Gaza

stevieg8 wrote:

It's odd you reference the UN "starting this whole conflict"... how would you prefer countries be founded? Obviously the ideal is "indigenous people, with no conflict from anyone else in the area, band together to form a democratic government." But considering that has literally never happened, in the history of the world, I'm wondering which of the practical options you'd prefer?

The original idea wasn't bad. Just kidding, it was horrible. But at least I can empathize with the UN (or League of Nations as they were called back then) and say that their solution was one of the best available. They didn't have a lot of options.

However, the instant Israel began to take land and make illegal settlements in Palestine, the UN should've been there, punishing Israel and righting the wrongs (however small they were at that point) that had been committed.

I'll give you an example.

Let's say you take two toddlers who both LOVE a particular sand box. One of them has grown up playing with this sandbox and legally it belongs to him, but the second is poor and can't afford his own sandbox to play in, so out of pity, a third party comes in and persuades the two to share it.

Excellent. Not an ideal solution, but an admirable effort, correct? Now, bearing in mind that these are greedy, selfish toddlers and both of them love the sandbox, as well as the fact that you are the only one that can stop a fight that breaks out between the two, you leave them alone and go by yourself a cup of coffee. You return an hour later and surprise, surprise! The two toddlers that had agreed to share are now mortal enemies.

Still with me? Good.

There are three things you must do.

1. You, the third party, must acknowledge that this was your fault and apologize to both toddlers.
2. Second, you must find out every single act that each toddler committed that was out of line, and compensate every injured party.
3. You must, keeping in mind that this sandbox originally belonged to toddler 1, create a new agreement that both parties are happy with and that gives toddler 1 most, if not all, of his original privileges.

That is your MORAL obligation.

That is what the UN should be doing.

Right now, they are pretending to be completely detached from the scenario, they are refusing to look at the big picture, insisting instead of looking at small crimes committed in the now, and they are ignoring the rights of the Palestinians.

That is why anything the UN says, for or against Israel is worthless and can't truly be counted. They need to wake up and right the wrongs they caused before I can take their investigators whining about 'war crimes' seriously. 1500 CHILDREN have been killed by Israel in the past 10 years alone. Stop doing these ridiculous investigations to 'find facts' and do something to stop these senseless murders. That's what the previous investigator wanted the UN to do and he was sacked.

ACMRox wrote:

You're overcomplicating this.

The investigator says that Israel did not intend to kill civilians, and this was proven during the investigation.

But if no investigation was carried out on the side of Hamas, how does he know that the Israeli casualties weren't similar accidents?

He waved away the 150+ innocent woman and children killed by saying they were accidents and Israel is investigating to prevent similar war crimes.

How can we assume that the situation of Hamas is not the same? That they are investigating right now how a small number of Israeli civilians were killed and are doing there best to prevent future occurrences.

Admittedly, the reason no investigation was carried out for Hamas was because they refused to cooperate, but you cannot blame them. The UN has ignored the numerous international laws Israel has broken and blamed Palestine before, why should they change now?

Hamas has repeatedly stated, from high up in their political wing, that the goal of the rocket attacks is to hit civilians. There are no military targets they could even possibly be aiming at when rockets hit where they do. Even their charter references death of Israeli citizens. If you want to say that Israeli officials have the same attitude behind closed doors, that's fine - but it's much easier (and more logical) to take the statements and actions made by both sides at face value. Israel states that they aim for military targets, and when civilians die, it conducts investigations and punishes the people responsible accordingly; Hamas states that they aim for civilian targets, and when they make contact, they do nothing about it.

To respond to your second post, I'm not sure why the settlements come up in this discussion. If we're talking about a general solution to the overall conflict, OK. But when discussing Gaza? The settlements are gone. The land was given back, there are no Israelis living there - period. We've seen in the West Bank what happens when Palestinian leadership focuses on economic development for their people over attacking Israel, despite the settlements still being there. Why does Gaza feel the need to attack Israel proper (under the terms you're applying) over a wrong that has already been righted? They should work on building up their infrastructure instead, and see what happens.

BTW, I see you keep doing this, and I just thought you should know - by the time the Israeli mandate was being discussed, it WAS the UN, not the League of Nations. League of Nations wasn't an earlier name for the organization, it was a separate entity entirely, and a new version of it (the UN) was created when it failed. When you make the distinction you keep making, it makes you sound uninformed.

This man talks sense:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/23/gaza-wearying-conflict-end-time

Israel and Palestine's leaders – and cheerleaders – have failed them

There used to be one for each decade, an Arab-Israeli war in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Now the eruptions into full-scale confrontation are coming more often, at four- or even three-year intervals: 2006, 2008-2009 and the eight days of November 2012.

The immediate consequence, the hardest and most numbing, is the grief of the bereaved: from this round, some 150 Palestinians and five Israelis dead. Next comes the despair, mixed with a kind of envy: why are the people of Northern Ireland – or South Africa – blessed to have their conflicts behind them, resolved more or less, while Israelis and Palestinians seem fated to keep bleeding, locked in a battle that drags on and on, perhaps till the end of time?

And through it all is the weariness: of those living – and dying – in the conflict most of all, but also of those drawn into it somehow. I feel it myself, a deep fatigue with this struggle, with the actions of both sides and, sometimes especially, with their cheerleaders abroad.

So yes, I'm weary of those who get so much more exercised, so much more excited, by deaths in Gaza than they do by deaths in, say, Syria. An estimated 800 died under Assad during the same eight days of what Israel called Operation Pillar of Defence. But, for some reason, the loss of those lives failed to touch the activists who so rapidly organised the demos and student sit-ins against Israel. You might have heard me make this point before, and you might be weary of it. Well, so am I. I'm tired, too, of the argument that "We hold western nations like Israel to a higher standard", because I see only a fraction of the outrage that's directed at Israel turned on the US – a western nation – for its drone war in Pakistan which has cost an estimated 3,000 lives, nearly 900 of them civilians, since 2004.

I'm tired of those who like to pretend that Israel attacked unprovoked, as if there had been no rockets fired from Gaza, as if Hamas was peacefully minding its own business, a Mediterranean Sweden, until Israel randomly lashed out. I'm tired of having to ask whether any government anywhere would really let one million of its citizens be confined to bomb shelters while missiles rained down. I'm weary of having to point out that, yes, occupied peoples do have a right to resist, but that right does not extend to taking deliberate aim at civilian targets – schools and villages – which is where all but a handful of Gaza's rockets were directed.

And I'm especially tired that so many otherwise smart, sophisticated people apparently struggle to talk about Israel-Palestine without reaching, even unwittingly, for the dog-eared lexicon of anti-Jewish cliche, casting Israeli leaders as supremacists driven by a (misunderstood) notion of Jews as "chosen people" or, hoarier still, as international puppet-masters. It pains me that too many fail to realise that while, of course, there is a clear line that separates hostility to Israel and hostility to Jews, that border is porous. Traffic moves across it both ways. Witness the Lazio thugs who bombarded Spurs fans with anti-Jewish chants – "Juden Tottenham" among them – during their match on Thursday night, but also brandished a Free Palestine banner, deployed not to declare solidarity with Gaza but to taunt a club with large Jewish support.

But when I turn in the other direction, to the actions of Israel's leaders, I feel no less exhausted. For I'm weary of an Israel that persists in believing it has a military solution to every problem, that suffers from the impaired vision so well defined by the novelist Amos Oz: "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like nail." It makes the same mistake again and again. It bombarded Gaza four years ago to "restore deterrence", but it didn't work: the rockets resumed until Israel had to restore deterrence again. Thursday's headline in Haaretz is correct: "Ceasefire agreement almost identical to that reached in Operation Cast Lead." In which case, what was the point? Why did all those people have to die?

The two sides could have used the intervening years to do what former Mossad head Efraim Halevy and several other leading Israeli ex-security figures have long called for: to talk to Hamas. Of course the organisation is brutal, its charter peppered with vile antisemitism, but that's why it is Israel's enemy. If Hamas were the Mothers' Union, the two sides would not be at war. Israel needs to remember that most basic truth: you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.

Yet Israel's own actions constantly make peace ever harder to reach. What message has it now sent? That Hamas, which uses force, gets results – starting with the easing of the Gaza blockade – while Fatah, which practises non-violent diplomacy, gets nothing: the occupation of the West Bank endures. Pillar of Defence has left Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas looking marginalised and irrelevant in the West Bank, while Hamas is strengthened in Gaza.

Partly for that reason, Israel will have to talk to Hamas eventually. But it makes that unavoidable task harder by assassinating layer after layer of Hamas leaders. The military commander Ahmed Ja'abari was no dove, but Israel could do business with him: he was the broker of last year's prisoner exchange for Gilad Shalit. And last week they killed him.

Similarly, the constant expansion of settlements renders ever more complex the eventual task of partitioning historic Palestine into two viable states, one for each people. It also undermines any faith Palestinians might have – and need to have – that two states is the destiny Israel envisages for their shared future.

I'm tired, too, of Israeli public figures who don't merely resort to violence, but seem to revel in it, whether it's the interior minister demanding Israel "send Gaza back to the Middle Ages", or the son of Ariel Sharon advocating that Gaza be flattened, following the principle that underpinned Hiroshima and Nagasaki – both talking as if, after two millennia of Jewish powerlessness, they are drunk on the thrill of wielding power at last.

And I'm weary of the two sides' followers, waving the flags of Israel and Palestine as if these were rival football teams: black v white; my team all good, their team all bad: my team the perennial David, the pure, unblemished victim; their team a permanent Goliath, capable only of wickedness and immune to pain. Those who feel anything at all for these peoples, or even just for one of them, need to end this wearying, deadening obsession with scoring points and winning righteous vindication and focus on the only question that matters: how might these two peoples live?

This. This, so many times over. I'm so beyond sick of the jingoistic crap I hear from my obstinately pro-Israel friends, from the same things bouncing off the echo chamber from those I know on the other side, and from the repeated failure of leadership on both sides to realize that playing the blame game and waving your bloody flag of patriotism does nothing but cost more lives. I'm so sick of Netanyahu in power I could vomit, and the chances he's blown - possibly permanently - to make real progress. It's like its a joke to the people in charge on both sides at this point.

Thank you BC.

Neither of you of you are middle easterners are arabs, you can't truly know what it's like.. Arabs don't have power in the media compared to the jews, especially in america. This is a one sided battle. Look at the state and infrastructure of gaza and isreal, and tell me both are at fault. This isn't even a war. It's a massacre by isreal.

Of course, I respect your opinion BC and stevie. Yes, both are blaming each other, true. But who's right? Is it right for isreal to blockade gaza and starve them? Look at isreal. People are partying, having fun, spending money lavishly, have the best schools. In gaza, people are lucky to find food, let alone running water and proper schooling. Open your eyes.

"You're not directly involved in the conflict; therefore, your opinion is worth less" is not a particularly compelling argument if you're looking to convince me... I'll be the first to note that I'm fairly ignorant on the subject, which is why I refuse to form an opinion on it quite yet, but I've met jews who think the media is quite biased against them as well.

In any case, that article is pushing to recognize that both sides are at fault and that they should focus on finding a solution rather than wasting more chances. Don't see how the fact that Israel have superior military power somehow makes it so that Gaza are not at fault as well as Israel.

Arabs and israeli jews are brainwashed since early childhood into non-compromise, thats why many from both sides froth at the mouth when this is brought up

Thats the real problem

stevieg8 wrote: Israel states that they aim for military targets, and when civilians die, it conducts investigations and punishes the people responsible accordingly; Hamas states that they aim for civilian targets, and when they make contact, they do nothing about it.

So your telling me that US funded and made weaponry that is among the best in the word has such a horrible aiming capacity that it almost always misses its target? Because that's what you have to believe if you accept Israel's plea that they never intentionally target civilians.

