Israel army kills at will in back-to-back incursions!

14-year-old boys are often armed and shoot at soldiers. They are not civilians in such a case. There are lots of teenagers among the terrorists: majority of the suicide bombers were under 18.
If the woman died of the blast that was not intended to destroy her house, this is evidence of low construction workmanship level in the Gaza Strip. Normal buildings collapse only when they are intendedly exploded, and not when some other building is.

Normal people dont blow up houses in the middle of a residential area. And if they do so they are cautious and evacuate the neighbourhood. This is state-terrorism by Israel. As i've said before: In the end Israel will be the loser in this process. Another 5 years and they are bankrupt. Another 50 years and the Palestinians outnumber the Israeli.

There is one land and that belongs to two peoples. Both peoples of God. No matter that one side calls him Jahwe and the other side calls him Allah. Its the same man-made creature.

History has shown that the system of segregation and discrimination fails. The way Israel treats the palestinians differs not from the Apartheid-regime in Suid-Afrika!

Houses are being blown up for three reasons: either they are being used as terrorists' strongholds, or they belong to the families of suicide bombers or leaders of the terrorist organizations, or they host explosives manufacturing facilities (it is interesting why do the Palestinians deploy the latter in the middle of residential areas; I guess, this is a kind of "dark PR" action of theirs, terrorists are interested in increasing number of the Palestinian collateral damage). Their civilian residents of such houses are being evacuated prior to explosion. The woman resided in another building that was not supposed to collapse, but low quality of construction workmanship caused the accident.

Or maybe the bomb was too strong. Or maybe the palestinians are only allowed to buy inferior material. Fact is that a young woman and her unborn baby are dead.

How will Ariel Sharon ever get this clean??

Explosive too strong? I do not think so. This may be unsafe for the soldiers themselves.
Palestinians buy the same construction materials the Israelis do, even from the same suppliers; Palestinian building contractors often put less cement into mortar than it is required to decrease operational costs. In Israel exist municipal and governmental supervision over the quality of construction, in PA it is absent.

You are so unidimensional. "We are good and they are bad" Let me remind you that corruption in Isael is a national sport. Even the prime minister has his own scandal. So I doubt that only the palestinians are breaking the rules. So your opinion is =>If your neighbour is a suspected terrorist and the IDF blows up his house but also kills your wife and unborn child. You have to blame your neighbour.

Weird logic you have.

I never claimed that there was no corruption in Israel. Such a thing exists in any country in the world, both democratic and non-democratic.
In fact, the scandal you refer to has nothing to do with bribery: Mr. Sharon's son took a loan from the South African businessman that has no business interests in Israel. General Attorney's office was in process of checking whether any illicit interests were involved (and has not yet found any), but some anti-patriotic ultra-left lawyer has deliberately organized leakage to media.
In case you describe I would rather blame a contractor that built the house. I would even sue him.

Something about "dimensions". Your posting lacks one very important detail. The operation in the Gaza Strip was performed in order to arrest one of the founders of the Hamas terror group (and he was arrested). In process of the operation soldiers came across with armed resistance of the Hamas supporters, and there was a battle. The Hamas members did not hesitate to start the battle in the middle of the populated area where their compatriots lived. If they really were concerned about lives of Arabs and Muslims they would not shoot at soldiers. Soldier of any army returns fire when he is being shot at. If he does not, he is not a soldier, but a regular nerd. And when the battle takes place in the densely populated area, collateral damage cannot be avoided.

Those recent Incursions into West Bank were a reaction on the death of four soldiers when an Israeli tank was blown up, for which Islamic Hamas claimed responsibility.

I think the Israeli govt should learn their own religious prescriptions. an eye for an eye is not the same as an eye for an eye, an arm and some vital organs.

19feb: Eleven Palestinians killed
3Mar: nine Palestinians killed

I know your answer in advance. You'll say most of the killed palestinians were armed. And what about the four soldiers in their tank? They were unarmed and on a humanitarian mission? Yeah right!

Here are some figures! They speak for themselves! The real 'an eye for an eye policy' of the Israeli Govt

since the al-Aqsa Intifada

In the Occupied Territories

1,830 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories, of whom 331 were minors under the age of 18.

(Ages of the minors killed: Sixty one minors were age 17, Fifty Three were age 16, Forty Eight were age 15, Forty Three were age 14, Thirty Eight were age 13, Eighteen were age 12, Thirteen were age 11, Twelve were age 10, Five were age 9, Twelve were age 8, Four were age 7, Five were age 6, Three were age 5, Three were age 4, Five were age 3, Four were two years old, Two were One year old baby girls, One was a 6 month old baby girl and One was a four month old baby girl.)

At least 92 of the palestinians killed were extrajudicially executed by Israel. In the course of these assasinations 42 additional palestinians were killed.

