Comments:Israeli military confirms the use of white phosphorus bombs in the Gaza Strip

inb4 shitstorm.

Can't
Israel cannot deny it anymore, UN shall investigate this crap, and they just can't explain it to the world anymore!!!

Well
Not much to say. It was either Israel, Hamas, or allies of Hamas that fired those missiles at civillian targets. Either way Israel will recieve condemnation for it. The U.N.'s only strength is numbers if they can muster them. This shall be some interesting set of events, but i hope they are short.--Ender (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article at all? The IDF put together a report aimed at finding out the facts of the situation, and that report showed it was a specific reserve brigade responsible for firing those 20 incendiary shells. There is no Hamas conspiracy here, and trying to claim one is disingenuous at best. 65.1.171.163 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ender, first of all they were artillery shells, and firing them requires modern artillery pieces the types of which Hamas could never get their hands on. Even if they had the guns required to fire them, how would Palestinians get a hold of American incendiary shells?

God bless Israel
God bless Israel

Israel's crimes and US Cover-up
Listen this. Olmert vaunted himself to have ordered to GWB to vote against the UN resolution. That resolution that was setup by Condi Rice.. that resolution that had no sanctions against nobody.. that relation was approved by 14 of 15 UN permanent council, EXCEPT Condi Rice. So: first she set-up a resolution, then all vote for it, BUT Condi Rice do not votes. The same resolution she had written. So, what's more to say how Israel is covered by US? US handled like stupid animals by Israel criminals like Olmert and the ex-Mossad-girl named Livni.

Not only this but also:


 * Minister Livni said in Europe that 'there is no human emergency in Gaza'. While IDF bombed countlessly times 1,5 millions in Gaza Strip. With this manners, there was no emergency even in Leningrad siege..


 * IDF soldiers did not admitted humanitarian helps in saturday because it's 'shabbat' so no one must work. But in the same time, they 'worked' a lot, bombing and shelling Palestinians, right? Humanitarian truck drivers were muslims, non jews, so what they must bother about shabbat?


 * Massacres in ONU schools, always with the same excuse: 'it seemed Hamas fired from this place', strangely enough, never confirmed by witnesses, and finally not even by IDF


 * Medical assistance ships: times and times, Israel Navy has attacked them and treaten a ship with doctors, medical aids and so on to be sunk if they turn back.


 * Livni and others said that 'israel-arabs' (20% total) should be handled to Palestine state when it will be founded. Is it a 'ethinic/racist cleaning'? I'd say yes, it is. But Olmert is not Milosevic, right?


 * Right-wing extremist Liebemann has asked for a 'Hiroshima solution' over Gaza Strip. Yes, one of the non-existen 400 Nukes could solve the 'problem'. Nazis had crematoris, we have nukes, why not use them? they are quicker, after hall. Nobody criticized Liebemann, right? Israel must defend himself. And who will defend us from Israel?

All this is more than enough to accuse Israel about war crimes. Insthead, it's not, because they are the 'only democracy in M.East'. Yes, why do not believe it?--Erik455 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "The article is obviously prese..."
The article is obviously presented to make it look as though Israel confirmed *purposefully shelling civilians*. Untrue. Never at any time did Israel do this, much less 'admit it". The article leaves out that Israel's use was solely military, & allowed by the rules of war. But, every fact presented is true - very clever. &mdash;108.45.69.205 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * When people are accustomed to reading propaganda in favor of their POV, they may fail to recognize actual neutrality when they first see it. Reading through the article, it was very clear to me that Israel was saying something quite different from what you're claiming the article tried to make it sound like; nor do I see any "obvious" evidence the article was trying to make it sound as you claim.  It would be a violation of WN:NPOV for the article to present controversial claims by Israel as if those claims were established fact; the proper role of neutral journalism is to present facts, and leave judgements to the reader.  I did wonder about the assertion, at the end, that the majority of Palestinian deaths were civilians &mdash;seems like the sort of thing that ought to be attributed&mdash; but I notice you aren't disputing that.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)