The anachronistic uncritical support of successive administrations who have colluded in building a nuclear timebomb in the centre of the Middle East, not only poses an immense danger to our world of the 21st century but by any standard of logic or reason, is absurd.

The international community totals now about seven billion souls in India, China, the Middle East, Europe and NAFTA - all directly impacted by the political machinations of a miniscule state the demographic of which represents just one thousandth of us! 1/1000th.

Neither I, nor anyone that I know, understands the status quo. We seem to be walking, or running, like automatons towards a black radioactive hole where nothing at all will exist - just dust and maybe remnants of the security barrier that used to encircle Jerusalem.

There is adequate land, food and water on our planet to support us all at this time, but we prefer to build and sell ever increasing quantities of weapons to kill and oppress ever increasing numbers of ordinary people who merely want their own freedom, land, children, food and water.

While Internet blogs scream propaganda at us at every click of a key, governments collude daily in exporting yet more WMD to every regime who will pay the price.

Churchill & FDR, were they alive, might be forgiven for wondering why all the blood and tears were sacrificed and why over 20 million died a little more than half a century past to preserve our freedoms.

This NY Times story is a disgustingly uncritical propaganda echo chamber.

"Did we do all we could do to avoid hitting civilians?” General Shermeister chief "education" officer is quoted as saying Rumsfeld style. “My answer is yes.”

His answer is utter crap. Hundreds of innocent children were slaughtered for no defensible purpose whatever. Israel did NOT make even a figleaf effort to avoid this paranoid mass murder. And the non-apathetic open-minded educated world knows this damn well.

One might note that NY Times and other US papers acted no less stupidly and cravenly during the build up to and colossally mismanaged Cheney-Rumsfeld shock and awe cakewalk to Abu Ghraib.
One might also note that there is a difference between being a propaganda cover-up tool for one's own government's outrages and reckless atrocities, and being a propaganda cover-up tool for atrocities committed by a foreign government pandering to its own extremists and terrorists and the most cowardly instincts of its most morally bankrupt citizens.

Thanks for bringing information on this issue. It's hard for me to read, but it's necessary.

A truly tragic situation. I will never understand how the Gazans continue to support Hamas after their useless violence brought this upon them. Hopefully, war crimes prosecutions will begin against Hamas soon, and the war can be brought to an end. How long is the world going to stand by and watch the Palestinians murder their own children? What kind of people would stand for this?

mikep,

so by your logic anti-Semitism is the fault of the Jews for bringing anger upon themselves? Or is only the Palestinians who murder their own children via other people's guns?

No, that's too kind, there is no logic at all to your spin on who killed who in Gaza. Just callous and deliberate stupidity.

This afternoon I talked with my nephew who is an IDF Captain, Golani and he said the word has come cascading down - NO soldier should say one more word about Gaza. Yesterday, he talked to all his men and laid it out for them in no uncertain terms.I was stunned to find out he was even nervous talking to me about the health of our relatives. So without anything new coming out, expect this story to die in a week.

There is a perceived difference between killing civilians as collateral damage and shooting civilians intentionally, as if for sport. (Although the civilians are just as dead either way). I think what was so disturbing about the recent revelations in Ha'aretz was that Israeli soldiers were shooting civilians because they could. That's different from shooting at Hamas fighters and having stray shells kill civilians, or accidentally shooting a civilian who turned out to be a non-combatant. I say a perceived difference because the civilians are dead either way, but people are wired to see one sort of death as random fate, while the other is clearly malicious and intentional.

The collateral damage killing of civilians is not necessarily bad for Israel. Yes, there is outrage, but not in the countries that matter. Israel showed that a Hamas commander cannot hide behind his wives and children in his home-- bad for the wives and kids, but still. But the willful, intentional killing of civilians unconnected to Hamas is terribly damaging to Israel, and those involved must be prosecuted in a serious and meaningful way if Israel is to recover.

Thanks for your usual acuity in viewing this horrible mess of a conflict.

I wanted to let your readers know that I've analyzed the vacuity of Ethan Bronner's story rejecting the soldiers' testimony at my blog.

Mr. Troub,

The Congress of the United States ALWAYS attempts to choose a wise set of policies and is NEVER free from "intimidation" of those impacted by those policies. It is successful at its task at about a rate normal in human affairs and is always subject to the criticism of those who disagree. Jews, as an educated, wealthy, and highly motivated group, have become particularly adept at lobbying ("intimidating") for their interests...which has led other groups (as always) to claim they have too much power and special treatment is needed to control them.

Overreach THIS,

The Israeli army and government think the conduct of its troops was far better than that of most armies. So do supporters of Israel. Since they conducted an investigation and were active participants who had access to more information than any of the contributors to this thread their assertions are not so easily dismissed.

You also confuse my opinions with that of the government of Israel. Mr. Rosenberg was criticizing those of the latter, improperly I argued.

Finally, you, as much as all of us, have very limited access to "reality". We have only "pro-forma propaganda fed to you(us)" from various sources which we can accept or reject according to whatever reasoning or bias we choose to apply.

I really don't know what you're talking about. You accused a NYT reporter who has, I believe, tried to maintain an evenhanded, fact based approach to cutting through the fog of war, including sober reporting of the accounts of atrocities themselves, of serving as an uncritical propaganda echo chamber. I agree that Bronner might be faulted for not reporting some of the revelations in the AP story. Though I can't and won't speculate as to his reasons for not doing so, I doubt that serving as a propaganda tool is among them. This entire dust up has nothing to do with whether the Gaza operation was necessary or just. Your reference to dupes of the West Bank settler propaganda machine (moi?) is nonsensical. Your emotion appears to have got the better of your reason.

"When we entered houses, we actually cleaned up the place,"

Is this an April Fool's joke?