Cheers. I'd seen that one earlier, but unfortunately it's an IDF statement without any independent verification. And the whole thrust of this debate is about calling the IDF's credibility into question, no?
Thus, quoting the IDF doesn't help much, unless such claims can be substantiated by a trusted third party.
That's not to say the IDF are lying in this case, but it's not exactly proof if there are no independent observers around to confirm the IDF's take on things.
(heavily edited for clarity, soree!)
Thus, quoting the IDF doesn't help much, unless such claims can be substantiated by a trusted third party.
That's not to say the IDF are lying in this case, but it's not exactly proof if there are no independent observers around to confirm the IDF's take on things.
(heavily edited for clarity, soree!)
this is wrong. in the current events there were two journalists killed by palestinians. israel wasn't blamed. whereas the canadian shot in the back by israeli soldiers, now that's a different story.
Recently the IDF stopped journalists filming from the fifth floor of the King David Hotel which overlooks Manger Square in Bethlehem. they did not stop them when the initial invasion happened, when any concerns about their 'safety' could have held water. this is about stopping pictures thought damaging to Israel's interests from getting out. just like Jenin.
so this is why they shoot them? and what sort of "interefence with army activities" would a journalist be involved with?
do you know the meaning of the word 'democracy'?
call everyone a terrorist and you can do what you like to them. and then why not end democracy because surely that can only interfere with the activities of the army. if the IDF wants to use this excuse I'd like to hear how a canadian journalist with that stamped over him in big letters could have been shot in the back by a sniper? while we're at it how about an explanation for the 12 year old and the 80 year old shot just after ceasefire in bethelem (BBC verified report)? these people we're lined up in an isreali sniper's sites so they're obviously terrorists. oh and don't forget that this is war and we're allowed a few honest mistakes and don't think that anyone will ever have to answer for it, we've got that one covered. what goes on in the 'territories' stays in the 'territories'. we're all good sharon supporters.
who are the terrorists here?
well we'll see what the various investigations have to say. it is not a fact merely because the IDF says it is. keep telling is what their argument is though. saves me wading through the endless rah rah for Israel in the Jerusalem Post.
One of the reasons why those on the ground are particularly suspicious is because the exclusion of foreign witnesses was so complete. elsewhere on the west bank we have eyewitness accounts from independent sources of lots of individual acts of barbarism. jenin was different in this and other respects. anyone with any experience of the other armies who have been involved in similar situations - grozny for example - would tell you that this reeks of a cover up. this is why international organisations who have a stake in impartiality and have a lot to lose by being thought to be taking sides have stuck to their ground on jenin despite what must be terrible pressure. the argument that israel would never allow this, we are a humanitarian army blah blah blah does not hold water because of the past record, especially in lebanon and over torture of prisoners. both exposed by israelis themselves.
but I come back to a more simple argument over something we could all agree on. the fact is that israel has world class search and rescue teams. yet despite a humanitarian catastrophe a few miles down the road the only people there helping the innocent are non-Israelis. this says it all really.
detail emerges about what happened
extracts from Marie Colvin in the Sunday Times
Jenin: the bloody truth
Rafi Laderman, a personable Israeli reserve major, emerged from the battlefield and made the rounds of the media in his rumpled green uniform. His clear plastic spectacles signalled his real job as a marketing consultant.
Laderman insisted that all the buildings in the refugee camp had been destroyed by explosive booby traps set by the terrorists, or levelled by Israeli bulldozers because they "presented additional engineering difficulties" that could endanger civilians. He himself had stopped the fighting to lead Palestinian civilians to safety.
All that seemed disingenuous. Equally unlikely were Palestinian claims that the Israelis had killed 500 Palestinians in cold blood, most civilians, and buried them in mass graves under the rubble after running them over with tanks. Israel said about 70 had been killed.
Terje Roed-Larsen, the United Nations envoy to the Middle East, cut through the propaganda by stating the obvious: "No military operation can justify this scale of destruction. Whatever the purpose was, the effect is collective punishment of a whole society."
He and his family received telephone death threats from Israeli callers for his pains.
Late in the day, when all was quiet, I was walking past the Jenin hospital. Nearby, women and children were slowly making their way back to temporary lodgings after a day trying to find their homes and relatives. An armoured personnel carrier pulled up at end of street behind us. The Palestinians took no notice - until the soldier in the turret opened fire straight down the street with his machinegun.
I dived for shelter. Children cried in terror. The soldier initially fired over our heads, but now bullets flashed by at chest height. The screams turned to moans as the APC headed towards us down the street.
It rolled into sight, stopped the gunfire and swivelled the huge barrel to point directly at us. Then the soldier waved his hand in anger, yelling: "Go, go." I think he just wanted everyone off the streets.
If I was now convinced by claims Israelis opened fire indiscriminately on civilians, weighing up the truth of other allegations would be much more difficult. Even what can seem obvious is not necessarily true.
Scores of interviews in the camp did show consistency, however. Story after story - from people who had not yet met one another since they fled - indicated the Israelis had used Palestinians as human shields and had taken families hostage to protect their makeshift posts set up in their houses.
My conclusion after interviewing scores of refugees is that there is no evidence Israeli troops entered the camp aiming to "massacre" Palestinian civilians. But in many cases they shot first and did not take much care to find out if the target was a civilian or not.
Under the fourth Geneva convention, they are required to protect the civilian population, and wilful killing of a civilian is a potential war crime.
I am also certain that numerous Palestinians were held hostage in their homes while Israeli troops used the building as a base or a firing post, and that others were taken door to door as a human shields, sometimes thrown into rooms ahead of Israeli troops.
Both are violations of international law, which protects civilians in wartime.
As for the bulldozing of the Hawamish area, this seems to have been out of a combination of fear and revenge rather than premeditated.
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,178-273694,00.html
extracts from Sunday Telegraph
'Bad things did happen - we had no choice'
Many died as a result of a change in Israeli tactics. On April 6, with only half the camp under Israeli control, Brig Gen Eyal Shlein, the increasingly frustrated officer running the operation, himself under heavy pressure from superiors to wrap things up swiftly, ordered the deployment of armoured bulldozers to smash down stubborn outposts of resistance and clear broader lanes that tanks could use.
The impact of this decision on Palestinian civilians as they cowered in terror was instant and brutal.
on April 9, an infantry patrol was sucked into the deadliest ambush of the battle, losing 13 men to bombs and intense gunfire among the rubble of buildings destroyed earlier in the day.
That bloody incident provoked the most intense Israeli onslaught of the operation, with fresh troops from regular army battalions pitching in alongside the exhausted, dirt-caked reservists behind bulldozers tearing down everything in their path.
There was now a raw edge of savagery to the fighting: one officer admitted to an Israeli journalist that troops had sometimes fired at Red Crescent ambulances and refused to allow Palestinian medics to treat wounded gunmen, some of whom died as a result.
Another confirmed that Palestinian civilians were occasionally used as human shields when suspect buildings were being surrounded: "If a sniper sees somebody he knows out there, maybe he won't shoot."
Bad things happen in war: but as the last Israeli troops were pulled back from Jenin to nearby positions surrounding the town on all sides, those who had been at the sharp end - from the grieving Ofer to the steely Colonel Eisin - were adamant that even in the madness of close-quarters combat, there had been no random killing, no cold-blooded massacre of the innocent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/21/ixnewstop.html
extracts from Marie Colvin in the Sunday Times
Jenin: the bloody truth
Rafi Laderman, a personable Israeli reserve major, emerged from the battlefield and made the rounds of the media in his rumpled green uniform. His clear plastic spectacles signalled his real job as a marketing consultant.
Laderman insisted that all the buildings in the refugee camp had been destroyed by explosive booby traps set by the terrorists, or levelled by Israeli bulldozers because they "presented additional engineering difficulties" that could endanger civilians. He himself had stopped the fighting to lead Palestinian civilians to safety.
All that seemed disingenuous. Equally unlikely were Palestinian claims that the Israelis had killed 500 Palestinians in cold blood, most civilians, and buried them in mass graves under the rubble after running them over with tanks. Israel said about 70 had been killed.