28 Palestinians were killed by Israeli civilians, including Three minors: One was age 17, One was age 14 and One was a Two month- old baby girl.

Seven foreign Citizens were killed by Israeli security forces gunfire.

173 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians, 29 of them were minors under the age of 18: Six were aged 17, Five were age 16, Seven were age 14, Two were age 13, One was age 11, Two were age 9, Three were age 5, One was a 10 month-old baby girl and One was a 5 month-old baby boy and one was a one day old baby boy.
Six foreign citizens were killed by Palestinians.

152 members of the Israeli security forces were killed by Palestinians.


Within Israel
44 Palestinians, residents of the Occupied Territories, were killed by Israeli security forces gunfire. One of those killed was a minor aged 14.

287 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians, residents of the Occupied Territories. 54 of them were minors under the age of 18. Of them: Eight were age 17, Ten were age 16, Thirteen were age 15, Five were age 14, Three were age 13, One was age 12, One was age 11, One was age 10, Two were age 8, One was age 7, One was age 5, Two were age 4, One was age 3, One was a 14 month old baby, One was a two years old baby, One was a Eighteen month old baby, One was a nine month old baby, and One was a seven month old baby.

28 foreign citizens were killed by Palestinians. One of them was a minor, age 16.

65 members of the Israeli security forces were killed by Palestinians, residents of the Occupied Territories.

Currently, Israeli incursions have no connection to any particular terror attack either on soldiers or on civilians. These take place routinely to suppress the terror organizations, to destroy infrastructure of terror and to arrest leaders of Islamic terror groups. When the Palestinians do not attempt to resist, there are no casualties. But if someone shoots at soldiers, it is quite predictable that the reciprocal fire will be opened. And it is quite natural that the soldiers are trained and equipped better than the terrorists, therefore the death score is not in favor of Palestinians.
Statistic information regarding dead minors is almost correct (well, telling part of the truth is not less misinforming than telling an absolute lie), but a very sufficient moment was overlooked, either by negligence, or deliberately. Majority of 14-17 y.o. Palestinians were killed while being involved in the fire battles with soldiers (I mean, they were active participants). If someone is involved in such an activity, he/she must be ready to bear the consequences, including death. More, statistics of the killed teenagers include these that exploded themselves in the Israeli towns and cities. Israeli security forces did not kill them, they were homicide bombers, and they killed themselves in process of performing the terror attack.
One more thing. Palestinian minors that were not armed, were killed by mistake, they got caught in a crossfire, like, for example, Muhammad a-Dura, whose death was turned into PR gimmick by the Palestinian Göbbelses and some of the European media that uncritically "bought" everything the Palestinians provided them with. No one aimed the perished unarmed minors deliberately, there was no practical need in this. Manhunting is not a popular sport in Israel, unlike the situation with this in PA.
Palestinians that were killed by Israeli civilians (let us call the latter their real name, the settlers) died while trying to penetrate through fences of the settlements. There can be no other reason to penetrate through fence than terror attack attempt (even thieves stopped doing this because it is dangerous); therefore, shooting at perpetrators should be regarded as self-defence.
Israeli minors that were killed did not take part in any hostilities or other actions on the territories of PA; draft to the IDF is mandatory since age of 18. They were deliberately killed by terrorists, and the 10-month-old girl was shot down by a sniper. I have a serious military background, and I know that from the distance she was shot a sniper could see well by means of his optic devices whom was he killing. By the way, this "human being" was arrested not long ago. Formally, he is a civilian, since he has never been drafted to any army.
Another occasion of mass murder of Israeli minors occurred in Tel Aviv in summer of 2001: the homicide bomber deliberately exploded himself near the entrance of the teenagers' disco club in Tel Aviv. He knew well whom was he going to kill: he wandered in the area for quarter an hour trying to get in (not to dance, but to increase efficiency of the terror attack).
There is a very simple solution that may lead to withdrawal of the Israeli soldiers from the Palestinian towns: immediate and unconditional ceasing of terror and voluntary disarmament of the terror groups. No one in Israel is interested in continuation of incursions, these are very expensive, and the country undergoes serious economical hardships. If there is no reason for military operations on the territory of West Bank and gaza Strip, they will be ceased.

Steissd, you really don't get it.

An 75-year-old shepherd was among three Palestinians who died on Tuesday in fresh Middle East violence. An Israeli army spokeswoman said the shepherd was spotted riding a donkey in "an area in which Palestinian movement is prohibited", prompting troops to open fire.

This is murder. There are Palestinians living in the camps, they still have the key of their house. The house used to be theirs but now Russian/American/Ethiopian/... emigrants live in it. People that never lived in the area before before. The entire immigration policy of Israel is focused on occupying the stolen land.

People are fed up with the Isaeli and their constant threat to world peace. Yesterday even the US took the rare step of criticising Israel over the number of civilian casualties in army operations. Even the US seems to realise that the end of oppression operations against the Palestinians is the only way to world peace.

Frolic:

Is the US anyone to be CASTING STONES at other nations?

Frolic obviously has no idea what is he writing about. I mean, his/her claims that the immigrants from different countries are being sent to the territories. Majority of the settlers are Israelis in third-fourth generation. Israel is a free country, so any citizen cannot be sent to live to the place he does not want to settle. Majority of immigrants live inside the 1967 borders. Well, in opinion of the pan-Arab ideologists these are also Palestinian territories; they merely do not recognize right of Israel to exist in any borders.

But you dont deny the fact that many palestinians still have the key of the house they used to live in. And that they now are 'settled'in a place they dont want to live in! But if a Jewish cab driver from NY that never has been in the promised land wants to setlle on stolen land he can do that.

I sympathise with Israeli's, I sympathise with Palestinian's. Ariel Sharon and Yasir Arafat are idiots and now have an American to join them. Killing instills hate, foments aggression and is a total abhorence!

At least nine Palestinians were killed and 20 injured Monday during Israeli operations in Gaza, Palestinian security and medical sources said.

The incidents came a day after Israel Defense Forces called "regrettable" an incident in which an Israeli bulldozer ran over and killed an American peace activist at Rafah in southern Gaza.

Seven of the dead were killed when Israeli forces entered the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza early Monday, Palestinian sources said.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz cites Palestinian sources as saying a four-year-old girl, two teenagers and at least two gunmen were among the dead.

(CNN)

It is unknown who killed (by mistake) the four-year girl: she was killed by the bullet that entered her sleeping room; this might have been either Israeli or Palestinian bullet, no one knows for sure. Teenagers often take active part in the battles, they do not throw stones as they did 15 years ago, they shoot. When they do such a things, there is no wonder that they get killed. Death of adult militants requires no comments: it is a war.

Steissd, i found this article in The Guardian(i hope this not a dubious newspaper to u) and i really want to share it with my fellow ForumFriends.


A familiar tale from the Middle East: "Palestinians launched three bombs overnight against the Eile Sinai settlement in the far north of the Gaza Strip. Israeli troops responded with tank shells, destroying a Palestinian border post and hitting two houses."

This report, which happens to have come from the BBC, is familiar not only for the events it describes but also for the way it describes them: the Palestinians attack and the Israelis "respond".

Military actions by the Israelis are always a "response" to something, even when they strike first. If they haven't actually been attacked, it's a "response" to a security threat.

"Response" is a very useful word. It provides a ready-made reason for the Israelis' actions and neatly brushes off demands for further explanation. It says: "Don't ask us why we did it, ask the other side."

There's no point in blaming the Israelis for using this device; the question is whether journalists should let it shape their reporting of the conflict.

Portraying the conflict as a series of Palestinian actions and Israeli responses is dangerous, for several reasons.

Firstly, it lends support to the Israeli argument that if only the Palestinians would stop their violence everything would be fine. That might be true for many Israelis, but not for the Palestinians.

Secondly, it builds up - through constant repetition - into a misleading picture of the overall conflict. The violence is not a series of discrete actions and reactions but a cycle (or spiral) in which actions on both sides feed off those on the other.

Thirdly, while Israeli actions are reported as a self-justifying "response", actions by the Palestinians are rarely allowed either a proper context or an understandable motive.

Obviously there is a limit to what can be said in a news story of 300-400 words, and some journalists will argue that their main job is to report the day's events, not to explain the background.

But I am not suggesting they should turn it into a history lecture; merely that they should at least hint at a broader picture and acknowledge that the Palestinians might have some genuine grievances.

To do this is neither difficult nor unduly word-consuming. Some news agency reports, for instance, routinely work into their stories a five-word reference to the "Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation".

The Israeli occupation lies at the root of the conflict - and yet, more often than not, journalists fail to remind their readers of it.

The Guardian's electronic newspaper archive contains all the British national dailies, plus the London Evening Standard. A search of this reveals 1,669 stories published during the last 12 months that mentioned the West Bank.

Of these, 49 contained the phrase "occupied West Bank". A further 513 included the word "occupied" or "occupation" elsewhere in the text. That leaves 1,107 stories - 66% of the total - which managed to talk about the West Bank without mentioning one of the key facts.

Some journalists - particularly Americans - seem reluctant to treat occupation as an established fact and instead treat it as an opinion which should be attributed to someone. Last October, for example, CCN's Jerusalem bureau chief told viewers that Palestinians were angry at "what they regard as the Israeli occupation".

Others resort to euphemisms: the West Bank is "disputed" or "administrated by Israel". Some adopt the practice of Israeli officials by shortening "the Occupied Territories" to "the Territories".

Journalists are also rather timid on the question of Jewish settlers, usually portraying them as a target of violence but more rarely as one of the major causes (which they plainly are). Some of the recent stories about the killing of a 10-month-old Jewish baby, Shalhevet Pass, in Hebron made clear that the settlers there are a tiny and particularly fanatical bunch - though many did not.

One report described Hebron as a "divided city", when in fact 99.8% of the inhabitants are Arabs. (Jerusalem, on the other hand - with two-thirds of the population Jewish and one-third Arab - is constantly described by Israelis as "undivided".)

Over the last 12 months, 394 stories in the archive mentioned Jewish settlers. Of these, seven included the phrase "extremist settler" and eight "extremist Jewish settler". The word "extremist" did occur in 44 of the stories, though not necessarily applied to settlers. Some stories juxtaposed settlers characterised simply as "Jewish" with Palestinians characterised as "extremist".

The illegality of the settlements under international law also often escapes mention. The phrase "illegal settlement", used in an Israeli-Palestinian context, appeared only eight times during the last 12 months - and three of those were in readers' letters to the editor.

During the early stages of the intifada newspapers were accused of "dehumanising" Palestinians by publishing numbers but not names of those killed. This was contrasted with the wealth of personal information, helpfully provided by the Israeli authorities, about Jewish casualties.

The lack of Palestinian names was certainly not due to a conscious policy on the part of journalists and, although there are sometimes difficulties in getting the names, efforts have been made to remedy it.

However, last week's search of the archive highlighted another practice which has a similar effect: Jews mainly live in "communities" but Palestinians live in "areas".

Palestinian "areas" scored 109 mentions over the last 12 months; "neighbourhoods" scored 15 and "communities" only three (one each in the Guardian, Observer and Independent).

In the case of Jews, the positions were reversed: "communities" scored 87, "neighbourhoods" 30 and "areas" 21.

This is clearly not intentional and it may be partly due to the way we speak of Jewish communities in the diaspora. But the overall pattern does suggest a perception - perhaps an unconscious one - that Palestinians are less civilised. Another factor is that "neighbourhood" and, to a lesser extent, "community" are used as euphemisms for settlements. Israeli spokesmen regularly describe the settlement at Gilo as a "neighbourhood" of Jerusalem because it has been unilaterally annexed.

A recent report in the Times, following in the tradition of CNN, said that "Palestinians regard" Gilo as an illegal settlement. Indeed they do, but then so does international law.

Killing prompts new war crime call

The killing of reporters in war zones should be made a new war crime after the death of a British cameraman in Gaza, campaigners say.

James Miller, 34, from Devon, was shot in the southern troublespot of Rafah.

Initial findings from an Israeli Defence Forces(IDF) investigation into the affair indicate that the correspondent was shot in the back, with sources suggesting that he may have been hit by Palestinian gunfire.(The usual claim)

The award-winning journalist was filming a documentary on the effect of terrorism on children for the American cable giant HBO.

Another Briton who had been with Mr Miller said they were waving a white flag and moving towards an Israeli armoured vehicle when it opened fire.

Aidan White, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, said the Israeli army must not be allowed to "brush aside" Mr Miller's death with their "routine and callous expressions of regret".

The Israeli army said it had returned fire after being attacked by rocket-propelled grenades and expressed "sorrow at a civilian death".

But a spokesman added: "It must be stressed a cameraman who knowingly enters a combat zone, especially at night, endangers himself."

Mr White, whose federation operates on behalf of about 500,000 journalists globally, said there must be a full inquiry into Mr Miller's death, a call echoed by the Foreign Office.

"Killing journalists either deliberately or by gross negligence should be made official war crimes under international law," he said.

"There is now an unstoppable wave of anger within journalism which is calling for action to halt this process.
"The military authorities cannot any longer ignore the fact that journalists in war zones and conflict areas are doing a legitimate and important public duty and that special attention must be paid to their safety."

Mr White said it was a "terrible irony" that Mr Miller died on World Press Freedom Day.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We are in contact with the Israeli authorities and pushing for a full and transparent investigation."

Mr Miller was born in Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, and had been living in Devon with his wife and son.

The cameraman had won international acclaim for his documentary work including Beneath the Veil - a film about life under the Taleban.

He was killed in Rafah, an area of Gaza on the southern border with Egypt which is a site of frequent gun battles between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants.

On Friday, the Israeli foreign ministry announced plans to crack down on international "human shield" volunteers who have attempted to prevent demolitions.

They started by detaining a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) in Rafah.

A British peace activist with the ISM is now in a coma after he was shot in the head by an Israeli tank in Rafah last month.

Thomas Hurndall, 22, was believed to have been among a group of nine activists who had to abandon their planned protest at a refugee camp in Rafah when shooting started.

Two other peace activists were also wounded last month and a 23-year-old American was killed in March.


If you see how the IDF kills foreigners without a blink in the eyes, you only can imagine how they treat their enemies(the palestinians).