Amnesty International's report, released on July 2 but largely ignored by the media, regarding Israel's murderous invasion of Gaza last December and January documents the deliberate slaughter of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including some 300 children by the criminal Israeli Defense Force using weaponry provided by the United States. Palestinian civilians "were killed in attacks carried out using high-precision weapons-air delivered bombs and missiles, and tank shells" according to this report.
Palestinian "women and children were shot at short range when posing no threat to the lives of Israeli soldiers." Israel's "aerial bombardments targeted and destroyed civilian homes without warning, killing and injuring scores of their inhabitants, often while they slept." Also, "children playing and other civilians going about their daily business, as well as medical staff attending the wounded were killed in broad daylight by Hellfire and other highly accurate missiles launched from F-16 combat aircraft, helicopters or drones and by precision projectiles fired from tanks."
This report further reveals that the operators of "such high-precision weapons can see even small details of their targets."
The Israelis knew that they were murdering innocent civilians. Israel further violated international law by its indiscriminate use in highly populated areas of weapons like artillery shells, white phosphorus shells, mortars, and of "flechette tank shells which disperse thousands of deadly darts at great velocity over a large area."
American military aid to Israel, a 61-one year practitioner of state sponsored terrorism, must be immediately ended for committing these atrocities in Gaza.
JOHN S. HANCOCK
Concord
We need Kuster has reached 25 comments. Join the discussion!
HUDSON, N.H. (AP) -- Police in New Hampshire say they…
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Environment New Hampshire is releasing…
AMHERST, Mass. (AP) -- The University of Massachusetts…
Comments
In reply to John
By R. St.Lawrence - 07/18/2009 - 12:02 amJohn, you need to go back and do a little research on the creation of the Jewish state. There was an offer of a two-state deal by the United Nations in 1946 and it was turned down by the various and sundry groups of Arabs that were wandering about the region. There was no unified group of people representing themselves to form a country. The Jewish people came from all over the world to help build Isreal and there were plenty of Arabs living among them.
It is not the Jews who try to systematically slaughter the Arabs that surround them. Rather, it is the Arabs that are trying to slaughter the Jews.
It is not the Jews that intentionally hide among civilians when launching attacks on the civilian population of the Arabs. It is rather the Arabs that are hiding themselves and their weapons among their own civilians when they launch tyheir attacks.
If you total up all the civilians killed by Arab rocket, mortar and suicide bomb attacks, it comes to many thousands. To disagree with that is dishonest and just plain stupid!
to vote
typical liberal propaganda
By LiberalsLie - 07/17/2009 - 5:39 pmBlame the Israelis for protecting themselves. Hamas was continually firing missiles into Israel yet the Israelis are blamed by the media and liberals such as John Hancock for responding. I do not believe that the Israelis ever target civilians. That's the media trying to bring the Israelis down to the Palestinian's level. It is a fact that Hamas hides militants and weaponry among civilians. They want civilian casualties so liberals can tell the world how evil the Jews are. It is also a fact that Hamas purposely targets Israeli civilians but this was not mentioned by the anti-Jew faction on this blog.
to vote
In relpy
By John S. Hancock - 07/15/2009 - 6:00 pmAmerica First 1776 I appreciate your dropping of the accusation of my being "antisemitic." I'm hoping for the two state solution, two nations living peacefully side by side. However, I won't ignore how Israel was founded by stealing Palestinian land and ethnically cleansing, forcing over 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland.
Armyvet Palestinian rockets have NOT killed "hundreds" of Israelis, that's a figment of your vivid imagination. Palestinians make up over half the population in Jordan, it was Fatah that was expelled in 1970 by King Hussein. The "settlements" on the West Bank are ALL built on Palestinian land in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Tommy If we don't speak up against the injustices of Israel's illegal and immoral occupation who will? John S. Hancock
to vote
Thank you John and Tim and
By Honest Abe - 07/16/2009 - 7:14 amThank you John and Tim and others for your courage to speak up against thugs and bigots, like we see on these threads. That includes you, Armyvet.
to vote
Never Dare to Criticize Israeli Policies
By Tommy Hambledon - 07/15/2009 - 12:07 pmA number of the posters here certainly manage to drive home the fact that it is impossible to have a rational discussion at this site about Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians, Gaza, the West Bank settlements and related issues. If anyone dares to criticize those policies or show any sympathies with the plight of the Palestinians, then we can be sure that the same crowd will lash out with personal insults, charges of racism and anti-Semitism--everything except something resembling rational discussion.