Terje Roed-Larsen, the United Nations envoy to the Middle East, cut through the propaganda by stating the obvious: "No military operation can justify this scale of destruction. Whatever the purpose was, the effect is collective punishment of a whole society."
He and his family received telephone death threats from Israeli callers for his pains.
Late in the day, when all was quiet, I was walking past the Jenin hospital. Nearby, women and children were slowly making their way back to temporary lodgings after a day trying to find their homes and relatives. An armoured personnel carrier pulled up at end of street behind us. The Palestinians took no notice - until the soldier in the turret opened fire straight down the street with his machinegun.
I dived for shelter. Children cried in terror. The soldier initially fired over our heads, but now bullets flashed by at chest height. The screams turned to moans as the APC headed towards us down the street.
It rolled into sight, stopped the gunfire and swivelled the huge barrel to point directly at us. Then the soldier waved his hand in anger, yelling: "Go, go." I think he just wanted everyone off the streets.
If I was now convinced by claims Israelis opened fire indiscriminately on civilians, weighing up the truth of other allegations would be much more difficult. Even what can seem obvious is not necessarily true.
Scores of interviews in the camp did show consistency, however. Story after story - from people who had not yet met one another since they fled - indicated the Israelis had used Palestinians as human shields and had taken families hostage to protect their makeshift posts set up in their houses.
My conclusion after interviewing scores of refugees is that there is no evidence Israeli troops entered the camp aiming to "massacre" Palestinian civilians. But in many cases they shot first and did not take much care to find out if the target was a civilian or not.
Under the fourth Geneva convention, they are required to protect the civilian population, and wilful killing of a civilian is a potential war crime.
I am also certain that numerous Palestinians were held hostage in their homes while Israeli troops used the building as a base or a firing post, and that others were taken door to door as a human shields, sometimes thrown into rooms ahead of Israeli troops.
Both are violations of international law, which protects civilians in wartime.
As for the bulldozing of the Hawamish area, this seems to have been out of a combination of fear and revenge rather than premeditated.
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,178-273694,00.html
extracts from Sunday Telegraph
'Bad things did happen - we had no choice'
Many died as a result of a change in Israeli tactics. On April 6, with only half the camp under Israeli control, Brig Gen Eyal Shlein, the increasingly frustrated officer running the operation, himself under heavy pressure from superiors to wrap things up swiftly, ordered the deployment of armoured bulldozers to smash down stubborn outposts of resistance and clear broader lanes that tanks could use.
The impact of this decision on Palestinian civilians as they cowered in terror was instant and brutal.
on April 9, an infantry patrol was sucked into the deadliest ambush of the battle, losing 13 men to bombs and intense gunfire among the rubble of buildings destroyed earlier in the day.
That bloody incident provoked the most intense Israeli onslaught of the operation, with fresh troops from regular army battalions pitching in alongside the exhausted, dirt-caked reservists behind bulldozers tearing down everything in their path.
There was now a raw edge of savagery to the fighting: one officer admitted to an Israeli journalist that troops had sometimes fired at Red Crescent ambulances and refused to allow Palestinian medics to treat wounded gunmen, some of whom died as a result.
Another confirmed that Palestinian civilians were occasionally used as human shields when suspect buildings were being surrounded: "If a sniper sees somebody he knows out there, maybe he won't shoot."
Bad things happen in war: but as the last Israeli troops were pulled back from Jenin to nearby positions surrounding the town on all sides, those who had been at the sharp end - from the grieving Ofer to the steely Colonel Eisin - were adamant that even in the madness of close-quarters combat, there had been no random killing, no cold-blooded massacre of the innocent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/21/ixnewstop.html
more detail
this answers Tipesh's earlier plea that :
Independent
Barring aid to Jenin is 'a war crime' says UN man
aid agencies and UN officials here will press the case that even if there is ultimately no evidence of a massacre, severe atrocities certainly occurred. "The bottom line is that they kept out humanitarian aid for days and that in itself is a war crime," said a senior UN official. "There is no other way to look at it than as an attempt to hide another war crime. People died after lying day after day in the rubble because we were not allowed in."
Israel's armed forces say they did everything possible to protect civilians, although that claim has been met with scepticism internationally because of their repeated abuses, and killing, of Palestinian civilians during the 18-month conflict.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=287344
B'tselem Field Report for April 18, 2002
Yesterday morning, G.R. from Jenin refugee camp heard cries for help from the rubble of the Abu Zeineh home in Al-Hawashin neighborhood. Ten of the camp?s residents arrived at the place and began to clear the rubble in an attempt to reach those trapped. IDF soldiers who were near the hospital, about 150 meters from the Abu Zeineh house, shot at the rescuers and drove in their direction accompanied by a tank. The rescuers fled the area. HaMoked - Center for the Defence of the Individual contacted the IDF and gave the exact location of the survivors. However, despite the military?s pledge to rescue people about whom it received exact information, no military representative arrived at the place. In the evening, under the cover of darkness, residents of the camp returned to the Abu Zeineh home and rescued nine people alive. (Source: HaMoked - Center for the Defence of the Individual)
http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/24693.html
this answers Tipesh's earlier plea that :
Independent
Barring aid to Jenin is 'a war crime' says UN man
aid agencies and UN officials here will press the case that even if there is ultimately no evidence of a massacre, severe atrocities certainly occurred. "The bottom line is that they kept out humanitarian aid for days and that in itself is a war crime," said a senior UN official. "There is no other way to look at it than as an attempt to hide another war crime. People died after lying day after day in the rubble because we were not allowed in."
Israel's armed forces say they did everything possible to protect civilians, although that claim has been met with scepticism internationally because of their repeated abuses, and killing, of Palestinian civilians during the 18-month conflict.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=287344
B'tselem Field Report for April 18, 2002
Yesterday morning, G.R. from Jenin refugee camp heard cries for help from the rubble of the Abu Zeineh home in Al-Hawashin neighborhood. Ten of the camp?s residents arrived at the place and began to clear the rubble in an attempt to reach those trapped. IDF soldiers who were near the hospital, about 150 meters from the Abu Zeineh house, shot at the rescuers and drove in their direction accompanied by a tank. The rescuers fled the area. HaMoked - Center for the Defence of the Individual contacted the IDF and gave the exact location of the survivors. However, despite the military?s pledge to rescue people about whom it received exact information, no military representative arrived at the place. In the evening, under the cover of darkness, residents of the camp returned to the Abu Zeineh home and rescued nine people alive. (Source: HaMoked - Center for the Defence of the Individual)
http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/24693.html
Sickening, utterly contemptible behaviour
If this was Bosnia there'd be a war crimes tribunal.Edited to add - the fact that this came from so many sources who had not had a chance to gather and rumour-monger adds powerful credence to this piece ("Story after story - from people who had not yet met one another since they fled")
strategist, there have been a number of times in this thread and others where you have stated your opinion as fact. Do you understand the word "fact"? For your information, a dictionary definiation of "fact" is available on the web (here) and I quote:
I would dispute that the statement "the whole of the centre of Jenin was booby trapped" fits into this definition. You might think it to be true, but you have no evidence for it to be true. It is, therefore, not fact but your opinion. It is my opinion (based on reports from ICRC, PRCS, UNHCR and journalists) that the IDF have killed many innocent Palestinian civilians, but I'm not going to label that as "fact" until more evidence is available - preferably in front of a war crimes commission.
We now will have to wait and see if those nice people from the IDF will let UN fact finders in to find out the facts behind the situation in Jenin. I have my doubts that the UN will be allowed to find the truth, since my fear is that the IDF will veto any "neutral" member of the UN team until the team is made up from Israeli apologists, and then the IDF will only let the UN team see the areas of Jenin that the IDF want them to see. But then again, my middle name is cynical.
Peace, love and kisses,
Complex.
T
the strategist
Guest
Hi Complex,
When I look at a supposed fact, I take all the available information and analyse it.
If I use the term, it is for a reason.
Just today a rescue worker was injured in Jenin by a booby trap, even after many were already cleared by the army.
From:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/21/LatestNews/LatestNews.47337.html
Also:
From:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/20/jenin.rescue/index.html
So, I feel that this is a fact.
By the way, as of today (more than a week after the army withdrew, only 43 bodies have been brought for burial at the hospital.
