• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The Palestine / Israel nightmare rages on, even on facebook

praktik

TRIBE Member
For the same reason that attacks are up against Israel. when you look at the numbers killed in this fight they pale in comparison to the atrocities that Hamas and organizations like it have committed against arab populations in the middle east. They are singled out because they are more widely reported as Israel does not limit free speech or the press. Israelis are more critical of their own government than even say....you.

This is only because the goalposts were moved to make a more convenient point for defenders of Israel: if you lump all arabs together and add up all their crimes, and since Hamas is arab we can say that Hamas has caused way more death and destruction since well, they're arab so we should probably count Saddam's crimes, Assad's crimes and all the crimes committed by secular dictators against their Arab populations along with all historical terror operations across Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Algeria, Israel and every other country in the middle east.

Now if we add all that up then Israel sure looks good right?

Only if you agree with all those crazy assumptions you had to make to end up there! This is another bit of enabling-psychology that polishes the Israeli self-impression of righteousness - and is dangerous in the way it conflates independent reasons for violence from disparate and conflicting forces across the middle east as one monolithic entity of arab violence... sounds to me vaguely prejudiced actually, to even consider thinking along these lines...
 
Stop Bill C-10

Rocky

TRIBE Member
When the enemy is shooting at your civilians, that’s terrorism. When you send troops into the enemy’s territory, and the troops get shot at, that’s not terrorism. That’s plain old war.
You can't define terrorism like that. By that definition, Israeli would be considered a terrorist state.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
But those intentions don't offer much comfort to someone who lost two daughters to an IDF missile now does it?

So what good are they but to help us feel better about the people killed in our name? Intentions don't count for nearly as much as results - and this brings us to another question, if Israel truly had the "best intentions" - then why is the number of palestinians dead in their name in the last decade up in the thousands?

if Israel has the best "intentions", then why did they "intend" and implement a policy of collective punishment on innocent palestinians for the crimes of a few?

So this whole "intent" angle seems to me to be not only morally bankrupt - but intellectually bankrupt as well.

The results don't jive with the intentions so something is wrong - and the dead bodies are dead bodies - so it must be a problem with the intentions. The best intentions would not get Israel the results we have seen written in the blood of innocent palestian children.

This is only because the goalposts were moved to make a more convenient point for defenders of Israel: if you lump all arabs together and add up all their crimes, and since Hamas is arab we can say that Hamas has caused way more death and destruction since well, they're arab so we should probably count Saddam's crimes, Assad's crimes and all the crimes committed by secular dictators against their Arab populations along with all historical terror operations across Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Algeria, Israel and every other country in the middle east.

Now if we add all that up then Israel sure looks good right?

Only if you agree with all those crazy assumptions you had to make to end up there! This is another bit of enabling-psychology that polishes the Israeli self-impression of righteousness - and is dangerous in the way it conflates independent reasons for violence from disparate and conflicting forces across the middle east as one monolithic entity of arab violence... sounds to me vaguely prejudiced actually, to even consider thinking along these lines...

That's not at all what I said though. I never justified any innocent deaths I simply said you cannot assign blame to the IDF without attributing just as much to Hamas. The reason I brought in the comparison to Terrorist actions in Arab nations against Arab people is to show that this is not just an Israel problem. These terrorists are doing the same thing across the region.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Quite the contrary. The intent of Hamas is extremely relevant. Its the reason the battle has come to where it is. If Hamas was truly open to negotiations, truly had any desire for peaceful resolution there is a partner waiting at a negotiation table. The reality is they don't for the reasons explained above.

Note my comments on intent were with respect to claims that Israeli intentions excused and justified the deaths caused by their own forces and actions - I did not discuss Hamas motivations/intentions at all.

That said, on the same level - if we look only at results - the worst-imagine Hamas intentions have killed a handful of Israelis and IDF personnel in the last year. Now the strange thing about this line of argumentation is that it shows you how the actor with the allegedly worst intentions, Hamas, has far less death and destruction on its doorstep than the actor with the best intentions - and its from this starting point I think that I ended up saying when it comes to justifying dead bodies - intentions dont matter, results do.

Having said all that, it can be worthwhile to discuss intent in other contexts - such as whether a party is truly committed to peace (your point) and on the ability to gain political alignment - here intentions probably matter more.