As for Hamas saying that they target Israeli citizens, source please.

stevieg8 wrote:
BTW, I see you keep doing this, and I just thought you should know - by the time the Israeli mandate was being discussed, it WAS the UN, not the League of Nations. League of Nations wasn't an earlier name for the organization, it was a separate entity entirely, and a new version of it (the UN) was created when it failed. When you make the distinction you keep making, it makes you sound uninformed.

IIRC, the original idea was posed by the LN in 1946 before they were disbanded, but it was only the UN that decided to act on that idea the following year when it was formed. But whatever, that's hardly important, and if I am wrong, then please accept my apologies for posting false info.

Giggity5313 wrote:Neither of you of you are middle easterners are arabs, you can't truly know what it's like.. Arabs don't have power in the media compared to the jews, especially in america. This is a one sided battle. Look at the state and infrastructure of gaza and isreal, and tell me both are at fault. This isn't even a war. It's a massacre by isreal.

Of course, I respect your opinion BC and stevie. Yes, both are blaming each other, true. But who's right? Is it right for isreal to blockade gaza and starve them? Look at isreal. People are partying, having fun, spending money lavishly, have the best schools. In gaza, people are lucky to find food, let alone running water and proper schooling. Open your eyes.

I'd love to hear someone correct me, but I'm fairly certain I'm the only one who has actually lived in the area. I've been in the Palestinian territories as well, several times, and have had discussions with people on both sides of the conflict (including members of Israeli leadership). I also have numerous friends and family members actively fighting as of a week ago, before the cease fire was signed. Don't even try the "you're not involved in the conflict" BS on me. I'm more connected to this than a random Algerian; just because you're Arab does not make you an authority on the topic, just like being Jewish does not make some of my friends authorities either.

ACMRox wrote:

stevieg8 wrote: Israel states that they aim for military targets, and when civilians die, it conducts investigations and punishes the people responsible accordingly; Hamas states that they aim for civilian targets, and when they make contact, they do nothing about it.

So your telling me that US funded and made weaponry that is among the best in the word has such a horrible aiming capacity that it almost always misses its target? Because that's what you have to believe if you accept Israel's plea that they never intentionally target civilians.

As for Hamas saying that they target Israeli citizens, source please.

Gaza is one of the most heavily populated regions of the world; it's actually one of the biggest criticisms of Israel (and one I wholeheartedly agree with) that any aerial attack on the region is going to result in civilian casualties. There are also numerous reports - well documented, and referenced by third party observers and reporters - that Hamas sets up attack sites and military bases within civilian compounds (schools, hospitals, etc.) intentionally so as to get more civilian deaths and help their PR stance. There are many different ways that civilian deaths can occur - on both sides - without intentionality. The fact that Israel does ANYTHING in response to them is a fundamental difference.

And I referenced the source in the first part. Look up Hamas' charter.

Giggity5313 wrote:Neither of you of you are middle easterners are arabs, you can't truly know what it's like.. Arabs don't have power in the media compared to the jews, especially in america. This is a one sided battle. Look at the state and infrastructure of gaza and isreal, and tell me both are at fault. This isn't even a war. It's a massacre by isreal.

Of course, I respect your opinion BC and stevie. Yes, both are blaming each other, true. But who's right? Is it right for isreal to blockade gaza and starve them? Look at isreal. People are partying, having fun, spending money lavishly, have the best schools. In gaza, people are lucky to find food, let alone running water and proper schooling. Open your eyes.

I realized I should also respond to the content of what you have to say. To attribute the infrastructure issues solely to the blockade by Israel is naive at best; it has roots in many problems, not the least of which was the mass destruction of formerly Israeli property done by Gazans themselves when Israel pulled out of the area. Yes, this is confusing, considering it was theirs to own, not destroy, at this point, but a lot of the issues with electricity and water distribution are based in the mass looting and wholesale destruction that occurred at their own hands. Also important to consider is the use of resources by their own elected officials; Hamas receives a substantial amount of resources from abroad AND from Israel itself in the form of medical supplies and food, but due to corruption at the top (much like Fatah used to operate) and a focus not on development but on destruction of Israel, those resources never reach the people. As for the blockade itself, the argument from the other side (not one I agree with, just the point that is made) is that most items which were originally allowed in were used to make more weaponry, so those had to be stopped too. Furthermore, if you were to look at the time period shortly after the Israeli withdrawal occurred, you'll see that the infrastructure was not much better despite the lack of Israeli interference.

