Joie de Vivre wrote:

The final reason I don't push the boat out is, despite what some might think, I really do my best not to patronise and manipulate this forum.

And many people do appreciate that he comes here and gives an opposing view. Sometimes it can help you think and form opinions.

Ju8st something to show the difference in firepower:

one

two.

Pictures taken from here.

Shows how little a problem the Hamas rockets are really. Nothing more than a fly buzzing in the media's ear.

The War Nerd: Hamas Ain’t No Hezbollah

What’s going on in Gaza now is pretty easy to understand if you think a little bit about the way military trends have been going in the past century-but you also have to be willing to take a cold look at how wars work these days, when there’s no such thing as those “purely military” wars you WW II freaks dream about. (There never really was, but that’s another story.)

The Israelis attacked now because of two non-military cycles: the news cycle and the presidential cycle. This was like a war by an astrologer: the stars had to be in exactly the right position before the Apaches could start blasting and the Merkavas could roll.

The most important cycle of all is the news cycle. This war happened during international media dead week, between Christmas and New Year. Ordinary people are drunk or hungover or snowed in, and the people who matter, the media players, are off in Cancun and Phuket, soaking up rum and sun with their blackberries turned off. They’re not going to bum out their call girls watching the news from Gaza.

And the Israelis wanted a time when everybody was distracted for a simple reason: asymmetrical war isn’t pretty. That’s the same reason they won’t let camera crews into Gaza. To do this kind of war, you have to kill a lot of civilians, because the whole civilian/military distinction doesn’t really apply. If your neighbor is a mid-ranking officer in the military wing of Hamas, the best way to kill him is while he sleeps, before he can arm himself, deploy his men and maybe inflict casualties. Thanks to years of excellent intelligence on Gaza, the Israelis know exactly who’s where at pretty much any minute of any day. And they have attack helicopters hovering over it non-stop, ready to send a Hellfire missile down to take out anybody who might help organize a counterattack.

But Gaza is the most crowded slum in the world, so when you send that missile into his tenement apartment at 4 am, it’s going to kill him, but it’s also going to kill his wife, their kids (and Gaza has a huge birthrate) and half the block. That makes cold military sense but it doesn’t look good on the news...

Read More @ Exiled Online

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Israel is not going after civilians, and since I firmly believe this, in fact I can purport to know it, we may disagree.

There's no denying that civilians are dying, just take a look at the hospitals, and that UN school (or what's left of it). Over 400 civilians have died. Many of the targtets Israel attacks claiming to be Hamas Military Equipment turn out to be innocent civilians who are just going about their daily lives, like that Oil Truck.
it has an indirect but knowing intention of civilian deaths, which makes it all the worse as they think it justifies what they're doing.
Now you tell me, you really think Israel is innocent?

Assallamu Allaikum,

There is little or no point in discussing anything with the Israelis or Jews in general when it comes to Palestine. My reasons for saying this are quite simple. The Israelis will never look back any further in history than suits them. If they look back over the history of Jewish settlement in Palestine they would have to admit that they are there illegally and have on occassion used nothing short of terrorist means to get what they want.

Wassallam.

Confo wrote:

...admit that they are there illegally...

I do not put much stock into such semantic terms. When it comes to the bigger picture, the powerful set the terms, the law. "Illegal" means nothing and its a waste of an argument IMO.

The facts on the ground are the Israel exists, it is also stronger than its neighbours.

If it ever came to be that Israel became weaker than its neighbours/was occupied I would not want the new powers that be to follow the ideology of revenge.

I would want there to be compassion if the roles were reversed (and the people living there to not be expelled/made inferior), though I doubt that would happen in the world. Look at what happened to the Armenians a century ago.

You wrote:

Confo wrote:

...admit that they are there illegally...

I do not put much stock into such semantic terms. When it comes to the bigger picture, the powerful set the terms, the law. "Illegal" means nothing and its a waste of an argument IMO.

The facts on the ground are the Israel exists, it is also stronger than its neighbours.

If it ever came to be that Israel became weaker than its neighbours/was occupied I would not want the new powers that be to follow the ideology of revenge.

