They exchanged text messages and emojis. Brief status updates with words of encouragement. A picture of the beloved family dog “Tutsi.”
Until no more messages came.
And then, Cindy Flash, an American, and her Israeli husband Igal vanished into the violence, presumed kidnapped by Hamas.
Four days after Hamas attacked Israel, more than 100 Israelis and potentially dozens of foreign nationals are thought to be held captive in the Gaza Strip. At least 14 U.S. citizens have been killed and an unknown number are still unaccounted for.
Flash, 67, originally from St. Paul, Minnesota, is one of them. She lives in Kfar Aza, a kibbutz in southern Israel near Gaza, where some of the most harrowing and grisly stories have been emerging during the last few days.
“They are breaking down the safe room door,” Flash said in one of her final messages to her daughter Keren, 34. “We need someone to come by the house right now.” She had been communicating with her parents from a few houses away.
Keren described her mother, who worked as an administrator in a local college, as someone who had the “sweetest biggest heart,” who everyone knew and loved, and who had spent a lifetime advocating for the rights of Palestinians, including those who live in Gaza where she may now be held.
I don’t dispute your numbers. But Israel has been in a non-stop battle against terrorists who use their own people as human shields. So I put the civilian death toll squarely where it belongs: at the feet of the terrorists.
I’ve seen ZERO evidence that Israel has ever as a matter of policy targeted innocent civilians. In the contrary, I’ve seen Israel go out of it’s way to send text messages to civilians to give them time to evacuate. I’ve seen they drop lead weights on rooftops as a warning to the people inside you get out before actual missiles come.
I’ve never heard of any other nation doing that. Never. They are knowingly letting terrorists escape because it spares civilian lives.
There is no scholarly consensus over the definition of the term “terrorism.” This in part derives from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged, "a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents..
For your consideration
Yes. Largely it is the Palestinian conflict that muddied the waters here to begin with.
After 9/11 the world was united in a war on terror, defined as I just defined it. It was in direct response to the evil of killing innocent civilians in that awful day.
And for a while it looks like the entire tactic of terrorism was going to be stamped out. Even the Irish Republican Army vowed to stop using it as a tactic.
But then people looked at the Israel conflict, and their hatred of Israel did not compute with this new war on terrorism, where the Palestinians were clearly the only ones deliberately targeting civilians.
So the anti-Israel people started muddying the waters by throwing around the term “state terrorism” which meant… Whatever they wanted it to mean… Building a fence. Bulldozing a house. Collateral damage while killing a terrorist. Whatever.
And that’s where we are today… Where the anti-Israel people are very happy to muddy the waters to the point where terrorism no longer has a meaning for them. That way they don’t have to remember that the Palestinians are the only ones with a policy of deliberately targeting civilians.
You don’t question your beliefs at all, why?
I question them all the time. Never seen a shred of evidence that Israel targets civilians.
And the distinction between that and collateral damage is one of intent, which is absolutely key in determining moral and practical culpability.
At least I tried.
From your own link:
Here we go again with the “double standard” for Israel, said The Jerusalem Post. The soldiers’ testimony—none of which has been confirmed—cited only two “egregious cases,” and neither was a war crime. In one, a sharpshooter killed a woman and her two children in what everyone agrees was a tragic mistake—it merited discussion only because one soldier believed the shooter hadn’t felt “too bad about it.” In the other, an elderly woman was shot as she approached an army position—most likely because she was wrongly suspected of being a suicide bomber. Such incidents are highly regrettable, but they are aberrant: The IDF tries to target only militants. Hamas, by contrast, plants bombs in crowded buses and shopping malls; a large car bomb was discovered at a mall in Haifa just last weekend, and it was mere luck that it malfunctioned and failed to go off. The difference between Israel and its enemies is undeniable: “We don’t set out to kill innocents, and if we do, our society feels anguish. They set out to kill civilians, and when they fail, they’re disappointed.”
You are choosing to be misinformed.
You tried. He’s a lost cause. Best you can hope for is that others have read what you put here and see how Floss is wildly bigoted and unwilling to accept it.
Just last year the IDF murdered a journalist. The illegal settlers are getting armed and protected when they assault people and Israel allowed the storming of the Al Aqsa mosque this year.
The human shield argument is also just absurd in its inhumane cynicism. “Oh look we are bombing a densely populated area. So all the people dying there were used as human shields by the terrorists who are also from that area, because we have blocked it all off. Look at what the terrorists made us do!” With this logic you can justify the annihilation of any civilian population, claiming there were military targets nearby.
Israel has every possibility to avoid the death of civillians by going in on the ground directly instead of bombing things to rubble. But that is a tactical disadvantage so they full well knowingly bomb civillians.
They also targeted numerous UN hospitals and medics, killing at least 11 so far in the current campaign. They do secondary bombings onto areas targeted before, so rescue operations are hindered.
These are all actions that speak of total disregard to civillian life and taking away their responsibility from it is absurd. In that reasoning any nation has the right to commit countless atrocities because at some point another nation did it before to them.