My point here is not to absolve Israel in any way, but to state that not everything is as black and white as you seem to like to think it is. I'll repeat again here an opinion I've posted before, here and in other threads: if everything seems clear cut in a real life scenario, you're probably wrong. Nothing is that simple, and you should try and learn what the other side has to say.

Thoughts? I think it was a very good idea.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Arabs and israeli jews are brainwashed since early childhood into non-compromise, thats why many from both sides froth at the mouth when this is brought up

Thats the real problem

its funny that every israeli jew i talk to has the same media slander answers to my statements, especially the one where the global media is controlled by zionists. they think that media is biased but none of them actually know (or maybe they are lying) that most if not almost all bigger media corporations are owned by jews.

spanky489 wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Arabs and israeli jews are brainwashed since early childhood into non-compromise, thats why many from both sides froth at the mouth when this is brought up

Thats the real problem

its funny that every israeli jew i talk to has the same media slander answers to my statements, especially the one where the global media is controlled by zionists. they think that media is biased but none of them actually know (or maybe they are lying) that most if not almost all bigger media corporations are owned by jews.

The problem with this is that it's factually false, and is an opinion based deeply in the anti-semitic claims of the late 1800s and early 1900s. It's as factually off-base as references to Jewish roles in the banking industry. You'll forgive me if I ignore any and all references to this, seeing as I've actually seen facts, and am not quoting propaganda that's in line with The Birth of Nations and similar racist drivel.

spanky489 wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Arabs and israeli jews are brainwashed since early childhood into non-compromise, thats why many from both sides froth at the mouth when this is brought up

Thats the real problem

its funny that every israeli jew i talk to has the same media slander answers to my statements, especially the one where the global media is controlled by zionists. they think that media is biased but none of them actually know (or maybe they are lying) that most if not almost all bigger media corporations are owned by jews.

Agreed but you say anything its anti semetic.

jibers wrote:

spanky489 wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Arabs and israeli jews are brainwashed since early childhood into non-compromise, thats why many from both sides froth at the mouth when this is brought up

Thats the real problem

its funny that every israeli jew i talk to has the same media slander answers to my statements, especially the one where the global media is controlled by zionists. they think that media is biased but none of them actually know (or maybe they are lying) that most if not almost all bigger media corporations are owned by jews.

Agreed but you say anything its anti semetic.

I don't think that. There are people who claim that, and I disagree with them vehemently. Claiming any anti-Israel sentiment is rooted in anti-semitism is not only wrong, it's detrimental to the conversation. The idea that Jews run the media/banks/hollywood/insert anything here is rooted in bigotry though.

stevieg8, are you telling me you havnt seen evidence of media bias towards israel ?

zizzle wrote:stevieg8, are you telling me you havnt seen evidence of media bias towards israel ?

I think there are things they leave out on both sides to create a narrative that will sell; I've heard just as loud and rampant claims of a media bias towards the Palestinians from Jewish friends. But that's not the claim I'm responding to. I'm responding to the claim that the Jews have high-placed execs in the media world who are controlling the content in the news in favor of Israel, which is a non-fact based in anti-Semitic propaganda of about a hundred years ago. The fact is that there aren't enough Jews in the media sectors of Europe and the US (simply because the Jewish population isn't large enough in total) to control anything, and even if they WERE in power, the assumption that all Jews feel the same way about Israel and this conflict is mindbogglingly stupid. I don't know anyone in this thread personally, so I make no claims as to whether or not someone is anti-Semitic; I'm simply stating that they are misinformed, and the opinions they are proclaiming have a clear path through a very real history of hatred towards Jews in the Western world. It's a myth that was circulated in the same manner as the blood libel or the Jewish love of money/control of banking in Europe. It was propaganda spread to incite the populous against Jews, and isn't true.

Look not all jews are bad. In fact, there are good jews in isreal who want peace. But ask most of them what they'd do to palestine, their answer is not very pleasing. Like it or not, zionists are incredibly powerful in the western world, particularly in the us. Guess who owns NY times? Guess who owns FOX news?

Can't load full pic here but click on this link guys.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/mapstellstory/jews_stealing_palestine.png

How can 'defensive' military action result in the total conquest of the 'attacker's' land?

stevieg8 wrote:

zizzle wrote:stevieg8, are you telling me you havnt seen evidence of media bias towards israel ?

I think there are things they leave out on both sides to create a narrative that will sell; I've heard just as loud and rampant claims of a media bias towards the Palestinians from Jewish friends. But that's not the claim I'm responding to. I'm responding to the claim that the Jews have high-placed execs in the media world who are controlling the content in the news in favor of Israel, which is a non-fact based in anti-Semitic propaganda of about a hundred years ago. The fact is that there aren't enough Jews in the media sectors of Europe and the US (simply because the Jewish population isn't large enough in total) to control anything, and even if they WERE in power, the assumption that all Jews feel the same way about Israel and this conflict is mindbogglingly stupid. I don't know anyone in this thread personally, so I make no claims as to whether or not someone is anti-Semitic; I'm simply stating that they are misinformed, and the opinions they are proclaiming have a clear path through a very real history of hatred towards Jews in the Western world. It's a myth that was circulated in the same manner as the blood libel or the Jewish love of money/control of banking in Europe. It was propaganda spread to incite the populous against Jews, and isn't true.

Stockholders and Corporations that place advertisments in the media, those people are more influencial than a million of biased news repporters. And lets be honest here, Jews are more powerful/influencial than any group out there, they might not control the world as some conspiracy theoriests might claim, but they do have their say on how this planet turns, much more say than Palestinians or Arabs for that matter.

Giggity5313 wrote:Look not all jews are bad. In fact, there are good jews in isreal who want peace. But ask most of them what they'd do to palestine, their answer is not very pleasing. Like it or not, zionists are incredibly powerful in the western world, particularly in the us. Guess who owns NY times? Guess who owns FOX news?

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. owns the NYT, a half-Jew who identifies as a practicing Episcopalian.

Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, a practicing Christian.

Seriously, I can't believe I have to respond to this BS. There are many things to criticize Israel for legitimately. Being blindly anti-Semitic with no basis in facts really doesn't help your cause. At least do research before posting.

Fox news? Rupert Murdoch, 100% not jewish, of irish and english descent

Also a lot of these companies are public. Some firms have a controlling interest, but not many. Just because some news agencies currently have Jewish CEOs doesn't make them owned by "the jews". The average lifespan of a CEO of a public company is 2-3 years at the same company before they move on to the next.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Fox news? Rupert Murdoch, 100% not jewish, of irish and english descent

Also a lot of these companies are public. Some firms have a controlling interest, but not many. Just because some news agencies currently have Jewish CEOs doesn't make them owned by "the jews". The average lifespan of a CEO of a public company is 2-3 years at the same company before they move on to the next.

It would be much more interesting to look at media directors, if you're really going for bias in the segments. But even that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Argue based on the arguments merits, it looks much better.

Edit: this wasn't a response to you, BC, just an agreement with/supplement to your point, and was in response to earlier comments by others.

An article making the rounds on FB now:

November 27, 2012
What I Saw During Operation Pillar of Defense
By Nira Lee
Four years ago, watching the coverage of Operation Cast Lead from the comfort of my dorm, I was a conflicted college student. As supportive as I was of Israel, I still found it painful any time I heard about civilian casualties in Gaza. What I saw portrayed in the media didn't add up: on the one hand I knew that the IDF was engaged in careful efforts to prevent civilian casualties, despite Hamas's strategy of fighting from amongst its own civilian population. Yet the media made it seem like the IDF was actively targeting civilians.

Back then, I understood Israel's efforts at protecting civilians as a something akin to a talking point -- I had no personal involvement in the conflict. Yet I had no idea how true it is until I myself participated in last week's Operation "Pillar of Defense" as an officer in the IDF.

When I moved to Israel and enlisted, I joined a unit called the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), which is devoted to civilian and humanitarian issues.

As an International Liaison Officer in the Gaza office, my job primarily entails coordinating transfers of goods, aid, and delegations into Gaza. I work closely with representatives of the international community, and although our perspectives may differ, we maintain relationships of mutual respect born of a common goal; I am here to help them succeed in their work improving the quality of life in Gaza.

While the day-to-day work is challenging in Gaza, I learned over the past ten days that the true test comes with crisis. At exactly the point where most militaries would use the heat of war to throw out the rulebook, we worked harder than ever to provide assistance wherever and whenever possible.

The eight days of Operation "Pillar of Defense" have been some of the hardest I have ever known physically and emotionally. The college student from Arizona would never have thought it possible to work 20 hours a day, fueled only by adrenaline and longing for just an hour of sleep on a shelter floor -- wearing the same filthy uniform because changing, much less showering, wouldn't allow me to get to a shelter in time when the next rocket barrage hit. And no, wearing the green uniform does not mean that you aren't afraid when the sirens sound.

Had you told me four years ago that there were IDF officers who stayed up all night under a hail of rockets, brainstorming ways to import medical supplies and food to the people of Gaza, I am not sure I would have believed you. But I can tell you it is true because I did it every night.

What amazed me the most was the singular sense of purpose that drove everyone from the base commander to the lowest ranking soldier. We were all focused completely on our mission: to help our forces accomplish their goals without causing unnecessary harm to civilian lives or infrastructure.

It is harder to explain the emotional roller-coaster -- how proud and relieved I felt every time a truck I coordinated entered Gaza, and how enraging it was when we had to shut down the crossing into Gaza after Hamas repeatedly targeted it. Or how invigorating it was help evacuate two injured Palestinians from the border area, only to be informed minutes later that a terrorist had detonated a bomb on a bus near my apartment in Tel Aviv.

So after all that I see and do, nothing frustrates me more than the numbers game that is played in the media. The world talks about "disproportionate" numbers of casualties as the measure of what is right and wrong -- as if not enough Israelis were killed by Hamas for the IDF to have the right to protect its own civilians from endless rocket attacks.

In my position, I see the surgical airstrikes, and spend many hours with the UN, ICRC, and NGO officers reviewing maps to help identify, and avoid, striking civilian sites. One of our pilots who saw a rocket aimed at Israel aborted his mission when he saw children nearby -- putting his own civilians at risk to save Gazans. At the end of the day, what these "disproportionate numbers" show is how we in Israel protect our children with elaborate shelters and missile defense systems, whereas the terror groups in Gaza hide behind theirs, using them as human shields in order to win a cynical media war.

What's really behind the headlines and that picture on the front page? Every day, I coordinate goods with a young Gazan woman who works for an international aid organization. Last month we forged a bond when we had to run for cover together when Hamas targeted Kerem Shalom Crossing -- attacking the very aid provided to its own people. During the eight days of Operation "Pillar of Defense", not one passed without a phone call, just to check in. "Are you ok?" I would ask. "I heard they fired at your base. Please stay safe", she would reply. And every night I made her promise to call me if she needed anything. These are the things that the media fails to show the world, just as they underplay how Hamas deliberately endangers civilians on both sides of the border -- by firing indiscriminately at Israel from Gaza neighborhoods.

Maybe stories such as these make for less exciting headlines, but if they received more attention there would perhaps be more moral clarity, and thus more peace in the Middle East.

2nd Lt. Nira Lee is an Arizona native. She moved to Israel in 2010 and has been serving in the IDF for the past two years. She works as a liaison officer to international organizations out of the Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration

Take it however you will, since she doesn't provide sources for her claims other than her firsthand experience and is a member of the IDF. I know that will make a lot of you discount anything this says, but for others, maybe it'll give a more rounded view of things.