I would want there to be compassion if the roles were reversed (and the people living there to not be expelled/made inferior), though I doubt that would happen in the world. Look at what happened to the Armenians a century ago.

I roughly concur with what you go on to say but Confo's argument is not semantic - certain settlements are unquestionably illegal and it is right to insist that, even if they are held for some strategic reason, they be considered as such in any deal that could be envisaged. And if Confo takes the view that the entire state is illegal, it is a legitimate subject for discussion. I didn't get far into the promised blog post before being interrupted (by a call from Israel as it happens) and although Confo might not take an interest I am inevitably addressing that issue. We're on the cusp of Shabbat and although I have a very busy Sunday I expect to be able to post that up then. Apologies it isn't sooner.

"Confo" wrote:

There is little or no point in discussing anything with the Israelis or Jews in general when it comes to Palestine. My reasons for saying this are quite simple. The Israelis will never look back any further in history than suits them. If they look back over the history of Jewish settlement in Palestine they would have to admit that they are there illegally and have on occassion used nothing short of terrorist means to get what they want.

I firmly reject Confo's insistence that there is no point listening to both sides of an argument.

The blog post I'm writing briefly alludes to events throughout the 19th and 20th centuries but if there's a particular point from which a timeline should begin he should state his own preference.

Assallamu Allaikum,

Joie de Vivre,

My intention is not to suggest that we should not listen to both sides in an argument, indeed that option may have been completely viable in the past. But that option in my opinion has ceased to be of any benefit at all according to the current state of affairs. Israel has continued to take any land that it wishes strategic or otherwise regardless of the cost in human life or United Nations mandate (as token as I feel that there "gestures" are). My friend innocent people are dying as a direct consequence of Israeli action and in the same way that I would and do condemn suicide bombing of innocents I cannot do anything other than condemn the actions of any "army" that does the same.

You.

Your attitude is typical of the whole mind set that I have alluded to "the power set the terms" as I suggested ignore the truth and facts and do what is right for us, as we hold the "power".
Revenge is not an ideology, and you talk about semantics! And where is the compassion for the Palestinians?
Israel exists is not enough of a statement to validate or support the actions taken.

I am going away for the weekend but will Insh'Allah take up this discussion on Monday at some point.

Wassallam.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10144.shtml

The Lamp wrote:

it has an indirect but knowing intention of civilian deaths, which makes it all the worse as they think it justifies what they're doing.
Now you tell me, you really think Israel is innocent?

That is a very good point.

As I understand it, the Israeli argument is something like this:

"Hamas militants hide amongst the common civillians using them as 'human shields'. Hamas is firing rockets into our home and so it is our duty to kill them. Therefore, if they hide amongst innocent civillians and can still fire rockets then surely we can still bomb them."

Basically, Israel is saying it has the right to bomb them. What me and Lamp are asking is, "Should Israel bomb them when Israel knows full well it will neccesarily be killing a hell of a lot of civillinas too?"

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Here in a nutshell is Israel's problem. While facing and indeed agreeing with the world's humanitarian concerns, Israel will find that any mercy or goodwill it shows is a weakness to be exploited. Not all Palestinians will feel that way, let alone all Muslims, but Hamas does, and so do many of the people most vicious in their rhetoric on sites such as this.

You've said that before and I believe that many Israeli government officials hold the same view. What I'm asking is "how important is it for Israel to act according to humanitarian principles?" I believe that it does care about humanitarian principles, but how much?

Beast said to Urban.Rust something like "the problem is one of violence. If the case was an excess of "airy fairy, namby pambyness" then ther would be no problem." "

Well I'm asking it in relation to Israel. Should Israel take the huge gamble of letting it self be victim and more vulnerable to the attacks of Hamas and not respond for the sake of obtaining the moral high ground and perhaps-into the gamble-winning some Arab support?

You say in the short term it isn't going to get that support, but I'm asking in the long term. I agree that its a hell of a big gamble to let your citizens become victims of rocket fire for a few years (and some people would be murdered by those rockets) and loose your pride by doing nothing about it. Israeli citizens would probably revolt against the government! But if Israel was willing to do that for a longer term do you think it could lead to peace?

My (atheist) Jewish friend (well, he's not really my friend, he's a bit nuts, but anyway) showed me an email he got from his uncle (a self-proclaimed zionist) which was a cartoon of an Israeli solider shooting while standing in front of an Israeli child, and a Palestinian soldier shooting while standing behind a Palestinian child (signifying that Israelis fight to protect their people, while Palestinians use their people has human shield).

Anyway, my friend (or not-quite friend, but anyway) asked the question (which I thought was rather pertinent) "why would the Israeli soldier still fire if their was a child in the way?"

If this IS the reality of the situation, then who is (more) in the wrong, the Israeli soldier or the Palestinian?

If you take out history, religion and politics from the situation (impossible, I know), who is ACTUALLY most to blame?

Is blame actually irrelevant at this point? Is it acceptable to retreat from ALL Palestinian land, giving it as a gift to the Israelis, if it makes the dying stop? Is this cowardice ('cowardlyness', LOL) or is stopping innocents' loss-of-life a more important factor to worry about?

Beast: Apology accepted.

And yet, the sad truth is that regardless of which option they choose, the outcome will be the same, and the change will be none.
Even during the six month truce, the Palestinians were still suffering terribly under the hands of the Israelis, because as I have mentioned before - where as the Palestinians were willing to cease fire, the Israelis continue to abuse their power to reach their objectives.

Talking doesn't seem to have done much yet in favour of the Palestinian people, the point is that no one has yet come to us with 'another way' of solving the problem, or at least not with one that will have any long term effect. The Israelis don't respect International law, and are continually flouting the Geneva convention, which leads me to believe that any notions that peace will be achieved while the Israelis are still illegally occupying Palestinian land will remain nothing more than a notion.
Peace will only prevail once the Palestinians are in sole control of their own affairs and their own land, and to put it lightly - that can only be achieved through force.
Of course violence isn't the ideal, and Yes, many more people will suffer due to it, but a question to ask your self is how long the suffering will last if the Palestinians didn't retaliate? They have to struggle through blockades, and a lack of resources, and even the basic necessities required to live (i.e. clean water, shelter) are being denied to them.

They themselves have had enough of having to live as refugees in their own country, forced to live in worsening conditions day in day out.
If you have Arab television (Al-Hiwaar maybe, or AlJazeera) you see a completely different take on the situation, the people of Palestine are calling for Hamas and support them completely, they want the freedom to live and to experience life, and if that means that they must fall and worsen in situation before they rise and claim victory then they are willing. At the end of the day we have been assured that the Muslims will have their victory in all affairs, regardless of what the outcome is in the Dunya (present day).

You've thrown me, I'll give you that much.
If your solution to the issue is being 'Namby pamby and airy fairy' - well, I'm not surprised your opposed to my ideas and ideologies, given there so "vast" in differences, this isn't the modern take on 'The fiddler on the roof' Brother.
I'm not sure of your ethnicity, and whether or not your Arab, but I'll ask you (and mind I'm being serious here), to approach an Arab and attempt to be 'Airy fairy' and see what response you receive, or better still to broach the idea to a Palestinian and see what they think of it, most likely they wont take to it nicely.
Maybe at the very least, collective groups of 'Airy fairy' Israelis and Arabs are sure to get some Media attention, prancing around singing about the origins of Falafel maybe?

All jokes aside, I have no intention of being argumentative either, ignore the previous joke in my last post - You insinuated that I was anti-Semitic and then commented on a photo I took with the name of a Jewish author in the back ground, obviously I thought you were being canny, my bad.
Take care Insha'allah.

Thankyou.

I think this exchange has been productive.

More, but worse

Guardian

"We are very violent," Lieutenant Colonel Amir, commander of an Israeli combat engineers unit, admitted as he explained that he will use any method to prevent casualties among his troops. Meysa a-Samuni would not disagree. She is the 19-year-old survivor of the shelling of a house in the Zeitoun district of Gaza in which 30 people died, six of them members of her family. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs would not disagree either. It told us how Israeli soldiers had rounded up 100 Palestinian evacuees and put them in the house, which then was shelled, although the UN stopped short of saying the shelling was deliberate. But it did accuse soldiers of preventing the Red Cross from evacuating the wounded for three days. A few doors away, four children were found cowering next to the body of their dead mother.

