Study: Israel did not violate war laws

[ericlp]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S...2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel did not violate the laws of war and made marked improvements in its fighting capability during the recent military operation against Hamas in Gaza, yet the gains from the conflict in the long term remain uncertain, a US study concludes.

Nearly 1,300 Palestinians were killed in the operation, including hundreds of civilians, according to Palestinian officials in Gaza.


Ummm, if your gonna do a study wouldn't you think you would do a head count on your on or a guess?

The watered down report was hastily and poorly written. I'd love to see the name on the "US" study panel.

Damn... I mean, it's gonna take up to 1.5 years to investigate why the airliner crashed into the Hudson river. Yet, it only took a few months to come up with this study? Who got paid off for this?

Funny, tho, that only the Jpost is probably only running this propaganda. At least they got one part of the story right, The long term remains uncertain.

I don't know about you... But a few unguided rockets does not equal sending in tanks and f-61's to drop experimental bombs on civilian population.

 

[palehorse]

here we go again... :roll:

 

[RichardE]

You remember that story about Israel shelling a UN school?

Turns out the UN lied and admitted to it, and Israel did in fact fire to people launching rockets outside the school. So far outside actually the shells landed in the middle of the street.

Text

The United Nations has reversed its stance on one of the most contentious and bloody incidents of the recent Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza, saying that an IDF mortar strike that killed 43 people on January 6 did not hit a United Nations Relief and Works Agency school after all.

The UN apparently has been under pressure to correct the record, after doubts arose over whether the school actually had been targeted. Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem, said Monday that the IDF mortar shells fell in the street near the compound, and not on the compound itself.
Advertisement

Gaylord said the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school."

UNRWA, an agency whose sole purpose is to work with Palestinian refugees, said in response yesterday that it had maintained from the day of attack that the wounded were outside of the school compound. UNRWA said the mistake had originated with a separate branch of the United Nations.

Senior IDF officials had previously expressed skepticism that the school had been struck, saying that two mortar shells could not kill 43 people and wound dozens more.

Questions about the veracity of the claims were also raised last week by the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail. The newspaper said that a teacher in the UNRWA compound at the time of the strike "was adamant" that no people had been killed inside the compound.

The newspaper quoted the teacher as saying, "I could see some of the people had been injured ... But when I got outside, it was crazy hell. There were bodies everywhere, people dead, injured, flesh everywhere."

The newspaper said the teacher had been told by the UN not to speak to the media. "Three of my students were killed," he said. "But they were all outside.

Text

A clerical error led the UN to falsely accuse Israel of shelling one of its Gaza schools in the Jabalya refugee camp during Operation Cast Lead, the international organization admitted this week.

Here's another source if you need it..

Text

Local residents in the street told me that militants had been firing rockets - as the IDF claimed - and having been targeted in retaliatory fire by the IDF, they ran down the street past the school.

That's when the mortars apparently landed. The street was full of people at the time, hence the allegation that most of those killed were civilians. I was unable to find out whether the militants were among the dead.

The headmaster of the al-Fakhura school told me that four people inside his school were injured by shrapnel from the mortars, but that the only person killed was one child who happened to be in the street outside at the moment of impact.

This may sound like a lot of detail to go into - but when it comes to determining whether or not customary international humanitarian law may have been breached (as has been alleged), this is the sort of detail that can be important.

Although a large number of civilians were apparently killed, all this may prove to be evidence which works in Israel's favour as it's pretty clear that the school itself was not the target.

As I said in another post, its sad how some people jump on the bandwagon trusting any news from the War zone coming out as gospel truth.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

When does the study on Hamas following the rules of war come out? Enquiring minds...

 

[jpeyton]

Might as well have a US study say the US didn't violate any laws in Iraq and Afghanistan either.

:laugh:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
When does the study on Hamas following the rules of war come out? Enquiring minds...

This.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RichardE
You remember that story about Israel shelling a UN school?

Sure, I remember Israel spokesmen saying they fired on the school, and lying out their asses to justfiy it. For example sake:

http://hotair.com/archives/200...-contained-explosives/

Originally posted by: RichardE
As I said in another post, its sad how some people jump on the bandwagon trusting any news from the War zone coming out as gospel truth.

If the IDF had allowed journalists to enter Gaza as the Israeli Supreme Court ordered, we would have gotten more accurate reporting.

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
When does the study on Hamas following the rules of war come out? Enquiring minds...

This.

The UN is doing a probe on how they don't:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S...2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

[gevorg]

Jpost? :laugh:

 

[kylebisme]

Jpost is obviously biased towards Israel in what they omit, but they do respectable journalism in what they do report.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: RichardE
You remember that story about Israel shelling a UN school?

Sure, I remember Israel spokesmen saying they fired on the school, and lying out their asses to justfiy it. For example sake:

http://hotair.com/archives/200...-contained-explosives/

Originally posted by: RichardE
As I said in another post, its sad how some people jump on the bandwagon trusting any news from the War zone coming out as gospel truth.

If the IDF had allowed journalists to enter Gaza as the Israeli Supreme Court ordered, we would have gotten more accurate reporting.

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
When does the study on Hamas following the rules of war come out? Enquiring minds...

This.

The UN is doing a probe on how they don't:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S...2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Reporters would have been killed if allowed in. Not to mention the world media is biased towards Israel, which I understand, anti-Israel news sells so much better.


What I was saying regarding people "accepting any news as Gospel truth"

We have from the major Israel threads, posts by Fallout Man

Ah, the video from two years ago... Gotcha!

Nothing to see here, folks. Shelling UN schools used as shelters by fleeing civilians is totally legit.

You know those terrorist dogs asked for it. They should know better than to hang out around UN outposts--Israel has a bad track record with those.

Ericlp

War is not an answer. Stupid enough for you? Or did you miss out on the common courtesy class?

Get a clue. Attacking UN schools and hospitals ... What next?

more from Ericlp

Oh like I'm gonna believe that BS.

But I will believe that the dead people and holes in the building came from Israel.

oooo from Dahunan as well

Look at the fucking logic of what AQ is saying.. take off your blinders and your bias..

Israel just killed 6-700 Palestinians and caused billions of dollars in damage **that Palestine does not have**.. HOW MANY did they murder when they BOMBED THE SCHOOL..... yes.. bombing a UN Protected SCHOOL IS MURDER DUMBFUCKS

So... then.. Has Obama said anything or does he also kiss Israeli booty too?

He always gets me going

Oh Mrsheik as well

Are you denying the expulsion and murder of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their rightful homes in 1948? Are you denying the illegal Israeli theft of more than half the land in the West Bank for settlement building, under the guise of "state land," land which under Ottoman and Jordanian law was the property of THE PEOPLE, to be used for their only source of welfare, farming? Are you denying Israel's indiscriminate bombing of a UNRWA school?

I mean sure you can extend a little leeway, and I will admit Snowman, I never did see you make a comment on any reported action and instead you stuck with previous proven allegations in regards to Israel. The point of this post is not to attack anything you said, the point is to show exactly why Israel ignores most of the worlds "opinion" in regards to it. Because like certain members here, they are bat shit crazy and salivate over any bad news coming out of Israel no matter what.

 

[Lemon law]

Some US study is like saying the British believed Iraq was buying yellowcake from Niger. Just because one fool buys it, does not mean the entire nation buys it.

And though this particular US study did debunk some charges, the glaring omission of addressing white phosphorous shells mean that the whole study cannot be taken seriously. If anything is a indisputable smoking gun, white phosphorous is

And the study looks like a semi-logical argument based on find a desired end thesis and then support it, rather than a look at the whole question objectively, and then make a concluding thesis on where the evidence takes you type thesis.

Nor is the final other conclusion of the study much better, as the study concluded the Israeli army were more militarily effective than they were in Lebanon in 2005. Which is somewhat comparing apples to oranges, Hezbollah in Lebanon had fairly good defensive weapons and training, and Hamas in Gaza lacked both defensive weapons or any real organization. Nor did it address the fact that the terrain was radically different which favored Hezbollah in Lebanon. Nor did it address the population density which was also radically different.

 

[Colt45]

It isn't possible for the US and her allies to commit war crimes.

God comes down and directs their holy ordnance onto the heathen civilians.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Some US study is like saying the British believed Iraq was buying yellowcake from Niger. Just because one fool buys it, does not mean the entire nation buys it.

And though this particular US study did debunk some charges, the glaring omission of addressing white phosphorous shells mean that the whole study cannot be taken seriously. If anything is a indisputable smoking gun, white phosphorous is

And the study looks like a semi-logical argument based on find a desired end thesis and then support it, rather than a look at the whole question objectively, and then make a concluding thesis on where the evidence takes you type thesis.

Nor is the final other conclusion of the study much better, as the study concluded the Israeli army were more militarily effective than they were in Lebanon in 2005. Which is somewhat comparing apples to oranges, Hezbollah in Lebanon had fairly good defensive weapons and training, and Hamas in Gaza lacked both defensive weapons or any real organization. Nor did it address the fact that the terrain was radically different which favored Hezbollah in Lebanon. Nor did it address the population density which was also radically different.

No it is not. WP is a legal weapon. It is used for illumination of targets and there is no substantiated report of civilians being deliberately targeted with WP weapons. Take your anti-semitism elsewhere.

 

[Lemon law]

No, WP is not a legal weapon in civilian areas, as for substantiated reports, little is up to substantiated standards YET, but that is why the UN and other organizations now have people on the ground working to get at the truth.

And now, there is nothing antisemitic in the truth. When the facts starts to come out in various reports, we will know what the real truth is or if claims are true or not. But none the less, the US study the OP cites cannot be taken seriously if it fails to address those WP use in civilian areas yet unsubstantiated claims into account.

 

[halik]

Lovely unbiased source there...

Right below the article "Support Israel and Jewish charitable organizations"

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No, WP is not a legal weapon in civilian areas, as for substantiated reports, little is up to substantiated standards YET, but that is why the UN and other organizations now have people on the ground working to get at the truth.

And now, there is nothing antisemitic in the truth. When the facts starts to come out in various reports, we will know what the real truth is or if claims are true or not. But none the less, the US study the OP cites cannot be taken seriously if it fails to address those WP use in civilian areas yet unsubstantiated claims into account.

No again. In war, there is no such thing as "here we fight" and over there is where teh civilians are.

Civilians are always in a combat zone.

"White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol III of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, which regulates the use of "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons . . ."

Get your facts straight.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: RichardE
You remember that story about Israel shelling a UN school?

Sure, I remember Israel spokesmen saying they fired on the school, and lying out their asses to justfiy it. For example sake:

http://hotair.com/archives/200...-contained-explosives/

Originally posted by: RichardE
As I said in another post, its sad how some people jump on the bandwagon trusting any news from the War zone coming out as gospel truth.

If the IDF had allowed journalists to enter Gaza as the Israeli Supreme Court ordered, we would have gotten more accurate reporting.

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
When does the study on Hamas following the rules of war come out? Enquiring minds...

This.

The UN is doing a probe on how they don't:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S...2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Reporters would have been killed if allowed in. Not to mention the world media is biased towards Israel, which I understand, anti-Israel news sells so much better.


What I was saying regarding people "accepting any news as Gospel truth"

We have from the major Israel threads, posts by Fallout Man

Ah, the video from two years ago... Gotcha!

Nothing to see here, folks. Shelling UN schools used as shelters by fleeing civilians is totally legit.

You know those terrorist dogs asked for it. They should know better than to hang out around UN outposts--Israel has a bad track record with those.

Ericlp

War is not an answer. Stupid enough for you? Or did you miss out on the common courtesy class?

Get a clue. Attacking UN schools and hospitals ... What next?

more from Ericlp

Oh like I'm gonna believe that BS.

But I will believe that the dead people and holes in the building came from Israel.

oooo from Dahunan as well

Look at the fucking logic of what AQ is saying.. take off your blinders and your bias..

Israel just killed 6-700 Palestinians and caused billions of dollars in damage **that Palestine does not have**.. HOW MANY did they murder when they BOMBED THE SCHOOL..... yes.. bombing a UN Protected SCHOOL IS MURDER DUMBFUCKS

So... then.. Has Obama said anything or does he also kiss Israeli booty too?

He always gets me going

Oh Mrsheik as well

Are you denying the expulsion and murder of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their rightful homes in 1948? Are you denying the illegal Israeli theft of more than half the land in the West Bank for settlement building, under the guise of "state land," land which under Ottoman and Jordanian law was the property of THE PEOPLE, to be used for their only source of welfare, farming? Are you denying Israel's indiscriminate bombing of a UNRWA school?

I mean sure you can extend a little leeway, and I will admit Snowman, I never did see you make a comment on any reported action and instead you stuck with previous proven allegations in regards to Israel. The point of this post is not to attack anything you said, the point is to show exactly why Israel ignores most of the worlds "opinion" in regards to it. Because like certain members here, they are bat shit crazy and salivate over any bad news coming out of Israel no matter what.

Nicely done.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Reporters would have been killed if allowed in.

That is a risk which war reporters nobly choose to take.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Not to mention the world media is biased towards Israel, which I understand, anti-Israel news sells so much better.

You are biased towards Israel, and hence you see world media as biased against Israel, but you have such a loose grip on reality that you can't even properly distinguish between "towards" and "against", let alone the neutrality of the vast majority of the world in regard to this conflict, media or otherwise.

Originally posted by: RichardE
What I was saying regarding people "accepting any news as Gospel truth"

When both the UN and Israel were agreeing that the school was shelled, one has little reason to figure it isn't true.

Originally posted by: RichardE
I mean sure you can extend a little leeway, and I will admit Snowman, I never did see you make a comment on any reported action and instead you stuck with previous proven allegations in regards to Israel.

I hope during future discussions you might keep in mind what you just admitted here.

Originally posted by: RichardE
The point of this post is not to attack anything you said, the point is to show exactly why Israel ignores most of the worlds "opinion" in regards to it.

I didn't take it as an attack on what I said, but rather as an opportunity to point out how Israeli spokesmen flagrantly lied by making up reasons for shelling the school which wasn't shelled, in a devious attempt to manipulate world opinion.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Because like certain members here, they are bat shit crazy and salivate over any bad news coming out of Israel no matter what.

As some are bat shit crazy and doing just the opposite, though I won't bother my pointing finger here.

Originally posted by: dphantom
No again. In war, there is no such thing as "here we fight" and over there is where teh civilians are.

Civilians are always in a combat zone.

In war there are often areas where civilians have fled from, though not in the case of a densely populated strip which the attackers insist on keeping tightly sealed.

Originally posted by: dphantom
"White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol III of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, which regulates the use of "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons . . ."

Get your facts straight.

Sure, and if we develop some napalm bombs to illuminate our path, then we could drop those in densely populated civilian areas to? Is that how you have your facts lined up?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Some US study is like saying the British believed Iraq was buying yellowcake from Niger. Just because one fool buys it, does not mean the entire nation buys it.

And though this particular US study did debunk some charges, the glaring omission of addressing white phosphorous shells mean that the whole study cannot be taken seriously. If anything is a indisputable smoking gun, white phosphorous is

And the study looks like a semi-logical argument based on find a desired end thesis and then support it, rather than a look at the whole question objectively, and then make a concluding thesis on where the evidence takes you type thesis.

Nor is the final other conclusion of the study much better, as the study concluded the Israeli army were more militarily effective than they were in Lebanon in 2005. Which is somewhat comparing apples to oranges, Hezbollah in Lebanon had fairly good defensive weapons and training, and Hamas in Gaza lacked both defensive weapons or any real organization. Nor did it address the fact that the terrain was radically different which favored Hezbollah in Lebanon. Nor did it address the population density which was also radically different.

No it is not. WP is a legal weapon. It is used for illumination of targets and there is no substantiated report of civilians being deliberately targeted with WP weapons. Take your anti-semitism elsewhere.

Nice cop out water boy.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: RichardE
Reporters would have been killed if allowed in. Not to mention the world media is biased towards Israel, which I understand, anti-Israel news sells so much better.

You are biased towards Israel, and hence you see world media as biased against Israel, but you have such a loose grip on reality that you can't even properly distinguish between "towards" and "against", let alone the neutrality of the vast majority of the world in regard to this conflict, media or otherwise.

Originally posted by: RichardE
What I was saying regarding people "accepting any news as Gospel truth"

When both the UN and Israel were agreeing that the school was shelled, one has little reason to figure it isn't true.

Originally posted by: RichardE
I mean sure you can extend a little leeway, and I will admit Snowman, I never did see you make a comment on any reported action and instead you stuck with previous proven allegations in regards to Israel.

I hope you might keep in mind just what you just admitted there during future discussions.

Originally posted by: RichardE
The point of this post is not to attack anything you said, the point is to show exactly why Israel ignores most of the worlds "opinion" in regards to it.

I didn't take it as an attack on what I said, but rather as an opportunity to point out how Israeli spokesmen flagrantly lied by making up reasons for shelling the school which wasn't shelled, in a devious attempt to manipulate world opinion.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Because like certain members here, they are bat shit crazy and salivate over any bad news coming out of Israel no matter what.

As some are bat shit crazy and doing just the opposite, though I won't bother my pointing finger here.

Originally posted by: dphantom
No again. In war, there is no such thing as "here we fight" and over there is where teh civilians are.

Civilians are always in a combat zone.

In war there are often areas where civilians have fled from, though not in the case of a densely populated strip which the attackers insist on keeping tightly sealed.

Originally posted by: dphantom
"White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol III of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, which regulates the use of "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons . . ."

Get your facts straight.

Sure, and if we develop some napalm bombs to illuminate our path, then we could drop those in densely populated civilian areas to? Is that how you have your facts lined up?

You have no room to talk regarding people being bias Snowman, As you said in another thread I thought you wanted to stop the personal attacks due to how they take away from the content of the discussion?

The war reporters might agree to take that risk, but Israel acting in the capacity of the aggressor who takes all precautions possible to keep civilians from harms way has a duty to protect the reporters from their own disregard of the potential fatal actions they wish to pursue, not to mention a need to protect the soldiers from possibly being distracted from the presence of reporters.


Israel officially denied bombing the school, certain army people said they had. The shells landed in the street in front of the school, I am sure the army personal who were not *personally* involved in the attack might have thought they were shelling the school, but the people involved said they were not. The UN on the other hand, attacked Israel venomously even knowingly (as is displayed in the third link when trying to keep the teacher quiet) that the school was not hit.

As for the spokesperson, the area was under Hamas control until near the end of the conflict, nothing could be "verified", though the original reports were correct. In the end, the UN knew from the start the school was not bombed and could have closed this matter at the beginning and instead used it as a tool for propaganda. They knowingly and purposefully used a story that was based on lies to fuel resentment of Israels actions of defending itself. . Again my point stands as to why Israel ignores the rest of the world when it purposefully tries to cast Israel in a bad light.

 

[kylebisme]

You are the one who brought up the issue of biases, so I addressed your charges.

Do you not even comprehend your own bias? Our how such bias leads you to misinterpret the impartiality of most of us in the world who are working to bring just resolution to this conflict on the grounds of international law?

I am not making any personal attack here, I am simply addressing the facts. You pray for Israel while condemning Palestine, and you condemn those of us who pray for both.

By the way, I edited my previous post to address your first sentence as you were responding to it. It is just a minor point, but It is up there now if you care to note it.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
You are the one who brought up the issue of biases, so I addressed your charges.

Do you not even comprehend your own bias? Our how such bias leads you to suppressive the impartiality of most of us in the world who are working to bring just resolution to this conflict on the grounds of international law?

I am not making any personal attack here, I am simply addressing the facts. You pray for Israel while condemning Palestine, and you condemn me as I pray for both.

By the way, I edited my previous post to address your first sentence as you were responding to my post. It's just a minor point, but It is up there noe if you care to note it.

They neutrality of the world is what enables the government of Israel to continue it's actions. I am aware of the neutrality of the world, not to mention the suffering of the Palestinian people. You mistake a lack of reality for a lack of empathy, coupled with a determination to see the success of Israel. I too hope for a two state solution, the path to get there will be difficult, it will involve many tears on both sides as populations again are once moved (in the inevitable dismantling of the settlements) but it will eventually happen. Due to the knowledge that it is inevitable I have a certain leeway on how much empathy I should feel in regards to skirmishes here and there. In the grand picture I am sure the repercussion this small war will lead to something, we will find out, as the small war with Hezbollah lead to a peaceful border with Lebanon.

One thing I am at fault for doing, that yourself do lately is the mistaking the fact that people *think* differently (not just hold opinions differently than you) do not have a grasp on *reality*. They do have a grasp on reality, just the reality they live in is different. You think my lack of compassion or empathy for the plight of the Palestinians and my patriotism for Israel is a lack of reality or a lack of understanding. When in actuality it is a conscious choice of deciding that the survival of Israel, the continuing of a state for Jewish people, and the assurance that Jewish people have a home free of persecution is more important than the Palestinian people.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RichardE
They neutrality of the world is what enables the government of Israel to continue it's actions. I am aware of the neutrality of the world...

This is the detachment from reality I speak of. The world has been trying to bring a peaceful resolution to this conflict under the basis of international law for decades now, with the bias of the US exploiting our veto power in the UN to hold that effort back.

Originally posted by: RichardE
When in actuality it is a conscious choice of deciding that the survival of Israel, the continuing of a state for Jewish people, and the assurance that Jewish people have a home free of persecution is more important than the Palestinian people.

And this is the bias I speak of. Your concern for Israel in favor of Palestine leads you to condemn those of us who hold equal concern for both.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: RichardE
They neutrality of the world is what enables the government of Israel to continue it's actions. I am aware of the neutrality of the world...

This is the detachment from reality I speak of. The world has been trying to bring a peaceful resolution to this conflict under the basis of international law for decades now, with the bias of the US exploiting our veto power in the UN to hold that effort back.

Originally posted by: RichardE
When in actuality it is a conscious choice of deciding that the survival of Israel, the continuing of a state for Jewish people, and the assurance that Jewish people have a home free of persecution is more important than the Palestinian people.

And this is the bias I speak of. Your concern for Israel in favor of Palestine leads you to condemn those of us who hold equal concern for both.

If the world was trying to bring a peaceful resolution they would not be selling arms to both sides. The words and the actions of the world contradict one another. Perhaps you are detached from reality if you think anyone really cares about two people fighting over a desert.

There is a difference between bias and lack of empathy. Bias would mean I do not understand the reality of the Palestinian people, I do, I just don't care due to the reality of the Jewish people. To be biased I would have to fail to truly be impartial, unprejudiced and objective, I am all 3 of those. Due to the fact that even when considering those I do not come to the same conclusions as you, you call me bias.


Since you edited to include specfically the US...


France, Russia and China as well as the US sells arms to Israel. China, Russia, and the Arab countries sell arms to Palestine and the Arab countries (as does the US), Europeans sell arms and other needs to both sides as well. If the world was truly dedicated as one organism to ending this conflict, even saying we withdraw US support from Israel, Israel would still receive support from Russia, China, and Europe. This is not the 1950's, no one besides certain Arab countries are ideologically against the existence of Israel. The US helped them stay alive long enough for the world to accept them, but the world sells weapons to them now as well.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RichardE
If the world was trying to bring a peaceful resolution they would not be selling arms to both sides.

Arms makers are selling the arms, since US Veto power blocks the world's efforts which would otherwise block that flow of arms by enforcing sanctions and embargoes on the region.

Originally posted by: RichardE
There is a difference between bias and lack of empathy.

lack of empathy is a part of bias, regardless of what sematnic arguments you dance through to seperate them.