This was not a massacre!
From:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/21/mideast/index.html
From:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/20/jenin.rescue/index.html
When I look at a supposed fact, I take all the available information and analyse it.
If I use the term, it is for a reason.
Just today a rescue worker was injured in Jenin by a booby trap, even after many were already cleared by the army.
From:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/21/LatestNews/LatestNews.47337.html
Also:
From:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/20/jenin.rescue/index.html
So, I feel that this is a fact.
By the way, as of today (more than a week after the army withdrew, only 43 bodies have been brought for burial at the hospital.
This was not a massacre!
From:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/21/mideast/index.html
From:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/20/jenin.rescue/index.html
The information from the JPost was slim to say the least. Was it a bomb left by the "terrorists" or some other unexploded device? The JPost says booby trap, CNN says unexploded bomb. It blew up - how can we know?
We have to expect this report to be selective at best. Until some real journalists get there, I'll reserve judgement.
We have to expect this report to be selective at best. Until some real journalists get there, I'll reserve judgement.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
something else from the Jerusalem Post:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/21/News/News.47332.html
plus how do you explain this:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/19/un.mideast.ap/index.html
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/21/News/News.47307.html
would we in the west allow Saddam to pick and choose his WMD inspectors?
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/21/News/News.47332.html
plus how do you explain this:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/19/un.mideast.ap/index.html
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/21/News/News.47307.html
would we in the west allow Saddam to pick and choose his WMD inspectors?
ill-informed
passive aggressive master
CNN and the Jerusalem Post don't know the meaning of the word fact, all they know is disinformation and propaganda.
edited for spelling
edited for spelling
T
the strategist
Guest
Well, do you believe Reuters?
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=worldnews&StoryID=851896
So, I guess that means 44 Palestinians killed in this "massacre," and 23 Israelis.
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=worldnews&StoryID=851896
So, I guess that means 44 Palestinians killed in this "massacre," and 23 Israelis.
ill-informed
passive aggressive master
Not all the time, why do you?
T
the strategist
Guest
Well, I will be very sorry, but I am not responsible, so my apology is worthless. I am not even living in Israel for the last 6 months. My reserve army unit was not even close to Jenin.
No, apologise for denying it, you fucking spanner!
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
interesting guardian article:
http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,688059,00.html
why is the israeli government trying to obstruct larsen and mary robinson from the fact finding commission?
http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,688059,00.html
why is the israeli government trying to obstruct larsen and mary robinson from the fact finding commission?
T
the strategist
Guest
If it is proven that there was NOT a massacre (as looks increasingly likely at the moment) will people here apologize for claiming that there was a massacre?
An unequivocal YES.
I'm no expert but I would imagine that it will take some time to recover bodies under buildings. there is also the question of the removed bodies. the one's which were (still are?) to be buried anonymously. I don't understand your point on the numbers Stratgist? we don't have final totals yet and I would suspect it will be some time before we do.
I posted the definition of massacre earlier. it is an emotive term but technically I would say it is fair enough to call it that if - as i believe - civilians were deliberately targetted. it the end it doesn't matter though because there is enough to suggest war crimes.
massacre, smassacre. it's all dancing on the head of a pin stuff in the general context of IDF brutality. do you accept the reports - now getting in to the israeli media - about the possible chain of events which lead to the worst abuses against civilians ("raw edge of savagery " in the pro-israeli telegraph) and things like the use of human shields?
as for the booby traps and the earlier blocking of aid to civilians. it doesn't matter what the situation is, these people are used to, trained and willing to operate in a war zone. if ambulances could operate in Grozny there is no excuse why they shouldn't have operated here. claims by the IDF to be protecting people really should be taken with a pinch of salt. international obligations which israel has signed up to should not be ignored at will but that is what has occured.
T
the strategist
Guest
pcanning - the point is, it is now 9 days since the Israeli army left the camp. If there was a massacre, surely more than 44 bodies would have been found already. Perhaps some mass graves would have been found, some sign of the massacre. But, neither the Red Cresent or the UN have found any. In fact, they are saying that the smell of decaying bodies seems to be dead animals (as in a previous post).
