• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A good article about Israel's destruction of the news building

NatMorton said:
@Evilroddy, they’re now acknowledging the info.

www.google.com

Blinken: Israel provided US secret justification for flattening AP building in Gaza

The building in Gaza housed both the Associated Press and Aj Jazeera. Secretary of State Tony Blinken said the US got more information through “intelligence channels.”
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...
NatMorton:

Thanks for the link. Yes, some "information" has now been sent through security channels but is it proof? I will wait until I hear a senior Amercian Government official go on the record and vouch for the "information" received from Israel as exculpatory evidence that Hamas was operating out of that building. I could not read the New York Post story you linked to (it kept shutting down my I-Pad) but I found five other reliable sources confirming what you claim that NYP article said. In each of the articles I was struck by how vague and obscurely parsed the reports and the comments from Secretary Blinken were. All the articles were careful not to use the word "proof" in their reporting. So, for now I concede that there may be exculpatory evidence for the IAF's strike against the twelve-story building, but I will remain skeptical until these reports are backed up by US officials explicitly and on the record. They don't have to produce the evidence, just go on the record and vouch for it.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Craig234 said:
What a terrible act reported in the video above.
Click to expand...


I don't know whether it is still a common event carried out by the IDF but they have in the past slammed a second rocket into the scene minutes later so as to deter any would be assistance to the victims. Obviously it would have taken time for this trend to be understood at the Palestinian end so we might not know how many responders might have bee killed during that period.

IMO you are either against extrajudicial killings like this or you are not. To say you suspected people of planning to commit crimes without having to endure any burden of proof is completely open to abuse and is counter to any notions of justice imo. It seems to be acceptable if we in the West do it, or any allies, but it is condemned when official enemies engage in it. The hypocrisy of that position needs no further comment.
 
NatMorton said:
@Evilroddy, they’re now acknowledging the info.

www.google.com

Blinken: Israel provided US secret justification for flattening AP building in Gaza

The building in Gaza housed both the Associated Press and Aj Jazeera. Secretary of State Tony Blinken said the US got more information through “intelligence channels.”
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...

And being extremely cagey about how it is phrased. Talk about giving yourself plausible deniability lol

Recall too that the target is only legitimate if there is a military angle at work IE Hamas armed people were there ( and if they were they surely left in the evacuation anyhow, this is how ridiculous the commentary gets imo ) or engaging in hostilities from it. Even then there are provisions against unrestrained aggression IE you can't nuke the city to kill a sniper. That is an exagerated example just to give some coverage to the nuances of such events and how the laws of war are set up.
 
oneworld2 said:
And being extremely cagey about how it is phrased. Talk about giving yourself plausible deniability lol

Recall too that the target is only legitimate if there is a military angle at work IE Hamas armed people were there ( and if they were they surely left in the evacuation anyhow, this is how ridiculous the commentary gets imo ) or engaging in hostilities from it. Even then there are provisions against unrestrained aggression IE you can't nuke the city to kill a sniper. That is an exagerated example just to give some coverage to the nuances of such events and how the laws of war are set up.
Click to expand...
No, Hamas is a terrorist organization and thus a legitimate target wherever they may be. In this case, however, as a consequence of warning the news organizations in that building Israel also warned Hamas, so no terrorists lost their lives in that attack (you can breathe easier).
 
Evilroddy said:
NatMorton:

Thanks for the link. Yes, some "information" has now been sent through security channels but is it proof? I will wait until I hear a senior Amercian Government official go on the record and vouch for the "information" received from Israel as exculpatory evidence that Hamas was operating out of that building. I could not read the New York Post story you linked to (it kept shutting down my I-Pad) but I found five other reliable sources confirming what you claim that NYP article said. In each of the articles I was struck by how vague and obscurely parsed the reports and the comments from Secretary Blinken were. All the articles were careful not to use the word "proof" in their reporting. So, for now I concede that there may be exculpatory evidence for the IAF's strike against the twelve-story building, but I will remain skeptical until these reports are backed up by US officials explicitly and on the record. They don't have to produce the evidence, just go on the record and vouch for it.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
Most likely the US will say no more on the evidence Israel provided. We will be left to wonder whether Israel had cause, or not. So if we are to form an opinion it will have to be based on other factors.

Absent more facts, here are things that lead me to believe Israel was in the right:
  • Israel gains nothing by bombing news organizations. The assertion they did this to mask coverage of the conflict is laughably absurd. The action only intensified the negative coverage of Israel, and they had to know this was a likely outcome of the attack. It therefore makes sense to presume Israel had some other reason for bombing this building, and hampering Hamas's activities certainly would qualify as a good one.

  • At least one former AP editor has come out and said he believes Hamas did have offices in that building at one time (source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-associated-press-editor-suggested-122444017.html)

  • Hamas has a long history of using their own people has human shields. They would certainly have no qualms about using journalists -- many whom are no doubt 'infidels' -- in the same manner.

  • Hamas simply cannot be trusted. They are a terrorist organization with no regard for even basic human rights. To presume they would have a regard for the truth is a cruel joke.

Ultimately, without facts, we have to decide whom we trust more, Israel or Hamas. For me, that's no contest. I trust the democracy more than the jihadists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NO1
oneworld2 said:
I don't know whether it is still a common event carried out by the IDF but they have in the past slammed a second rocket into the scene minutes later so as to deter any would be assistance to the victims.
Click to expand...

I'd only heard of that tactic being used by terrorists. That's probably still the case.
 
NatMorton said:
Most likely the US will say no more on the evidence Israel provided. We will be left to wonder whether Israel had cause, or not. So if we are to form an opinion it will have to be based on other factors.

Absent more facts, here are things that lead me to believe Israel was in the right:
  • Israel gains nothing by bombing news organizations. The assertion they did this to mask coverage of the conflict is laughably absurd. The action only intensified the negative coverage of Israel, and they had to know this was a likely outcome of the attack. It therefore makes sense to presume Israel had some other reason for bombing this building, and hampering Hamas's activities certainly would qualify as a good one.

  • At least one former AP editor has come out and said he believes Hamas did have offices in that building at one time (source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-associated-press-editor-suggested-122444017.html)

  • Hamas has a long history of using their own people has human shields. They would certainly have no qualms about using journalists -- many whom are no doubt 'infidels' -- in the same manner.

  • Hamas simply cannot be trusted. They are a terrorist organization with no regard for even basic human rights. To presume they would have a regard for the truth is a cruel joke.

Ultimately, without facts, we have to decide whom we trust more, Israel or Hamas. For me, that's no contest. I trust the democracy more than the jihadists.
Click to expand...

NatMorton:

Matti Friedman is a Canadian-Israeli dual citizen who wrote a book entitled "Pumpkinflowers: a Soldier's Story" in which he described the profoundly positive influence which his service in the IDF c. 2006 IIRC had on him. He has been a booster for the IDF for the last 15 years. In your linked article about Friedman's accusations of 2014 there is a tweet where he explicitly says he has no idea whether Hamas had an operation going on in the building. His shorter Facebook article (September 2014) and his expanded article in the Atlantic in November 2014 were about negative media bias which he argued was slanted against the State of Israel in the wake of Operation Protective Edge in July-August of 2014. Some of the examples which he described were quite disturbing but they never rose to the level directing military or intelligence operations through or parallel with the AP. Matti Friedman was pretty much an outlier in his accusations until another AP reporter/editor named Mark Lavie (IIRC) who was a dual American-Israeli citizen said that he had seen similar institutionalised bias at work in AP's Jerusalem office as well. So I would not put too much confidence in how applicable Friedman's accusations in 2014 to the IAF destruction of the Jalaa Tower attack.

I have recollections of the State of Israel lying to the world from the mid 1960's onward. They lied about the bulldozer war in the Golan Heights, about their attacks into Syria and Jordan before the Six Day War, they lied about the Egyptian Air Force attacking to start the Six Day War, they destroyed the antennae on the American Embassy in Tel Aviv just before they launched the Six Day War to blind the Americans about what they were up to, they lied about the attack on that ship which cannot be named or discussed here. They lied about nuclear weapon development, possession of nuclear weapons, they lied about loading A-4 Skyhawks with nuclear bombs and flying them into foreign airspace during the Yom Kippur War, they lied about the invasion of southern Lebanon and the later slaughter of Palestinian Arab refugees at Sabra and Shatila. They lied throughout the 1990's about what they were doing in Lebanon and the Occupied Terrotories, they lied about just about every military operation which they have conducted in the last 21 years of this 21st Century and they lie about targetted killings and more traditional assassinations which they have conducted outside of Israel proper and still conduct today. So in my opinion the reliability of The State of Israel's veracity in maters pertaining to military operations is in the same ball park as that of the militant and terroristic organisations which plague Gaza, including Hamas. Very low.

My choice is to trust neither side in this tribal struggle, unless what they claim can be verified by multiple and reliable sources. So I don't accept the necessity of accepting a binary choice of believing one side or the others.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
NatMorton:

Matti Friedman is a Canadian-Israeli dual citizen who wrote a book entitled "Pumpkinflowers: a Soldier's Story" in which he described the profoundly positive influence which his service in the IDF c. 2006 IIRC had on him. He has been a booster for the IDF for the last 15 years. In your linked article about Friedman's accusations of 2014 there is a tweet where he explicitly says he has no idea whether Hamas had an operation going on in the building. His shorter Facebook article (September 2014) and his expanded article in the Atlantic in November 2014 were about negative media bias which he argued was slanted against the State of Israel in the wake of Operation Protective Edge in July-August of 2014. Some of the examples which he described were quite disturbing but they never rose to the level directing military or intelligence operations through or parallel with the AP. Matti Friedman was pretty much an outlier in his accusations until another AP reporter/editor named Mark Lavie (IIRC) who was a dual American-Israeli citizen said that he had seen similar institutionalised bias at work in AP's Jerusalem office as well. So I would not put too much confidence in how applicable Friedman's accusations in 2014 to the IAF destruction of the Jalaa Tower attack.

