[guelo]

Although you never hear about it in most Western media Gaza militants also claim their attacks are responses to IDF attacks. The current escalation started when IDF killed a mentally challenged man and than a kid in an incursion a week ago. You can read about the tit for tats that have been going on here http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-...

To always blame the Gaza side as the aggressors and as terrorists is just to swallow IDF propaganda whole and uncritically.

Did you know that before this current escalation Israel had struck Gaza hundred of times this year and killed 312 people including 61 kids, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/15/bodies-for-... Who are the real terrorists?

Oh, and it just so happens that there's an Israel election coming up.

[mikevm]

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)

[anthonyb]

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

[aes256]

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...

[anthonyb]

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.

[maratd]

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