Whenever these subjects are raised, the responses are entirely predictable. I'm amazed that John Hancock has the courage to make his arguments in such a public fashion (I certainly don't have that kind of courage), knowing the amount of venom that the anonymous bullies will spew in response. I think he is sometimes a bit over the top and should consider toning down some of his charged language, but I also think that he has given a great deal more thought and study to these matters than many commenters have. But I'm afraid that thought and study frequently don't count for much here.
to vote
I agree with everything in
By Bruce Currie - 07/15/2009 - 7:08 pmI agree with everything in your post, including the part about the charged language. Mr. Hancock's letters are always accurate and factual, which is more than can be said for much of the commentary that his letters provoke. Regarding the charged language issue: I was struck a while back when I had a letter in the Monitor concerning Israel that provoked only a couple of mild comments, while Mr. Hancock's letter on the same topic appeared a day or two later, made a similar point, but with stronger (probably more appropriate) language. It received a predictable rabid response from the usual posters.
Readers interested in wider views than those offered by Charles Krauthammer and Alan Dershowitz should check out Phillip Weiss's blog: Mondoweiss, the Israeli newspapers (especially Haaretz) and Glenn Greenwald's writing at Salon.com, which is excellent on anything and everything he writes about.
to vote
but Tommy, what about . . .
By Hunter Dan - 07/15/2009 - 12:36 pmcriticizing our Commander in Chief or his pick for Supreme Court Justice.
There's plenty of folks on here (you among them) that will not allow any criticism of them without calling the perpetrators of the criticism bigots.
Shoe's on the other foot now huh, Tommy.
to vote
Nonsense
By Tommy Hambledon - 07/15/2009 - 1:09 pmYou made the following childish statement: "There's plenty of folks on here (you among them) that will not allow any criticism of them [Obama and Sotomayor] without calling the perpetrators of the criticism bigots."
You made up that silly assertion out of whole cloth. If demonstrably false (and totally off-point) statements are the best you can do, then I think you have proved my point.
There was a time when I expected better from you.
to vote
Comment blocked by moderator
The post violates the Discussion Guidelines.
Strange Response
By Tommy Hambledon - 07/15/2009 - 5:03 pmYou asked, "There, now am I a bigot for saying that?"
Not as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe I've ever said or implied that you're a bigot, and I have no particular reason to think you are. As far as I know you're just uninformed about some things.
It's probably a mistake to ask you this, but which of Judge Sotamayor's thousands of court decisions can you cite for the proposition that she conducts court proceedings in the "scary way" you describe? If you're talking about the Ricci v. Destafano case, you no doubt know that: she and the rest of her unanimous panel applied 2nd Circuit precedent (as they were required to do) in affirming the judgment of the U.S. District Court in that case; that the majority of 2nd Circuit judges voted not to review the case en banc; that four justices of the Supreme Court thought that the 2nd Circuit got it right; and that the other five justices made new law (i.e., changed the standard for reviewing the disparate impact and related issues in the case) in order to reach their decision to reverse the 2nd Circuit decision. Among other things the Supreme Court majority decided to use 14th Amendment precedent for the first time in analyzing the Civil Rights Act issues, even though some of the issues (intent, state of mind, etc.) are quite different.
I happen to think that this change in the case law is probably a change for the better. But that is beside the point
In short--as I'm sure you know because you wouldn't pop off before learning the facts--the decision by Judge Sotomayor and her fellow panelists was not only within the mainstream, it accurately reflected the standard of review of the city's actions before the Supreme Court changed the law. The Ricci case by no means reflects the parade of so-called horribles that you describe.
So I ask again, which of the thousands of cases that she decided support your naked assertion as to how she conducts court proceedings and decides cases?
to vote
And I've listened to the tapes of the confirmation hearings
By Hunter Dan - 07/16/2009 - 11:07 amShe confuses "store" with "story" and "imminent" with "eminent" constantly. When asked questions about the 2nd ammendment or abortion she hems and haws and says "I can't comment in the abstract" when the questions being asked are not in "the abstract" and only require her to go back and cite THE LAW as it is written and has been backed up by numerous court cases - which she can't do.
And she's supposed to be the smartest, most intelligent candidate with the best grasp of the law that Obama can find???
to vote
Where is Monkey Man and Fishy Head when we need them
By Dave in Suncook - 07/16/2009 - 7:34 pmI also heard Sotomayer(sp?) speak today,talk about not in command of the english language.Monkey Man might even go as far as to call her stupid, or a slack jawed yokel.
I read this recently about her first year in college. As she was a product of affirmative action, she was in no way qualified to attend that school. After her first semester, her instructors told her she should go home and read childrens books and watch cartoons so that she could understand the language better. Her writing skills(in any language) were pitiful. From what I heard today,they still are.
Now we have two people who are unqualified products of afirmative action in office. Obama and his appointee.As Yackoff Smirnoff would say
WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY!
to vote
Summa
By Tommy Hambledon - 07/17/2009 - 9:47 amIt's certainly true that she had trouble with English composition when she first arrived at Princeton, but she is smart enough and she worked hard enough that she ended up graduating summma cum laude from Princeton. If you really care about the facts on this issue, instead of just hurling insults, you will read pieces such as the column by Peter Winn, one of her professors: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090713/OPINIO....
Hers is a wonderful American success story, whether you like her or not and whether you think she'll be a good justice or not.
And by the way, the people who actually KNOW her and who have worked with her and have served on the bench with her think she is a terrific and smart judge. I think I'll accept their judgment over yours, Hunter Dan's and Pat Buchanan's.
to vote
Affirmative action in play
By Dave in Suncook - 07/17/2009 - 5:14 pmYes a success, but what person, who was more qualified, didn't get into Princeton because a quota had to be filled and they were the wrong race?
How about the Hispanic judge who was on her appeals court who chastised her for a terrible ruling in the much hyped fireman case, I don't think his opinion is as high as you say. His words were "cover up"and a few more choice reprimands. I have also read a review of her from the lawyers that have come before her court(they were reviewing all the judges not just her). The words from those reports are not as glowing as you imply. She has been known to be overbearing,arrogant, and rude to court officers. She was not well liked by the lawyers who appeared before her.
She may be a success story, but the real question is. Is she really the BEST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE? Or is she where she is because she is a Latino Woman? Maybe you want a surgeon who was pushed ahead because of racial quotas cutting on you, I prefer the best man or woman for the job. I also would like to think we could afford the best we have for the Supreme Court, and not some feel good political statement. Which this certainly is.The Left is all about the "feel good" and looks like you feel good about racial preference.
Obama won and he can put anyone he wants in, qualified,or token if he wishes. The Token Latino woman is there now,two birds with one stone.But that still doesn't make it right.
to vote
One more thing
By Dave in Suncook - 07/17/2009 - 5:27 pmOh, she still is terrible with english.Did you here her responding to questions before the Senate? She was misusing words left and right. She was terrible. If that is what qulifies as summa cum laude at Princeton, maybe they have some quotas for that honor also.Monkey Man would be rolling in his grave if he had heard her speak.I think a Supreme Court justice should be the very best,and proficient in the use of the english language. I may misspell a word or phrase but then I'm only a UNH Forestry Grad....Certainly not up to USSC standards,and if I know the errors she made, and she doesn't then she isn't up to those standards either.
The dumbing down of America continues.But then>>
WE FEEL GOOD!
to vote
Yeah I know
By Dave in Suncook - 07/17/2009 - 6:05 pmYes I know the difference between HERE and HEAR.So put away the handcream!
Been a long hot day trying to support people who don't pay their mortgages.
I'm all pooped out.(thinking of Madeline Kahn in BLAZING SADDLES singing "I'm Tired")
to vote
Bobbing and Weaving
By Tommy Hambledon - 07/16/2009 - 11:40 amAs I should have expected, you were unable to back up your earlier allegations and could not respond to my questions. When you were cornered you changed the subject, just as you have done repeatedly in the past.
By the way, I very much regret that the moderator blocked your comment yesterday, because it served as a fine example of your arguments at their most sophisticated; all the world (including your students) should have had the opportunity to see to such a fine display of your wit and wisdom.
to vote
This Was a Response to Hunter Dan
By Tommy Hambledon - 07/15/2009 - 5:06 pmI just realized that while I was drafting my response to Hunter Dan, the moderator removed/blocked the comment to which I was responding.
I don't know why the comment was blocked. I did not ask that it be blocked.
to vote
Hey John
By armyvet - 07/15/2009 - 9:45 amI believe you have written a letter to the editor before with the same subject of bashing Israeli's (Jews). Why do you never mention the amount of rockets fired into Israeli land by Hamas, backed by Palestinians and killing hundreds of jews both children and adults. Do you know why the Palestinians were kicked out of Jordon in the past? Why did VP Biden say Obama should back Hamas Terrorists? I guess Obama supporters are really ticked off after this poll taken in Israel.
"JERUSALEM -- A new poll shows only 6 percent of Israeli Jews see President Barack Obama's administration as pro-Israel, while 50 percent see it as pro-Palestinian.
That is a dramatic change from the previous U.S. administration of George W. Bush, which 88 percent termed "pro-Israel" and just 2 percent labeled pro-Palestinian.
Many Israelis reject Obama's call for a total settlement freeze and have come to see him as overly sympathetic to Palestinian claims.
Last week, Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that the prime minister believes Obama wants to create a confrontation with Israel to help him improve relations with the Arab world, aides said.
In Cairo, Obama called for a "new beginning" between the United States and Muslim countries. In the speech, he called the long-standing U.S.-Israel alliance "unbreakable" but stepped up pressure on Israel's leadership to follow U.S. terms for a roadmap to peace. "
to vote
Atrocities in Gaza
By Clamshell - 07/15/2009 - 9:30 amClamshell
If anyone had paid attention during the Gaza invasion, and followed anything other than American news media, stories of these atrocities were out there. Israel gets over $2 billion a year in American aid. It's time we connected our money to no more settlements and behavior in accord with international standards and UN mandates.
And speaking of "schoolyard bullies," the Israeli policy of disproportionate response has been called "an eye for an eyelash." Ten times the Palestinians were killed as Israelis in the Gaza incident, and some of those Israelis were invading troops.
Unfortunately any American who criticizes Israel is branded an anti-Semite and this shuts off dialogue. John Hancock's willingness to stick his neck out on this topic reminds me of the child in the fairy tale about the emperor's new clothes. In America it takes courage to criticize Israel and this fact prevents a more even handed policy in the Middle East.
to vote
I never realized....
By mlareau - 07/15/2009 - 12:10 pmThat in a war time situation the kills had to be proportionate. My 21 years of active duty Army I must have missed that memo.
So i guess war should go something like this:
"ok, we just got one of yours it's your turn. Good job you got one of ours, watch yourself it's our turn again."
I would have been proud of our troops if their response had been called "an eye for an eyelash."
Bottom line is you are in a war to win.
to vote
You Never Realized?
By Tommy Hambledon - 07/15/2009 - 12:53 pmWell, I was only on active duty for 7 years, but I certainly managed to learn fairly quickly that while we were "in a war to win," the way to do that was not through unnecessary killing of civilians. I don't know about whatever units you served in, but in my units we tried to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. Perhaps U.S Army doctrine was different in your day.
The implication of your argument is that, as far as the Israeli armed forces were concerned, all of the Palestinians in Gaza were the "enemy," that there was no such thing as a noncombatant, and that every man, woman and child in Gaza was a legitimate target. I respectfully disagree.
I am not naive. I know from personal experience that all wars are violent and cruel and that the deaths of civilians and other innocents are frequently unavoidable, especially where enemy combatants wear no uniforms and hide among the general population. I just think that the military should try to avoid such deaths where reasonably possible, at least if they can do so without jeopardizing their own safety. Based on everything I have read, I for one am not convinced that the Israeli armed forces exercised that kind of care.
to vote
War mongers
By Dave in Suncook - 07/16/2009 - 7:57 pmI could have sworn that I had read that the Jews would routinely drop leaflets in the neighborhoods where they would be attacking in the next few days to warn the civilians to stay inside or away from the enemy that was essentially using them as shields.This procedure certainly must have reduced the advantage of surprise, and increased their own casualties, in an attempt to protect the innocents.
I think everyone should listen to the Bob Dylan song "Neighborhood Bully"
for a reality bite on how mean the jews are to all those poor folks who out number them 100 to 1, who only want peace(and all the Jews dead).
I must say that I tend to adhere to the Roman method of war.
Kill them all salt the fields.If you must fight a war,it must be won,no matter the means.Otherwise you are just playing with lives for your political games.
We,as a country, enter these situations far too easily,then refuse to fight to win,sacrificing our own Marines to save a Mosque?? Whats up with that?I'm not saying shoot innocents in the streets,but do I let Marines die because Akmed decides to travel with his children in the car,or do I blaze it up.The children are Akmeds responsibility,not ours.
I remember reading a book about Vietnam where a Viet Cong soldier said that nothing struck more fear in their hearts than the sound of B-52s. Maybe a few folks over there need to hear that sound again,rather than us wasting our young boys. Do as Clinton did. Send in the AIR FORCE, blast them till they say uncle.Move on.
to vote
If Hancock
By Hunter Dan - 07/15/2009 - 8:50 amhad his way the schoolyard bully would be in charge of the school because the rest of the kids, teachers, administration would have had "Sanctions" levied on them and they wouldn't be able to control the bully.
to vote
Comment blocked by moderator
The post violates the Discussion Guidelines.
Comment blocked by moderator
The post violates the Discussion Guidelines.
and if it ain't hogwash
By Hunter Dan - 07/15/2009 - 4:32 pmTommy will just tell the moderator to block your comment!
to vote
But It IS Hogwash
By Tommy Hambledon - 07/15/2009 - 5:09 pmDan: I did NOT ask the moderator to block your comment.
I have never asked the moderator to block any comment by any poster, not even Armyvet.
to vote
reply to "America First 1776"
By John S. Hancock - 07/15/2009 - 8:08 amThe report by Amnesty International is 100 percent accurate and correct. If you weren't hiding behind an anonymous screen name and called me "anti-semitic" I'll be pleased to meet you in a court of law, By the way Arabs are a semitic people as well.
to vote
Blatant anti-semitism
By R. St.Lawrence - 07/15/2009 - 7:37 amIn this ultra leftwing media, a report like the one mentioned, if it had any basis in fact would have been trumpeted to the world. There would also have been a massive coverage by the combined media DURING the attacks. Was there any such reporting? NO.
This letter, along with the report from Amnesty International have to be taken for what they are, a deporable, anti-Isreali attack, designed to generate sympathy for the numerous groups dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state and the slaughter of the Jewish people.
to vote
I doubt that we'll see less
By Honest Abe - 07/15/2009 - 6:35 amI doubt that we'll see less aid to Israel in the near future. The groups that lobby for Israel have just too much influence in the US Congress on both sides of the fence. FWIW, there are many who agree with your POV. They just don't have enough clout in Congress to make the necessary changes in that part of the world.
to vote
Changes?
By Dave in Suncook - 07/17/2009 - 7:11 pm"They just don't have enough clout in Congress to make the necessary changes in that part of the world."
Would those changes include destroying the Jewish state and driving them all into the sea to be slaughtered? Because in reality that is the only change that the opposition will agree to.Kill all the Jews is the goal over there, as is shown by their refusal of realistic treaty attempts in the past.
How does a person negotiate with a man who only wants to kill him and his family?(and says so)
Why do they want the Gaza Heights?
Answer> So they can fire artillery at the Jews from the Heights.
There are reasonable people on the other side,but they are too few and are not in command. The leaders, either despots or duly elected(Hamas) all want one thing. Destroy Isreal,kill all the Jews.
I think the Jews have shown a helluva lot of restraint with these idiots.
One more thought. Every bit of land the Jews have they have paid for in their own blood in the 7 day war, when the entire region ganged up on them to kill them all. Well the Jews kicked their asses, and to the victor goes the spoils,and the losers still can't deal with it.
to vote
Give up land.
By Dave in Suncook - 07/17/2009 - 7:23 pmJust a thought,No one wants us to give Texas back to Mexico after we won it in a war. Well, no one except the radical group LaRaza and it's longtime member Sotomayor.
to vote