This might shed a little lite on what Israel is doing to Gaza!

[teddy51]

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9138

And a Protest by people of the UK

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9150

[Peace Patriot]

1. Very enlightening! Thank you!

Israel's assassination of Hamas commanders reminds me of the U.S./Colombia's assassination of Raul Reyes in March 2008 (along with 24 other sleeping people--all inflicted with summary execution without trial). Reyes was the FARC guerrilla commander most interested in a peace agreement in Colombia's 70 year civil war. Neither the Bushwhacks nor their "made man" in Bogota, Alvaro Uribe, wanted peace--nor did the Colombian military which was sucking on U.S. taxpayers to the tune of $7 BILLION (at minimum). So they blew his peace negotiation camp away with 500 lb. U.S. "smart bombs" and thus ended all talk of peace. Since Reyes' camp was on the Colombia/Ecuador border, just inside Ecuador, they also nearly started a war between the U.S./Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela, which would have suited the Bushwhacks fine, I'm sure.

[Igel]

5. Reminds me of the targeting of senior Syrian government military officers. n/t

[holdencaufield]

2. By claiming that the current escalation has nothing to do with rockets ...

... this "article" sheds no light whatsoever on the subject. In fact, it does precisely the opposite.

[Recursion]

3. It has nothing to do with the rockets. It has everything to do with Bibi getting re-elected

There was no change in the rate of rocket fire before this. This wasn't a response to anything but the upcoming elections.

[Matilda]

6. There may also be a link to the Palestinian bid for recognition by the U.N.

This is something that Israel is determined to prevent, and the timing is surely not coincidental.

The West Bank is largely occupied, and if Gaza is leveled to the ground, there is no state to recognise.

[teddy51]

4. Once again, your opinion and it doesn't fit with many people of the worlds opinion's.

[Peace Patriot]

7. In very long civil wars like this, there is a mountain of piled up grievances...

...and it becomes impossible to excavate the layers of hurt, anger, outrage, atrocity and retribution, down to the original pebble of war: why it all started.

Ireland and Colombia are excellent examples. One outrage begets another. One hurt feeds another. Another atrocity looks backward to those and forward to the next retribution. And on and on. 70 years of it in Colombia. 400 in Ireland. People of nearly the same DNA slaughtering each other in an endless cycle of violence, and the murderers on both sides full of righteous indignation of the sort that makes killing babies seem justified.

You can't START with Palestinian rocket fire this week. It DOESN'T start there.

Israeli militarists would like us to believe that it does and the corporate media trumpets that view. The Real News is presenting a more realistic view--by asking WHY the Palestinians were firing rockets at Israel. I would go one further and say that it really doesn't matter any more why Palestinians are firing rockets and Israel is bombing Gaza. There is no sorting out this mountain of bloodshed and outrage. There is no righteous side. It must simply, somehow, be stopped by more civilized forces--of which, tragically, our own country is no longer an example.

[AnOhioan]

9. Well put...

[kayecy]

8. So why did Israel assasinate Jabbari?......

Jabbari was helping Israel by clamping down on the rogue rocket teams...... Jabbari was considering a permanent truce agreement which Israel knew about.

One Israeli article even claimed that Israel had lulled Hamas into a false sense of security so they would lower their precautions.


it seems likely that Israel did not want a truce where Hamas could build up its strength.....Isreal wanted an excuse to pound Hamas so it started this conflagration by killing Jabbari.


So what is your explanation as to why Israel chose to track and assasinate Jabbari just now?......

[OneMoreDemocrat]

10. The video at the link lays out the timeline quite well...

Complete with the rockets you so desire.

But more mportantly it points out the actual cause of the violence, which is and always has been Israel's occupation of Gaza. Until Israel loosens it's stranglehold on the region the violence will continue unabated. As it should.

[holdencaufield]

11. You mean the Israeli occpation of Gaza ...

... that doesn't actually exist? Hasn't existed since 2005? That's the occupation you're on about?

[polly7]

12. "But when international law says very clearly that occupation is defined by.."

November 18, 2012

The Roots of Israeli Attack on Gaza
Phyllis Bennis: The current conflict did not begin with rockets fired at Israel

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=9138

And then we can go back to this past Monday, for instance, when Israeli forces killed a young man in Gaza who was approaching the border fence. His family and others all said that he was mentally challenged, that he was mentally ill, had no idea where he was. The Israelis claim they called out to him not to approach the fence. He either didn't hear, didn't understand, didn't pay attention, and they shot him dead. In another attack, two days after that, on Thursday, the Israeli military sent tanks and a bulldozer into Gaza, on land in Gaza, and shot and killed a 13-year-old child who was near a playground, about 1,200 meters, more than a kilometer away from where the soldiers were.

So all of this is going on without anyone really paying attention. It's only when there is a massive escalation (in this case, it was on the Israeli side of the assassination of a top leader of Hamas) that we saw anybody beginning to pay attention. And there's a serious danger as a result, I'm afraid, that we're going to start hearing discussion about how this is now the new normal, somehow; this is now just how Israel is responding, because it will be about Israel responding rather [than] recognizing that at the end of the day this is about occupation.

The form of occupation of Gaza is different. It's not with Israeli soldiers on the ground. The soldiers and settlers pulled out in 2005. But when international law says very clearly that occupation is defined by having control of a territory from outside, from a government outside, that's precisely what we have in Gaza. It takes the form of a siege in which Israeli military controls the borders, determines who can go in, who can come out, what goods can go in or out, controls the seas surrounding Gaza, built a wall completely enclosing Gaza, controls the borders, controls the airspace, bombed the airport so no planes can land, prevents Gaza fishermen from going out more than one mile out to sea—this is occupation of a different form. And until we understand that that's the root of this level of violence that we're seeing, we're not going to be in any position to end it.

Impressions of Gaza

Noam Chomsky November 4, 2012

http://chomsky.info/articles/20121104.htm

Even a single night in jail is enough to give a taste of what it means to be under the total control of some external force. And it hardly takes more than a day in Gaza to begin to appreciate what it must be like to try to survive in the world’s largest open-air prison, where a million and a half people, in the most densely populated area of the world, are constantly subject to random and often savage terror and arbitrary punishment, with no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade, and with the further goal of ensuring that Palestinian hopes for a decent future will be crushed and that the overwhelming global support for a diplomatic settlement that will grant these rights will be nullified.

“What has to be kept in mind,” observes Raji Sourani, “is that the occupation and the absolute closure is an ongoing attack on the human dignity of the people in Gaza in particular and all Palestinians generally. It is systematic degradation, humiliation, isolation and fragmentation of the Palestinian people.” The conclusion is confirmed by many other sources. In one of the world’s leading medical journals, The Lancet, a visiting Stanford physician, appalled by what he witnessed, describes Gaza as “something of a laboratory for observing an absence of dignity,” a condition that has “devastating” effects on physical, mental, and social wellbeing. “The constant surveillance from the sky, collective punishment through blockade and isolation, the intrusion into homes and communications, and restrictions on those trying to travel, or marry, or work make it difficult to live a dignified life in Gaza.” The Araboushim must be taught not to raise their heads.

The effects are painfully evident. In the Khan Yunis hospital, the director, who is also chief of surgery, describes with anger and passion how even medicines are lacking for relief of suffering patients, as well as simple surgical equipment, leaving doctors helpless and patients in agony. Personal stories add vivid texture to the general disgust one feels at the obscenity of the harsh occupation. One example is the testimony of a young woman who despaired that her father, who would have been proud that she was the first woman in the refugee camp to gain an advanced degree, had “passed away after 6 months of fighting cancer aged 60 years. Israeli occupation denied him a permit to go to Israeli hospitals for treatment. I had to suspend my study, work and life and go to set next to his bed. We all sat including my brother the physician and my sister the pharmacist, all powerless and hopeless watching his suffering. He died during the inhumane blockade of Gaza in summer 2006 with very little access to health service. I think feeling powerless and hopeless is the most killing feeling that human can ever have. It kills the spirit and breaks the heart. You can fight occupation but you cannot fight your feeling of being powerless. You can't even dissolve that feeling.”

[holdencaufield]

13. By that definition

"... when international law says very clearly that occupation is defined by having control of a territory from outside, from a government outside, that's precisely what we have in Gaza. "


Clearly Gaza is the LEAST occupied place on this planet. Israel has EXACTLY no control over what happens in Gaza. If it did, it wouldn't be receiving daily bombardments of mortars, rockets and missiles from Gaza. It wouldn't allow a gang of Hamas thugs to terrorize the people of Gaza. Israel doesn't even control what gets in and out of Gaza because it doesn't control Gaza's border with Egypt.

No, I think you can safely say that Canada is more "occupied" by the US than Gaza is by Israel.

Oh -- and try thinking for yourself once in a while -- cutting and pasting from conspiracy websites ISN'T the same thing as actually having an opinion. Even if it feels like it.

[polly7]

14. Ooooh ......... did that hit a nerve?

I don't do orders, and I have no problem linking to those who've studied the area and know what they're discussing, thank you very much. I certainly wish you'd try it more, your personal opinions here are really OTT most of the time (from what I've read, anyway). It's nice to get the facts once in a while.

[Shaktimaan]

17. Hahaha.

That's really funny. Don't you find it a little weird that the only people who seem to meet your rigorous standards of knowledge post their articles at strange, conspiracy watcher type websites? Is there NO ONE from a reputable organization who supports the same conclusions as these guys?

Seriously, you can't just post links to crazy news outlets like realnews, quote them on something they got totally wrong and then give a lecture like the one above without knowing that it's going to get you made fun of.

[polly7]

18. Wtf are you going on about?

[Shaktimaan]

19. your quote.

But when international law says very clearly that occupation is defined by having control of a territory from outside, from a government outside, that's precisely what we have in Gaza.

There's no international law that defines occupied territory this way. That definition is absurd, I've never seen it before.

The actual accepted definition of occupied territory at the UN and by international legal bodies is:

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

What I was going on about was laughing at the fact that you went on and on about how you make such a point to link to people who have studied the conflict and know the true facts of the situation and so on, in reference to a totally random, TOTALLY unconfirmed (and almost surely untrue), article of dubious merit. In any case, it relied on rarely-seen "facts" that I was unable to confirm by any third party online, (or even just find an instance of someone else mentioning them.)

[kayecy]

15. Canada more occupied than Gaza?....Just think what you are saying......

Israel has preventer all access by sea to Gaza and stopped Gazan fishermen from earning a living......Israel has stopped all access from Gaza to the West Bank.......Israel constantly violates Gazan air-space......Israel assassinates anyone in Gaza it deems a threat.

Now, justify your "Canada is more occupied than Gaza claim?"....The truth is that you are not thinking about what you write.

[Shaktimaan]

16. That's funny.

But when international law says very clearly that occupation is defined by having control of a territory from outside, from a government outside, that's precisely what we have in Gaza.

Rather than prove your point, what your quote actually does here is invalidate the credibility of your source. You see, international law doesn't say anything like that. Occupation is only in effect in areas that are directly under the control of the enemy military. Control over airspace and waterways does not imply that all of Gaza is occupied territory. There's no question that the main authority in Gaza is Hamas.

The actual accepted definition of occupied territory is:

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "