Anonymous wrote:You are right. IDF is much better trained.

Indeed.

(can't seem to embed video today)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLJpjV0RhLg

Anonymous wrote:And here's the response from TOI that was just published on the unacceptable post.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/times-of-israel-removes-an-unacceptable-blog-post/

That explanation seems pretty straightforward. But, TOI appears to have a bit more work to do. Another one of their bloggers appears to have the same idea, but just a different vocabulary:

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/1-samuel-1518/

"G-d might be meant to illustrate that voice of the people-the vox populi. In this case, G-d had demanded that Saul (or the “prime minister”) enter into battle with the Amalekites (Hamas and its savage partners) and destroy them utterly even if that means to the last child, cow and goat. As cruel as this appears, it is a lesson that teaches a nation in terrible danger that it has a legitimate obligation to put a definite end to a substantial threat. The end of such a conflict must make it impossible for that enemy to rebuild and continue to vex one’s nation forever."
...
"Saul refuses to kill Agag, the king of the Amalekites. In his disobedience, his defying of G-d, is equivalent to our present leadership attempting to fight Hamas while refusing to employ the means to destroy it entirely. "
...
"It’s time to take heed of the words of the L-rd, it is time to do what the people of Israel demand, it is time to kill Agag."

Anonymous wrote:It's actually a great piece that asks an important question. Let's look at Clinton. He refused to take out Bin Laden because it would cause civilian casualties in another country. What Clinton forgot is his job is to protect the citizens of THIS country. Judging by September 11th, he did not. We lost 2,000 of our own that day.

He has proven Netanyahu correct.

Clinton didn't forget anything. They didn't even have proof that he orchestrated the Cole.

I'm the earlier pp who criticized Jeff. This is a lesson for all of us. This tragedy has many people on edge. I think we can all benefit from taking a breath.

And here's the response from TOI that was just published on the unacceptable post.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/times-of-israel-removes-an-unacceptable-blog-post/

Just as an FYI, that article on genocide was on the blog page which is unmoderated. Any crazy person can post anything, and clearly did. It was not sanctioned by the paper or any editor.

I support Israel but found the article abhorrent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we start posting the inflammatory Arab and Palestinian articles out there on killing Jews and Israelis? It's pretty easy to get. They are everywhere. The TOI piece is bad, and was appropriately taken down soon after it went up. If you saw in the comments, it was Jews and Israelis that were inflamed by this piece and demanded that TOI take it down.

But were they inflamed by the suggestion that wiping out Gaza was an appropriate response to Hamas, or by the characterization of such a course of an action as a permissible "genocide"?

It would seem the latter reflects the desire to preserve the position that Israel could never engage in genocide, while still accepting the inflicting of massive casualties primarily on civilians in Gaza. To many others, however, the actions of Israel right now speak for themselves.

If Israel could attack just the militants, they would. But, the militants do not wear uniforms. They blend in with the surrounding people, even taking refuge along side the innocent. The situation is certainly unjust. But by both sides.

Anonymous wrote:Shall we start posting the inflammatory Arab and Palestinian articles out there on killing Jews and Israelis? It's pretty easy to get. They are everywhere. The TOI piece is bad, and was appropriately taken down soon after it went up. If you saw in the comments, it was Jews and Israelis that were inflamed by this piece and demanded that TOI take it down.

But were they inflamed by the suggestion that wiping out Gaza was an appropriate response to Hamas, or by the characterization of such a course of an action as a permissible "genocide"?

It would seem the latter reflects the desire to preserve the position that Israel could never engage in genocide, while still accepting the inflicting of massive casualties primarily on civilians in Gaza. To many others, however, the actions of Israel right now speak for themselves.

It's actually a great piece that asks an important question. Let's look at Clinton. He refused to take out Bin Laden because it would cause civilian casualties in another country. What Clinton forgot is his job is to protect the citizens of THIS country. Judging by September 11th, he did not. We lost 2,000 of our own that day.

He has proven Netanyahu correct.

Shall we start posting the inflammatory Arab and Palestinian articles out there on killing Jews and Israelis? It's pretty easy to get. They are everywhere. The TOI piece is bad, and was appropriately taken down soon after it went up. If you saw in the comments, it was Jews and Israelis that were inflamed by this piece and demanded that TOI take it down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The Times of Israel published an Op-Ed on it's website with the headline, "When Genocide is Permissible":



The article was subsequently removed. But, can you imagine the uproar if a Palestinian had written such a thing on a respected news website?

Without being able to read the article, posting that is purely inflammatory. It serves more other purpose. I hope you realize that.

There are bad Israelis. There are bad Palestinians....there are even bad Americans. One person with an opinion does not mean that all of the Israelis agree. Most do not. The Israelis I know are all moral people. They will fight for their country (mostly), but do not want to harm people. Some of these people are my cousins. I know them quite well. The child of one cousin is directly involved in the war. These kids are no different than american soldiers....except they are fighting 50 miles from home, not 10000 miles....

Many Israeli soldiers seem quite young, but often exceedingly brutal. Their treatment of Palestinians is highly repressive. It's not a bunch of friendly Yanks handing out candy to the local kids.

You are right. IDF is much better trained.

Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
The Times of Israel published an Op-Ed on it's website with the headline, "When Genocide is Permissible":



The article was subsequently removed. But, can you imagine the uproar if a Palestinian had written such a thing on a respected news website?


Without being able to read the article, posting that is purely inflammatory. It serves more other purpose. I hope you realize that.


There are bad Israelis. There are bad Palestinians....there are even bad Americans. One person with an opinion does not mean that all of the Israelis agree. Most do not. The Israelis I know are all moral people. They will fight for their country (mostly), but do not want to harm people. Some of these people are my cousins. I know them quite well. The child of one cousin is directly involved in the war. These kids are no different than american soldiers....except they are fighting 50 miles from home, not 10000 miles....

Do not equate the IDF to the US Armed Forces.

Muslima wrote:The death toll of the 25-day old war is over 1,450 Palestinians, mainly civilians, and 61 Israelis, mainly soldiers. But Gordon claims that the Gazan residents cannot be considered civilians because they live "with rocket launchers installed or terror tunnels burrowed in or around the vicinity of their home".

The article, though deleted can be read here :

https://archive.today/RPf3M

The failure in his premise is the residents of Gaza are not civilized is false. The problem is the Hamas militias store and launch the munitions ammo amounts the population.

What a monstrous piece.