have any idea who is responsible for, who caused, those "relatiatory" attacks. You only hear that word used in the European and the Middle Eastern press. Israel felt it could kill Palestinians in the territories including Gaza, could starve and cause the death of over 290 medical patients, stop electricity and water to Gaza, and do it without impunity. Even Israel knows otherwise.

Every year B'Tselem reports that from 5-600 Palestinians are killed in the territories, more during 2006 when Israel attacked Gaza in operation Summer Rains under the cover of the Lebanon conflict. Most of the person killed are civilians and a quarter of those, like we are seeing today, are children.

Israel's military occupation and attempt to colonize the remainder of Palestinian lands is ultimately at the bottom of this strife. Bush offered a peace deal in 2007 but Israel brushed him off.

So give us a break. Want to condone the killing of 40 Palestinian children in a school, do so. But don't expect much concordance among the American people.

by MainStreet 2009-01-06 09:10AM | 0 recs
what a tragedy.

i searched through your diary history mollusk to see your disgust at the 10-15 rockets a day being shot a israel over the past 8 years - but alas you deleted them?

by canadian gal 2009-01-06 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: what a tragedy.

what can i say, i have a soft spot for the underdog.

by the mollusk 2009-01-07 05:55AM | 0 recs
what do you think your point is with this?

Mollusk could just as easily point to your comments as evidence for your lack of concern for Palestinian deaths.  

If Israel is killing civilians, it's killing civilians, regardless of whether the person who points it out cares about Hamas rockets.  Whataboutery is a rather transparent way to divert attention from inconvenient facts.

by JJE 2009-01-07 07:12AM | 0 recs
not really. but if you say so.

by canadian gal 2009-01-07 09:07AM | 0 recs
Why not just say

"My people are right, just, and good.  Those people are violent, thuggish, and wrong.  End of story."  It would cut through a lot of the pretexts and handwaving.

by JJE 2009-01-07 09:23AM | 0 recs
why not?

because that's not my position.  no pretext, no handwaving.  

but you make a great point and that is that i just wish that i could discuss this topic with people who view things similarly to me.  but they are few and far between it seems here.

by canadian gal 2009-01-07 09:37AM | 0 recs
there are plenty

on Little Green Footballs.  People who share your view that the Jewish state is somehow greater than all others, as well as your view that Israel is always on the side of the angels.

israel as a country, its language, history and philosophy is unlike any other.

Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005, removing not only its soldiers but all Israeli settlements, despite bitter resistance from the settlers and their political allies. At great political, financial and security cost to itself, Israel removed every soldier and every single civilian from Gaza, hoping that disengagement would reduce friction, spur economic development and provide a model for peace that could be extended to the West Bank.

This is simply false, as the Gaza withdrawal had nothing to do with the peace process.  Quite the opposite.

These examples strongly suggest that your attitude is "My people, always right."  It shouldn't not be surprising that people who don't share your chauvinism don't share your views.

by JJE 2009-01-07 09:48AM | 0 recs
again...

you are mischaracterizing my position, making this personal and well, frankly trying to start a fight.

you pulled comments of mine out of context and are hinting, no stating, that my views are similar to neocons.  go ahead, ive had it arguing with people that are insincere.

by canadian gal 2009-01-07 09:52AM | 0 recs
oh please

if those statements are pulled out of context, provide the context that I am omitting.  

It's difficult to avoid making it personal when it's entirely clear that your entire attitude toward this matter is driven by your personal chauvinism toward one of the interested parties.  You think Israel is somehow special among nations.  This colors everything you write about the situation.

by JJE 2009-01-07 09:58AM | 0 recs
have i made your comments personal?

i mean, i think i could point out that your participation here at mydd since the conflict in israel has erupted has exponentially grown to the hundredth degree - all critical of israel - but alas i haven't stated that.  nor have i taken snippets of comments that you wrote that the wording comes straight out of hamas and hezbollah mandates, including exact wordings that might lead one to question your motives in writing them.  no no not me.

as to your other point - i do believe israel is special for the reasons i stated in the link you provided.  but that does not mean anything other than i said.  and further just because i believe that it is special does not mean that i believe that:

"My people are right, just, and good.  Those people are violent, thuggish, and wrong.  End of story."

while i am clearly more sympathetic to one side, im also empathetic to both.  not many it seems, can say the same.

by canadian gal 2009-01-07 10:08AM | 0 recs
It is personal

in the sense that I am tired of subsidizing Israel's military, particularly when it is behaving inhumanely.  Israel is able to defend itself and is in no danger of annihilation.  Given that, I'd prefer the US be neutral.  Your perspective appears, by contrast, to be not based on any particular principle but rather tribalism.

Despite your accusation that I am directly quoting and propagating Hamas propaganda (a claim I'd like to see substantiated, btw), you should recall that a few days ago on the DU issue I pointed out that Israel was cleared by a UN investigation into use of DU in Lebanon.  Quite sneaky of me.

And your vague claim of empathy rings hollow when all your substantive comments amount to special pleading for a Jewish state (quote 1) and uncritical repetition of Israeli propaganda (quote 2).

by JJE 2009-01-07 10:45AM | 0 recs
last comment to you friend...

is it personal to you, that:

- turkey violated Iraqi airspace two days ago by sending fighter jets to attack kurdish insurgents

  • sri lanka's sinhalese-dominated army is mounting an all-out attack on tamil tiger redoubts
  • ethiopian troops are still lingering in somalia

or will you turn to these other violations after we have resolved the middle east conflict?

by canadian gal 2009-01-07 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: last comment to you friend...

To be fair, you haven't posted diaries on these things either.  What about the LRA in Uganda?  What about the fighting in the Congo?  What about FARC?  What about the druglord wars in Mexico?  It's kind of a false accusation to say that we can't argue for a side in the Mideast conflict unless we talk about all of these other conflicts.  It's also false to assume that because someone views Israel as an aggressor they also must view Turkey (or Ethiopia or Sri Lankan government forces) as aggressors.

by the mollusk 2009-01-07 12:40PM | 0 recs
More questions?

What is the point of raising these irrelevant conflicts?  Is it to show that I must be an anti-semite because I object to Israel's actions in Palestine and don't talk about every other instance where a superior power goes nuts on a weaker foe?

I don't really think this is a road that Israel-backers want to go down.  By the logic of Israel, we should be evicting Turks and creating Kurdistan, creating a Tamil state and evicting Sinhalese, etc.  After all, don't all these deserve a religious-ethnic homeland?

by JJE 2009-01-07 01:13PM | 0 recs
friendly fire

the five Israeli soldiers killed so far were from Israeli fire. I think maybe one was killed by a Palestinian fighter?  

by anna shane 2009-01-07 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: friendly fire

The Palestinians killed an Israeli soldier?  Ah snap, things are about to get really ugly.

by the mollusk 2009-01-07 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: friendly fire

yeah, and they 'killed' a guy by scaring him into a heart attack too!!!!

What must this be like for some teenage girl who's always lived under harsh sanctions and has no running water, no electricity, no movie theaters, not much to eat, killed friends and relatives, seeing Israeli guys in flack with 22nd century phosphorescent weapons coming at them, and she's going house to house, trying to find a place they won't bomb?  

And what if she picked a UN place, or a school?  

by anna shane 2009-01-07 09:58AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads