Winnie, does Gaza even have any non-civilian areas?

Are we going to have to go over the rule about bullets again? You know, how bullets can't be fired from where bullets never come (wheelbarrows, lampposts, etc.)

Baldie, are you aware that Hamas uses, as a central strategy, the tactics that will lead Israel to kill civilians in the hopes that such killing will inspire global sympathies to the Palestinian cause and global outrage at Israel?

Do you agree or disagree that this is central to Hamas's strategy?

I realize GG never mentions Hamas, just "Gaza" or "Palestine," but there is a leadership group that runs the West Bank and there are called "Hamas." Hamas is not "Gaza" (as GG conflates it) nor is Hamas "the Palestinians." They are a radical terrorist ideology that uses children as shields, and encourages Israeli "massacres" in the hopes that it will rally people to their cause.

These strategies are well defined war crimes according to the U.N. Charter.

But on here, there's no interest in whether or not Hamas provoked Israel to fire into civilian areas in any of the attacks of the past month. There's just Glenn Greenwald anxiously linking to "war crime" footage he later has to retract because it's from three years ago, and actually features Palestinians killing other Palestinians.

But GG has no interest in Hamas's cruelty to Palestine. Or Hamas's strategies in provoking Israel.

In GG's world, Israel just up and decided to start a "war on GAZA! (tm)" It happened out of nowhere, with no historical antecedents, no context, and no framework.

Israel just decided to kill a bunch of Palestinians. Because it's fun, I guess.

No mention that when Israel relaxed borders, funded Palestinian military (as did we), treated Arafat like a legitimate world leader, pulled soldiers out of Lebanon (and then Gaza), and opened up trading routes, Israel was subjected to two years of the worst terrorism campaign in recent global history (the Second Intifada).

But not of that context is necessary. Israel is an evil bully killing innocents. What a wonderfully simple narrative. So easy to comprehend. All you have to do is what Glenn does. Try never to mention "Hamas." Just type "Gaza."

His most recent would fit as a comment to Glenn's current Salon Radio post. I guess I'm not surprised that WinSmith has as much contempt for displaced home owners as he does for the Palestinians. There's a parallel there, me thinks.

The parallel is only that once you're mad at a meany poo who dares to come in and rain on the Glenn Greenwald dittohead parade, you'll look to disparage anything they write.

I've had at least 10 diaries on Daily Kos on the recommend list, including numerous deconstructions of media bias similar to Glenn's take. My post on Andrea Mitchell's disgraceful "the surge worked" was on the top of the rec list a few months ago.

I also attended Yearly Kos in 2006 and have been a liberal democrat for most of my adult life (although I did vote for Giuliani in 1996, much to my subsequent shame).

But if you need me to be a hidden paid propagandist Zionist Neo-Con come to spread propaganda as part of a covert media conspiracy, then go right ahead.

Does Gaza have any non-civilian areas?

What is a "non-civilian area"? Is that like Disney Land?

Hamas integrates itself within densely populated areas on purpose hoping that:

1. This will deter Israel from a response

2. If it doesn't, the subsequent carnage will rally stupid people like Derbig Mooser to rant on internet message boards.

Israel is no longer deterred by Hamas strategy. We can debate the morality of their decision, but they have made the choice that it's the only way to stop the terrorism. Recent history (ending the Second Intifada and now stopping the mortars) seems to suggest that, moral or not, it works as it is intended.

If Hamas is such a diabolical adversary using defenseless woman and children, why take the bait and knock off non-Hamas non-combatant innocents (collateral damage) at a clip of 100 to 1? Do you think that's wise strategy for the state of Israel?

I don't know if it is or isn't. I have yet to defend Israel's actions in this recent military action precisely because I don't feel there are enough facts to form an opinion. I've said over and over that:

1. I support Israel's right to militarily respond to Hamas

2. The disproportionate deaths of children demand an investigation on whether Israel used reckless force

3. Israels refusal to let reporters into Gaza was disgraceful, and suggests coverup

I also acknowledge that:

4. Israel attempted to open borders and create a self-sustaining military police force in Gaza and the West Bank in the 1990s. It resulted in the Second Intifada

5. Gaza elected Hamas

6. Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005

Do you think that makes the state of Israel look like the "perpetual victims" they profess to be? Killing plenty of people but losing the hasbara war if you ask me.

What I think is important is that Israel doesn't give a shit what you think. So many are enraged that Israel dares to conduct its affairs without looking to Christians for a pat on the head of approval. This infuriates so many who believe that Israel has a fundamental illigitimacy, that the benevolency of Christians is the only reason there is a Jewish state.

Between satellite technology, blockades, and Mossad--you can't shut off the illegal flow of arms without blocking legitimate aid and without bombing the living crap out of the entire place? Get serious.

Well since Israel hasn't been able to fully contain the flow of arms in the past three years with a blockade, what makes you think things would get better if they lifted the blockade?

Answer me this:

If Israel lifts its blockade of Gaza tomorrow, would mortar shells fired by Hamas increase or decrease?