quote:

---

JERUSALEM — The Israeli Army bolstered its forces on the Israeli side of the border fence with the Gaza Strip on Sunday after Palestinian advocates there called on residents to form a human chain on Monday along the Gaza side, from Rafah in the south to Beit Hanun in the north.

The advocates are protesting the embargo imposed by Israel since the Islamic militant group Hamas took over Gaza last June. Israel recently tightened the blockade in response to intensified rocket fire from the strip.

---

quote:

---

Although the event, promoted by Hamas Islamists and allied activists, was peaceful, militants in the Gaza Strip fired rockets at southern Israel while the protest was under way, wounding a child.

After the human chain broke up, Palestinian youngsters hurled rocks at Israeli soldiers at Gaza's Erez border crossing. The Israeli army said it detained 50 stone-throwers.

---

Hard to believe that the organizers intentions were truly peaceful, seeing as the demonstrations were complemented by rocket salvos that severely injured a 10 year-old boy in Israel. Rock throwing might be an expression of justified frustration, yet rocket launching that target civilian centers is clearly deplorable. This puts into question the credibility of the protests today in Gaza.

quote:

---

How legitimate is an organization that targets civilians in order to achieve their political goals?

---

quote:

---

Hamas is shunned by Israel and the West for refusing to give up its stated goal of seeing the Jewish state eliminated. It has, however, offered a skeptical Israel a conditional, long-term ceasefire.

"Peace and dialogue are not an option for them (Hamas)," Mekel said, calling for the group's continued international isolation.

---

Here is an interesting part of the story not quoted:

quote:

---

Israel strengthened its border security forces, with an extra 5,000 police drafted in to back up regular armed guards, and local media reports said that snipers and even an artillery battery had been sent to make sure that the crowds did not attempt to scale the high concrete walls and razor wire fences that mark the boundary.

---

quote:

---

Quite the imbedded bias in this article. No peace until the Palestinians elect a government the Israelis and US think they can control. That is real democracy.
And really who knowes who is firing the rockets. Is it Hamas or is it another group?

---

Quite challenging to decipher where the imbedded bias actually exists. The Reuters article does not state nor imply that the US and Israel want to ‘control’ the Palestinian government, that’s quite the editorial. Mekels statement was possibly misinterpreted, as what he indicated was that Hamas’s position negates peace and dialogue as a potential solution.

If a Quebecian terrorist organization (whether religious or nationalist) was launching rockets at rural towns in Ontario, condemning Canadian sovereignty and determined to destroy Canada, it would be understandable if the Canadian government refused to hold peace talks with them.

quote:

---

f a Quebecian terrorist organization (whether religious or nationalist) was launching rockets at rural towns in Ontario, condemning Canadian sovereignty and determined to destroy Canada, it would be understandable if the Canadian government refused to hold peace talks with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowy Plover:
Hamas was elected, yet to suggest that the organizations political wing at all represents the will of the Palestinian people would be dubious.

---

Israel - a long-time condemned violator of international law, human rights, and the Geneva Conventions - calls itself "the Jewish state" and purports to speak in the name of Jews.

Yet I never got a vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowy Plover:
The legally and transparently elected Hitler launched shells, was that ok? No government, however democratic, has the right to deliberately target civilians.

---

How about Ground Zero? Obviously the 100's of thousands murdered in the only two ground zeros has to be the most outrageous case, correct?

Shock and Awe remember that one? You would agree that was a deliberate targeting of civilians?

How about destroying villages in Afghanistan? Does that fall under your proscription?

quote:

---

The more vulgar apologists for U.S. and Israeli crimes solemnly explain that, while Arabs purposely kill people, the U.S. and Israel, being democratic societies, do not intend to do so. Their killings are just accidental ones, hence not at the level of moral depravity of their adversaries. That was, for example, the stand of Israel's High Court when it recently authorized severe collective punishment of the people of Gaza by depriving them of electricity (hence water, sewage disposal, and other such basics of civilized life).

The same line of defense is common with regard to some of Washington's past peccadilloes, like the destruction in 1998 of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. The attack apparently led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, but without intent to kill them, hence not a crime on the order of intentional killing -- so we are instructed by moralists who consistently suppress the response that had already been given to these vulgar efforts at self-justification.

To repeat once again, we can distinguish three categories of crimes: murder with intent, accidental killing, and murder with foreknowledge but without specific intent. Israeli and U.S. atrocities typically fall into the third category. Thus, when Israel destroys Gaza's power supply or sets up barriers to travel in the West Bank, it does not specifically intend to murder the particular people who will die from polluted water or in ambulances that cannot reach hospitals. And when Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of the al-Shifa plant, it was obvious that it would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. Human Rights Watch immediately informed him of this, providing details; nevertheless, he and his advisers did not intend to kill specific people among those who would inevitably die when half the pharmaceutical supplies were destroyed in a poor African country that could not replenish them.

Rather, they and their apologists regarded Africans much as we do the ants we crush while walking down a street. We are aware that it is likely to happen (if we bother to think about it), but we do not intend to kill them because they are not worthy of such consideration. Needless to say, comparable attacks by Araboushim in areas inhabited by human beings would be regarded rather differently.

---

quote:

---

What do you call air strikes on buildings in the occupied territories? Israel is in the same category then?

---

A misinterpretation, no government however democratic, including Israel, has the right to deliberately target civilians.

Air strikes on so called 'buildings' in the Gaza are legitimate objectives because they serve as weapons manufacturing and storage facilities, Hamas training camps, terrorist headquarters, etc. Just as IDF military bases might be legitimate targets in warfare. The Qassam that landed in the Zikim base and injured 39 soldiers, was not a terrorist attack. (Although its doubtful whether Hamas actually intended to hit the base, seeing the unreliable accuracy of the Qassam rocket)

There is no legitimacy for accidental civilian deaths caused by IDF airstrikes. Still, the onus of responsibility lies in the hands of Hamas, that intentionally fires Qassams and mortar shells from populated areas, thereby putting the civilian population in harms way. (Not to mention, that some the shells actually fall in Palestinian territory, that's something you don't hear on the news) The classic example is the launching from an elemtary boys school in Beit Hanun that was caught on camera. This is, par excellance, indicative of the cynical use of the Palestinian population as cover and camouflage. Would you agree to terrorists or militants launching rockets in your backyard?