Israel Admits to Harvesting Organs From Bodies Without Permission

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

LordofHats wrote:
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

There is a difference between those things. However, nearly all of the Anti Israel nonsense out there has Antisemetic roots or is used as a cover for people who are Antisemetic.

You know, being an antisemite hiding behind an argument doesn't make an argument non sense. It just means the person making it is a douche. There's a lot of legitimate criticism that can be pointed at Israeli policy, and someone doesn't have to be an antisemite to make them.

Yes, that's true, but the Anti Israel nonsense is heavily exaggerated and one sided.

**d-usa**

Is it because the majority if the world is anti-semetic? Or is it because Israel does a lot of stupid gak?

Europe loves to hate on the US.

Is it because we have stupid foreign policies? Or is it because people are anti-WASPic?

**LordofHats**

I've followed the drama on Wikipedia's Arab-Israel pages for years. There's a lot of exaggeration and nonsense on both sides (go check it out for the sad hilarious truth).

But that's what the conflict has become in Israeli policy and the policy of the powers that be in the PLO. A lot of exaggeration and nonsense. We outside observers simply follow suit.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

LordofHats wrote:
I've followed the drama on Wikipedia's Arab-Israel pages for years. There's a lot of exaggeration and nonsense on both sides (go check it out for the sad hilarious truth).

But that's what the conflict has become in Israeli policy and the policy of the powers that be in the PLO. A lot of exaggeration and nonsense. We outside observers simply follow suit.

Yeah, it's completely exaggerated. The Palestinians give a completely one sided version while many of the Israelis forget to consider that maybe they can be a bit heavy handed and not acting in the interest of Palestinians who aren't trying to blow people up.

**Jihadin**

UN is not bias...not at all...nope....never....HEY...a pink elephant...Kool

**Frazzled**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

The dogma that criticising Israel is directly equal to anti-Semitism and thus by extension critics of Israel are questionally comperable to fascists and even Holocaust deniers, is perhaps the single most effective point of propaganda in the last fifty years; and it is still hard to challenge.

99% of all criticism of Israel is anti Semitic, has an anti Semitic origin, or is being repeated by people who have been drinking anti Semitic Kool-Aid.

Rum is good. Kool Aid not so much.

**d-usa**

Why not both?

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Why not both?

Because rum goes with Coke. Vodka goes with Kool Aid. All hep cats know that.

**Jihadin**

Because rum goes with Coke. Vodka goes with Kool Aid. All hep cats know that

110% in support of this........No D you are not going to IV me to a bottle

**Paint_To_Redemption**

When I'm gone and not around,
Don't bury my body in the ground,
Don't burn me up and spread my ashes,
Instead take my organs and spread some happiness,
Take my kidneys, take my spleen,
Take my liver if it isn't picked green,
Take my eyes and take my skin,
I'm not living so dive right in,
Take my lungs and take my heart,
I'm sure you're dying to make a start,
Take my eyes and my blood red,
It's all For Science! in the end,
If my bits can help to save a life,
Don't wait, don't hesitate, get my corpse under that knife.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Why not both?

Because rum goes with Coke. Vodka goes with Kool Aid. All hep cats know that.

Vodka and artificial juice tastes like total gak. Non 100% cranberry juice, powered pomegranate juice, Hawaiian Punch unless you have so much you can't taste the vodka. By that point you might as well drink beer.

**Jihadin**

Mix it with Power Aid or Gatorade

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

Jihadin wrote:
Mix it with Power Aid or Gatorade

Thanks! I'll try that.

**Jihadin**

Oh Hell....what have I created.......drink in moderation Inquisitor.....moderation I say.......

**NuggzTheNinja**

Did you even bother to check the date on the article?

Israel's critics are slacking if they have to dredge up news articles from 3 years ago.

**azazel the cat**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I've followed the drama on Wikipedia's Arab-Israel pages for years. There's a lot of exaggeration and nonsense on both sides (go check it out for the sad hilarious truth).

But that's what the conflict has become in Israeli policy and the policy of the powers that be in the PLO. A lot of exaggeration and nonsense. We outside observers simply follow suit.

Yeah, it's completely exaggerated. The Palestinians give a completely one sided version while many of the Israelis forget to consider that maybe they can be a bit heavy handed and not acting in the interest of Palestinians who aren't trying to blow people up.

I shall now begin a comparison of your chosen syntax to determine your own level of bias:

A: "The Palestinians give a completely one sided version "
B: "many of the Israelis forget to consider that maybe they can be a bit heavy handed "

In A, you denote the entirety of the grouping: "The Palestinians", implying all of them. In B, you denote only some of the Israelis, but not all.

In A you use a very definitive term, "completely", whereas in B, three times you downplay any actions: the ncertainty of "maybe" implies it may not be the case at all. The non-definitive "can" implies it is not necessarily so; and "a bit", implies it is not extreme and is in fact mitigated in scope.

