Israel's war crimes continue. No evidence has yet been produced to show Hamas' involvement in the deaths of these three young men. Meanwhile Israel bombs and kills Palestinians indiscriminately.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/israeli-jets-gaza-netanyahu-hamas-teenagers-deaths

I guess its hard for Jamiet to express sadness for the death of three innocent teenagers while he's warming up his wagging finger for the retaliation. I also love the use of the term "young men," for 16 year olds considering the 13 year old killed by Israelies was a "boy."

I'll rephrase my post to suit you, Santa:

Israel's war crimes continue. No evidence has yet been produced to show Hamas's involvement in the sad deaths of these teenagers. Meanwhile Israel bombs and kills Palestinians indiscriminately.

Satisfied?

I think your initial phrasing does more to reveal your state of mind and general world view than your "Oh shit, I did write that!" rephrasing.

I don't apologise for my first post. I never said the death of these three teenagers was *not* sad. Any death is sad. But it does not justify Israel's suppression of an entire people, in clear violation of the Geneva convention. Don't you agree?

After all its all about semantics isn't it? Israel haters turn three kidnapped and murdered teens (or young men, or undercover soldiers) from a tragedy to just a justification of latent Israeli brutality. Meanwhile Palestinian deaths are militants or bomb throwers and not actual people. And the cycle continues as the foam fingers wave.

It is sad and shocking for families and friends that these young men have been executed. Sadly for the politicians involved they care very little as for some it suits there violent aggressive war-mongering agendas.
For these young men not to die in vain it would take someone very brave to say enough is enough, we don't want to see the lives of future Palestinian and Israeli generations wasted in this way.
Apparently though the trial has taken place in the absence of any defendants or any court or any judges, no evidence has been presented.
Netanyahu seems to know all and has decided 'Hamas' was to blame, nobody specific, just a group that he is already hell bent on destroying.
So in no ones interest but his own how many more innocent people will die to satisfy this mans sick blood lust.
Does anyone care if the families of these men ever get justice, I would dearly like to see the perpetrators swinging from the rafters, but failing that is the answer to go on some lunatic military assault on a town (or just anyone) that will obviously lead to the death of countless innocent lives, that is not justice for these 3 young men, it is just mindless genocide perpetrated by one of the most violent murderous regimes in the Middle East. One day we may wake up to the fact that Netanyahu is part of the problem, not part of the solution, but isn't it the simple truth that no politician is really looking or serious about a solution to this conflict.
As the ensuing onslaught begins my mind will not only be with the families of the lovely young men that were brutally slain but the many more that will be murdered to satisfy the bloodlust of the murderous Israeli regime, you can put make up on Netanyahu but he is still a genocidal psychotic maniac.
When murder is committed what price a due process?

The Geneva convention is all well and good, Jamiet--

What do you do when fighting an enemy that doesn't respect that convention, either?

It's all well and good to wag the finger saying a nation isn't following a the rules of war when you don't live in an area of the world where said rules don't apply for just about anyone, and arguably never have.

The Palestinians formed a majority government with Hamas, internationally recognized as a terrorist organization, who bombards Israel with rockets and bombers, and whom Israel just had a full-blown war with in 2012.

It's extremely easy to urge restraint and wag the finger and chastise a nation for not adhering to code when you're not facing such an enemy or such conditions on a daily basis yourself.

Israel has committed war crimes.

But as I've said to the legion of self-righteous finger-waggers time and again now...

It'd be both more intellectually-genuine and helpful in terms of a dialogue to view things IN CONTEXT, rather than (ironically) resorting to David vs. Goliath-level stereotyping.

Suppose Ireland formed a majority government on the "kill all English" platform, and proceeded to rocket your cities...Britain should not respond in force? You would want the international community waving the finger if you took advantage of your advantage in force to try and defend yourself from such a menace?

Would you want us to wag the finger from the cushy safety of our own homes while you live in a state of perpetual danger and fear because you're not "following the rules" of war, as if it were merely a game and you were merely being naughty and unfair rather than doing whatever you thought necessary to protect your people?

I'd add one more thing--

The "rules of war" and appropriate engagement needed to be "updated" after the First World War, such was its impact on the world and warfare...

I'd say the same thing's occurring now.

In the age of terrorism, where the enemy sets up camp among and can be on sight virtually indistinguishable sometimes from civilians, the rules of war need to change accordingly, because adhering to the old standards is outmoded thinking of a tragic and dangerous (not to mention ineffective) kind.

Warfare today does not necessarily fit within the bounds of a 1940s accord any more than the First World War would fit the rules of engagement the Americans, British and French would have known during the American Revolution.

If Israel is to be (rightly) held to a 2014 moral standard, it should at least have its actions judged within the context of warfare and engagement as understood by 2014, and not by a 1940s accord.

Yeah, obiwan, sure, right. Because Israel only started brutally supressing the Palestinians after Hamas was elected, right?

