Trending Topics:

State Dep’t report on latest Gaza onslaught itemizes children’s deaths for first time

on 48 Comments

US News & World Report says that the State Department report on international terrorism released Friday includes a subtle shift in its reporting on Israel: it includes UN estimates of civilian killings in Gaza, which State failed to itemize in years gone by.

In an article titled, “Does the State Department Terror Report Contain a Subtle Slap at Israel?” Matthew Cella of US News contrasts several reports by the State Department, beginning with a quotation from page 172 of the one released last week. Here’s the quote:

“According to publicly available data, the conflict [in summer 2014] led to the deaths of 2,205 Palestinians and 74 persons in Israel, among them 67 soldiers, six Israeli civilians, and one Thai civilian. The Israeli government estimated that half of those killed in Gaza were civilians and half were combatants, while the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) recorded 1,483 civilian Palestinian deaths – more than two-thirds of those killed – including 521 children and 283 women.”

Matthew Cella

Matthew Cella

Cella observes:

While unremarkable on its face, the disparity between figures reported by the Israeli government and figures compiled by the U.N. was highly unusual, as was the inclusion of a breakdown of civilian casualties – particularly women and children – among the Palestinians.

Consider the overview in the same State Department report in 2009, the first produced under the Obama administration. That document outlined the beginnings of the 22-day military campaign called Operation Cast Lead that started on Dec. 27 – but it did so with far less detail.

“By some reports, Israeli military operations in 2008 killed an estimated 782 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, including at least 315 by year’s end as a result of Israeli Air Force (IAF) airstrikes.”

The next year, the administration in its overview detailed even less about Palestinian casualties in the conflict.

“On January 3, Israeli forces launched a ground invasion. Hostilities between Israeli forces and HAMAS militants continued through January 18, and the Israeli withdrawal of troops was completed on January 21,” the 2010 report said. “Israeli officials believed Operation Cast Lead helped achieve a level of deterrence, as rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza dropped precipitously following the conflict.”

So State did not itemize these killings from Cast Lead, in 2008-3009– when Israel killed 1391 Palestinians, 344 of them children, 110 of them women, according to B’Tselem.

Cella goes from slap to jab on twitter: “Was Obama admin jabbing #Israel by including Palestinian civilian casualty # in terror report?”

I’d emphasize that these numbers are published in the context of Israel’s battle with terrorist organizations, per the State Department. It’s not calling Israel a terrorist. But Cella speculates that the change in these accounting methods is an “unusual implied criticism of Israel” and maybe even an indication that U.S. policy is shifting. Yes I know, a mere tremor. About 2 on the Richter scale. A straw in the wind. But we’ll take it.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

48 Responses

  1. rensanceman on June 21, 2015, 12:48 pm

    To feature this as a sign that the winds are changing is sad as it subtly underlines the reality that the institutions that are crucial in maintaining the Zionist power structure will only not cede their influence easily. I believe the State department is heavily represented by Zionist sympathizers and some with dual citizenships. And then to read about Kerry making over 50 calls to lobby against Palestinian statehood at the U.N. serves to reinforce that belief.

    A really disturbing development last week is also relevant. JVP has instructed its staff and other leaders to shun Alison Weir of ‘If Americans Knew” . I have heard her speak and follow her work. She is dedicated to bringing justice to the Palestinians along with exposing the insidious and pernicious influence of AIPAC and its undue influence in our government. I have cancelled my membership in this organization which apparently has Zionist in its leadership, which is very problematic.

    • Citizen on June 21, 2015, 1:27 pm

      Yes. Any objective person who has followed Alison Weir and her web site If Americans Only Knew, knows she is a US patriot and top notch Humanist devoted to informing the US public regarding the US-Israel “special relationship” with information they won’t get from our main stream media. Here, Ms Weir responds to the McCarthyite tactics used against her by JVP: http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/06/19/alison-weir-replies-to-jvp-leaders-mccarthy-like-attacks/

    • wondering jew on June 21, 2015, 4:34 pm

      rensanceman writes, “I believe the State department is heavily represented by Zionist sympathizers and some with dual citizenships.”
      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments#sthash.TCHjEI7d.dpuf

      I would think that this is similar to internet rumors about bernie sanders which this web site eschewed. I assume that this rumor mongering passage got past the gatekeepers here by mistake.

      • Kris on June 21, 2015, 5:58 pm

        yonah fredman:

        “rensanceman writes, “I believe the State department is heavily represented by Zionist sympathizers and some with dual citizenships.”

