One Shot: Two Kills
Apparently, Israeli soldiers celebrate when they kill a pregnant woman, which of course ends with an abortion, as Sky News reports:
The revelations centre on t-shirt designs made for soldiers that make light of shooting pregnant Palestinian mothers and children and include images of dead babies and destroyed mosques.
The t-shirts were printed for Israeli soldiers at the end of periods of deployment or training courses and were discovered by Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
One, printed for a platoon of Israeli snipers depicts an armed Palestinian pregnant women caught in the crosshairs of a rifle, with the disturbing caption in English: “1 shot 2 kills”.
This is the attitude and mentality of Israeli soldiers to the Palestinians. This is what it really means to be pro-abortion. Read the article from SkyNews, it is very revealing.
Comments are closed.
This is what it really means to be pro-abortion.
No. This is what it really means to tell yourself (and anybody else who’ll listen to you) that you’re “pro-life,” when you simultaneously support an American foreign policy that keeps a vicious colonialist client state such as Israel in power.
Rodak — it could be both. The point is that the soldiers themselves are pro-abortion…
Rodak — it could be both.
Yes. I wasn’t contradicting you. I was merely looking at it from this side of the road. Americans are complicit in putting those soldiers in a position to be able to do what they do. And Americans should cop to that sorry truth.
Rodak
I fully agree that Americans are complicit, and more importantly, the relationship between our support of Israel and the death of children in Gaza is more direct than anything we see in the health care debate.
Given the fact that an Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, brought this to light in March, and in early April the IDF spoke out against it, I think you go too far in saying, “This is the attitude and mentality of Israeli soldiers to the Palestinians.” At minimum, you could have said “some Israeli soldiers.” None of the stories I read said how many T-shirts were printed or how many soldiers were involved. It is extraordinarily rare that I feel moved to come to the defense of Israel, but you can’t condemn a whole army based on one story from over two months ago in Sky News.
David
If you agree that it is the attitude of some Israeli soldiers, than it is indeed the attitude of Israeli soldiers. I did not say all Israeli soldiers. However, the shirts are a mere example of what is going on; Israeli force is involved in the destruction of Gaza and the killing of innocent life. Soldiering like that desensitizes the participants — it’s why and how such atrocities are done. If they were sensitive to the killing, they would disobey orders -like the soldiers who have done so and been arrested. Here is a good discussion of what is going on:
the death of children in Gaza is more direct than anything we see in the health care debate.
Absolutely. I’ve been with you in that point of view throughout those discussions, as well. Denying the poor access to any decent health care at all, in a vain attempt to eliminate any possibility that loopholes might be found in the legislation to fund an abortion here and there is unconscionable.
Rodak
Right – I know you have, but I was trying to bring out your point further and bring it into the greater American situation, to demonstrate the absurdity we see around us!
You do it well.
Exactly. While no doubt the American right will criticize this language, they will also no doubt accept the death of the unborn as a justifiable side effect in the war on “terrorists”.
And this says it all. As I’ev said before, like the pro-choicers, they view the authority of the state through the eyes of a Hobbesian social contract. For the “pro-lifers”, the unborn are included in the contract, while foreigners (especially foreigners who oppose the interests of the US and its allies) are not. “Pro-choicers” argue that the unborn are excluded from the contract, which only protects the mother. Same anthropology, arbitrary dividing line.
Shocking, despicable, and revolting. And, old news. The website WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS, published an account written by a Haaretz writer on April 1, 2009 on this very topic.Why resurrect this topic now?
The article, as well as the recent Sky News piece which you linked to, noted the clear condemnation by the Israeli Defense Forces of the T shirts, and criticism of the soldiers involved. Something one would not have learned from reading your story.
Chris
I do not understand why “old news,” means we can dismiss it now, if the kind of sentiment we find in it continues to exist. Indeed, the whole modern mentality of “now, not the past,” is dangerous. Should we just say “9-11 is old news”? Probably not. The fact is “old news” often takes a long time to work out. History is important, and sometimes looking at things in hindsight is important. In this case, while the IDF “condemned” the T-shirts, the attitude remains.
Henry,
It was only when I read Chris’s post that I realized the stories I had looked up in Haaretz were from March and April of 2009, not March and April of this year. I agree with Chris. This is old news. You can’t make a case against the entire Israeli army based on an old story about T-shirts, no matter how disgusting they were. It looks more like anti-Israeli propaganda than reasoned commentary on the whole sorry situation.