I'll add one more thing too, Israel is not just targeting Hamas, as the links I have shared demonstrate. They are suppressing the Palestinian people as a whole.

An excellent post by Nigee, what makes it excellent? It acknowledges Israelis as people with human emotion and and that those emotions are real, not just a justification in Jamietts words “suppression of an entire people.” I disagree that Netenyahu is part of the problem, I believe him and his ilk are the lions share of the problem. After all, he is a thug and a buffoon, and the only reason his corrupt government is back in power is because he is willing to use the emotions and fear derived from situations like this to rally power and support despite the human cost. I fear for what comes next and I hope moderates within his government can talk sense into him. Killing scores of Palestinians does not bring the teenagers back. Unfortunately for the world, the government will feel compelled to conduct a violent response to court their right winged base.

How can you tell who is who, though?

How can they distinguish who is a Hamas supporter and who is innocent of that affiliation?

This is the problem with modern warfare--terrorists and civilians become virtually indistinguishable, so states feel the need to attack and punish the lot, lest they be gracious to the wrong person and pay for it.

What would you have them do to separate Hamas supporters--with whom we can say they're at war--from Palestinian civilians who want nothing to do with that group?

I won't even say Israel's free from racism or xenophobia here, they're not--

But that's exacerbated when they're fighting an enemy that blends into the ranks of the Palestinians, and now is part of their joint government.

Israel is at war with Hamas...

How do they distinguish Hamas-leaning Palestinians from any other Palestinians?

And if they can't, do you not think that might be a contributing factor to their punishing ALL Palestinians? Doesn't make that morally right, but it does explain the situation from an Israeli point of view, again, rather than just idly wag the finger and pat one another on the back for the startling and altogether-original statement that killing civilians is a bad thing and that states shouldn't do it...

"Israel is naughty" is hardly the way to solve or understand the crisis...you NEED to have it be "Israel is naught, and here's WHY they're acting up, and let's see if we can address THAT."

But no...let's just sit in comparative paradise and wag the finger.

It's a lot more gratifying to congratulate ourselves as being morally-superior people in a situation that hardly demands difficult moral decision-making such as is the case throughout the Middle East.

Easy to be an angel in paradise.

Id also like to point out it took 3 fucking pages for Jamiett to take the bold move of declaring that he the death off the Israeli teenagers (young men) is 'not not sad' and basically that the deaths of those three teenagers is sad because all deaths are sad.

Seriously?

Before we get carried away with what may or may not happen spare a thought for these 3 beautiful boys and their families, destined to become just another sad statistic in a war that no one wants to end..... my soul is crying.

I'll expand "death" to "kidnapping and death" because after all, he only ignored their deaths for about a page before posting about how their deaths are justification for israeli violence. The first two pages they hadn't died yet.

Their deaths are NOT justification for Israeli violence, you twit. Israel's actions are *unjustified*.

Who are you to dictate what justifies Israeli violence vs. Hamas?

And Palestinians chose Hamas as a representative government faction, first in Gaza, now as part of a joint government...

Seems a double standard to chastise Israel for considering Palestinians as part of Hamas when they themselves seem only too happy to elect and identify with the group.

Three innocent teenagers deaths according to Jamiett:

Not not sad
Sad because all deaths are sad
NOT justification for Israeli violence

You both think the violence is justified, then, Santa and obiwan?

And obiwan, you presumably believe the fire-bombing of Dresden was not a war crime, since we were at war with Germany at the time, and the German people had allowed the Nazis to take power?

(Sorry to Godwin the thread, but it's a good example if you ask me)

@Obi: the whole notion that 'terrorism' is a warfare issue is debatable. Mostly, in terms of actual threat and of most effective methods, it's a law enforcement issue. You don't stop terrorism with armies. You stop it with effective detective work and policing.

This whole idea of the War On Terror was a political idea, not an analytical one.

"You don't stop terrorism with armies. You stop it with effective detective work and policing. "

Realllllllly now???? Try telling that to ISIS -- the TERRORIST ARMY in Iraq and Syria...

At this point Isis is almost a conventional army rather than a terrorist group.

@obi - you are aware that Eire (the Republic of Ireland) had a constitutional claim on the North of Ireland (internationally recognised UK territory) from 1937 to 1989. During that time the IRA and other terrorist organisations did bomb UK cities both in the north of Ireland and on the UK mainland. My own family have been affected by their actions and live with the consequences to this day. At no time did I ever wish that my government (the uk government) would ever engage in unlawful violence. We had the right to defend ourselves and our army and police forces by and large did a great job. Sometimes they overstepped the line, Bloody Sunday etc, but the perpetrators of illegal acts should be held to account. Every time the British forces overstepped the line it made peace more unlikely as it would act as a recruiting sergeant for the terrorists. Nation states have to maintain the law despite extreme provocation, acting like terrorists is never going to defeat terrorists.

(But we're in danger of going off topic)

Good point, Maniac, also.