Gaza started shooting rockets on Israel cities again

The jury is still out on Genetics and with the massive proselytizing that Jews did for 4 or 5 centuries, it way stretches the imagination that all hail from Palestine. We only discovered the massive diversity in our genetics about a year ago.


You seem mightily interested in Jewish genetics for someone who is not a Jew...or is it always the same paper you copy and paste?

Are you not more worried about this Face -Your

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100512061853AAFSjvC

 

nothing like letting somebody else field test defensive technologies, wot? Cheap at half the price.

 

Uh no, weve just seen a claim right here that DNA is traced to the middle east by males or SE europe by females. Thats not the same thing.

As for unbroken presence, none of the jewish immigrants to palestine in 1888 had any knowledge of palestine nor did the majority of them have any familial connection with a living relative.

The Africans, to whom all are related, since the human race is thought to have originated there, have also had an unbroken presence in Africa for millions of years, that doesnt mean I, who have distance ancestors from Africa, have any claim there.

 

Indeed Trout, here some Israeli soldiers speak of their experience in Gaza

[video=youtube;_Pw8m4azLcg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pw8m4azLcg[/video]

and here the NYT speaks about the worrisome turn in events which happened in the Israeli military at that time

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22BRONNER.html?_r=0

 

The fact that they differ little from arabs is truly significant. That means that when the arabs opposed their claim to the land, the arabs, being essentially the same as they, had every right to do so, and since they lived there in great numbers, they had even more right.

 

When will they learn that they shouldn't poke sticks at the bear?

 

You believe Israel is an instinctive animal incapable of human discipline? and who is they?

 

Time-frames don't conveniently begin and end when you want them to. Your posts on the issue of Israel/Palestine are inherently distorted.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolute nonsense belied by the facts. You are totally and utterly brainwashed.

 

Al Jazeera Host Asks : Why Can’t Arab Armies Be More Humane, Like Israel? (VIDEO)
JANUARY 17, 2014 2:08 PM 7 COMMENTS
Author:Joshua Levitt


Al Jazeera Arabic asks : why the Arab world's armies can't learn to respect civilians, like the Israeli Army does?

An Al Jazeera Arabic anchor recently asked his audience why Arab armies, and, in particular, the regime of Bashar al-Assad, in Syria, can’t behave more humanely towards civilians, like the Israeli and French armies do?

In a clip uploaded to YouTube this week and flagged by Mideast Media Analyst Tom Gross, the anchor asks, “Why don’t they learn from the Israeli army which tries, through great efforts, to avoid shelling areas populated by civilians in Lebanon and Palestine? Didn’t Hezbollah take shelter in areas populated by civilians because it knows that Israeli Air Force doesn’t bomb those areas? Why doesn’t the Syrian army respect premises of universities, schools or inhabited neighborhoods? Why does it shell even the areas of its supporters?”

“I will also give you the example of France. All Syrians remember that the French forces, when they occupied Syria tried to avoid, when rebels entered mosques or schools, they stopped. The people would prefer that France come back! For God’s sake, if a referendum were to be held… if people were to be asked, who would you prefer the current regime or the French, I swear by God they would have preferred the French.

“The Israeli army, if it wanted to break up a demonstration, would have used water cannons or rubber bullets, not rockets or explosive barrels as happens in Aleppo today.

“You mustn’t compare the Syrian army with French or Israeli… The Israeli army didn’t shell Aleppo University and students there. They didn’t shell the university with rockets killing dozens of students… The Israelis or the French didn’t kill their people. Please tell me how many of their people did the French army kill?”

Watch a clip of the Al Jazeera program below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE3K49fEGv0

 

During Cast Lead Israeli artillery shells hit three United Nations-run schools being used as refugee centres, killing more than 50 people. The UN had informed the Israeli military that the schools were refugee centres - GPS coordinates were provided. Israeli forces knew what they were attacking and they knew the centres were packed with the same families they had previously told to leave their homes to avoid attack.

Israel explained that Hamas fighters had been firing from within one of the schools. When the claim became indefensible, it was quietly withdrawn in "private" briefings to Westerners - a retraction barely reported anywhere. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=s0BRJS6WnMs)

Ben Brown of BBC World News, January 11, claimed that the UN-run school was hit by a stray mortar round. But just prior to the launch of the ground offensive, Israel shelled Palestine Square, Gaza City's main shopping area, killing five Palestinians. They destroyed the American International School. They also destroyed a mosque in Beit Hanoun during evening prayers killing a dozen people. At least thirty civilians were killed in Zeitoun when a house was shelled the day after Israeli forces ordered 100 Palestinians to shelter there (Mel Frykberg, 'Israel Fighting Also The UN,' January 10, 2009; http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45364). Were these all accidents?

Haaretz reported that, in approving the ground invasion, the Israeli government had taken into account the likely high number of Palestinian civilian casualties. On January 9, 2009 the paper reported that Lt. Colonel Amir, commander of a combat engineers unit, had told Israeli TV:

"We are very violent. We are not shying away from any method of preventing casualties among our troops." (Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, 'Israel's three alternatives for the future of the Gaza war,' Haaretz, January 9, 2009; http://www.haaretz.com/hasen /spages/1053590.html)

Israeli media reported that their commanders are unsurprised by the heavy civilian toll - the priority was indeed the protection of IDF soldiers:

"For us, being cautious means being aggressive," one told Israel's Haaretz newspaper. "From the minute we entered, we've acted like we're at war. That creates enormous damage on the ground. I just hope those who have fled the area of Gaza City in which we are operating will describe the shock. Maybe someone there will sober up before it continues." (Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, 'Using aggressive tactics in Gaza to save soldiers' lives,' Haaretz, January 7, 2009; http://www.haaretz.com/ hasen/spages/1053401.html)

These are comments which define the methods and aims indicated by the term 'terrorism'.

On January 6, 2009 Israeli internal security minister Meir (*)(*)(*)(*)reet responded to the massive civilian casualties on BBC's Newsnight:

"The French say, 'La guerre comme la guerre'." (January 6, 2009; http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/ b00gnjlm/Newsnight_06_01_2009/)

War is indeed war, but the civilian population of Gaza is not at war - the Geneva Conventions protecting civilian life apply.

In 2008, (*)(*)(*)(*)reet suggested that residential Gaza neighbourhoods from which Hassam rockets were fired should be obliterated: "any other country would have already gone in and level [sic] the area, which is exactly what I think the IDF should do - decide on a neighborhood in Gaza and level it." (Attila Somfalvi, 'Sheetrit: We should level Gaza neighbourhoods,' Ynet, February 10, 2008; http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articl...504922,00.html)

He added: "We should let them know 'you have to leave, this area will be taken down tomorrow' and just take it down - that will show them we mean business."

Using violence to show a civilian population "we mean business" is, again, terrorism. Needless to say, (*)(*)(*)(*)reet was advocating major war crimes.

The then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared that Gazan civilians should not be allowed "to live normal lives"; and internal security minister Avi Dichter had previously demanded that Israel take action "irrespective of the cost to the Palestinians". (Jonathan Cook, 'Disappearing Palestine,' Zed Books, London, 2008, p.132).

 

Yes, otherwise Hamas would have been the culprit. Even Israel knows it wasn't Hamas; a senior Israeli official said "Hamas is trying its best to prefer the launches, but it can and must do more." So the question why you still believe Hamas fired the rockets.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78916225/

This is the Middle East, son. Weapons and explosives are our thing.

 

I happen to agree with the basic premise, but as a veteran, wouldnt' you say that its the regime/leadership that sets the tone for military tactics and behaviour in the field?

Armies in combat can be become rather inhuman, especially if their leadership fosters such behaviour.

 

Please advise when the last "perfect" war was conducted where no clustermuks occured and no innocent civilians were killed?

Fact is that if the Israelis conducted themselves like Assad's gang, there wouldn't be any issue about "occupied territories" because the palestinians would have all be gone long ago.

Yes, its a terrible thing when an overwhelming military force must fight within a highly urbanized area against an enemy that cannot be differentiated from the civilian population, uses civilian installations such as hospitals, schools and mosques for military purposes, and who consider every citizen killed to be a propaganda victory.

Its a fact trout, the IDF for all its might could have leveled gaza in a couple of hours if they were intent on genocide. But the Islamists knew they wouldn't and structured their entire resistence strategy on that fact.

 

And your proof of this is???

 

Low mortality rate.

 

I don't know why you have decided to introduce a false comparison by way of Assad, other than to perhaps contribute further to the media distortions. In May, 2011 Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, commented on the first outbreaks of violence in Syria:

‘What is clear from these initial reports is that many of the demonstrators were not demonstrators but terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson. The title of [an] Israeli news report summarizes what happened: ‘Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests.’

The initial conflict, Chossudovsky noted, ‘had all the appearances of a staged event involving, in all likelihood, covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence. Government sources point to the role of radical Salafist groups (supported by Israel). Other reports have pointed to the role of Saudi Arabia in financing the protest movement.’

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-w...rvention/24591

Jeremy Salt, associate professor in Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bilkent University, Ankara, wrote:

‘The armed groups are well armed and well organised. Large shipments of weapons have been smuggled into Syria from Lebanon and Turkey. They include pump action shotguns, machine guns, Kalashnikovs, RPG launchers, Israeli-made hand grenades and numerous other explosives. It is not clear who is providing these weapons but someone is, and someone is paying for them.’

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle29321.htm

So why do Western media keep referring to a ‘vicious crackdown on Syria’s protest movement’? Chossudovsky explained:

‘The existence of an armed insurrection is not mentioned by the Western media. If it were to be acknowledged and analysed, our understanding of unfolding events would be entirely different. What is mentioned profusely is that the armed forces and the police are involved in the indiscriminate killing of protesters.’

He added some background:

‘Since the Soviet-Afghan war, Western intelligence agencies as well as Israel's Mossad have consistently used various Islamic terrorist organizations as "intelligence assets". Both Washington and its indefectible British ally have provided covert support to "Islamic terrorists" in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya, etc. as a means to triggering ethnic strife, sectarian violence and political instability… The ultimate objective of the Syria protest movement, through media lies and fabrications, is to create divisions within Syrian society as well as justify an eventual "humanitarian intervention".’

As Chossudovsky observed, Syria is on the US list of ‘rogue states.’

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-w...rvention/24591

In terms of the "evidence" purporting to attribute blame for the subsequent chemical weapons attacks on the Assad regime, well, it is, to put it kindly, inconclusive at best and highly unlikely at worst. In relation to the attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta last summer, for example, a new MIT report challenges the US claim that Assad forces were responsible, highlighting that the range of the improvised rocket was way too short to have been launched from govt controlled areas:

https://s3amazonaws.com/s3.document...possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf

This is supported by separate analysis by security and arms experts:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/15/5488779/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html?rh=1

So there is no evidence that the civil war unleashed and fomented by the West has resulted in the Assad regime targetting civilians. The unrest in Syria, therefore, is not indicative of Assad's war on the people of Syria but rather is more accurately described as a war on externally funded and supported terrorists. As I have alluded to previously, the same cannot be said with regards to the Israel's war on the Palestinian people which is, as I have shown, deliberate and targeted.

 

Seems comprehension is not your strong point when it comes you defending the deliberate killing of Palestinian civilians:

During Cast Lead Israeli artillery shells hit three United Nations-run schools being used as refugee centres, killing more than 50 people. The UN had informed the Israeli military that the schools were refugee centres - GPS coordinates were provided. Israeli forces knew what they were attacking and they knew the centres were packed with the same families they had previously told to leave their homes to avoid attack.

Israel explained that Hamas fighters had been firing from within one of the schools. When the claim became indefensible, it was quietly withdrawn in "private" briefings to Westerners - a retraction barely reported anywhere. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=s0BRJS6WnMs)

Ben Brown of BBC World News, January 11, claimed that the UN-run school was hit by a stray mortar round. But just prior to the launch of the ground offensive, Israel shelled Palestine Square, Gaza City's main shopping area, killing five Palestinians. They destroyed the American International School. They also destroyed a mosque in Beit Hanoun during evening prayers killing a dozen people. At least thirty civilians were killed in Zeitoun when a house was shelled the day after Israeli forces ordered 100 Palestinians to shelter there (Mel Frykberg, 'Israel Fighting Also The UN,' January 10, 2009; http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45364).

 

Since you implied Assad's culpability in relation to the chemical attack at Ghouta, Jonsa, I'll continue add to the defence. On September 7, Reuters reported a key point rarely even mentioned by journalists considering the merits of a Western attack on Syria:

'No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.

'While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.'

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-syria-crisis-attack-idUSBRE98603A20130907?irpc=932

On August 30, the Independent reported:

'The report by Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) on the Syrian attacks... failed to make a case for war. There was no evidence directly linking President Assad and his coterie to the attack, the blame attached to the regime was by default, inasmuch it was held the opposition did not have the wherewithal to mount such an operation.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ity-fails-to-make-a-case-for-war-8790589.html

Ben Caspit, a contributing writer for Al-Monitor's Israel Pulse, commented:

'This week I met with an unofficial Israeli source with a background in IDF's [Israeli Defence Force] intelligence branch, though that was quite some time ago... He is a high-tech person with many achievements and great experience in that field. He developed methods for comparing and cross-checking information, methods that have mainly proven themselves when hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of sources are involved. He wrote a document that rebuts one by one the claims and evidences by which the Assad regime is held responsible for the use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 in Syria.'

Caspit concluded:

'It's not that I am now convinced that Assad is innocent. It's that now I am a little less convinced that the hands of the Syria president were involved in the chemical attack on Aug. 21.'

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/09/obama-syria-strike-israel-smoking-gun.html

Based on interviews with US intelligence and military insiders, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh charges that Obama deceived the world in making a cynical case for war. The US president 'did not tell the whole story', says the journalist:

'In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country's civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack.'

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

Obama did not reveal that American intelligence agencies knew that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had the capability to manufacture considerable quantities of sarin. When the attack on Ghouta took place, 'al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.' Indeed, the 'cherry-picking was similar to the process used to justify the Iraq war.'

Hersh notes that when he interviewed intelligence and military personnel:

'I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration's assurances of Assad's responsibility a "ruse".'

Hersh continues:

'A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening.'

The former official said that this 'distortion' of the facts by the Obama administration 'reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam.'

Hersh adds:

'The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: "The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, 'How can we help this guy' – Obama – 'when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?' "'

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

Hersh does not actually use the word 'lie' or 'deceive' in his article. But, given the above account, he might as well have done.

In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, Hersh notes that:

'there are an awful lot of people in the government who just were really very, very upset with the way the information about the gas attack took place.'

He makes clear that he is not making any claims for who conducted the sarin attack at Ghouta; he does not know who did it. 'But there's no question my government does not' know either. The essence of the revelations, Hersh emphasises, is that Obama 'was willing to go to war, wanted to throw missiles at Syria, without really having a case and knowing he didn't have much of a case.'

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/12/9/seymour_hersh_obama_cherry_picked_intelligence

 

Posters' may recall the Houla massacre of May 25, 2012 in which 108 people, 49 of whom were children, were killed. Assad was blamed for that too. Again, no evidence was provided. All that is required is that leaders' of sovereign nations' that comprise our official enemies be demonized as the latest Hitler, Pol Pot or such like.

