Reply #35: thanks for debating the substance

[shira]

1. Why would the mission assume that Israel's shelling was not a direct response to Hamas firing from the hospital? What would the IDF have to gain from indiscriminately firing at the hospital? What a ridiculous charge. And worse - the mission denies Hamas deliberately forced Palestinians to be shields. The 2 newspaper articles refute Goldstone.

2. You say it's a fact-finding mission and not the proper place to conduct a debate on extenuating circumstances. But Goldstone goes much further than reporting facts - in the example above, his mission assumes with zero evidence the IDF fired at the hospital for no apparent reason and that Hamas militants being there "that day" was purely coincidental....therefore the IDF was deliberately aiming at civilians and civilian structures. The mission assigns the worst motives to the IDF while assuming only the best for Hamas (denying they ever forced Palestinians to be shields). Kemp's input is crucial for this type of assymetrical warfare and would have easily demonstrated how silly and baseless the mission's assumptions were about the IDF.