Enough. It's time for a boycott

Naomi Klein

It's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa. In July 2005 a huge coalition of Palestinian groups laid out plans to do just that. They called on "people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era". The campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions was born.

Winning the media war

Rachel Shabi

While Israeli PR is strong and strategic, Palestinian PR is hopeless. The rift between the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and the Hamas government in Gaza means that there are no clear messages and no real capacity to counter Israeli officials. Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian MP and former information minister, holds this to be as a result of incompetence and a lack of political clarity. He says that Hamas don't know how to do media, while the PA "did not behave as it should, as a representative of all the Palestinian people. Their messages were either absent, weak or delayed". He laments the continued split between Fatah and Hamas. "They don't realise that in such a moment of crisis when their people are being slaughtered, they have to rise above it."

And another related heading:

Israel drops leaflets over Gaza warning of 'escalation' in violence

I have a theory as to why the Israelis are bombing Gaza like this and trying to destroy Hamas.

Barak Obama will soon be president of the US. As president he will try to force a permanent settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This will involve negotiations between all the major players. Some of the players will be willing to compromise more than others. Israel would rather that if push came to shove that final status negotiations were held with Fatah only and excluded Hamas.

Fatah will give up Palestinian demands on issues such as the right to return, the wall, reparations, and the status of Jerusalem. Hamas is less likely to compromise and will push for everything that the Palestinians are entitled to.

But with Hamas out of the picture, Israel can force a pliant Fatah to accept an unfair peace agreement.

Beast wrote:

But with Hamas out of the picture, Israel can force a pliant Fatah to accept an unfair peace agreement.

I do agree with your analysis, but I don't think they can break Hamas. Without getting a worse alternative.

In other news, I have read that since the 9th of January, Mahmoud Abbas is not longer the legal president of the PA. The only reason there is not much of a hoo haa about this is because of other things that are happening in the reason.

He is neutral evidence that israel is to blame for this conflict and it has probably been planned for months by israeli goverment, and it still continues to break international laws

source 1 :http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45911,features,swiss-attack-on-israeli-pol...
excerpts :-

'Switzerland has accused Israel of wantonly destroying Palestinian homes in east Jerusalem and near Ramallah in violation of the Geneva Convention's rules on military occupation'

'The statement last Thursday from the Swiss Foreign Ministry said that Switzerland - the guardian of the Geneva Convention - regards the "recent incidents", under which scores of Palestinian homes have been destroyed by Israeli bulldozers, as "violations of international humanitarian law" and claimed there was "no military need to justify the destruction of these houses".

source 2 : http://www.imemc.org/article/57649
excerpts:-

'The UNRWA official said that UNRWA is forced to suspend the distribution of essential supplies to the residents of Gaza as Israel is barring the entry of any aid or supplies'

'The blocking of United Nations aid comes on the same day that Israeli troops killed four Hamas fighters in the Gaza Strip'

'Troops invaded Al Qarara town, south east of Gaza, while drones fired a number of missiles.'

source 3 : http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11172008.html

excerpts:-

The refusal to allow in fuel has forced the shutting down of Gaza’s only power station, creating a blackout that pushed Palestinians bearing candles on to the streets in protest last week. A water and sanitation crisis are expected to follow.

In a further blow, Israel’s large Bank Hapoalim said it would refuse all transactions with Gaza by the end of the month, effectively imposing a financial blockade on an economy dependent on the Israeli shekel. Other banks are planning to follow suit, forced into a corner by Israel’s declaration in Sept 2007 of Gaza as an “enemy entity”.

There are likely to be few witnesses to Gaza’s descent into a dark and hungry winter. In the past week, all journalists were refused access to Gaza, as were a group of senior European diplomats.

Israel has blamed the latest restrictions of aid and fuel to Gaza on Hamas’s violation of a five-month ceasefire by launching rockets out of the Strip. But Israel had a hand in shattering the agreement: as the world was distracted by the US presidential elections, the army invaded Gaza, killing six Palestinians and provoking the rocket fire

blamed Gaza’s strangulation directly on Israel, but also cited the international community as accomplice

source 4 - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=386_1227551819&c=1

excerpts:-

Earlier this year, Switzerland was among the 30 countries who voted in support of the UN Human Rights Council resolution
that condemned Israel for "grave violations of the human and humanitarian rights of the Palestinian civilians living in Gaza".

The Swiss condemnation of Israel today may be dismissed by some as having little global importance, but there are good reasons why Israel ought to be concerned. As guarantor of the Geneva Convention, Switzerland has the power to call meetings of the treaty's signatories if it finds problems with its implementation - something which would be very embarrassing for Israel.

And while it's one thing for Israel to be condemned by countries with a poor human rights record such as Cuba and Saudi Arabia - it's quite another for it to be criticised by a country whose record is beyond reproach. The fact that Switzerland - the home of the Red Cross - has not been involved in a military conflict for 200 years, gives the country a moral authority that many others lack.

Switzerland's independent line on Middle East issues also shows the advantage of maintaining national sovereignty in an age where most countries in Europe have surrendered important decision making powers to the EU. While other countries in Europe have been cajoled, under US and British influence, to moderate their criticisms of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and to agree to swingeing sanctions on Iran - non-EU Switzerland is free to make its own decisions and to say what it thinks about Israeli actions.

It helps, too, that Switzerland is rich enough to follow its own path, without fear of retribution. On this issue, Israel has come up against a state which truly is beholden to nobody.

source 5 - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051211.html

excerpts-
'Palestinians in Gaza believed Israel had called a 48-hour lull in retaliatory attacks with Hamas when Israel Air Force warplanes launched a massive bombardment of militant installations in the Gaza Strip, a UN official said Monday.'

'Abu Zayd said Palestinians in Gaza were surprised when Israeli warplanes sent more than 100 tons of bombs crashing down on key security installations in Hamas-ruled Gaza starting Saturday morning because it was in the middle of the lull.'

'Abu Zayd mentioned the lull when she was asked whether the population of Gaza was aware that this was all commenced by the Hamas government unilaterally ending the cease-fire and firing rockets'.

"I don't think they think the truce was violated first by Hamas," she said.

"I think they saw that Hamas had observed the truce quite strictly for almost six months, certainly for four of the six months, and that they got nothing in turn - because there was to be kind of a deal," Abu Zayd said.

"If there were no rockets, the crossings would be opened," she said. "The
crossings were not opened at all."

source 7 http://www.kabobfest.com/2009/01/white-phosphorous-israel-uses-chemical....

This stuff is an illegal, incendiary poison. It's being used right in front of our eyes in the most densely populated place on earth where greater than 50% are children. We probably manufactured it, and at the very least, we paid for it. This picture shows a white phosphorous shell exploding on the ground in Gaza.

The ADC has called for an investigation into the use of white phosphorous in Gaza by the Israeli army. According to this former Major in the British army,
If white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin.

p.s. imagine a muslim country such as Iran or Syria commiting such blatent disregard for international laws and commiting war crimes agaisnt jewish/christian survillians ?

I have no doubt they would be attacked by strong military action ...but since its israel who are doing it ...its still wrong but no one is gonna use military action against them , i wonder why???

you are equating Hamas to a physical body.

The support for Abbas has actually diminished in the West bank - even with the current actions happening. Hamas is on the rise and its support is from the indigenous population.

Not only that, but Abbas's presidential term in office has probably legally ended on the 9th of Jan, leaving Hamas as the only true representative of the people...

The thing is the current action has nothing to do with Hamas. They are the current bogeyman.

Before the bogeyman to peace was the coalition between Hamas and Fatah, before that it was Fatah, before that it was Yasser Arafat leading Fatah... as long as Israel does not want to give the Palestinians what they want, there will always one bogeyman or another.

As for Mahmoud Abbas - the question is how long hsi term was supposed to last. if it was a four year term (which si what he was elected for), then it ended on 9 January.

But he is arguing it was meant to last til the next parliamentary/legislative elections which are scheduled for next year.

In my opinion, Hamas or no Hamas, the current operation would have happened.

What the presence of Hamas has allowed to happen is relatively better treatment for people on the West Bank.

Israel denies banned weapons use

Medics in Gaza say latest casualties include at least 60 people affected by suspected phosphorus shells fired illegally near civilian areas.