If you agree that it is the attitude of some Israeli soldiers, than it is indeed the attitude of Israeli soldiers.
Wrong. If I say, “Catholics believe that you will sell your house faster if you bury a statue of St. Joseph in the yard,” it would be misleading. Some Catholics believe that. Or if I said, “Catholics believed during the last presidential election that it would have been a mortal sin to vote for Obama,” that would be misleading. Some Catholics believed that.
I wonder if those who fire rockets from Gaza into Israel are concerned that they may hit a pregnant Israeli?
I am indeed concerned about all violence. However, we must also recognize the big difference of random rockets which hardly do any damage vs the systematic attack on all within Gaza, killing them off via starvation and military might. There is a far greater amount of killing being done by Israel, killing of innocents, and on a very disproportionate level of response. There is a reason why the Vatican has consistently condemned the blockade and what is going on in the ground in Gaza. Obviously, the desire is that both sides would move toward peace; however, because of their control over the region, and the land itself, Israel must accept the burden of their position, including the responsibility they have for the continued violence in the region.
For me, the point is not about Israeli soldiers per se, but rather (as Henry noted in his 6:57 a.m. comment) about the dehumanizing effect of state-organized violence as a means of settling disputes. The IDF condemns the indefensible, since it must. But, on the other hand, our own military has historically encouraged the kind of dehumanizing language concerning the “enemy” (kraut, hun, nip, jap, slant, slope, gook, raghead, camel jockey…) which generates the very mindset leading to atrocities of the kind Henry once more brings to our attention. Soldiers are not punished for using this language; far from it. This is not an “isolated incident.” It is part and parcel of the conduct of war. And so long as war is not outlawed, we who allow it to conducted in our names richly deserve to have our snouts rubbed in it.
But Henry, the point is that morally speaking there IS really no difference between “random rockets which hardly do any damage” and “systematic attack on all within Gaza.” The people who shoot rockets would be all the better pleased if they caused more damage and deaths, of pregnant women or anybody else. They are not deliberately firing blanks into deserted areas, they just have lousy technology and lousy aim. That is why the Vatican condemns both sides.
I think this is ultimately why we make so little progress in the Middle East, because even the supposedly reasonable dialogue is such poor quality. The pro-Israeli side takes the position that every response is justified, and if you argue they will bring up the bombing of a pre-school from 10 years ago. The pro-Palestinian side just has no interest in what anybody with eyes to see can perceive, that Palestinian culture is deeply depraved when it comes to violence and political corruption. Or if they do have an interest in it, they don’t talk about it. Talk about it!!!! If you talk about it the pro-IDF people can’t accuse you of ignoring it.
The lack of self-reflection and self-criticism on both sides is amazing. After decades of this the dialogue should be more mature.
Magdalena
Actually, morally speaking, there is a great difference between the two. One, the rockets don’t do much damage. Second, they seem to be fired out of desperation in a region which is being destroyed from unfair sanctions. The whole situation coming out of Gaza, though not morally pure (and who said it was), nonetheless comes out of that difference. Think about how “thou shalt not steal” meets “I am starving” — that is what is going on here right now in Gaza. The place is starving. The people are dying. As long as the people are being treated that way they will fight back — just like Native Americans did (and we know that the genocide against them has been decried by the Church itself — Pope John Paul II made apologies for the Church’s role in it). Now, the fact that “they fight back” doesn’t mean “so we can go and bomb them to hell” which is exactly the Israeli response. Rather, it means “we need to deal with the root cause, to help overcome that desperation.” The fact that Israel doesn’t, but actually and openly provokes Palestinians, goads them to “do something” so as to have excuse for another massacre should and does tell us situation and where it stands.
If an Israeli death squad fails in its objective to kill, does that make its mission any less objectionable and evil? Hardly. Similarly one can’t pooh-pooh bombers who fortunately are unable to kill as many civilians as they’d like. You (correctly) recognize the excuse-making that goes on for Israel, but you don’t seem to see that you are doing the exact same thing for the Palestinians. “They are desperate.” Well, that is exactly what the Israelis say to justify their actions. They are in a desperete struggle for national self-preservation, etc. This is the only way we have to fight back against a viscious, heartless, cruel enemy. And so on and so forth.
When “thou shalt not steal” meets the reality of starvation, it means the starving people can steal the bread they need to live. It doesn’t mean they can lie in wait for the shop owner, cut his throat, and then steal the bread, nor does it mean they can set a bomb and accidentally-on-purpose blow up the innocent watchmaker next door. Ironically, a few years ago I believe, one of the Palestinian bombs blew up and killed some pro-peace Israelis who were highly critical of their own government. This is random violence, and the Church NEVER approves of that kind of killing.
The Palestinians are definitely the weaker party here, and the Church must always “side” with the weak, but that doesn’t mean ignoring the moral reality. The political and cultural situation in Gaza is not just NOT “morally pure,” it is rotten to the core in many respects. And that is not pro-Jewish propoganda, that is the truth.
Again, so much of the energy in the Mideast dialogue is given over to excuse-making for the chosen “side.” The Jews made us do it with their blockade!!! The Palestinians made us do it with their bombs!!! This is the circular reasoning of madmen. Quit trying to justify and excuse violence and maybe something will happen someday.
Magdalena
If Jack the Ripper came across a woman on the street, and started to move toward her with a knife out, and she happens to have a club and uses it on him, can he then say he was justified in killing her because he was engaging self defense? Seriously, the moral issue is quite different for different levels of the situation. Just like the fact that the atomic bomb against Japan was not justified, despite the war crimes of Japan. You can’t justify disproportionate responses.
Alleging that the rocket attacks “don’t do much damage” or claiming that Hamas is the underdog does not put the group or its methods on a higher moral plane.
In any event, anyone who discounts these rocket attacks as harmless ought to spend some time on the receiving end of such attacks.
Attempting to elicit sympathy for Hamas by portraying this eliminationist group as a helpless underdog grossly distorts reality. As far as Hamas is concerned, there is no “root cause” to be addressed, short of Israel’s destruction.
This is a dirty war through and through. Trying to create some sort of simplistic manichaen narrative by whitewashing the behavior and motivation of one side won’t change that reality.
Antonio
Clearly, you didn’t read what I wrote. Saying both sides are morally impure does not mean they are equal in their impurity. This is what is ignored in many of the discussions.
I realize that Israel has committed some grave abuses, But Hamas (the ruling authority in Gaza) is not innocent victime here.
Hamas’ Deputy Minister for Religious Endowments, Abdallah Jarbu, had this to say about Jews in February:
“[The Jews] suffer from a mental disorder, because they are thieves and aggressors. A thief or an aggressor, who took property or land, develops a psychological disorder and pangs of conscience, because he took something that wasn’t his.
“They want to present themselves to the world as if they have rights, but, in fact, they are foreign bacteria – a microbe unparalleled in the world. It’s not me who says this. The Koran itself says that they have no parallel: ‘You shall find the strongest men in enmity to the believers to be the Jews.’
“May He annihilate this filthy people who have neither religion nor conscience. I condemn whoever believes in normalizing relations with them, whoever supports sitting down with them, and whoever believes that they are human beings. They are not human beings. They are not people. They have no religion, no conscience, and no moral values.”
No Israeli official has EVER said anything so vile about Palestinians.
source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4035.htm
David and Chris C.: you are both in a state of denial regarding the prevailing opionion among rank and file members of the IDF regarding Arabs; all of the information that we are getting nowadays is pointing to an overall contemputuous attitude toward Palestinians on the part of a military that is increasingly racist and religiously fundamentalist. There is even doubt, now, among many in Israel, that the majority of Israeli soldiers would obey an order to evict settlers from the properties that have been expropriated from Palestinians.
And Magdalena and others here who are criticizing this post, with words like these:
…The political and cultural situation in Gaza is not just NOT “morally pure,” it is rotten to the core in many respects. And that is not pro-Jewish propoganda, that is the truth,
then don’t you think it’s time for us to insist that our government (which acts in our name) desist from enabling this violence and CUT OFF ALL SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL and HER ENEMIES?!
digbydolben: YES
I am a Christian. Pro-life. Pro-Isaeli. We (all born of Adam) are in a fallen state. I pray to JA that you embrace Jesus for deliverance from evil. Amen.
Ryan:
I find your comment tantalizing and mysterious,… Most people who read and comment on V-N are Christians; that’s expected. Why do you categorize and sub-categorize yourself with “pro-life” and “pro-Israeli”? Was that intended to explain (or limit) whom you pray for, how you see the “fallen state” or what you think is “evil”?
One little mention of prayer on this site and the natives get all testy. Interesting.
William
Interesting rhetoric there. So if we quoted prayers of Nazis against Jews, and people were upset, we could just say “but it is merely a prayer”? The issue isn’t prayer, but the content.
Actually, morally speaking, there is a great difference between the two. One, the rockets don’t do much damage. Second, they seem to be fired out of desperation in a region which is being destroyed from unfair sanctions.
Morally speaking, there is no difference between a rocket attack that does a lot of damage and a rocket attack that does very little assuming all else is equal. Given a big enough rocket, I’ve no doubt that Hamas would gleefully lob it right at Tel Aviv. Why give these people anything that could be construed as a rhetorical defense?
The people who fire rockets into Israel are not motivated by anything as noble as desperation. They are madmen who want to kill Israelis and provoke a massive military response that will galvanize the world’s sympathy. Indeed, the attacks are completely ineffective with regards to breaking the blockade or for doing anything else other than killing Jews and provoking a predictably massive military response which Israel seems all too happy to blunder into. The Eastern Europeans throwing rocks at Soviet tanks were similarly ineffective, but at least 1) they had the right targets and 2) there was no possibility of killing innocents.
That said, the regular Gazans who either support or otherwise acquiesce to the rocket attacks, or the rule of Hamas in general, may be motivated by desperation, which only makes their actions understandable, not moral. In the same way, Israel is facing a rather implacable enemy who, if it ever gains the upper hand, will ruthlessly destroy every Jew in sight. This makes Israel’s overreactions more understandable, but doesn’t excuse them.
Matt
They are starving to death, trapped in a land-locked prison without being allowed needed resources to live. Yes, there is desperation. There is indeed a great difference between what they are doing and what Israel is doing. And yes, desperation and self-defense do indeed affect the moral culpability.
They are starving to death, trapped in a land-locked prison without being allowed needed resources to live.
Henry,
This is simply not true.
Read the article in The Economist titled How Israel plays into Hamas’s hands: A policy aimed at keeping Gaza isolated has allowed Hamas to tighten its grip on virtually everything in the strip, from which this is an excerpt:
David
It very much is true, that is the problem. The blind eye and misrepresentation of the situation by US sources have hindered a real world understanding of the destruction of life going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing — that’s what it is. Of course they are fighting back.
Mr. Nichol, the purpose of the blockade is to degrade, demean and humiliate a once-proud people, in retaliation for having the effrontery to elect Hamas, as these Economist statistics and details make abundantly clear:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/06/what-is-israels-blockade-for/57574/
Also, I firmly believe, now, that Hamas and Hezbollah SERVE THE INTERESTS of the Zionist Likudniks, who are bent on permanent occupation of the West Bank–in other words, on ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from what was once called the “Palestinian Mandate.” No matter what Netanyahu and Lieberman say, what they INTEND is a Palestinian “Bantustan”. That’s what their ACTIONS demonstrate–to anybody with brains enough to follow recent twentieth and twenty-first century history, and the Palestinians have a moral right to resist that BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, short of murder of innocent civilians. (But the settlers are not “innocent civilians”; they are OCCUPIERS, and, therefore, destroyers of indigenous communities.)
It seems that the consensus is that the t-shirt would no longer be offensive if the pregnant female in the gunsight were an OCCUPIER. Problem resolved.
Mr. Nichol, the purpose of the blockade is to degrade, demean and humiliate a once-proud people. . . .
digbydolben,
My only point was that this statement, made by Henry, was not true: “They are starving to death, trapped in a land-locked prison without being allowed needed resources to live.”
Also, I firmly believe, now, that Hamas and Hezbollah SERVE THE INTERESTS of the Zionist Likudniks . . .
Indispensable enemies, as it were. This very well may be true. It seems to me that the reasonable approach to the Israeli-Palistinian conflict is not to choose the Israeli government, or Hamas, or Hezbollah. The interests of the Israelis have not been served by the Israeli leaders, and the interests of the Palestinians have not been served by the Palestinian leaders. Choosing one side over the other is just a way to make the problems worse.
Clearly, you didn’t read what I wrote. Saying both sides are morally impure does not mean they are equal in their impurity. This is what is ignored in many of the discussions.
If Hamas is “less impure”, it’s only because the means are lacking, not the intent.
Mr. Nichol, I couldn’t possibly agree with you more: I’m for choosing NOBODY in this insane, endless blood feud. I’m for cutting off ALL aid and support to the Zionist State–as well as to Hamas AND Fatah, but, at the same time, I also recognise the indisputable right of the Palestinians to resist the Israelis’ crime against humanity–the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their traditional homeland. I wouldn’t help them in this, on account of some of their vicious tactics, but they’re the underdogs, the persecuted victims of colonialism–not the Israelis.
A pox on all houses. The nation concept, a purely ideological construct, as silly as it is dangerous. The mix
of saxons, swabians, Bavarians, Prussians, Franks, Friesen, Alemanni etc is all of a sudden a German. The average mentality in Munich is very different from Hamburg, the same goes for any country – former private property of “nobles”. World War I was fought amongst cousins. Wilhelm called Nikolaus Niki and the czar called the Kaiser Willi. none of
us are “pure”, we’re all mutts from the same pedigree. The wars between geographical entities and ethnicities is absurd, as we’re all family. Ideology/religion frequently poisons that, on top of regular avarice.
Gerald:
I’d be all in favor of poxing all houses but that sending a pox on a house sends a pox on all that house’s inhabitants. As the US has demonstrated in Iraq, even with overwhelming firepower it is difficult to destroy a Nation State without seriously harming the people within. We are (somewhat by choice) all hostages of our respective Nation States.
I meant, there are no honorable institutions on either side. Likud, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah…all playing a cynical game with people’s lives. I have nothing against “fun” nationalism – like being a member of Red Sox nation :)
But pride ? A rather new phenomenon, this country/state-based pride. Subjects aren’t prone to identify with borders as much as citizens (in the post-French-Rev sense). As far as “ethnic pride” goes, Jewish is certainly one of the oldest. So, with Israel you have both a state-based AND an ethnic/religious “nationalism.” Complete with people digging up the desert looking for proofs of “legitimacy”. Nazis dug around in Tibet and India in search of the original Aryan homeboys. To be sure, I’m not comparing Israelis to Nazis as far as treatment of Palestinians is concerned.
Your mother has to be Jewish, with the Nazis your mother better not have been Jewish. One can only despair at the idiocy of these attempts at “purity.” Ascribing good/bad to people based on coincidences absurd, whether it’s to oneself (“Proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free” is suitably stupid. “American” + where ?) or to others.
If aliens were to attack, Jews and Palestinians would fight side by side. Such is the folly of man.
St. Paul is a “mixed bag”, but he certainly got one thing right “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female”. Of course the qualifier that follows, “for you are all one in Christ Jesus” has been the source of endless slaughter as well.
If only people could approach “the other” the way they do cuisine (and I don’t mean with horror, so English food is not part of this metaphor) – curiosity and openness. (of course, don’t ask a Greek for turkish honey)
Nationalism is strongest when there’s an oppressor – just ask the Irish, when millions starved while English “nobles” exported and sold Irish wheat at record prices. Liberal (in the old sense) economists were absolutely opposed to intervene in the free market. What’s a couple million dead Irish compared to the hidden hand ? To boot, they were “just” Irish, anyway. Copy/paste that around the globe. In preference lies the seed of murder.
American nationalism is a bit different from others, as it’s more like a religion-based identity. Sure, there’s the geographical component, but also a major ideological one. “Un-American” is akin to the religious term “heretic.”
Not to mention the idiocy of being proud of being American (or German or whatever). Proud of having been born at a certain longitude/latitude. A real achievement. The “we” is funny as well. Eg, a 40 year old American saying “we beat the Nazis”.
I’m headed to Europe for a month (Amsterdam, Paris, Loire Valley, Champagne, Bourgogne, Vienna), Austrian (Germanic-Slavic (Bohemian)-possibly Jewish) American that I am.
I like you, Gerald, and agree with a lot of things that you say. However, here are two distinctions between us:
”Subjects aren’t prone to identify with borders as much as citizens [do].”
You are precisely correct in this, but I sometimes wonder if you really understand how important this is as a politico-cultural concept; it’s a crucial part of the reason I am a monarchist.
”…For you are all one in Christ Jesus means that the whole human race, willy-nilly, ARE one, because the Incarnation and the Redemption are UNIVERSALIST theological phenomena, of general efficacy for all. That’s what the Catholic doctrines of “implicit faith,” “implied grace,” and “salvation by faith AND WORKS” mean. American Catholics are Protestants, who have mostly failed to understand the universalist tendency of ORTHODOX Christian theology. I have found that it riles American Catholics almost as much as it does Protestants, to learn that Mother Teresa, when accused by Protestant missionaries in India, of failing to proselytize the dying, replied, “I only ask that those non-Christians whom I help to die become BETTER Hindus or better Muslims. I believe that, in that way, they grow closer to Christ.” THAT is why the BJP government of India gave her a state funeral in Calcutta. John Paul II approved of her, but I don’t think that the Pope Ratzinger of Dominus Iesu would.
P.S. When you go to the Loire Valley, may I suggest an out-of-the-way jewel that I only found on my most recent sojourn there (like me you’ve probably already traipsed around Blois and Chambord and Chenonceau and Amboise: the wonderful little medieval village of Loches. For food, though, nothing beats the restaurants of Blois and Tours.
I’m moving to India in July, however, and will probably only ever live in Europe again as a tourist. I prefer the people of South Asia to Europeans AND Americans.
Of course, when people tell the story of “American exceptionalism” or Anglo-Saxon values ruling the world, they tend to tell only part of the story (surprise, surprise!) They tend to neglect all of the stories of imperialist wars, domination, and interior oppression of certain groups. It’s as if the Constitution and the Protestant work ethic were some magical formula that is accessible to everyone but only employed successfully by the white Anglo man (white man’s burden?). Nevermind that many of these people’s bloodlines are contaminated by Slavic, Italian, Iberian, and other blood.
Jingoist narratives tend to neglect the fact that “American democracy” was based on brutal racial divisions at home (Jim Crow, Chinese Exclusion Act, etc.) and blatant imperialism abroad (the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, etc.) Latin America has basically been America’s toilet since the Monroe Doctrine. In other words, the U.S. didn’t make it here “fair and square”, and one day the time of our empire will be up. All the talk of building a fence along our border is indicative of decline, not strength. Expect all of this nativist rhetoric to get worse before it gets better.
Also, Mr. Nichol’s line that Gazans are not suffering tremendously is pure bull. Even Senator Charles Schumer, the “Senator from Israel” knows as much:
http://israelsbirthday.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/gaza-blockade-2.jpg
Sorry, wrong link:
http://publius-aelius.livejournal.com/661128.html
Digby, you want people to be subjected to being subjects so they are more likely to object if the objective of the ruler is war ? ;-) the citizen objectively objectifies himself by identifying with the nation ?
Apart from feudally obligated knights, mercenary armies were indeed the rule pre-18/19th century. This is where the term freelancer comes from. Personally I think a nation that has been bombed into oblivion has immunity to war for quite a while. If I were in charge, I would prevent war by mandating cannabis consumption
:-P it’d tame even the most savage beast, say Republican politicians named Duke, Trent, Brick, Brock or what have you :)
Also, Mr. Nichol’s line that Gazans are not suffering tremendously is pure bull.
digbydolben,
I repeat what I already said: My only point was that this statement, made by Henry, was not true: “They are starving to death, trapped in a land-locked prison without being allowed needed resources to live.”
Following your link through several more links, I came to this Un report. It paints a considerably bleaker portrait of conditions in Gaza than the recent articles in the Economist. I oppose the blockade, and I don’t even think it is helpful to Israel. Nevertheless, Henry’s statement that the Gazans are “starving to death” is hyperbole. Here’s a quote from what appears to be a reasonably objective article on conditions in Gaza from a CBS News correspondent:
Is that good? No. Should the Israelis be doing it? No. But are the people of Gaza being starved to death? No.
In the paragraph above, the second last paragraph beginning and ending, “I crossed the border a few days ago . . . . and Gaza is being ‘undeveloped’” should be a blockquote, and it was coded correctly. I like the nice, clean look of the new format, but the blockquote feature is not supported in comments, and that is unfortunate.
Well, the new design is an experiment. Interestingly enough, the blockquote works if one looks in on an admin level, but if one looks at a comment within the thread, it doesn’t. I wouldn’t be surprised if we go back to the other format or something else.
This is a clip from an old film, before all the years of blockade.
This is from 2008.
Then this is from 2009:
July 2009