Numerous cartoons depicted Assad smeared with blood or bathing in blood. Just two days after the massacre, the Independent on Sunday’s front cover wanted to know what its readers were going to do about it:

‘There is, of course, supposed to be a ceasefire, which the brutal Assad regime simply ignores. And the international community? It just averts its gaze. Will you do the same? Or will the sickening fate of these innocent children make you very, very angry?’ (Independent on Sunday, May 27, 2012)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012...ed-for-massacre-of-the-innocents-7791507.html

Quite what readers were supposed to do, other than gaze, was unclear. After all, one of the great triumphs of modern politics is the near-complete insulation of US-UK foreign policy against democratic pressures.

Inside the paper, David Randall wrote these bitter words:

‘He is the President; she is the First Lady; they are dead children. He governs but doesn't protect; she shops and doesn't care… And one hopes that those on the United Nations Security Council, when it reconvenes, will look into the staring eyes of these dead children and remember the hollow words of Assad's wife when she simpered that she “comforts the families” of her country's victims.’

This was standard for political commentary and media coverage right across politics and media. Houla was not reported as just one more ugly event in world news. It was sold to the British public as an historic ‘something must be done’ tipping point on a par with the contestedRacak and hypothetical Benghazi massacres used to justify the West’s attacks on Serbia in 1999 and Libya in 2011, respectively.

US and UK politicians were clearly desperate to use Houla to stoke their regime-change agenda. Rehearsing the crude tactics of the Bush-Blair era, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UK Foreign Secretary William Hague endlessly repeated their damning judgements: facts were irrelevant, propaganda stunts everything. No holds were barred. The media, as ever, were happy to go along for the ride.

If the US-UK alliance was to succeed in justifying externally-imposed regime change, then the Assad government had to be declared responsible – certainly, solely, unforgivably. And that indeed was the message supplied by the media.

However, cracks in the story quickly began to emerge. It turned out that women and children had not had their throats cut, as had been universally asserted. Moreover, the BBC’s World News editor Jon Williams commented:

‘In Houla, and now in Qubair, the finger has been pointed at the shabiha, pro-government militia. But tragic death toll aside, the facts are few: it's not clear who ordered the killings - or why.’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/06/reporting_conflict_in_syria.html

But these and a handful of other comments – and the sources informing them – were kept low-profile and did not become part of the media discussion. Inexplicably, the implications for earlier media claims went unexamined, undiscussed.

 

Ya it's just a coincidence that it is named after a top Hamas bomb maker, nope, no connection there at all.

LOL an unnamed source as cited by reuters which is a proven propaganda arm of Hamas, nice try sport.

So Katusha's are just lying around the streets of Lebanon is what you're saying?

 

And now you've become a Baathist propagandist, kudos to you sir. Tell us why would the rebels slaughter their own people? I guess the witnesses are lying when they told of how the Alawite Shabiha militia entered the towns and slaughtered those who protested against Assad right? Yes these people who were slaughtered just happened to oppose Assad and it makes perfect (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sense for the opposition to slaughter their own supporters.

You have now entered the realm of Chomsky as an apologist for a mass murderer, congratulations.

 

Pales in comparison with Palestinian atrocities - Israelis always try to minimize collateral damage - that's what civilized people do. Palestinians? Not so much. Good job, Al Jazeera

 

Absolute nonsense as I've demonstrated. Mod Edit ~ Focus on the topic. Don't make it personal.

 

There is no evidence Assad was responsible. That's a fact.

 

Let's have a proper look. This is cast lead that is being described

That is the situation. What you describe as

Response

Howard Schweber

Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-schweber/israel-in-gaza-three-wron_b_156801.html

and here is a video of their situation one year after

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2010/jan/04/gaza-palestinian-territories