An Israeli army spokeswoman strongly denied the report, saying all its munitions complied with the law.

An Israeli spokesman also denied Human Rights Watch allegations of multiple use of white phosphorus in the bombing.

Phosphorus shells are allowed to make smoke in battlefields. Their use where civilian may be harmed is prohibited.

Palestinian medics in Khan Younis said the Israelis fired phosphorus shells at Khouza, east of the southern city, killing a woman and causing at least 60 people to suffer gas inhalation and burns.

"These people were burned over their bodies in a way that can only be caused by white phosphorus," said Dr Yousef Abu Rish.

Human Rights Watch said its researches observed multiple shell-bursts of white phosphorus on 9 and 10 January near Gaza City and Jabaliya refugee camp.

There is no way to independently explain the contradiction between the Israeli military's denial and claims by Dr Abu Rish as well as other Palestinian doctors and HRW.

Israel has prevented international journalists from entering the Gaza Strip during its bombardment...

Read More @ BBC News

Why doesn't the EU suspend trade agreement with Israel? It had no problem doing something similar with Iran, so why not do the same to Israel? After all which is worse?

wednesday wrote:

Fatah and Hamas are completely different in terms of ideologies, logics and 'moves'. However, it is unlikely that both will give up on Palestine and Hamas IS going down. Israel is not going to back down now. It's too risky to give-up and form a deal while leaving Hamas half-dead. If it's gna die, it must stop breathing, and when you stop breathing, your circulation stops and after four minutes of no circulation, the oxygen deprived brain dies. (and it's gna be pretty ugly, no doubt about that)

If there is going to be any peace deals, they'll be BECAUSE Hamas doesn't exist and some other stuff.

(Or I may be speaking gibrish)

they've killed 1000 people for no reason whatsoever, theoir lie blaming 'Hamas' has been exposed by almost every media outlet including ones funded by them. support for the Hamas resistance movement will only in increase, they killed not even a percentage of the poulation they've wreaked havoc on.

remember the situation in 2006, people claimed Hezbollah were defeated whereas they'd comprehensively defeated the zionist scum. Hezbollah are stronger, Hamas support will increase, Iran will/should continue to expand its nuclear arms programme. if Gazans can be so brutally burnt wity phosphorus then so can israelis, their safe haven couldn't survive fireworks but brace themselves they better, the Intifada will be getting stronger.

A blinding flash of white light
Lit up the sky over Gaza tonight
People running for cover
Not knowing whether they're dead or alive

They came with their tanks and their planes
With ravaging fiery flames
And nothing remains
Just a voice rising up in the smoky haze

We will not go down
In the night, without a fight
You can burn up our mosques and our homes and our schools
But our spirit will never die
We will not go down
In Gaza tonight

Women and children alike
Murdered and massacred night after night
While the so-called leaders of countries afar
Debated on who's wrong or right

But their powerless words were in vain
And the bombs fell down like acid rain
But through the tears and the blood and the pain
You can still hear that voice through the smoky haze

We will not go down
In the night, without a fight
You can burn up our mosques and our homes and our schools
But our spirit will never die
We will not go down
In Gaza tonight

By Michael Heart

Israelis strike 60 Gaza targets

Israeli planes have attacked more than 60 targets in Gaza as its offensive against Hamas entered its 18th day.

The strikes came as Israeli troops advanced into the suburbs of Gaza City.

The head of the Red Cross accompanied a convoy of aid into Gaza during a three-hour ceasefire, during which witnesses said there was increased shelling.

Palestinians say more than 90,000 people have left their homes to escape the bombing. Militants, however, have kept up rocket attacks on Israel...

Read more and watch video at BBC News

I don't think it matters if they stay put or move - the place they are moving to, nor the journey itself is not necessarily safer.

And in a place where there is a history of those that leave during moments of conflict not being allowed back - it adds a further impetus to stay put.

As for the massacre term - it has a specific meaning of the wanton murder of a large number of people, but is also used in a political context when either enough care is not taken to avoid large numbers of casualties.

Because it doesn't justify the killing. It actually makes it all the worse, that Israel will stop at NOTHING to kill.