49 thoughts on “Gaza War: Day 4, 99 Gazan Dead, Half Women and Children, Ground Invasion Imminent – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Isn’t the ID supposed to warn people in the houses before they blow it up? Call or drop leaflets? For shame.

  2. I am a bit confused between these, “Given what good relations exist between the two, surely his offer [cease fire] will be accepted.” and ” I’d look to July 12th being the day the invasion begins.”

    You mean, there will be an invasion according to you (and your source), but it probably won’t last long, is it?

  3. When I was 9 I had a younger cousin who was 6 who would constantly hit me, but I was always told by my parents and his parents that I musn’t hit back because I’m bigger and I might hurt him.
    His punches really hurt me but I listened to my parents (who didn’t understand how much pain I was suffering).
    Until one day I lost it – I walloped him and nearly hospitalised him.
    Boy did I get into trouble! Punishments galore.

    But you know what? He never hit me again/

    1. @ shmuel: Your cousin isn’t Hamas. Hitting Hamas is like hitting a bag of sand. You’re not hurting the Palestinian people & certainly not deterring Hamas. In the case of Hamas, the more you hit the more it will hit back.

    2. Well what a strange lesson of “Israeli Jewish” moral for us gentiles. If it is an stupid Israeli “analogy” to justify Gaza and what is done there, you should add to your metaphor, that you kept your six year old cousin in a small locked closet for his whole life, kept him thin and hungry plus forced your neighbors to pay for food and necessities for your cousin. Maybe with these additions even you and your kind begin to understand why your “six year old cousin” was hitting you.

      If your analog of big versus small should be taken seriously, I recommend, that you there in Israel begin fast ponder what means 5 million Jews in Israel (plus some 7-8 million elsewhere) against 450 million Arabs and 1.2 billion Muslims. The more you are kicking the bigger “cousin’s” leg (= Palestinians), the more certain it is that the big cousin will put “you” in the “hospital” (well in the Mediterranean sea in this case). Do Israeli Jews seriously believe they can continue like this endlessly so that the sleeping giant – the Arab and Muslim masses do not finally say ENOUGH in form that their leaders and USA can not avoid to obey. Do not then whine and ask for help when that unavoidable day will come.

      Israel is already the world’s fourth most negatively viewed country. With a new massacre in Gaza you will be on the top that list and hopefully Israel will become a enlarged Gaza. The ultimate Ghetto and people with whom nobody wants to be in contact.

      1. ” you should add to your metaphor, that you kept your six year old cousin in a small locked closet for his whole life, kept him thin and hungry plus forced your neighbors to pay for food and necessities for your cousin. Maybe with these additions even you and your kind begin to understand why your “six year old cousin” was hitting you.”

        And before you locked your cousin up you kicked him out of his house, and started to live there yourself.

        Still, Shmuel thinks his cousin was hitting him just like that, because he hated him for no reason.

        1. Yeah, Shmuel — why was the six year old hitting you? Why would a little six year old dare strike a bigger cousin in the first place? Alas, you were forced to wallop the kid. Anybody can understand that: After all, the pain you bore was so bad and for so long and, so unjust! You tried I’m sure talking with him and you surely tried imprisoning him and all the rest. You tried everything I am sure.

          I’d call Shmuel’s fable: “Self-Righteousness and the Bad Child: A Moral Entertainment.”

          Is there any evidence that killing Palestinians changes the status quo, eliminates the rockets etc.?? Any evidence?

  4. ” Israel is claiming that 27% of Palestinian rockets have been intercepted and that its success rate is 90%”

    One thing I’d like to know is exactly how many of those Palestinian rockets actually HAVE explosive warheads.

    I suspect that the much longer ranges we are seeing this time around were obtained by the simple expedient of removing the warheads to reduce the weight of the rocket.

    In which case it’s pretty much immaterial whether Iron Dome hits the missile or misses it, precisely because there was never going to be a BIG BANG! when the rocket hit the ground.

    And, of course, everything depends on how far out the intercept is, since striking an unguided rocket that’s directly overhead is not different than missing an unguided rocket that’s directly overhead; either way, it’s going to fall on your head.

    1. Yes, that’s what I claimed earlier. The smallest rockets have higher ration of cargo/fuel, since they are supposed to fly a shorter path. Not carrying anything should increase the range. I am not sure how much though…

      The rockets from Iran can hardly be used as they should, since it would mean importing a large quantity of explosives, while al Qassam fuel is made by fertilizer and sugar, which are mostly used for crops and as a staple item, respectively. The ratio of cargo/fuel is lower in this case. With a lower impulse, it should barely carry any cargo.

  5. The reason for the invasion is nothing to do with the publicly stated reasons. My hypothesis is that Israel wants the oil off the Gazan shore. How can it do that ‘legitimately’? Reclaim a narrow strip of land between the sea and Gaza, place troops there and construct an extension of the ‘separation wall’. This would be justified after the event by claiming it is to stop Iran shipping in missiles to Hamas (which is a fabrication anyway). One added advantage is that it would deprive Palestinians of possibly the only freedom and pleasure left to them – enjoying being by the sea. This would increase psychological pressure for the Gazans to ‘voluntarily’ leave Gaza. To help this happen, the barrier on the south would be left open. Any weaponry smuggled in would be justification for further reduction of land area available to the Gazans. Does this sound sufficiently cynical to represent what the Israeli government would like to do?

    1. Yonatan wrote: “This would be justified after the event by claiming it is to stop Iran shipping in missiles to Hamas (which is a fabrication anyway).”

      Iran doesn’t need to ship actual Fajr-5 missiles to Gaza. They can just tell them how to make them as per this report from the Guardian:
      “The commander of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards has publicly admitted that his forces supplied the Islamic militant group Hamas with the knowhow to develop Fajr-5 missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv.

      “We haven’t sent any weapons to Gaza because it is under blockade,” Mohammad Ali Jafari was quoted as saying by Iran’s Young Journalists Club news agency on Wednesday. “But we are honoured to announce that we gave them the technology of how to make Fajr-5 missiles and now they have their hands on plenty of them.””

      The rest of your scenario is so off the wall (as well as totally unsubstantiated) that I can’t even be bothered to respond beyond this.

      1. I agree. The motive is political, to make Jews once more the victim and to distract attention from racist murderers operating outside the military. It is an effort to legitimize racist murder.

  6. “Hamas’ Interior Ministry has ordered residents of the Gaza Strip to remain in their houses if they are about to be bombed by the Israelis, a move that effectively turns citizens into human shields and is intentionally meant to boost the casualty rate, according to a copy of the order published by Hamas.

    Israel warns Gaza residents of air strikes before they take place so innocent civilians have time to flee and seek shelter.” -Washington Post

    1. @ Citizen of the World: I think that’s wrong. The real message was: “Residents of Gaza, leave your homes. They are not safe. Flock to the streets and wave banners of Hamas and wait for martyrdom!” Yup, I’ve just confirmed this. No way did Hamas tell residents to take refuge in their homes, the only place that provides any protection for them.

      I swear, if I keep reading such heartless bullshit I’m either going to tear my hair out or ignore it & not publish it at all. As it is, I’m only publishing a representative sampling of the crap they’re trying to peddle/publish here.

      Where oh where are these residents who are warned to leave their homes supposed to “seek shelter?” In those bomb shelters donated by Israel & the international community? Look, don’t try to publish bullshit here. I have no patience for it.

      1. I am so glad you do that kind of sifting. I for one appreciate it. From what does get published here, I can see that you let a lot in anyway. (And start moderating after that.).
        The heartlessness of many comments at other websites is really devastating. One or two of that is enough to know that such views exist and are prevalent, but it is horrible to have to wade through such filth.

      2. If it doesn’t line up with your opinion, it doesn’t make it wrong..
        “Yup, I’ve just confirmed this” – Can you back it up? There are enough videos that confirm what I wrote (or copied from Washingto Post in this case).
        You don’t have to publish my comments, but won’t it make the commenting in your one sided blog worthless? Unless you just seek some support of people that love to shut their eyes and ignore the other side (those people are the enemies of any possible peace process, which I still hope will take place)

        1. @ Citizen of the World: I do so love the hasbara crowd who crow about censorship and the one-sided discourse here w/o taking into account that they are free to speak along with thousands of other pro-Israel commenters before them. As for my blog being worthless, if you believe that you’re welcome to stop wasting your time at a place in which you find no worth.

          As long as you see Hamas and Gazans as “the enemies of peace” you will have endless war. Good luck with that.

          1. I, for one, would appreciate your allowing the publication of “bullshit.” Your taking it seriously and responding to it intelligently is important and far more useful than pretending it doesn’t exist. If you aren’t interested in countering the bullshit, you might as well put up your last post, “The Palestinians are Right” and call it a day.

          2. @ Elisha: If you’d been responding to this so-called “bullshit” for as many years as I have, reading the same comments over & over, you’d feel differently about it, I guarantee. As it is I’m approving only the least offensive, least mean-spirited pro-Israel comments. There’s a lot of pro Israel dreck on the cutting room floor.

          3. So, your real goal is a monolog, not a dialog?, Using the word “hasbara” as a negative is your problem. I hope you know what does this word mean. I’m proud when you call me Hasbara..
            I’d like you to show me where did I say that Gazans are “the enemies of peace”…
            If you hate Israel, just say it.. Wish us death and wear on an exploding jacket.. People like you encourage these acts..

  7. I’m confused, yesterday you’ve reported 13 dead children and ten dead women, out of a total sum of 72 killed. Today the number stands at 49-50 (half) out of 99 total casulties. Those numbers don’t add up, even if the IDF has murdered only civilians today.

    1. @ Natan: So what you’re claiming is that 2 days ago the rate of women and children killed was one-third of all Gazan dead; and you don’t believe that percentage could’ve climbed to 1/2 in one day? First of all, why are you carping about something as stupid and petty as this? Second of all, did you fail math in school or are you deliberately being dense? Third of all, the number of children killed was 18, not 13 (if I recall correctly). Fourth of all, the number of dead children & women could easily have climbed from 28 one day to 45 the next. Fifth of all, get real. This sort of comment is heartless & really tries my patience.

  8. “If the world community allows Israel to escape any accounting for its actions, it will make a mockery of the whole notion of international law”.

    Richard I would argue that the notion of international law is already comical. Israel aside all the various violations committed daily by the international community and the almost complete lack enforcement would suggest to me that the mockery was attempting to make “international” law in the first place.

    1. International law is a very different beast to domestic law, and very, very, very different to domestic criminal law.

      Think of it this way: international law is the codification of Rules Of Conduct for states, especially in their interaction with each other.

      It therefore seldom pretends to have an “enforcement regime” but, rather, it aims to be the codification of the difference between what is the **legal** path of international behaviour and what is the **expedient** path of international behaviour.

      So for most of international law (there are exceptions, of course) the disincentive for choosing expediency over legality isn’t some “fear of enforcement” i.e. some fear that the “international police” will come knocking on the door.

      The choice is actually this: to choice the **legal** way is to bring a tiny bit more order to the world, while choosing the **expedient** way brings a touch more disorder to the world, and most countries (not all, but most) value order above disorder.

      But some countries *cough* Israel *cough* simply don’t care. Expediency rules, and if that leads to disorder, well, there are opportunities to be had amongst the resulting chaos.

      But that choice (and make no mistake, Israel CHOOSES to act that way) doesn’t debunk or devalue international law.

      It simply highlights that some countries are ruled by rogues, scoundrels, spivs and crooks. Regimes that can’t look past their immediate need for instant self-gratification, and to hell with everyone else.

      You know, countries like Israel….

      1. @You misunderstand,

        There are what 195-196 countries on earth?

        I would bet my bottom dollar that the list is longer on the side of “expediency” countries then “legal” countries… infact I bet its not even close.

        I am not saying the morals behind international law are not merited when infact they are. but if you only point out one country constantly for its violations it looses all meaning and effect.
        I just feel with the way the world works the concept of international law is currently superfluous and only really useful when used by lobbyists for talking points on 24 hour news channels.

        1. @ ben: Who is “pointing out one country constantly for its violations” of international law? There are many countries who have faced and are threatened with facing international law. Israel is by no means the only one. You betray myopia.

        2. ben, you are misunderstanding my post.

          Read it again and you’ll see that I pointed out that international law (note the “INTER-nation” part) is the codification of conduct BETWEEN states.

          I don’t dispute that lots of countries are ruled by rogues, scoundrels, spivs and crooks with respect to how they treat their OWN people. Assad of Syria is a classic example.

          But how a despot treats (or mistreats) his OWN people is not of very much interest to International Law, which is (have I mentioned this before? I think I have) the codification of behaviour between states.

          Now, has Syria under Assad launched a single attack on Israel?
          Answer: No.

          Has Israel under Netanyahu launched attacks on Syria?
          Answer: Oh, boy, has he ever.

          See the difference? Even a despot like Assad – a thoroughly nasty bit of work, and no denying it – doesn’t go Whammer Bammer!!!!! on the neighbours. But Netanyahu certainly does, and often.

          International Law. Look it up, you might learn something.

      2. @you understand: which countries in your opinion are examples of those who staunchly uphold international law, especially in security related issues?
        The Cayman Islands are probably the best example.
        All veto members of the security council break just about every international law on the books, especially those concerning security and human rights…

        1. @ Shmuel: You have a point. But however annoying this must be to you, no other country in the world is as small as Israel, but in a position to ignite an entire region in flames. So the fact that Israel is not the U.S., but still may wreak havoc on the entire Mideast, certainly draws the attention of the rest of the world. So no matter what you may think about this, Israel will be held to a standard of international law. Perhaps if you were the U.S., you could get away with the mayhem you perpetrate. And it’s certainly unjust that someone like Obama and previous presidents can traipse around the world and create such havoc themselves without paying a price for it. But you’re in no position to force your will on the entire world, much as you may think you can.

          This is a cold, hard brutal fact. Personally, I wish our presidents would be held accountable. But they’re too powerful. Israel, on the other hand, isn’t.

        2. Shmuel: “which countries in your opinion are examples of those who staunchly uphold international law, especially in security related issues?”

          Well, let’s look at some examples, shall we?

          The USA launched an invasion of Iraq in 2003. That invasion was, in my opinion, completely illegal under international law (note that George W Bush at least attempted to “legalize” it by pointing to prior UN Resolutions), but following that attack the US Army imposed its authority on Iraq i.e. it established a belligerent occupation.

          Now, I’d like you to answer these fairly simple questions:

          Q1: Did the USA start colonizing Iraq?
          Q2: Did the USA insist of putting its own civilians in harms way inside Iraq?
          Q3: Did the USA launch massive bombing raids on Syria or Iran because of cross-border terrorism?
          Q4: Did the USA insist that it HAD to stay even after failing to negotiate a Status of Force agreement?

          The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the USA was an illegal rush-of-blood to the head of a brainless US President, but even **he** didn’t treat the Iraqis the way that Israel has been treating the Palestinians for the last 40 decades.

          Think about that: even a nation that is infinitely more powerful than Israel doesn’t treat an occupied people the way that Israel is treating the Palestinians.

          1. International law is not just looking at Israel’s alleged breaches but loo longing at an overview of how countries relate to it, mainly in its breach.
            Also international law is not ‘between countries’ as you claim. It also and very much so regulates how countries ought to treat its own such as human rights, gay rights, women’s rights, religious rights, etc.
            see how British courts review it’s own cases in accordance with European law.
            Of course USA didn’t colonialism Iraq as they had no claim to it as it’s homeland but rather wanted economic or other geopolitical problems solved.
            And of course the security council intervenes against Syria for how it treats it’s own people or how former Yugoslavia treated its own people and NATO even intervened.
            So please answer – which is your favorite example of a country who staunchly supports international law?

            Or do you misunderstand like yr name?

          2. Schmuel: “Also international law is not ‘between countries’ as you claim. ”

            OK, I’ll point out one more time that what we are talking about is something that is called “international law”.

            I’ll now ask Schmuel to mull the meaning of the words “inter” and “nation”.

            Schmuel: “It also and very much so regulates how countries ought to treat its own such as human rights, gay rights, women’s rights, religious rights, etc.”

            No, actually, it doesn’t very much at all, though it is heading tentatively in that direction.

            The problem with your argument is that states are “sovereign” i.e. they are supreme within their own borders.

            States can’t be “sovereign” and still be “regulated” with respect to how the state treats its own citizens, precisely because that is a contradiction in terms.

            But states can’t claim “sovereign rights” in their interaction BETWEEN them and other states, precisely because the “other state” isn’t subject to “your sovereignty” but, rather, to “their sovereignty”.

            An accommodation therefore has to be reached, and that accommodation is what we call “international law”.

            But unless the state is committing genocide or apartheid or slavery or some other of the universally-abhorred “crimes against humanity” then that state can treat its OWN citizens in any way it wants, and that has been true ever since the Treaty of Westphalia.

            This is all news to you, is it?
            How odd, since the Treaty of Westphalia dates from the 17th century.

        1. Exactly. International law is normative. It relies on the nations of the world voluntarily working within a known set of rules and customs.

          That doesn’t mean that all countries act that way in their interaction with other countries.

          The great majority do, because it is in their interests to do so.

          Some don’t, and we call them “rogue states”.

          Israel is one of those “rogue states”, but it refuses to accept that this is so i.e. Israel insists that the way that it is behaving is “normal”, and anyone who says otherwise is merely “anti-Semitic”.

  9. Richard: doesn’t Israel rely on Hamas to reign in the more extremist groups in Gaza? If Israel destroys Hamas, something much worse will take the reign, I imagine.

    I hear that out of the 70 rockets lobbed at Israel, Iron Dome stopped only 8. Not a very good batting average, if true.

    1. @ RD Sultan.

      “I hear that out of the 70 rockets lobbed at Israel, Iron Dome stopped only 8. Not a very good batting average, if true”.

      From what understand The Iron Dome system analyses the trajectory of the incoming rocket/mortar and if its going to hit a residential area they attempt to shoot it down but if the rocket/mortar is going to hit a open field they let it pass as it cost $20 000 usd per iron dome interceptor.

      Now Richard has claimed that the accuracy is much lower for the Iron dome then claimed by the IDF which may be true. I am not sure. Though i am pretty sure the Interceptor is better at shooting down rockets then motors which is why the IDF is developing the Iron Beam which is a Laser which will not have the same difficulties in shooting down smaller arms.

    2. 70 rockets? Yesterday alone there were at least 170 rockets fired by Hamas. Where do you get your statistics?
      Also you can see videos of iron dome working on home videos all day long on Israel TV. It may have had teething trouble but now is working pretty well.

        1. As the famous Monty Python song declaims: ‘my god is bigger than your god’
          Any other theory will lead rightly so to moderation here

          1. Shmuel, my theory would be that one of the two parties gets a lot of outside help (both financially and technologically) and therefore has a far better military, and that the same party is far more affluent than the other, and therefore has the resources (and the space!) to provide bomb shelters for the civilian population.

            Do you really think that the only other explanation could be racism? (What other gounds of being banned here could you hint at?)

            If the explanation would involve racism, what kind are you thinking of?

            One of the two people involved worships death and has policies that increase the number of causalties?
            One of the two people involved is more intelligent than the other, and is better at making and launching rockets /boms?
            Any other ideas?

            I am really curious.

  10. Killing 110?, and counting, Palestinians as retaliation for criminals killing 3 jewish teens in Palestine. Seems pretty unproportional. As if the US started bombing Canada when 3 US citizens are killed by gangsters while on holiday in Canada.

    1. @Markus

      You might consider the fact that rockets began being launched at Israel from Gaza during the search for the boys.

      Israel is not retaliating for the murders, but for the rocket fire, which violates the truce it had had with Hamas since 2012.

      1. @ Blue Moon:

        …Rockets began being launched at Israel from Gaza during the search for the boys.

        Precisely, the rockets began during the pogrom that you call a “search for the boys.” The so-called “search” wasn’t that at all. The IDF knew the boys were dead, they just didn’t know where their bodies were buried. The IDF instigated a pogrom in the West Bank in revenge for the kidnapping and murders. In response to the pogrom, rockets were launched at Israel.

        Truce? What truce? You mean the “truce” Israel violates whenever it wishes? The “truce” that brings targeted killings on a regular basis? The “truce” that continues Israel’s siege against Gaza? That “truce?”

        1. Okay Richard.

          Assuming Israel believed the boys were already dead, why should the search for the killers be any less vigilant than the search for the victims?

          1. @ Blue Moon: Even Israel conceded almost none of the 500 arrests were related to the actual crime. The 7 dead Palesitnians certainly didn’t contribute to solving the crime. Nor did the thousands of ransacked West Bank homes. This was sheer revenge not crime solving. You know it. So stop being a poseur/hasbarist.

  11. Ludicrous mass media reports are filling the airwaves in the US. ABC News reports that the “reason” the casualty ratios are so distorted is Iron Dome! Of course, these ratios were ridiculous before Iron Dome was ever a gleam in some entrepreneur’s eye. The suggestion, however, gives the appearance that, but for Iron Dome, the ratios would be much less distorted, i.e. the sides would be somewhat more evenly matched. This is disingenuous hasbara at its most nauseating. The whole gist of reporting is that there is a two-sided conflict now with armories and combatants on both sides, just as though there is an Hamas Air Force, Tank Brigade and armored units operating in the “theater.” This is obscene as we all know that it is plain murder: Jews are killing Palestinians in a variety of ways.

    Then there is CNN showing Wolf Blitzer running for an air raid shelter in Tel Aviv, a rare comical look at that Zionist toddy. I wonder how many times they had to rehearse the scampering about.

    I despair that the framing of a “war”, a legitimate two-sided conflict, is largely accepted by my neighbors, neighbors who don’t actually ask questions or seek answers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link