I would also offer this view into Hamas leadership and its intentions as a more nuanced view into Hamas than the somewhat cartoonish picture you draw in your comment above:

"Such events reflect one side of the ongoing conflict inside Hamas between the pragmatists who put Gazans’ needs first, and have sought to lighten their lives after years of punishing blockade and intermittent war, and the ideologues who give priority to “the rule of the sharia of God on earth.” Advocates of the latter have tried to apply Islamic law in full, appealing to the Gaza-based and Hamas-controlled Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) to replace the British Mandate–era penal code with a sharia law that provides execution for apostasy, stoning and lashing for adultery, and the payment of blood money counted in camels. So far, the pragmatists have largely frustrated their efforts. “You can’t Islamize the law when the political system is not fully Islamic,” says the PLC’s general director, Nafiz al-Madhoun, who completed a doctorate in law at the University of Minnesota, and once lectured there. “You need to have an Islamic government, judiciary, and political system. And we don’t.”
...
Such reverses in rhetoric reveal a movement struggling to reconcile two competing audiences: the “international community,” which calls for Hamas to be more moderate, and a core constituency that grows suspicious at any sign it might be selling out. Much as Communist regimes tacked “Democratic” to their names to disguise totalitarianism, Hamas officials use the word “resistance” to hide the waning of their armed struggle. The culture minister, when he attends theatrical productions, speaks of Resistance Culture. The minister of economy hails recent openings of cafés and restaurants as triumphs of the Resistance Economy. “As long as we don’t raise our hands in surrender and continue to struggle, that’s resistance,” he said.​
Note here the identification of a split within Hamas - something you don't hear from people keen to demonstrate how evil Hamas is. Mossad leaders are on record saying they thought agreements were possible with Hamas, and here is some recent commentary on the ability to make deals with Hamas:

So long as Hamas is willing to use terror against innocent Israeli civilians and so long as it refuses to recognize the State of Israel, it will not be a “partner” for peace. But it could be partner to interest-based agreements requiring it to modify its behavior, as many academic and security experts claim. In fact, despite Netanyahu’s being the most vocal opponent of dialogue with Gazan terror organizations, it was he who reached two agreements with Hamas: the 2011 Shalit deal and the 2012 agreement that ended Operation Pillar of Defense. The only question is whether the latest agreement between the two sides, reached on August 26, will be limited, fragile, and short-lived, or a stable arrangement that will improve Israel’s strategic standing for a considerable period of time.

A long-term resolution with respect to Gaza requires changing its political predicament. The only sensible way of doing this is to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, a state whose existence would be negotiated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) under Abbas’s leadership. As part of a comprehensive political agreement, Hamas is very likely to agree to a long-term truce, as its representatives have repeatedly said. In 1997, its founder and spiritual leader Ahmad Yassin suggested a thirty-year hudna (truce) with Israel. In 2006, one of its leaders, Mahmoud al-Zahar, proposed a “long-term hudna.” Earlier this year, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a senior Hamas functionary in the West Bank, reiterated the organization’s willingness for a hudna and said the organization was willing to accept a peace agreement with Israel if a majority of Palestinians supported it. In 2010, in an interview with a Muslim Brotherhood daily circulated in Jordan, Hamas’s political leader Khaled Mashal expressed pragmatic views and willingness to reach an agreement with Israel. In late July, he told Charlie Rose, “We want peace without occupation, without settlements, without Judaization, without the siege.”​
 

Rocky

TRIBE Member
I never justified any innocent deaths I simply said you cannot assign blame to the IDF without attributing just as much to Hamas.
In the spirit of consistency, why not come out and declare Israel a terrorist state? I mean, you said that much about Hamas. I've yet to hear you label Israel a terrorist state, though, by definition, this is exactly what they are.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

praktik

TRIBE Member
That's not at all what I said though. I never justified any innocent deaths I simply said you cannot assign blame to the IDF without attributing just as much to Hamas. The reason I brought in the comparison to Terrorist actions in Arab nations against Arab people is to show that this is not just an Israel problem. These terrorists are doing the same thing across the region.

Well in some cases they are reacting against ruthless governments that have crushed them for decades with violence/torture/death squads. But I certainly would take issue with any attempt to generalize Palestinian violence as "an issue" across the region. This feels to me like an argument against nuance, and that's something just in principle i never sign on with.

I get what you're saying on the dead bodies, I say good intentions can't absolve Israeli responsibility for those who died from its own munitions - you reply that this can't be understood without reference to Hamas. From a game theory perspective you are correct - these two are locked in a dance and each action can only be understood with reference to the other party.

The moral danger here is what is mentioned in the Saletan article - if you understand each dead palestinian from an IDF munition as, at root, a Hamas problem (not an Israel problem) - then don't you make it easier to kill more civilians and actually, over time, lose your moral pedestal entirely?

Can you see how this is actually a bit of dangerous psychology to embody if you are an occupying power?
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
In the spirit of consistency, why not come out and declare Israel a terrorist state? I mean, you said that much about Hamas. I've yet to hear you label Israel a terrorist state, though, by definition, this is exactly what they are.

I'm with ya Rocky but i feel the rest of the world hasn't caught up with us on that yet - many still mired in an operational definition of terror that by definition, excludes states.

But I think its better to use the "violence employed for political ends" definition, which means it can be employed by state or non state actors.

In this way, while somewhat hyperbolic it is also somewhat accurate, to say that Israel's policy of collective punishment can be seen as sowing terror in the Palestinian population. Another great example would be the testimony of frightened Pakistani children from drone strikes who are now only happy on grey days, because when they can't see the sun they know they won't die from a missile launched from the clear blue.... These are people scared of dying due to violent means employed against them to gain a political advantage - in the case of Israel its supposedly to cement control over the palestinians (but actually has the opposite effect) and in the case of US drones its to keep Pakistan in its corner (but also ironically, has the opposite effect).

The thing about state terror actually is it seems to work at cross-purposes to objectives far more often than non-state terror, which in the case of OBL especially - was spectacularly effective at achieving the goal of drawing the US into a ME quagmire...
 

DJ Vuvu Zela

TRIBE Member
But I think its better to use the "violence employed for political ends" definition, which means it can be employed by state or non state actors.

by this broad definition every side involved in every war are terrorists. The Allies would be terrorists when they fought the Nazis. it also excludes religious terrorism (sunni vs shia bombings aren't political). It clearly doesn't work as a definition.

the UN has been trying to define terrorism for decades and can't. That's pretty telling, but in general the western view of terrorism is a bit more focussed.
 
Last edited:

DJ Vuvu Zela

TRIBE Member
The moral danger here is what is mentioned in the Saletan article - if you understand each dead palestinian from an IDF munition as, at root, a Hamas problem (not an Israel problem) - then don't you make it easier to kill more civilians and actually, over time, lose your moral pedestal entirely?

again quoting the Saletan article while ignoring his conclusion?
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
In the spirit of consistency, why not come out and declare Israel a terrorist state? I mean, you said that much about Hamas. I've yet to hear you label Israel a terrorist state, though, by definition, this is exactly what they are.

Rocky Israel does not target civilians they target military that hide among civilians. There is a huge difference and that is what I speak of when I talk about intent. Those Hamas militants strategize to maximize civilian casualties to garner the empathy of people like you. Its very different from purposely aiming at civilians with the intent to kill them.

Praktik You keep negating intent but I stand firm that intent is a driving factor in this conflict. 15% of those rockets hit their targets. If more got through the numbers of deaths would be far higher on the Israeli side. The argument of "well they didn't kill more Israelis because they have the means to protect themselves" does not bear the weight you have given it and offers little comfort to those that hear sirens in the middle of the night and have 15 seconds to reach a shelter again and again.

As I said earlier the people in the disputed areas voted for this war. Hamas campaigned on it. They knew what to expect. Hamas exploited the people as they promised they would. The people were supportive and behind it. Why would they want that? It is because as I explained before the majority of people in these areas now are there because they migrated to enact holy war. Most are not the innocents you speak of but hide among them. They put them in harms way to garner sympathy. You want Israel to be sorry for an attack that was years in the making and came with warning that no other government would be expected to give. Every offering of peace was rejected, every offer of negotiation was rejected. Hamas only once came to the table with a plan and that plan included non negotiable terms that Israel and Egypt give up control of their borders to an international power (UNWRA - who Hamas uses to help cache weapons). They knew the plan would never even be considered. Their leaders use the people as puppets and hide in Qatar outside of harms way. They are cowards who just want holy war at all cost. They don't care who is hurt in the process and encourage death of their own people to strengthen the cause.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

praktik

TRIBE Member
again quoting the Saletan article while ignoring his conclusion?

