Is the New York times using "invasion" and not some euphemism approved by Israel?
Hitting civilians is the point. The Israelis literally call it the Dahiyeh Doctrine and it is military policy.
This "human shield" line is Israel's most effective propaganda to date. They've used it repeatedly with Hamas and now rolling it out in Lebanon to waive away concerns about killing civilians
When you unpack it it is a meaningless statement. All military command centres in the world are in urban locations.
NATO is in Brussels. The UK Ministry of Defence is in London. Mossad is in Tel Aviv. Are all these countries using "human shields"?
It is not smart to have your most important military centres sitting in an isolated field somewhere.
They want to colonise Gaza so they had to commit genocide. Now that they have decapitated Hezbollah they may decide to occupy South Lebanon in which case they will commit genocide there as well.
Yes I did and I couldn't see anything Neo-Nazi about it. The videos are critical in their analysis of Israel as well as the hypocrisy of the West.
Or is it that you think criticizing Israel makes you antisemitic?
This is an incredibly insightful video. Thanks for posting.
Try harder Hasbara
In the full video she tells the interviewer that she misses bread and then the man asks her where her dad is and she says "he's in heaven" and she fights back the tears.
This shit needs to be said. Zionists are using Nazi tactics. They should be ashamed of themselves.
It's heartbreaking seeing shell shocked children covered in dust and blood or parents weeping for their dead kids. There is no sanctuary for these people. Then Israelis call them "human animals" while claiming to be the "most moral army in the world" without any sense of shame. They are depraved.
What? Mate, it's 1948 the date that the racist colony called Israel was founded on the bones of Palestinians.
Only the Zionists want you to think it's a religious dispute.