Someone explain this to me?

[arewethereyet]

Sorry, fair point. I should have said ‘the Israel government’ or ‘the Israeli military’. But the point still stands that the objective of this was NOT to kill anyone. The IDF are very, very good at killing people. If they had wanted to, they would have.

I’ll try once more: this was not an attack on journalists or journalism. If Hamas has been using a bakery for cover and the Israelis destroyed the bakery, would that be an attack on cheesecake?

Boru

I am tired of Bibi's hiding behind "intent". This is the same fucking excuse American Presidents of both parties used to excuse taking more and more land from Natives. 

I fucking take this very personally, beacuse I have a communication degree and have interned in TV and worked in Radio. Bibi is scating on thin ice with me, not that he hasn't for decades. But certianly now far more than ever. I don't give a shit that he gave a "warning". To me to media, that is no different to me than how Trump and Spicer have treated dissent. 

If the issue was Hamas rockets, why are you targeting a building that houses even the AP? The Associated Press is not Hamas, or ISIS or even Fox News. "Nobody died" is the same bullshit Spicer used in his first presser too. It was still a direct threat to journalism to not question authority.

I'm sorry - I have a really nasty headache.  I have read this three times...you have a communication degree????   Seriously?  In what language/medium?

[Brian37]

I am tired of Bibi's hiding behind "intent". This is the same fucking excuse American Presidents of both parties used to excuse taking more and more land from Natives. 

I fucking take this very personally, beacuse I have a communication degree and have interned in TV and worked in Radio. Bibi is scating on thin ice with me, not that he hasn't for decades. But certianly now far more than ever. I don't give a shit that he gave a "warning". To me to media, that is no different to me than how Trump and Spicer have treated dissent. 

If the issue was Hamas rockets, why are you targeting a building that houses even the AP? The Associated Press is not Hamas, or ISIS or even Fox News. "Nobody died" is the same bullshit Spicer used in his first presser too. It was still a direct threat to journalism to not question authority.

I'm sorry - I have a really nasty headache.  I have read this three times...you have a communication degree????   Seriously?  In what language/medium?

Yes I have a college degree. Sorry that bothers you.

[arewethereyet]

I'm sorry - I have a really nasty headache.  I have read this three times...you have a communication degree????   Seriously?  In what language/medium?

Yes I have a college degree. Sorry that bothers you.

That was not an answer to my question.

[Brian37]

Yes I have a college degree. Sorry that bothers you.

That was not an answer to my question.

Give me a question worthy of an answer.

[arewethereyet]

That was not an answer to my question.

Give me a question worthy of an answer.

You first.

[Angrboda]

I personally thought the 'Hamas assets' in the building was bullshit. The Israelis have way too much incentive to interfere with journalists in the area.

[Angrboda]

Earlier this week, Israeli airstrikes also destroyed two office buildings in Gaza City that housed more than a dozen media outlets, including Palestinian newspaper Felestin and pro-Hamas broadcaster Sabq24 News Agency, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The attack also destroyed the office of the Forum of Palestinian Journalists, a press freedom group.

Israel defended those airstrikes by claiming that Hamas maintained offices in the buildings, and saying that the journalists had been given a warning to evacuate.

“It is quite clear that this isn’t an accident, this is systematic targeting of media in Gaza in order to prevent reporting from there,” Jeremy Dear, deputy general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, told Al Jazeera on Saturday.

(Washington Post)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I personally thought the 'Hamas assets' in the building was bullshit.  The Israelis have way too much incentive to interfere with journalists in the area.

Disagree. Hamas have a long history of locating both munitions and personnel in densely populated civilian areas - either openly or in secret - and are perversely proud of this human shield policy. And the Israelis have plenty of other ways to interfere with the reportage on the conflict. It doesn't really make a lot of political or military sense to destroy a building with rockets just to scare journalists.

Boru

[Angrboda]

I personally thought the 'Hamas assets' in the building was bullshit.  The Israelis have way too much incentive to interfere with journalists in the area.

Disagree. Hamas have a long history of locating both munitions and personnel in densely populated civilian areas - either openly or in secret - and are perversely proud of this human shield policy. And the Israelis have plenty of other ways to interfere with the reportage on the conflict. It doesn't really make a lot of political or military sense to destroy a building with rockets just to scare journalists.

Boru

They've destroyed three media buildings that supposedly held Hamas assets in the past week. That's a little more than coincidental. The point is not to scare journalists but to disrupt operations so that reporting of events and humanitarian concerns is less likely to occur. News operations are just like any other business. You destroy their headquarters and operations are affected.

[Angrboda]

In four elections in the past two years, Netanyahu proved only that a majority of voters rejected him as leader. Yet still he clings to power. Endless divisions between the numerous opposition parties ensured his ugly, rightwing populist-nationalist brand embedded itself in Israeli society.

Now it’s happening again. Some Israelis claim Netanyahu has deliberately created a new national security crisis to enable him to stay in office, just as he has done in the past by invoking the Persian bogeyman.

True or not, the upshot may be the same. Negotiations among anti-Netanyahu parties about forming a “change” government are foundering, shot apart by rocket fire from Gaza.

Trump, sulking, plotting and, inexplicably, still un-indicted in Florida, bears great responsibility. He never missed an opportunity to boost Netanyahu, his ideological alter ego, believing, wrongly, this would win him votes.

Who’s to blame for reigniting the Israel-Palestine conflict? Take your pick from Iranian plots to US weakness

In a statement Saturday, the Associated Press said that the news agency does not have any "indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building" where its bureau in Gaza was located.

(CNN)

---

What’s driving the recent tensions in East Jerusalem? Why did they escalate so sharply?

Trouble has been brewing in Jerusalem for the past month. A combination of Arab attacks on Israeli Jews in the city; restrictions the police placed on Palestinians attempting to gather near Damascus Gate—a main entryway into the Old City—during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan; and a march through the city by a group called Lehava, whose supporters chanted “death to the Arabs,” all contributed to the tension that has spread across Israel. In isolation, each of these incidents was not unusual; however, they came at the same time as Israel’s courts paved the way for the evictions of six Palestinian families from a neighborhood in East Jerusalem called Sheikh Jarrah, and for Jewish families to move into those homes.

Israeli authorities emphasize that the situation in Sheikh Jarrah is a private real-estate dispute. That is accurate, but it only explains part of the story. Pro-Israel organizations have sought to change the demographics of East Jerusalem—which is predominantly Arab—for many years, taking their cues from successive Israeli governments that emphasized Israel’s right to build within its own capital. Israeli law permits Jews to reclaim property that they or their families owned in Jerusalem prior to the division of the city after Israel’s establishment in 1948, provided that they can prove ownership of the land. For their part, Palestinians cannot claim rights to property they once owned in Jerusalem or other parts of Israel.

At the same time that demonstrations were taking place in Sheikh Jarrah, Israeli security forces confronted Palestinian civilians on May 6—which was Laylat al-Qadr, the most important night of Ramadan, commemorating when the Quran was revealed to the Prophet Mohammed. Close to three hundred Palestinians and two dozen Israeli police officers were injured in street battles that culminated in clashes at the Noble Sanctuary, known to Jews and Israel’s supporters as the Temple Mount and the holiest site in Judaism. It is also where al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest location in Islam, and the Dome of the Rock are located.

The Israeli Supreme Court was scheduled to take up the question of evictions in Sheikh Jarrah on May 10 but decided to postpone the ruling until early June because it coincided with Jerusalem Day, a holiday in Israel to celebrate the reunification of the city after the Six-Day War. It typically features a parade of flag-waving Israelis through the city, including its Arab neighborhoods. This year, the march took place as scheduled despite the escalation of violence.

What role has the Supreme Court played in previous eviction cases?

Overall, there is a pattern of Israeli courts permitting the evictions of Palestinians from their homes based on Jewish claims of ownership prior to Israel’s creation. In the Sheikh Jarrah case, the evictions are based on the claim that the residents have not paid rent to the owner of the properties, now an Israeli nongovernmental organization called Nahalat Shimon. Sheikh Jarrah is an area that Jews refer to as Shimon Hatzadik; it was a predominantly, but not exclusively, Jewish neighborhood before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which led to Israel’s establishment and the division of Jerusalem. The properties in question are located in the sector of the city that was under Jordanian control before the 1948 war.

Because Israel’s courts have found that evictions are consistent with Israeli law, the government asserts that the Jewish residents are within their rights to displace the Palestinians who have not paid rent and thus have lost their status as “protected tenants.” Yet, most countries do not recognize Israel’s sovereignty in East Jerusalem; they and the Palestinians claim that the evictions violate international law.

(Council On Foreign Relations)