        Maybe you should also have included the next sentence rensanceman wrote:

        “And then to read about Kerry making over 50 calls to lobby against Palestinian statehood at the U.N. serves to reinforce that belief. “

        You might want to read this article, by Ambassador Andrew I. Killgore, who had a long and distinguished career with the U.S. State Dept., “How Zionists Outmaneuvered and Replaced State Department Experts: A Brief History of US-Israel Relations,” here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/04/a-brief-history-of-us-israel-relations/

        Ambassador Killgore writes:

        Now that Israel has been around for more than 60 years and its virtues are sung in the American media, it is easy to forget, or not even to have heard, that the country is extremely adverse to American national interests and its policies enormously destructive and dangerous to America’s well-being. Thus Alison Weir must be highly commended for throwing such a brilliantly hard light on the relationship between the United States and Israel. I hope this marvelous book ((Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel)) gets all the attention it deserves.

        rensanceman is hardly “rumor mongering.” We should demand that dual-citizens of any kind not be allowed to hold positions in the U.S. government.

      • JLewisDickerson on June 21, 2015, 8:10 pm

        RE: “I believe the State department is heavily represented by Zionist sympathizers and some with dual citizenships.” ~ rensanceman

        SEE:

        • Bill Kristol celebrates Republican Party purge of ‘oldfashioned Arabists’ Scowcroft, Baker and Bush I – http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/bill-kristol-celebrates-republican-party-purge-of-oldfashioned-arabist-realists-scowcroft-baker-and-bush-i

        • How Bill Kristol Purged the Arabists – Antiwar.com – http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2012/05/28/how-bill-kristol-purged-the-arabists/

      • wondering jew on June 21, 2015, 8:36 pm

        To me it sounds like a senator from Wisconsin waving a piece of paper, “I have a list of 57 Zionists with dual citizenship working at the state department.”

      • Kris on June 21, 2015, 10:33 pm

        yonah fredman:

        To me it sounds like a senator from Wisconsin waving a piece of paper, “I have a list of 57 Zionists with dual citizenship working at the state department.”

        To me it sounds like sensible policy. Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=McCarthyism :

        “McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.”

        How would preventing dual-citizens from serving in sensitive government positions be McCarthyism?

      • Sibiriak on June 22, 2015, 12:12 am

        yonah fredman: I assume that this rumor mongering passage got past the gatekeepers here by mistake.

        kris: rensanceman is hardly “rumor mongering.” We should demand that dual-citizens of any kind not be allowed to hold positions in the U.S. government.
        ——————————–

        The issue wasn’t policy regarding dual-citizenship; it was this specific statement:

        I believe the State department is heavily represented by Zionist sympathizers and some with dual citizenships.

        That there are a lot of “Zionist sympathizers” in the State department seems uncontroversial to me. Sympathy for Zionism is for all intents and purposes official U.S. policy.

        But the claim that there are “some with dual citizenships”, while likely true, is way too vague and unsubstantiated to be useful, imo. If it’s only a very small number, their existence is inconsequential, no matter what you think of dual-citizenship. On the other hand, if there are many with dual-citizenship, that fact needs to be substantiated with some kind of concrete evidence and numbers–otherwise, it is indeed just “rumor mongering”, as Yonah put it.

      • wondering jew on June 22, 2015, 2:09 am

        Kris- There is nothing wrong with a policy against dual citizenship in the state department. There is something wrong with inferring that this is a real problem without any evidence.

      • pdlane on June 22, 2015, 8:33 am

        Minor point… Dual citizenship would cause the individual to loose their State Dept. security clearance…. while being a sympathizer would not affect the clearance.

      • Kris on June 22, 2015, 12:32 pm

        @yonah: “Kris- There is nothing wrong with a policy against dual citizenship in the state department. There is something wrong with inferring that this is a real problem without any evidence.”

        Spying by Israel is a real problem, yonah (see “Israel’s Aggressive Spying in the U.S. Mostly Hushed Up” http://www.newsweek.com/israels-aggressive-spying-us-mostly-hushed-250278 and “Israel Won’t Stop Spying on the U.S.” http://www.newsweek.com/israel-wont-stop-spying-us-249757

      • Kris on June 23, 2015, 3:04 pm

        @sibiriak: “But the claim that there are “some with dual citizenships”, while likely true, is way too vague and unsubstantiated to be useful, imo. If it’s only a very small number, their existence is inconsequential, no matter what you think of dual-citizenship.”

        Whether or not the presence of dual-citizens in government is “inconsequential” does not depend on how many there are, it depends on the influence, power, and access to sensitive information they have. That is why there should be a no-dual-citizens policy for employment by the government.

        At the very least, all dual-citizens employed by the federal government should be identified and denied security clearances.

      • just on June 23, 2015, 3:34 pm

        +1, Kris!

        Dermer and Oren had to renounce their US citizenship to further serve Israel.

        (I happen to believe that dual citizens who choose to serve in the IOF should also give up their US citizenship…)

      • RockyMissouri on June 23, 2015, 7:53 pm

        EXACTLY.!!

    • on June 21, 2015, 5:06 pm

      I was in JVP for a while a few years ago. Better than J Street — but still not for real.

    • ritzl on June 21, 2015, 6:39 pm

      REALLY disturbing, rensanceman. And Max Blumenthal concurs. Max is doubly disturbing because one of the smears JVP used against AW/IDK is EXACTLY the same smear used against Blumenthal after those murders at the JCC in Kansas(?) — that the murderer cited him a few times in his writings. Bizarre.

      Too off topic to go on, but I feel a top-to-bottom personal rethink coming on.

      • W.Jones on June 21, 2015, 8:05 pm

        Too off topic to go on, but I feel a top-to-bottom personal rethink coming on.
        You can tell us more about this.

        On Weir:
        https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/610804112104529921
        “Just because the Israel lobby relies on fake anti-Semitism charges doesn’t mean we can’t drum bigots out of our ranks ” – MB

        “sorry, their problem is that she consorts with bigots, not that she is one.” -One of the commentors.

      • ritzl on June 22, 2015, 1:00 am

        Hi WJ. The rethink is along the lines of people who would do this to someone as dedicated and tireless and inclusive as Allison Weir are not really interested in justice for Palestinians — certainly not as a first principal and maybe not at all.

        Or alternately, justice for Palestinians is immediately sacrificial in pursuit of some other more theoretical, ill-/narrowly-defined, and/or unstated goal. To me that’s just not the basis for a stable alliance/relationship.

        I’m still a bit in shock about this. Allison Weir, ffs.

        As to the JVP allegations and Weir’s response, her words (people can make up their own mind): http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show?8e4vt–4ftpq-95ez5c8&_v=2

        The tell to me was that there was apparently no complaint when she appeared on equally racist Zionist radio talk shows to get her message out.

        It’s a f’d up situation. I just happened to run across it elsewhere.

      • ritzl on June 22, 2015, 11:24 am

        Err, “first principle…” Hi Ho.

      • W.Jones on June 22, 2015, 11:49 am

        Hi Ritzl.

        Obviously, the fact that she appeared on Douglas’ show could be criticized, but Pappe’s appearance on it too means that it’s not the real issue. And obviously, she is not driven by antisemitism but by the fact that she is a journalist who likes issues that are avoided in the media, which was her explanation.

        My guess is that some people in JVP particularly don’t like it that she talks about the lobby. Stephen Zunes and Chomsky(a JVP leader) have gone out of the way to downplay the lobby. But it’s just logical that a lobby exists, just like on any major issue. So journalists should cover it too.

        You said you want to reassess people’s motives. But Chomsky already said his motives were personal. I am sure that generally he, like JVP, is sincere about helping Palestinians. But just because someone is sincere doesn’t mean that they get everything perfect or dont bring any biases to the table, like Chomsky’s articles against Palestinian refugees returning.

      • RockyMissouri on June 22, 2015, 1:00 pm

        What is this Chomsky’s first name…(the one with JVP)..?

      • W.Jones on June 22, 2015, 3:31 pm

        Rocky:
        Here you can find the answer to your question to me
        https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/advisory-board

      • RockyMissouri on June 22, 2015, 6:42 pm

        Thank you!!

      • ritzl on June 22, 2015, 3:42 pm

        Yeah WJ. This isn’t a MW topic given it’s significance and the amount of time that has passed w/o a mention. There’s a discussion at Plato’s Guns (Taxi’s site).

        I’ll conclude by saying that, to my limited knowledge, Chomsky was never a strident universalist, so he’s consistently and understandably selective. JVP on the other hand proclaims strident universality and is using that as their basis for shunning AW, yet they are against meaningful PRoR. The latter flat out belies the former, yet here we are. There’s some other explanation.

        And the Pappe point is also illustrative.

        Peace. Fin.

      • W.Jones on June 22, 2015, 9:58 pm

        Ritzl,

        Phil did not write much about Weir on Mondoweiss. However, Phil was an important speaker at the National Summit last year that was organized by the Council for the National Interest, of which Weir is the president. Much of that Summit focused on the role of special interests in IP-related politics.

        This is why my best guess is that the underlying motivation behind JVP’s letter is really Weir’s work on lobbying and special interests, not that, as JVP’s letter says, she has been on the same radio programs that others like Pappe, Lowenstein, and the Corries have been.

        Otherwise, back in 2008, Weiss wrote an overall sympathetic post on Weir that included a few biting criticisms of her for what he saw as advocating in too one sided a manner about Palestinian casualties.
        http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/the-gandhi-of-the-middle-east-will-likely-be-an-arab-rising-from-an-american-institution
        Afterwards, he followed it up with a more conciliatory post:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2008/10/alison-weir-of-if-americans-knew-has-responded-to-my-post-of-a-couple-weeks-back-about-her-presentation-at-yale-the-links-o

        Alex Kane wrote in a post that he agreed with JVP’s statement:
        https://twitter.com/alexbkane/status/610827596461289473

      • W.Jones on June 25, 2015, 12:45 am

        Someone named Amith posted a long criticism of the affair on Marxmail:
        http://www.marxmail.org/msg131182.html

        He pointed out that:

        B) JVP even goes further to bar its chapters from working with groups that
        use “anti-Zionist slogans or demands”:

        “A JVP group may join in coalition with pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist groups. JVP
        groups may not participate in a coalition whose demands or slogans are pro-
        or anti-Zionist.”

        That would presumably include principled organizations like the
        International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network

        I had thought that IJAN and JVP worked together sometimes.

      • RockyMissouri on June 25, 2015, 12:06 pm

        I am so very disappointed…..and disillusioned. I believed JVP was antizionist.

    • Sibiriak on June 22, 2015, 1:25 am

      JVP has instructed its staff and other leaders to shun Alison Weir of ‘If Americans Knew”

      I deplore these disgraceful McCarthyistic attacks–and I’m contributing to Weir’s organization and buying her book forthwith.

      • RockyMissouri on June 22, 2015, 10:34 am

        YES..!! Could this just be another way to shut her down by insinuating that she is antisemitic…?

        I believed in JVP!! I even gave them money..!! This is very distressing.

        I’ll donate to Allison Weir. She speaks the truth.

      • W.Jones on June 22, 2015, 12:07 pm

        Hi Sibirak and Rocky.

        I know what you mean. Bu you could see it coming when Greta Berlin got her head ripped off.

        She tweeted a clip that offensively slandered Zionism, but not Jews in particular. She claimed that by tweeting the clip that she was not endorsing it and she apologized thoroughly. But to no avail, she got a declaration signed against her by a long list of Solidarity activists. It just shows that it takes little for someone who takes the a dissident position on the issue- in her case leading Gaza’s “ark”, to get mobbed and ousted.

        Of course, with Greta there was also the criticism that she temporarily allowed a clear antisemite on her thread, while reprimanding and then, I think, banning him. Or the criticism that she said her tweet was an accident because she was taking a train, but then later said she had been taking an airplane, which the critics would claim meant that she intended the tweet all along. ◔_◔

      • Keith on June 22, 2015, 6:17 pm

        W. JONES- “Bu you could see it coming when Greta Berlin got her head ripped off.”

        Yes, that is exactly what happened. I always felt that Greta was the victim of an organized power play, one which hurt the Free Gaza Movement which at one time seemed promising. It should never have happened.

      • W.Jones on June 22, 2015, 10:18 pm

        Keith,

        I’m sure it was a mix and that not everyone who participated in attacking Greta was part of an organized effort. Annie said that she perceived widespread and intense criticism of Greta online, that she opposed (logically) Greta’s tweet, and that she then concluded that MW must also denounce Greta, or else MW would look bad for not denouncing Greta.

        In other words, it became a kind of mix of opposing Greta’s incorrect tweet of a slander of Zionism and people’s fear of being tarred for not participating in the denunciation. Thus, it built up like a bonfire, which grew and spread to scorch others like Col. Ann Wright, who was disinvited from Gaza’s Ark for being associated with Greta. Eventually, it kept going and MJ Rosenberg made numerous posts about how MW and Ali Abunimah were antisemitic because of the repeatedly negative tone Ali uses to refer to Zionists.

        After a while it died down, but now it looks The Machine is revving up again, exposing Weir for being on the same talk shows by offensive radio hosts that Pappe and the Corries have been.

        It would be helpful if Alex and Max B. explained more about why they feel this way. Perhaps they reject Weir’s excuse that she tries to get on a very broad range of radio programs, but I am doubtful that they would also like to see Pappe and the Corries denounced for the same reason.

      • Keith on June 23, 2015, 4:25 pm

        W. JONES- “I’m sure it was a mix and that not everyone who participated in attacking Greta was part of an organized effort.”

        No, of course not. It was orchestrated by a relatively small group. The majority who went along probably had the best of intentions. Unfortunately, that is how shit happens.

        As for Alison Weir, I wasn’t going to comment, however, from what little I know I would not lump her in with Greta, Pappe or the Corries. Her anti-Zionism has a strong nationalistic focus which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Criticizing Israel and Zionism is more than justified, however, simultaneously ignoring the crimes of empire isn’t. Council for the National Interest? Patriotism and Zionism are two sides of the same coin.

      • W.Jones on June 25, 2015, 12:32 am

        Keith,

        I understand what you mean about a bad taste, since I think you and I come from a progressive/humanitarian/socialist angle in our criticism of Israeli policies, whereas Weir’s seems to be national interest/humanitarian.

        However, while Israeli nationalism and US patriotism have a lot in common like you say, there are major differences since our two nations are based on different political systems and philosophies regarding interreligious relations. Nor does this make Weir’s national interest position necessarily wrong, as Phil wrote previously about it in his article “conservatives for palestine”:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/conservatives-for-palestine

      • Keith on June 25, 2015, 1:27 pm

        W. JONES- “Nor does this make Weir’s national interest position necessarily wrong….”

        Of course it does! Furthermore, her “national interest perspective” isn’t really a national interest perspective if the best interests of the citizenry is taken into account. Who defines the “national interests?” In common usage, “national interests” virtually always refers to the perceived interests of the dominant elites, usually at the expense of the 99%. Additionally, the rise of the American empire signaled the death of the American Republic. Empires serve corporations and oligarchs, the citizenry be damned. A true nationalist would oppose empire, therefore, these empire friendly “patriots” are really imperialists seeking to influence imperial policies to more closely align with their personal interests.

        This is not to say that on a few specific issues that there can’t be a basis for working together, however, the fundamental critique of Israeli actions must be morality, justice and human rights, not that some of Israel’s actions may increase the danger to American imperial storm troopers. Getting into debates about the best way to serve imperial interests is self-defeating and fundamentally immoral. We need to dismember the empire and neoliberal globalization. One of the things I like about Marc Ellis is that he is fundamentally morally ground, as we all should be. And this transcends differences in religious ideology.

        One point of clarification. Although I am not nationalistic in the patriotic sense, I support the nation-state at this point in time as defense against a corporate controlled global empire. There is no greater threat to life and liberty than the globalization of corporate/financial control, a new form of tyranny leading to a new dark ages and systemic collapse. I strongly suspect that Alison Weir would not agree with me on this. It certainly doesn’t appear to be one of her priorities.

      • W.Jones on June 25, 2015, 4:54 pm

        Hi Keith.

        I understand what you are saying, and if the question was What is the best angle and springboard for Solidarity activism, I would make the same criticisms. The question at the moment is whether Weir, like Ann Wright and Greta, is being racist through “guilt by association” or by referring to herself as dedicated to American interests besides her dedication to human rights. And I think that about this current question, you and I are on the same page.

        Additionally, I think you are probably being too harsh with considering Weir a supporter of imperial storm troops, since she is against the Iraq War. My guess is that she is more like people who go to an antiwar protest with American flags or who include national interests in their antiwar critiques.

        And I think that this angle is legitimate and reasonable, even though I share your criticisms. That is, putting aside the issue of imperialism, each country, even if it were noncapitalist, does have its own national interests. Ukraine does, Vietnam does, the US does, the Iroquois nation did viz a vie other Amerindian nations. One can focus on the angle that by invading Iraq or making other foreign policy blunders, the US was acting against its own national interests. I see this as a legitimate criticism and approach, even though the issue of imperialism is a primary one in the world today.

  2. John Douglas on June 21, 2015, 1:03 pm

    This is the State Department report’s definitions of terrorism:

    (1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country;
    (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; and
    (3) the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.

