1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

paulaa

Poccington wrote: »

Where does it say Israeli soldiers deliberately shot the child?

When there's pitched battles going on in populated areas, there's a high risk of civvie's getting caught in the middle of it. You can easily say that they may have been victims of Israeli gunfire, to say they were deliberately shot is nothing more than specualtion.

There were very few if any pitched battles.

"It is very dangerous for the Israel Defense Forces to believe it won the war when there was no war. The expressions of satisfaction and praise for the war's outcome voiced by the army's top brass may lead the IDF to draw the wrong conclusions. Contrary to the image portrayed by reports in the Israeli media - asserting that the IDF's performance in the war was near-perfect and that the army adopted the lessons from the Second Lebanon War - in reality, not a single battle was fought during the 22 days of fighting.

The Hamas fighters did not even try to stop the IDF soldiers who entered the Strip, opting to withdraw without a fight. The challenge the soldiers were faced with in their advance on Gaza City was not - as senior command had said prior to the operation - hand-to-hand combat with determined fighters, armed to the teeth and willing to die, but the need to find booby traps and explosives, and occasionally to neutralize individual snipers as well. This is not war. It is not even a real battle. "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058460.html

youcrazyjesus!

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

One would have gained the impression that Hamas were the good guys from some of the posters here, who knew eh?

""Anyone who comes out against Hamas - will die," said A., a resident of the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza, and the father of nine. "Many people blame Hamas for the recent deterioration, but they are afraid to say anything," he said."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051355.html

Yet Sky and BBC have no problem finding those who openly criticise
Hamas, in Arabic, in front of others on camera. Bizarre given the 100%
accuracy of the Haaretz report.

youcrazyjesus!

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Bunch of out of control thugs hahaha, so its down to common insults now is it? When have I ever called Hamas terrorists names despite what I may think of them?

Whatever your opinion may be, the fact is that the IDF fought a campaign to reduce rocket firings and weaken Hamas and did so while losing only 10 troops. Hamas promised to turn Gaza into Stalingrad for the IDF, thanks to the IDFs professionalism and good tactics Hamas completely failed.

If you believe verbatim what the Israeli war machine tells you the war was about then I don't know what to tell you. I didn't believe it any more than Hamas'
Stalingrad claims. The operation was a spectacular failure for Israel. The objectives have not been met except in collectively punishing innocents and
destroying infrastructure. When you can do this unopposed its not a massive victory.

Manic Moran

paulaa wrote: »

Too late for whom ? Are you saying that a soldier is entitled to shoot a 5 year old child or any unarmed civilian standing in front of him ? Or in the case of C4 cameraman James Miller, while carrying a white flag in 2003.

If at the time the soldier honestly believes he has reason to do so, yes. The problem is that the only person who knows if he was doing so with the honest belief that he had a reason is the soldier who pulled the trigger. That sort of thing cannot be determined in a court of law after the fact except in cases of blatant violation.

Would the "vigilante justice" you mention be anything like the assassination squads that Israel uses ?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Then again, Hamas tends not to publicly advertise who its high-value targets are either, so why not make it difficult for the opposition as well?

I would dispute your "divorced from reality" statement. People are better informed than ever before, hence the increasing objections to the way the Israelis conduct themselves and their motivations.

I wouldn't. The old 'you can't know, man, you weren't there!' is maybe clicheed but very valid. I can come up with a couple of circumstances from personal experience where a published account could come across very differently from what actually transpired, to include machinegunning an innocent family of five, and killing a person guilty of no more than walking with a bag of sweets. Sounds bad, if I type it out like that, doesn't it? (and yes, the family were innocent, and yes, the guy just had a bag of sweets) Wouldn't you want to put me in a court?

NTM

Macha

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Stalingrad claims. The operation was a spectacular failure for Israel. The objectives have not been met except in collectively punishing innocents and
destroying infrastructure. When you can do this unopposed its not a massive victory.

Oh it was a total success, you crazyjesus! Olmert and Livni managed to bulk up their credibility and bank some political capital before the legislative elections on February 10th. They managed to carry out the operation, mainly from the cowardly safety of 20,000 feet and minimise Israeli casulties (while vastly multiplying Palestinian civilian casualites but we won't worry our little heads about that). And they pulled out just before Obama's inauguration. Result!

I hope the families of the many civilian Palestinian casualties feel their lives weren't taken in vain but actually to prop up the political careers of Olmert and Livni.

Macha

For anyone interested, Jon Snow did a very interesting programme on the media coverage of Gaza:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unseen-gaza

Best viewed with Internet Exploror.

Nodin

concussion wrote: »

Where have Israeli soldiers deliberately shot children?

Over the years, it probably runs into thousands....

Islam Dwidar's classmates were still taking in her shocking death - the teacher weeping outside before facing the girls, her closest friend recounting how they walked to school together each day - when the news arrived about Tahreer Abu El Jidyan.
The two 15-year-old pupils at Jabaliya's school were both shot in the head by Israeli soldiers inside their homes just a few blocks and several hours apart. Islam died almost immediately after the bullet smashed through her forehead as she baked bread with her mother in their yard on Sunday. Tahreer is still on life support at a Gaza hospital after an operation to remove shards of shattered skull from her brain

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/06/israel

Raghda Alassar's classmates did not hear the Israeli bullet that tore into the nine-year-old's brain as she wrote an English test. But as a pool of blood spread across her desk and spilled on to the floor, a wall of screams rose from the classroom of the UN elementary school for girls in Khan Yunis.

At that point Raghda was still crying for help. By the time she was hauled into the trauma room of a neighbouring hospital she was silent.
For five crucial days the army blocked Raghda's transfer to an Israeli hospital with the facilities to offer a glimmer of hope. An infection set in.
On Tuesday doctors told her father, Adnad, that she was brain dead. "The bullet entered under her eye and went out the back of her head," Mr Alassar said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/17/schoolsworldwide.israel

Tom Hurndall was shot dead trying to protect Palestinian children. Caoimhe Butterly was shot in the leg trying to do similar.

ch750536

Serenity Now! wrote: »

They have done much but attempting to exterminate a "race" is not one of them.

Of course you are right, luckily the million other people on Boards knew what I meant though.

paulaa

Manic Moran wrote: »

If at the time the soldier honestly believes he has reason to do so, yes. The problem is that the only person who knows if he was doing so with the honest belief that he had a reason is the soldier who pulled the trigger. That sort of thing cannot be determined in a court of law after the fact except in cases of blatant violation.

In a manner of speaking, yes. Then again, Hamas tends not to publicly advertise who its high-value targets are either, so why not make it difficult for the opposition as well?

I wouldn't. The old 'you can't know, man, you weren't there!' is maybe clicheed but very valid. I can come up with a couple of circumstances from personal experience where a published account could come across very differently from what actually transpired, to include machinegunning an innocent family of five, and killing a person guilty of no more than walking with a bag of sweets. Sounds bad, if I type it out like that, doesn't it? (and yes, the family were innocent, and yes, the guy just had a bag of sweets) Wouldn't you want to put me in a court?

NTM

The thing is, the soldier's perception in the field is one thing, orders from above are another.
"At the first sign of movement in the dark Gaza alleyway, Alon opened fire without hesitation. Snipers liked to operate at night, he said, and the area had been cleared of Israeli troops.

“He could have been advancing to attack,” the Israeli lieutenant explained. “We are treating everything as hostile right now. We were told not to take chances — to shoot rather than ask questions.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5512123.ece


The secret of informing yourself is to read both sides a situation and the background to it and somewhere in the middle is the truth. Doesn't matter whether you were there or not. If that were the case we all might as well throw out the telly, don't buy newspapers and don't read books all on the premise that, "I wasn't there so I can't know the truth"

Manic Moran

Snipers tend to operate on much looser rules of engagement because they are much more vulnerable. The US has lost a number of sniper teams in Iraq because of the fact that there are only two people in a team and in an urban area their vulnerability becomes much higher due to the close ranges involved.

If that were the case we all might as well throw out the telly, don't buy newspapers and don't read books all on the premise that, "I wasn't there so I can't know the truth"

There is a school of thought that says that one should not put too much faith in the telly and newspapers, because their job is to get you the news, quickly. Books tend to be more reputable, because as they are written considerably after the fact (Usually many months, not weeks) they have the time taken to be researched, and are not usually limited to a three-minute-coverage between ad breaks or four column inches in between domestic political news and the GAA results.

NTM

Macha

Well it would certainly help if Israel had let foreign media in. There is only one reason why they didn't let them in and that was so that they could put across their own version of events.

That is why we were still wondering whether Hamas militants were inside the UN school that was bombed, as Regev claims. Will we ever be able to verify his claims? That's exactly what they want: to sow the seeds of doubt.

Attempts to discredit any Palestinian interviews are also "discredited" by arguing that Gaza is a totalitarian state, even when journalists clearly state that they had not been interfered with in any way. The Israeli propaganda machine is very slick. They have their own twitter page and youtube account. They're not even subtle about it any more.

Again, I strongly recommend people to watch Jon Snows' report "Unseen Gaza". He says that the separation between the war machine and the journalists is "unprecedented" and that inevitably, the first casualty is truth. But then we know the Israeli government is not all that bothered about the truth.

paulaa

taconnol wrote: »

Well it would certainly help if Israel had let foreign media in. There is only one reason why they didn't let them in and that was so that they could put across their own version of events.

That is why we were still wondering whether Hamas militants were inside the UN school that was bombed, as Regev claims. Will we ever be able to verify his claims? That's exactly what they want: to sow the seeds of doubt.

Attempts to discredit any Palestinian interviews are also "discredited" by arguing that Gaza is a totalitarian state, even when journalists clearly state that they had not been interfered with in any way. The Israeli propaganda machine is very slick. They have their own twitter page and youtube account. They're not even subtle about it any more.

Again, I strongly recommend people to watch Jon Snows' report "Unseen Gaza". He says that the separation between the war machine and the journalists is "unprecedented" and that inevitably, the first casualty is truth. But then we know the Israeli government is not all that bothered about the truth.

Now they're saying there was no ban !!! These people are deluded to think that the world will believe their nonsense like their population obviously does.
Journalists were not allowed in to Gaza since last November because imo they did not want the world to see the medieval conditions to which their blockade had reduced the Gazans .

"December 14, 2008
Gaza families eat grass as Israel locks border"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5338014.ece


Branding foreign journalists "spoiled crybabies" unwilling to make "a little effort" to get into Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, Government Press Office head Danny Seaman denied Sunday there had been any ban on their entry into the Strip during the battle.

Foreign Press Association Chairman Steve Gutkin disputed this, telling the The Jerusalem Post that the association was still pursuing its petition with the High Court of Justice to arrange regular access.

"There was no ban," Seaman declared, "Israel did not want to endanger the lives of the workers at the crossings so we didn't open them, not for humanitarian reasons and not for foreign journalists."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643746482&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Macha

Unbelievable....he must think we are all complete idiots.

Oh and he blames all criticism on anti-semitism. That article is actually hilarious, in one way.

paulaa

Manic Moran wrote: »

Snipers tend to operate on much looser rules of engagement because they are much more vulnerable. The US has lost a number of sniper teams in Iraq because of the fact that there are only two people in a team and in an urban area their vulnerability becomes much higher due to the close ranges involved.



There is a school of thought that says that one should not put too much faith in the telly and newspapers, because their job is to get you the news, quickly. Books tend to be more reputable, because as they are written considerably after the fact (Usually many months, not weeks) they have the time taken to be researched, and are not usually limited to a three-minute-coverage between ad breaks or four column inches in between domestic political news and the GAA results.

NTM

In my case MM I have been following the Palestine situation for 30 years or so. I have watched documentaries, read books, listened and looked at the news from both sides. I have been to several countries in the Middle East including both Israel and Gaza, both on business and on holiday. That is what has formed my opinions , not a 3 minute news flash.

concussion

TOMASJ wrote: »

Try and keep up with what.s going on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7843430.stm

Thanks for the link, would love to see what the IDF say about the incident

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You don't feel the need to post about what is actually wrong yet you do feel the need to post about what may be wrong

We won't know what the figures are until there's an independant investigation, until then I'm keeping an open mind. Incidentally, since the start I've never disagreed or questioned the total number reported.
Now, however, I've seen a report from an Italian journalist, which states that, allegedly, a Palestinian doctor has said it's much lower. Seeing as I have, as yet, no reason to disbelieve what he says (he was in Jenin after the fighting in 2002 and reported very similar casualty figures which tallied with the figures the UN released several weeks later) and good reasons to disbelieve Hamas (motive, means and opportunity), I'm treating this report as plausible.

Nodin wrote: »

Over the years, it probably runs into thousands....

Take into account the fact that a bullet can travel for miles, way past the range at which it can fired accurately, but still remain capable of killing someone. Those incidents with multiple wounds make that more improbable though

paulaa wrote: »

The thing is, the soldier's perception in the field is one thing, orders from above are another.
"At the first sign of movement in the dark Gaza alleyway, Alon opened fire without hesitation. Snipers liked to operate at night, he said, and the area had been cleared of Israeli troops.

“He could have been advancing to attack,” the Israeli lieutenant explained. “We are treating everything as hostile right now. We were told not to take chances — to shoot rather than ask questions.”

Yet you don't see any relevance in this part of the article?

We didn’t want any civilians to die, we do everything we can to make sure that Palestinian civilians there, the non-fighters, aren’t hurt. We tell them to leave the areas that we are fighting . . . but it’s not easy; what we are doing there is difficult work.”

taconnol wrote: »

Well it would certainly help if Israel had let foreign media in. There is only one reason why they didn't let them in and that was so that they could put across their own version of events.

That is why we were still wondering whether Hamas militants were inside the UN school that was bombed, as Regev claims. Will we ever be able to verify his claims? That's exactly what they want: to sow the seeds of doubt.

There have been several reports posted here, including one by myself from Reuters, where Palestinans have told reporters there were militants firing just outside the school.

paulaa

taconnol wrote: »

Unbelievable....he must think we are all complete idiots.

Oh and he blames all criticism on anti-semitism. That article is actually hilarious, in one way.

Yes. As I said before it is this kind of arrogance, re-writing of history and downright lies that has led people to distrust Israel and will eventually lead to her downfall imo. Then when you take into account the corruption of their politicians, their refusal/inability to abide by any UN resolutions which they were party to, and their absymal track record on human rights, well it's only a matter of time until they find themselves shunned by the democratic countries who really believe in democracy.

The "anti-semitic" reply to any criticism of Israel is getting very old and tired now and doesn't shut people up like it used to.

Macha

concussion wrote: »

There have been several reports posted here, including one by myself from Reuters, where Palestinans have told reporters there were militants firing just outside the school.

Actually, all those reports lead back to 2 civilians, both of whom said that they saw a Hamas fighter near the school, not "just outside". And then the exact definition of "near" can be deabted.

Snow interviews the source of the story that Mark Regev quotes, ie the Jerusalem Post. Their own journalist said Regev twisted his words.

The funny part is that while the IDF are busy discrediting any Palestinian civilian reports, they're more than happy to rely on them when they perceive them to back up their version of events. The hypocrisy is mindboggling!

paulaa

concussion wrote: »

Yet you don't see any relevance in this part of the article?
Quote:
We didn’t want any civilians to die, we do everything we can to make sure that Palestinian civilians there, the non-fighters, aren’t hurt. We tell them to leave the areas that we are fighting . . . but it’s not easy; what we are doing there is difficult work.”

No I don't because I believe about 20% of what they say.

Very good of them to tell people to get out to safety when they knew there was no place for them to go. If they went out onto the street they were shot, if they stayed in their houses they were shelled.Dead one way or the other.
That was just another cynical exercise on the IDF's part to deflect criticism .

concussion

taconnol wrote: »

Actually, all those reports lead back to 2 civilians, both of whom said that they saw a Hamas fighter near the school, not "just outside". And then the exact definition of "near" can be deabted.

Snow interviews the source of the story that Mark Regev quotes, ie the Jerusalem Post. Their own journalist said Regev twisted his words.

The funny part is that while the IDF are busy discrediting any Palestinian civilian reports, they're more than happy to rely on them when they perceive them to back up their version of events. The hypocrisy is mindboggling!

The JP took the information from the Associated Press. The article also says that the strike occurred outside the school. My original post is here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58539462&postcount=1888 , I mistakenly attributed the AP article to Reuters a few minutes ago. The AP article (nothing to do with the Jerusalem Post) says the following

In the single deadliest strike of the current Gaza offensive, at least 39 Palestinians were killed and 55 wounded Tuesday when Israeli mortar shells hit near a U.N. school where hundreds of civilians had sought refuge from the fighting. Israel said Hamas militants had fired mortar shells from outside the school, drawing return fire. Palestinian residents, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said several militants ran toward the crowd, trying to use it as cover, when the first Israeli mortar shell missed them.

Note that shells landed outside the school and that militants ran towards the crowd - it doesn't say they ran into the school. An article linked by another poster here said most of the people killed were outside, which backs up this AP report.

concussion

paulaa wrote: »

If they went out onto the street they were shot, if they stayed in their houses they were shelled

Except they were told to leave the areas days before ground troops went in...

wes

concussion wrote: »

Except they were told to leave the areas days before ground troops went in...

and go where exactly?

Macha

concussion wrote: »

The JP took the information from the Associated Press. The article also says that the strike occurred outside the school. My original post is here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58539462&postcount=1888 , I mistakenly attributed the AP article to Reuters a few minutes ago. The AP article (nothing to do with the Jerusalem Post) says the following Note that shells landed outside the school and that militants ran towards the crowd - it doesn't say they ran into the school. An article linked by another poster here said most of the people killed were outside, which backs up this AP report.

None of the above contradicts the points I made in my earlier post:

- the only eye-witness accounts of the incident come from 2 Palestinian civilians.
- Hamas fighters were not in the school
- the Israeli government is perfectly happy to accept Palestinian civilian accounts of events when it suits them
- we are here debating over facts (a somewhat futile exercise, it has to be said) that should have been verified by the international press. I mean how near is near? They could very well have been shooting from a street beside the UN school - who knows? Even if they were nearby, is it acceptable that Israel kills 43 civilians in the pursuit of 2 militants?

Not just this incident but others.

The mortars may not have fallen in the school but they still managed to kill many of the sheltering refugees because they hit a school run. There are inevitably civilians in and around the area of a shelter.

paulaa

concussion wrote: »

Except they were told to leave the areas days before ground troops went in...

No they weren't. The tanks were already on the ground in Gaza city when the leaflets were dropped. I know this because Al Jazeera at the time were in the area where shelling was going on. The reporter caught a leaflet as it fluttered down and a man crouched beside him translated it to English

paulaa

Which UN school are we talking about because they hit at least 3 UN schools.

Macha

This one (well, I am anyway!)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L6379966.htm

concussion

taconnol wrote: »

None of the above contradicts the points I made in my earlier post:

- the only eye-witness accounts of the incident come from 2 Palestinian civilians.
- Hamas fighters were not in the school
- the Israeli government is perfectly happy to accept Palestinian civilian accounts of events when it suits them
- we are here debating over facts (a somewhat futile exercise, it has to be said) that should have been verified by the international press. I mean how near is near? They could very well have been shooting from a street beside the UN school - who knows? Even if they were nearby, is it acceptable that Israel kills 43 civilians in the pursuit of 2 militants?

Not just this incident but others.

The mortars may not have fallen in the school but they still managed to kill many of the sheltering refugees because they hit a school run. There are inevitably civilians in and around the area of a shelter.

The only witnesses to this incident said that the militants fired while pretty much surrounded by civilians - the Israelis fired back, not at the school (and they didn't directly hit the school) but at the location of the militants. This is hugely different to the first story of the UN school being deliberately targetted. In this case it would seem that Hamas were using the population as human shields, not to mention their proximity to a UN safe zone. The point I'm making here is that it's not the clear cut war-crime/violation of Geneva Convention which it first appeared to be.

paulaa wrote: »

No they weren't. The tanks were already on the ground in Gaza city when the leaflets were dropped. I know this because Al Jazeera at the time were in the area where shelling was going on. The reporter caught a leaflet as it fluttered down and a man crouched beside him translated it to English

"Israel drops leaflets over Gaza warning of 'escalation' in violence",
Saturday Jan. 10th, before troops entered Gaza City. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/10/abbas-gaza-israel-truce "

"Israeli forces enter Gaza City neighborhood"
Tuesday, January 13th, three days after leaflets had been dropped (and were still being dropped) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-gaza14-2009jan14,0,1133763.story

wes wrote: »

and go where exactly?

If, after a large air attack, I knew troops would be coming through my city I would get out of there pronto. Gaza city for example wasn't surrounded for two weeks. If I couldn't, the last thing I would do is move around at night where I can't be identified. One of the articles linked above says, despite all the reports of civilians being killed, the IDF actually respects a white flag...

concussion

taconnol wrote: »

This one (well, I am anyway!)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L6379966.htm

Yep

Macha

concussion wrote: »

The only witnesses to this incident said that the militants fired while pretty much surrounded by civilians

I would well believe it - Hamas are scum. BUT, do you have a source for this? I just can't believe what the IDF say...

Again, the question has to be asked: if you have 1.4 million people in an area less than half the size of Co. Louth, it's going to be hard to find anywhere to fire from without civilians around. It is the 4th most densly populated country in the world.

concussion wrote: »

- the Israelis fired back, not at the school (and they didn't directly hit the school) but at the location of the militants. This is hugely different to the first story of the UN school being deliberately targetted.

It must also be pointed out that the Israelis have changed their story on this:

Israeli defence officials are now saying one of the deadliest recent incidents in Gaza, when a UN school was bombed, was caused by a stray mortar.The attack killed about 40 Palestinian civilians sheltering at the Fakhura school in Jabaliya on Tuesday. Initially, Israeli officials accused Hamas of firing from the school and using civilians as "human shields".

So is your story that Hamas were using them as human shields concur with Israel's current line? What is the definition of a "human shield"? WHat distance do they have to be?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7823204.stm

concussion wrote: »

In this case it would seem that Hamas were using the population as human shields, not to mention their proximity to a UN safe zone. The point I'm making here is that it's not the clear cut war-crime/violation of Geneva Convention which it first appeared to be.

True. The facts are muddled. But again, if international journalists had been allowed in, the facts might not be so muddled. As mentioned above, Israel have been changing their story as well.

concussion wrote: »

If, after a large air attack, I knew troops would be coming through my city I would get out of there pronto. Gaza city for example wasn't surrounded for two weeks. If I couldn't, the last thing I would do is move around at night where I can't be identified. One of the articles linked above says, despite all the reports of civilians being killed, the IDF actually respects a white flag...

WHere on earth do you go, concussion? YOu need food, you need sanitation, you need shelter. You can't just go out into the middle of nowhere and sit and wait! There are babies, toddles, sick people, old people, injured, people who aren't mobile.

They do the best thing they can, which is go to a UN-designated safe-place and they get bombed anyway.

Offy

concussion wrote: »

the IDF actually respects a white flag...

Is that the same IDF that shot dead a reporter carrying a white flag? Get your head out of your ass.

concussion

taconnol wrote: »

I would well believe it - Hamas are scum. BUT, do you have a source for this? I just can't believe what the IDF say...

It's in one of the articles I linked, the AP one I think(not the AP one via the JP)

taconnol wrote: »

It must also be pointed out that the Israelis have changed their story on this:

I know, I think they may have commented on it and then got more information-it looks stupid anyway, I think I've heard three stories from them

taconnol wrote: »

So is your story that Hamas were using them as human shields concur with Israel's current line? What is the definition of a human shield? WHat distance do they have to be?

A human shield would be the use of non-combatants to deter an enemy from attacking you. If you do use human shields you are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Ditto if you use protected areas for military use (plus protected areas lose their protected status if this happens). As for distance, the convention states that you have to use all reasonable precautions - the Israelis said they fired mortars, the article says 'shells' landed outside. From this one could propose that they didn't use heavy artillery as it was so close and chose to use smaller mortars instead.

taconnol wrote: »

True. The facts are muddled. But again, if international journalists had been allowed in, the facts might not be so muddled. As mentioned above, Israel have been changing their story as well.

Totally agree.

taconnol wrote: »

WHere on earth do you go, concussion? YOu need food, you need sanitation, you need shelter. You can't just go out into the middle of nowhere and sit and wait! There are babies, toddles, sick people, old people, injured, people who aren't mobile.

They do the best thing they can, which is go to a UN-designated safe-place and they get bombed anyway.

UNRWA alone has 221 schools and 50 safe zones (source UNRWA website) - those are some places to go, not to mention hospitals etc. Of the 250 odd UN areas, only three seem to be hit by shells.

Offy wrote: »

Is that the same IDF that shot dead a reporter carrying a white flag? Get your head out of your ass.

Maybe it's not me with my head in my ass - one of the news articles states it. I'm also not that naive to think that every time Israeli soldiers came across Palestinians they shot them down. If that was the case I'd expect to see much much more than 1500 reported deaths.