No - that's just your understanding of my understanding, and I would say a bit of a misreading of the Saletan piece titled "the HORRIFIC results of Israel's good intentions" on your part to act as if a comment in the last paragraph defused the meaning of the body of the piece.

I never accepted your criticism as legitimate.
 
Last edited:

praktik

TRIBE Member
by this broad definition every side involved in every war are terrorists. The Allies would be terrorists when they fought the Nazis.

Yes - exactly. Firebombing of Dresden would be an act of terror - and I think if we imagine being a citizen at the time we would start to see how that can be true.

So yes, this would mean a lot of things are terror in traditional conflicts - and I think thats perfectly appropriate. We're moving down to a more granular level, far below the lofty perches of the ivory towers in the foreign policy establishment, where I think the true impact of war on civilians can become a little better understood by expanding the conveniently narrow definition of terror we have been using last decades.

Anyway this is an ongoing debate Vuvu Zela with longstanding arguments on both sides - we won't resolve the "who has the best definition of terror" argument in this thread. Conferences on the topic with smarter people than your or me have failed to do it...
 
Last edited:

Rocky

TRIBE Member
Rocky Israel does not target civilians they target military that hide among civilians.
This is the entire "human shield" argument that has been discredited. And, people like you, continue to eat up the propaganda. I've posted this earlier in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield#Israel
Prior to 2008-2009 Gaza War[edit]
Amnesty International[14] and Human Rights Watch[15] said the Israel Defense Forces used Palestinian civilians as human shields during the 2002 Battle of Jenin. The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said that "for a long period of time following the outbreak of the second intifada, particularly during Operation Defensive Shield, in April 2002, the IDF systematically used Palestinian civilians as human shields, forcing them to carry out military actions which threatened their lives".[16][17] Al Mezan reported the systematic use of "human shields" during the invasion of Beit Hanoun in 2004.[18]

Human shields were also employed by Israeli soldiers also to subdue a stone-throwing protest in Hebron in 2003.[19] One of the "human shields", a 32-year-old, told he was pulled from the barber's chair and forced to stand in front of soldiers along with two other men, also human shields, while soldiers fired rubber bullets on Palestinian protesters. He told he was beat up when he tried to cover his ears to protect them from the loud noise of the guns.[19] The Israeli military committed to stopping the practice but Israeli human rights groups said the army only ended the practice selectively and were in breach of court orders.[19]

In 2004, the Daily Mail reported that a young boy was used as human shield use by the Israeli border police in the West Bank. According to the article, the 13-year-old boy was captured by Israeli police as he took part in a stone-throwing protest and put in front of the jeep in order to deter other youths from throwing stones at the vehicle.[20] The story was led by an infamous picture of a boy in his early teens tied up to a military vehicle.[21]

The Israel Defense Forces admitted it had used Palestinians as human shields 1,200 times during the Second Intifada.[22]

...

According to observers from from The Independent and The Guardian who interviewed Gazan refugees, it was a "myth" that Hamas forced civilians to stay in areas under attack against their will; they reported that the Gazans who refused to heed the IDF's warnings did so because even areas Israel had declared safe for refugees had been shelled by its forces.[60][61]

...click the link above and read. You may find that you are a victim of the propaganda. Your entire viewpoint seems to stem from discredited propaganda.

...but in general the western view of terrorism is a bit more focussed.
You're right. The western definition is more focused on "them". The western definition is that, if they do it, it's terrorism. If we do that or worse, it's not.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Rocky

TRIBE Member
The human shield argument is backed by significant evident not propaganda.

New Declassified Report Exposes Hamas Human Shield Policy A 44 slide presentation filled with videos/pictures that demonstrate that this does happen and not just on occasion. It is the norm.
Great. You quote a report from the IDF. Not at all an impartial actor without conflict of interest. More propaganda for you, I guess. Did you really think that the IDF, an organization that bans songs critical of their actions, would come out with anything different? Geez. With people like you, it's no wonder why Israel is winning the propaganda war.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
Rocky to negate photos/videos and accounts that don't agree with your ideas because they come from an Israeli source is really ignorant and dismissive. They have the leading intelligence of any country in the world. They are credible in this fact. Nothing in these slides is doctored. They are all accounts of actual activities recorded on film.

So many times those that are firmly against Israel dismiss a source entirely based on the fact it comes from Israel. Yet you are quick to accept a Palestinian source without question. It shows that your real underlying angst is not about the conflict but with Israel and its people. At least Praktik is able to conduct discussion that tries to understand though we don't necessarily agree.

I wonder if you even watched it before dismissing it.
 
Last edited:

praktik

TRIBE Member
Hipsterave - what about when IDF soldiers were stationed in towns just outside gaza on the border - were they "hiding amongst civilians" before launching their invasions in Gaza?

Many of the bunkers are located close to schools/hospitals - even the IDF HQ is located next to a university, probably cause they're using Israeli students as human shields...


Now of course this is a bit tongue in cheek - but its designed to get you thinking about what, exactly, does "using human shields" really mean?

And lets say that you make an assumption then, that every dead palestinian at the hands of IDF personnel and munitions is the result of Hamas human shield tactics - then doesn't this open up the IDF to more easily launch its projectiles if every piece of collateral damage they claim is the result of Hamas, not their own munitions they launched on the apartment complex?

Isn't this actually a very dangerous bit of psychology that opens up a slippery slope where we'd see many more innocents killed than we should?

As per the Saletan piece I think its clear thats already been happening - and the body count certainly supports that.
 

DJ Vuvu Zela

TRIBE Member
Hipsterave - I previously posted video from various news agencies (Indian & French) directly showing Hamas firing from civilian areas and Rocky completely ignored them. If you could have teleported him into Gaza so he could witness it first hand he would still deny it happened.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

DJ Vuvu Zela

TRIBE Member
No - that's just your understanding of my understanding, and I would say a bit of a misreading of the Saletan piece titled "the HORRIFIC results of Israel's good intentions" on your part to act as if a comment in the last paragraph defused the meaning of the body of the piece.

I never accepted your criticism as legitimate.

I understand the Saletan piece perfectly. It's a comment on the moral & ethical quagmire of war, and i agree with it completely.

However you're trying to divorce Israel's actions from what Hamas is doing to provoke those actions, which frankly is silly.

That's why it's disappointing that you constantly ignore the concluding paragraph from the Saletan piece. He DOESN'T divorce the actions of Hamas from Israel. The last paragraph puts Israel's actions into context of what War ultimately does to people & nations.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Hipsterave - I previously posted video from various news agencies (Indian & French) directly showing Hamas firing from civilian areas and Rocky completely ignored them. If you could have teleported him into Gaza so he could witness it first hand he would still deny it happened.

The question is not "has hamas ever fired from near civilian buildings" or "has hamas used human shields"

We got documents show IDF tanks firing from next to apartment buildings and Hamas doing the same, we have records of IDF personnel using Palestinian children as human shields when they go door crashing. We have records of instances of some horrible crap like this on the palestinian side.

But pointing to these examples does nothing - cause the argument is that its ok the IDF has killed ~1700+ (or wherever it ended up) civilians in the last round because Hamas "uses human shields".

Sometimes it seems like people are deliberately misreading and answering the wrong argument.

So showing Hamas firing from near an apartment building doesn't resolve anything - the question is what % of dead palestinians at the hands of IDF munitions died as a result of IDF responding when Hamas is using tactics like this - NOT - has Hamas ever used human shields at all.

its always been about whether this technique is really being used as often as alleged, and whether it can really explain away all the dead bodies at the hands of IDF munitions.

I think the answers to these questions can be YES, Hamas has used human shields in the past and NO, this is not an operational contextual factor as often as the IDF alleges.

The preponderance of evidence on this seems to support this view.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
Hipsterave - what about when IDF soldiers were stationed in towns just outside gaza on the border - were they "hiding amongst civilians" before launching their invasions in Gaza?


Many of the bunkers are located close to schools/hospitals - even the IDF HQ is located next to a university, probably cause they're using Israeli students as human shields....


Now of course this is a bit tongue in cheek - but its designed to get you thinking about what, exactly, does "using human shields" really mean?.

It means purposely putting innocents in harms way for the sake of an objective. That objective varies from protecting yourself at the cost of innocent lives, or it could mean purposely setting off an attack in an effort to have a certain region retaliated against- as outlined in Hamas training manuals.


And lets say that you make an assumption then, that every dead palestinian at the hands of IDF personnel and munitions is the result of Hamas human shield tactics - then doesn't this open up the IDF to more easily launch its projectiles if every piece of collateral damage they claim is the result of Hamas, not their own munitions they launched on the apartment complex??.


I never said that but based on your outline- Israel does not claim that every casualty is the result of Hamas human shield tactics but they do outline that this is a strategy employed and taught by Hamas. No single attack is easily launched there are several accounts of soldiers refusing to fire at baby carrying hamas militants - even accounts of IDF soldiers being shot by said militants in order to avoid shooting at a baby carrying militant. There are also many accounts of planes refusing to fire because civilians were located around targets. Each circumstance is different but if someone is firing at you you don't always have the ability to evaluate before you shoot back. To hesitate could mean certain death. Israel has expressed regret over being forced into these circumstances on many occasions.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
Amnesty International.
Criticism of Amnesty International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human Rights Watch,.

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UN Human Rights Council .

The council that founded UNWRA so they wouldn't have to deal with the conflict directly. UNWRA is the most biased of all of these. Israel found weapons in a UNWRA school confiscated them gave them to UNWRA to prove their concerns and in under a week the same weapons were back in the school provided to Hamas by UNWRA. Ben KI Moon has been anti-Israel since long before this conflict.

And you feel my sources are biased? lol pfft.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
The question is not "has hamas ever fired from near civilian buildings" or "has hamas used human shields"

We got documents show IDF tanks firing from next to apartment buildings and Hamas doing the same, we have records of IDF personnel using Palestinian children as human shields when they go door crashing. We have records of instances of some horrible crap like this on the palestinian side.

But pointing to these examples does nothing - cause the argument is that its ok the IDF has killed ~1700+ (or wherever it ended up) civilians in the last round because Hamas "uses human shields".

Sometimes it seems like people are deliberately misreading and answering the wrong argument.

So showing Hamas firing from near an apartment building doesn't resolve anything - the question is what % of dead palestinians at the hands of IDF munitions died as a result of IDF responding when Hamas is using tactics like this - NOT - has Hamas ever used human shields at all.

its always been about whether this technique is really being used as often as alleged, and whether it can really explain away all the dead bodies at the hands of IDF munitions.

I think the answers to these questions can be YES, Hamas has used human shields in the past and NO, this is not an operational contextual factor as often as the IDF alleges.

The preponderance of evidence on this seems to support this view.

BBC News - Caution needed with Gaza casualty figures

most notably:

An analysis by the New York Times looked at the names of 1,431 casualties and found that "the population most likely to be militants, men ages 20 to 29, is also the most overrepresented in the death toll. They are 9% of Gaza's 1.7 million residents, but 34% of those killed whose ages were provided."

"At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71% of the population and 33% of the known-age casualties."

The list of names and ages of the dead published by al-Jazeera also found men aged between 20 and 29 to be significantly overrepresented.

"the UN numbers being reported are, by and by large, based on the Gaza health ministry, a Hamas-run organisation".

He said that part of the reason for the discrepancy between the figures was "when militants are brought to hospitals, they are brought in civilian clothing, obscuring terrorist affiliations".

"It's important to bear in mind that in Operation Cast Lead [the last Israeli ground offensive in December 2008-January 2009], Hamas and Gaza-based organisations claimed that only 50 combatants were killed, admitting years later the number was between 600-700, a figure nearly identical to the figure claimed by the IDF."

The point is that it is hard to say with certainty at this stage how many of the dead in Gaza are civilians and how many were fighters. This is in no sense the fault of the UN employees collecting the figures - their statistics are accompanied by caveats and described as preliminary and subject to revision.

But it does mean that some of the conclusions being drawn from them may be premature.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top