I have recollections of the State of Israel lying to the world from the mid 1960's onward. They lied about the bulldozer war in the Golan Heights, about their attacks into Syria and Jordan before the Six Day War, they lied about the Egyptian Air Force attacking to start the Six Day War, they destroyed the antennae on the American Embassy in Tel Aviv just before they launched the Six Day War to blind the Americans about what they were up to, they lied about the attack on that ship which cannot be named or discussed here. They lied about nuclear weapon development, possession of nuclear weapons, they lied about loading A-4 Skyhawks with nuclear bombs and flying them into foreign airspace during the Yom Kippur War, they lied about the invasion of southern Lebanon and the later slaughter of Palestinian Arab refugees at Sabra and Shatila. They lied throughout the 1990's about what they were doing in Lebanon and the Occupied Terrotories, they lied about just about every military operation which they have conducted in the last 21 years of this 21st Century and they lie about targetted killings and more traditional assassinations which they have conducted outside of Israel proper and still conduct today. So in my opinion the reliability of The State of Israel's veracity in maters pertaining to military operations is in the same ball park as that of the militant and terroristic organisations which plague Gaza, including Hamas. Very low.

My choice is to trust neither side in this tribal struggle, unless what they claim can be verified by multiple and reliable sources. So I don't accept the necessity of accepting a binary choice of believing one side or the others.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
You are certainly welcome to play the middle on this. I can't. I don't see the two sides as being equally at fault. This is, to some degree, a battle of good vs evil. I don't mean Israel is perfect, and I don't mean they haven't made serious mistakes that have cost lives, but there is to my eye a gaping chasm between the democratically elected government of Israel and the barbaric entity known as Hamas. IMO, on the sidelines is no place to be in this conflict.
 
NatMorton said:
It’s not a “good article,” it’s an anti-Israeli op-ed.

There is absolutely no mention of the Israeli claim that Hamas was using that building. That claim may be true or it may be false, but to not mention that claim and assert opinion as fact — as this “article” does when it states the attack’s purpose was to silence media coverage — is an exercise in propaganda.

Well done, Craig’. You’re doing a fine job toting the water for Terror Inc.
Click to expand...
But you would not tolerate your lot for a day if you woke up tomorrow Palestinian.

You'd be screaming for blood by sundown.
 
What if...? said:
But you would not tolerate your lot for a day if you woke up tomorrow Palestinian.

You'd be screaming for blood by sundown.
Click to expand...
You're wrong there. I very likely would tolerate what was going on. Were I living there and, for example, to speak out against strapping brain-washed kids with C4 and sending them off to blow up a market stall full of Jews, or speak out against using the women and children of my community as human shields, I'd likely find my throat slit before sundown.

So yes, I'd have to tolerate much, but that is the nature of authoritarian cultures like the one presently in Gaza.
 
NatMorton said:
You're wrong there. I very likely would tolerate what was going on. Were I living there and, for example, to speak out against strapping brain-washed kids with C4 and sending them off to blow up a market stall full of Jews, or speak out against using the women and children of my community as human shields, I'd likely find my throat slit before sundown.

So yes, I'd have to tolerate much, but that is the nature of authoritarian cultures like the one presently in Gaza.
Click to expand...
Sure. I believe that, not.
 
NatMorton said:
What has you doubting it, Hamas’s well chronicled commitment to human rights? Their tolerance for divergent points of view? Their enlightened views on religion?
Click to expand...
My understanding that both parties in a conflict can be wrong, and Israel did start this mess when they took the land promised to the palestinians after they fought their arab neighbors over it.
 
Craig234 said:
I'd only heard of that tactic being used by terrorists. That's probably still the case.
Click to expand...


The team of medical experts that authored the report visited Gaza three times as a delegation of Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). They collected testimonies from dozens of wounded and from medical teams, documented the army’s terrifying actions during the war. At least 15 people testified about and described incidents in which the army bombed a target, and then — after a short pause or immediately after — bombed it again. The result was especially deadly: family members, neighbors, passersby and/or medical and emergency teams that arrived to help the wounded and extract bodies from the rubble, were bombed themselves, were killed or wounded.
Click to expand...

www.972mag.com

Report details IDF 'double tap' bombings that hit first responders in Gaza - +972 Magazine

Using human shields, attacking medical teams and hospitals, shooting at civilians waving white flags. A new report by Physicians for Human Rights authored by a team of international medical experts documents shocking testimonies of victims and presents new evidence from Operation Protective Edge...
www.972mag.com www.972mag.com




and not just the IDF

One of the most controversial practices of the CIA in its drone war on Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents in Pakistan’s FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Agencies) has been the so-called ‘double tap’ strike tactic. [1] This involves follow up drone attacks on those who rush to a drone strike location to save victims buried in the rubble of targeted hujras (guest houses) or compounds. Perhaps no aspect of the drone campaign has caused as much furor as this tactic. Christof Heyns, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial Executions, captured the nature of this controversy when he stated “Allegations of repeat strikes coming back after half an hour when medical personnel are on the ground are very worrying. To target civilians would be crimes of war.” [2] UK’s Daily Mail reported
Click to expand...



www.theguardian.com

US drone strikes target rescuers in Pakistan – and the west stays silent | Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald: Attacking rescuers – a tactic long deemed by the US a hallmark of terrorism – is now routinely used by the Obama administration
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Evilroddy said:
I have recollections of the State of Israel lying to the world from the mid 1960's onward. They lied about the bulldozer war in the Golan Heights, about their attacks into Syria and Jordan before the Six Day War, they lied about the Egyptian Air Force attacking to start the Six Day War, they destroyed the antennae on the American Embassy in Tel Aviv just before they launched the Six Day War to blind the Americans about what they were up to, they lied about the attack on that ship which cannot be named or discussed here. They lied about nuclear weapon development, possession of nuclear weapons, they lied about loading A-4 Skyhawks with nuclear bombs and flying them into foreign airspace during the Yom Kippur War, they lied about the invasion of southern Lebanon and the later slaughter of Palestinian Arab refugees at Sabra and Shatila. They lied throughout the 1990's about what they were doing in Lebanon and the Occupied Terrotories, they lied about just about every military operation which they have conducted in the last 21 years of this 21st Century and they lie about targetted killings and more traditional assassinations which they have conducted outside of Israel proper and still conduct today. So in my opinion the reliability of The State of Israel's veracity in maters pertaining to military operations is in the same ball park as that of the militant and terroristic organisations which plague Gaza, including Hamas. Very low.
Click to expand...

People lie and the leaders of states lie. If you want a gross Israeli lie for the 1950's you need look no further than the attack Sharon led on the village of Qibya in 1953. The Israeli govt denounced the attack and blamed it on Israeli civilians , some of whom were fresh from the Nazi death camps. Sharon would later be found to" bear personal responsibility " for ignoring the danger of revenge wrt the attacks on Sabra and Shatila ( you mention these too) and not taking measures to prevent it..................... he went on to be Israeli prime minister and has a park named after him
 
What if...? said:
My understanding that both parties in a conflict can be wrong, and Israel did start this mess when they took the land promised to the palestinians after they fought their arab neighbors over it.
Click to expand...

There is blame on both sides and both have committed crimes, so you are more objective than many here already ,just on that statement alone.
 
NatMorton said:
No, Hamas is a terrorist organization and thus a legitimate target wherever they may be. In this case, however, as a consequence of warning the news organizations in that building Israel also warned Hamas, so no terrorists lost their lives in that attack (you can breathe easier).
Click to expand...

Hamas armed wings have engaged in terrorist acts and war crimes but it is on a retail scale compared to the wholesale state terrorism conducted by Israel. Only military targets are truly indisputably " legitimate targets"

The terrorists that framed your view can breathe easily knowing you have never had the capacity for independent thought imo
 
We simply cannot forget what Hamas is, because if we listen to only its pig-headed apologists we will only ever see them as victims. Again, the following are quotes from the founding charter of Hamas, the current de facto ruling party in Gaza. So let's al read and acknowledge Hamas's own words explaining to the world why Hamas exists:

  • 'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' (Preamble)

  • 'The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.' (Article 6)

  • 'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)

  • '[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement ... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam ... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)

  • 'Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be.' (Article 13)

  • 'The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.' (Article 15)

Just lovely, aren't they?
 
NatMorton said:
Certainly, let's start at the beginning. Israel accepted the UN's 1947 partition plan. Did its neighbors?
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the occupants of the land in question at the time or the neighbors of that land who fought Israel over it?

The myth conflates the two.
 
What if...? said:
Are you referring to the occupants of the land in question at the time or the neighbors of that land who fought Israel over it?

The myth conflates the two.
Click to expand...
Whichever you choose. Please list the countries and other quasi-national organizations in that region who supported the UN's plan other than Israel.
 
iguanaman said:
So you agree with Bernie Sanders who introduced a bill to stop the delivery of American arms to Israel? Isn't supplying arms to other countries "interventionism"?
Click to expand...
Depends on if we are selling or giving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom