Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Nice try, with your "unbiased" sources. How about you check the timeline here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_atta...

Basically your narrative is the one I see on a bunch of pro-Palestinian propaganda sites, and nowhere else. How about this article: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/08/world/meast/gaza-violence/... ?

Frankly, I'm used to Palestinians making up damning narratives of events. Watch Pierre Rehov's The Road to Jenin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9kx3UntoAE), or Richard Landes' Pallywood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL8ANySuSuk)



How about the IPS? http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/11/israeli-firepower-threatens-t...

Ooo! How about the BBC? Are they a pro-Palestinian propaganda site too? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20367005

The basic point, which you're overlooking, is that the Palestinian rockets are pretty crappy, and Israel has overwhelming military superiority - look at the casualty list from 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War


The IPS are predisposed to support the underdog in any conflict, and yes, the BBC are widely regarded as having a pro-Palestinian bias.

As for the Electronic Intifada, which you previously cited. I think you can work that one out for yourself.

CAMERA have a detailed and objective timeline of recent events: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&#...

Problems with the EI narrative:

1) The "unarmed, mentally unfit man" is also seen in a photo posted to a Hamas forum holding an assault rifle and wearing an armored vest. He was buried wrapped in a Hamas flag;

2) According to the IDF, this man ignored calls for him to stop and warning shots from soldiers;

3) EI cite a Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (go figure) claim that the boy was fatally wounded by "as a result of the indiscriminate shooting". This is unverified. He was hit during a firefight between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants, while the IDF were disabling explosive devices (two days after two Israelis were seriously injured by a similar such device). The AP reported it was unclear who fired the shot(s) that fatally wounded the boy;

4) EI doesn't mention the explosive device that seriously injured two Israelis on 6th Nov. Nor do they mention the detonation of the explosive-filled tunnel that injured an Israeli soldier on 8th Nov.

It goes on and on...


Well then, I guess reality has a pro-Palestinian bias too. 38 Palestinians killed so far, 257 wounded, mostly civilians, vs. 3 Israeli civilians killed.


So the side that loses the most people must be right? What sort of twisted logic is this?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: