Antony Loewenstein, in his book,
"My Israel Question," tell us:

"One of the most effective means of media
control that the Israelis use is issuing
releases after an incident and then
restricting access to journalists trying
to get to the location of the event...

They (the Israeli Defense Force) just lie.
On their press releases, if we're talking
about incidents where the Israeli Defense
Force was alleged to have killed Palestinians,
or others, the first response is, 'we were
responding to terrorist gunfire in the area.
We have the right to self-defence.
(sound familiar). We can do this under
international law.' So then if a journalist
bothers to go there and actually interviews
people, someone like Amira Hass from "Haaretz",
a journalist who's basically doing their job,
and comes back and challenges them and actually
has convincing evidence, they're forced to
admit it. They'll say, 'Sorry about civilian
casualties but we're fighting a war on terror.'
But most of the time it doesn't get to the
second point, and so they have this culture
where they can just spin. Most of the
journalists based in Jerusalem are going to spin
this Israeli line because they simply aren't
bothering to go out and see these places."

Perhaps this time - the international
reporters won't accept the spin -
And the truth will come out.
Sooner than later.

Foxy,

It doesn't matter what effort anyone puts in does it? I could show you the relevant International Law, the San Remo, the Hague, even Helsinki, all of which go directly to the heart of the matter.

But it wouldn't matter would it? You are so convinced in the "wrongness" of Israel's actions that you are incapable of being swayed. Anything that is found to be true by an international inquiry, you'll conveniently ignore (take the Arab line, they are sure to ignore it too).

I can say this, when I started suggesting that Israel's actions were legal at the outset, none of the evidence now available was available. Something just didn't smell right about the whole setup (and setup it was) and having been a soldier I realise that using a pistol to shoot people is a recourse to a last resort. Soldiers don't use pistols except when things are B A D.

You refuse to be pinned to any one topic, you skip, hop and jump from one idiotic cliche to another, in order to "prove" your points with bullsit pseudo-intellectual garbage. A debate is not a debate without recourse to the rules of debating. You aren't the only one, but you are more intelligent than is the rule with trolls. That said, a troll is a troll and a waste of bandwidth to argue with.

Custard,
You can see now why Foxy, CJ Morgan, et al. get along so famously.
You say "a debate is not a debate without recourse to the rules of debating",
but they don't recognise any rules of debate or even reason itself.
They are, as you say, a complete waste of bandwidth, time and space.

spoken from my recliner near the fire....

//... what Proxy said// :)

Dear Custard,

One of the most remarkable aspects of the
whole Israel-Palestine debate is how
intense the rhetorical defence of Israel
becomes.

On the other hand, there is international
criticism over Israel's military aggression,
as Israel asserts its right of the Jewish
state to exist in Palestine while the Palestinian
people struggle, some peacefully, some violently,
for survival.

Far beyond Israel's disputed borders, in New York,
Washington, London, Paris, Sydney, Melbourne,
and on internet forums, the conflict is played
out in passionate public debate by Zionist
organisations, Arab advocates, newspaper columnists,
and individuals, presidents and prime ministers,
politcians and activists of all shades.

Those who dared to criticise Zionist wrongdoing
in the past, and Israeli policies and actions in
the present, will have false allegations thrown
at them. That's par for the course.

It will not however deter the asking of relevant
questions and the truth being told.

I have stated that I would be jubilant to see the outcome of an independent judicial inquiry. I believe that it will vindicate the IDF, based upon my experience as a soldier. Why do I defend the IDF, because I found it difficult, if not impossible, to believe the crud being spouted the other day. Trained, elite troops DO NOT carry on as alleged and the IDF is acknowledged as being the best.

You think otherwise... That is your right, which you will note I have not vilified? The fact of the matter is that the evidence I have seen to date, from both sides, bears little relation to the alleged actions of the IDF, it shows them doing PRECISELY what they have admitted doing. It shows the protesters doing precisely what they DENIED doing.

When one side is shown to be telling the truth & the other lies, it is kind of hard not to reach a provisional conclusion. I may still be proven wrong, a provisional conclusion is like that (and the IDF has done some bad things, breaking that kids arm that time for one), but in this case, the over the top hysteria without evidence and the disinformation campaign suggest otherwise.