    Implications: Isn’t it clear from this definition that assassination and/or torture of noncombatants, scientists for example, by “clandestine agents” are cases of terrorism? And wouldn’t these “clandestine agents” sometimes be “subgroups” of governments? So wouldn’t governments, as an example of “any group”, that employ such agents be “terrorist groups”?

    • RockyMissouri on June 22, 2015, 1:19 pm

      We (USA) are terrorists. Sadly. If we no longer supported Israel, the world could see us as ready for SERIOUS participation, and not as the hypocrites we are.

      It’s wrong to give them millions a day (and munitions!) when our OWN CITIZENS continue to suffer from lack of healthcare, jobs, housing…etc.

      Not to mention: overlooking or neglecting the Palestinians, and not EVEN commenting on their deplorable treatment…and our ALLOWAL of that treatment is UNCONSCIONABLE. And the CONTINUING SILENCE OF OUR MEDIA IS DEPLORABLE.

  3. Kay24 on June 22, 2015, 7:44 am

    UN report on last year’s Gaza massacre and devastation says it was “unprecedented”.

    What the hell are they going to do about it? Between Israel and Hamas these poor people are living in sheer hell. Israel will get away with genocide once again, thanks to the US.

    “UN commission finds evidence of war crimes by Israel, Hamas during 2014 Gaza war
    The commission’s report, which was appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, says scale of devastation in Gaza will impact generations to come.

    An independent United Nations commission of inquiry on Monday released its report on Operation Protective Edge, finding evidence that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the war in the Gaza Strip last summer and calling the devastation caused in the Palestinian territory “unprecedented.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.662389

    • just on June 22, 2015, 8:15 am

      Thanks Kay. I was just reading that report in Haaretz, and found Netanyahu’s remarks predictably, and darkly, ‘amusing’:

      …”Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last Sunday that reading the report would be a “waste of time.”

      The UNHRC is a “hostile body, not objective regarding Israel… which has made more resolutions against Israel than against Syria, Iran and North Korea combined,” Netanyahu told ministers at the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem last week.

      Israel, for its part, compiled its own report, which according to Cabinet Secretary Avichai Mendelblit describes the war crimes committed by Hamas and the other Palestinian organizations, the threats of terror against Israel from Gaza, the steps Israel had taken to act within accordance of international law and to avoid harming citizens, as well as the investigations and examinations ongoing in Israel since the end of the war.

      “Israel is now faced with an unprecedented attack of delegitimization,” Netanyahu said after receiving the Israeli report. “This is a baseless and political attack aimed at sullying Israel. We will respond to this attack. This is the report that will portray the true picture of what happened in the operation and will prove that the actions taken by the IDF were done in accordance with international law and out of necessity to protect our citizens from the murderous terror organizations who committed double war crimes – shooting at citizens while hiding behind citizens.”

      “Israel is committed to international law not because of UN commissions of inquiry but because it is a democratic state,” Netanyahu added. “We are not afraid to check ourselves when necessary. Israel’s mechanism of investigation and examinations are the leading in the world. When there are credible claims, they are checked.””…

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.662389

      • eljay on June 22, 2015, 8:21 am

        “Israel is committed to international law … ,” Netanyahu added.

        “Just kidding,” he continued, laughing. “Actually, we don’t give a flying f*ck about international law, which is why we’ve spent almost 70 years stealing, occupying and colonizing Palestinian land and oppressing, torturing and killing Palestinians.”

        Then he paused and, in a serious tone, added: “And if you don’t like it, you’re a Jew-hating anti-Semite!”

      • Kay24 on June 22, 2015, 9:56 am

        Notice how they ALWAYS pooh- pooh reports from International agencies, but seems insanely smug about their self investigative reports and lame finds that exonerate them from all their crimes? I don’t know if they are intellectually challenged because they keep acting like they are fooling the world.

      • Kay24 on June 22, 2015, 9:57 am

        Good analysis Eljay. That is how they operate.

      • RockyMissouri on June 23, 2015, 7:45 pm

        A sick man. Deranged …at any rate.

  4. Rusty Pipes on June 22, 2015, 4:48 pm

    Did Israel experience a slight impact on the face? That was a slap directed by the Facts. Uncle Sam has just reduced by a fraction its protection of Junior Israel from an encounter with Harsh Reality. Apparently, coddling Junior has not helped it learn how to play well with others. Perhaps this move by State is an indication of further reduction of the padding provided to the over-protected child. Separation anxiety can be rough.

Leave a Reply