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
but it isnt nine days since they left the camp, the IDF still is in a cordon around Jenin, according to CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/21/mideast/index.html
plus, please answer why should the Israeli government dictate to the UN who should make up an independent factfinding commission?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/21/mideast/index.html
plus, please answer why should the Israeli government dictate to the UN who should make up an independent factfinding commission?
T
the strategist
Guest
Yes, there is a cordon around the camp to prevent more suicide bombers from leaving.
But, the IDF did leave the camp 9 days ago, and that is ample time to find evidence of a massacre.
Also, apparently there are several hundred foreign journalists running around looking for signs of an atrocity, and if they had found one it would be published immediately.
I understand that Israel refused to let two people serve on the commission who Israel considers to be biased against Israel.
In a Western court of law, the prosecution and defence hold hearings before the trial to find acceptable jurors, so why can't Israel enjoy the same privilege?
Weren't several jurors dismissed in the Damiola Taylor case recently because the defence found them unacceptable part way through the trial?
But, the IDF did leave the camp 9 days ago, and that is ample time to find evidence of a massacre.
Also, apparently there are several hundred foreign journalists running around looking for signs of an atrocity, and if they had found one it would be published immediately.
I understand that Israel refused to let two people serve on the commission who Israel considers to be biased against Israel.
In a Western court of law, the prosecution and defence hold hearings before the trial to find acceptable jurors, so why can't Israel enjoy the same privilege?
Weren't several jurors dismissed in the Damiola Taylor case recently because the defence found them unacceptable part way through the trial?
massacre, smassacre as I said before. the reliable sources I'm reading say that rumours of what is commonly understood by 'massacre' - mass graves, former yugoslavia - did not happen but the deliberate targetting of civilians did. this fits with a pattern in this campaign and previous ones. this is in and of itself a 'massacre' but I would be prepared to accept that most wouldn't understand the nuances but would understand 'war crime'. i can live with that.
do you accept now that the IDf was involved in unacceptable behaviour?
T
the strategist
Guest
44 dead Palestinians (most of whom were militants) does not make a massacre.
When you add to the fact that 23 Israeli soldiers also died, then it looks like it was a fierce battle.
If civilians were killed, then I am sorry.
BUT, the militants knew the risk of basing themselves in a populated area.
NO! The IDF did not target innocent civilians. You cannot claim this any longer.
You should stop trying to put blame on Israel for something that didn't happen. The facts prove you wrong.
that's their story.
there are still reports coming in even now of the IDF blocking access. Mostly they're not but "leave the camp 9 days ago" does not mean that everyone can suddenly get in. I've dealt with the definition of massacre before.
as I said, IMO, that's exactly what they found. how do you define 'massacre' and 'atrocity'?
again with 'the facts'! and I'm not repeating myself on that.
did you read the reports in today's sunday papers? yes, The IDF did target innocent civilians. and not just in Jenin. no the *real excuse, which I'm waiting to hear from you is that in a war innocents get in the way. today's reports suggest why in the course of the battle reason was lost. if you spend two minutes thinking about this it makes perfect sense. the problem with this defence is that Israel has international obligations. today's reports and many others suggest those obligations were broken, aka a war crime. Sharon gave carte blanche to right wrong commanders and Isreal's democratic institutions have failed to protect innocent palestinians.
this is a little bit more serious. and if you want to use a court room analogy they are not jurors but judges. milosevic cannot say I don't want this judge because he's 'biased', get me one I find acceptable.
right from the beginning of reports about Jenin being posted here the IDF greek chorus have denied that anything untoward could possibly have happened. as reliable sources have increasingly uncovered the truth the silence on the brutality against civilians has descended.
I ask all the IDF cheerleaders - do you now acknowledge that awful things were done deliberately to innocent people? do you dismiss out of hand every single report of hostage taking, use of human shields, unprovoked shooting at civilians, denial of humanitarian and medical assistance, destruction of infrastructure, looting, vandalism, rape and sexual harassment, desecration, deliberate destruction of civil resources and targetting of journalists? do you agree with what has been done in your name? and if you don't what can be done to make sure it never happens again?
Similar threads