Conclusion: The only way you could express a more obvious bias here would be if you attached to "the Palestinians" the prefix "those dirty goddamn".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Did you even bother to check the date on the article?

It came across my feed because the article had apparently been updated. In any case, it was news to me.

**NuggzTheNinja**

d-usa wrote:
Is it because the majority if the world is anti-semetic? Or is it because Israel does a lot of stupid gak?

Europe loves to hate on the US.

Is it because we have stupid foreign policies? Or is it because people are anti-WASPic?

If you can't reach the conclusion that the world hates Jews by looking at this figure, then there is no help for you.

Clearly Israel is worse than North Korea, which starves its people into submission and executes Christians, or Iran, in which homosexuals are hanged.

**d-usa**

Do I need to point out that you picked 2006, a year on which Israel participated in a war, or is it pointless?

**sebster**

The issue of Israel and Palestine just makes a lot of people go really nuts. I mean, yeah, there is plenty of anti-semitism, especially in the Middle East, but the idea that almost all criticism of Israel is due to anti-semitism is completely barking mad. I mean, it isn't that incredible an idea that a person could see the absolute poverty in Palestine, see how much of that is driven by incredibly oppressive Israeli measures that have nothing to do with security, and be compelled to say 'Israel should stop doing that stuff, it's causing a great deal of suffering'.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
[If you can't reach the conclusion that the world hates Jews by looking at this figure, then there is no help for you.

Or possibly those people understand how politics and international debate works.

Passing a resolution condemning North Korea means nothing, because no-one defends the regime. Not even North Korea bothers, much of the time.

But there are plenty of defenders of Israel. Forcing a vote in the UN that condemns an Israeli action is an effort to draw out the defenders of Israel, and get them in good conscious to recognise that Israel is doing stuff that decent, humane nations should not be doing. It's an effort to chip away at that absolute, unquestionable defence of Israel that so many people have taken up.

**Jihadin**

The 2006 Lebanon War, also called the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah War and known in Lebanon as the July War[36] (Arabic: حرب تموز‎, Ḥarb Tammūz) and in Israel as the Second Lebanon War (Hebrew: מלחמת לבנון השנייה‎, Milhemet Levanon HaShniya),[37] was a 34-day military conflict in Lebanon, northern Israel and the Golan Heights. The principal parties were Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israeli military. The conflict started on July 12, 2006, and continued until a United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect in the morning on August 14, 2006, though it formally ended on September 8, 2006 when Israel lifted its naval blockade of Lebanon. Due to unprecedented Iranian military support to Hezbollah before and during the war, some consider it the first round of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, rather than a continuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict.[1]

The conflict began when militants from the group Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[38] The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two additional soldiers, believed to have been killed outright or mortally wounded, were taken by Hezbollah to Lebanon.[38][39] Five more were killed in a failed rescue attempt. Israel responded with airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon aimed at Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport,[40] an air and naval blockade,[41] and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel and engaged the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in guerrilla warfare from hardened positions.[42]

The conflict is believed to have killed at least 1,191–1,300 Lebanese people,[43][44][45][46] and 165 Israelis.[47] It severely damaged Lebanese civil infrastructure, and displaced approximately one million Lebanese[48] and 300,000–500,000 Israelis.[22][49][50] After the ceasefire, some parts of southern Lebanon remained uninhabitable due to Israeli unexploded cluster bomblets.[51]

On 11 August 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved UN Resolution 1701 in an effort to end the hostilities. The resolution, which was approved by both Lebanese and Israeli governments the following days, called for disarmament of Hezbollah, for withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, and for the deployment of Lebanese soldiers and an enlarged United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in the south. UNIFIL was given an expanded mandate, including the ability to use force to ensure that their area of operations was not used for hostile activities, and to resist attempts by force to prevent them from discharging their duties.[52] The Lebanese army began deploying in southern Lebanon on 17 August 2006. The blockade was lifted on 8 September 2006.[53] On 1 October 2006, most Israeli troops withdrew from Lebanon, though the last of the troops continued to occupy the border-straddling village of Ghajar.[54] In the time since the enactment of UNSCR 1701 both the Lebanese government and UNIFIL have stated that they will not disarm Hezbollah.[55][56][57] The remains of the two captured soldiers, whose fates were unknown, were returned to Israel on 16 July 2008 as part of a prisoner exchange

Posted it to assist in clarification

**NuggzTheNinja**

d-usa wrote:
Do I need to point out that you picked 2006, a year on which Israel participated in a war, or is it pointless?

The war was initiated by a Hezbollah ambush. Israel didn't "participate in a war" - it was attacked.

**Jihadin**

Nuggz. Not going to contradict you or to flame this bit, Clarify a bit. Israel was attacked and they responded in kind by pushing back the threats in an attempt to eliminate them. Think the operation of the Israel military forces was to push back all human threats and launch sites of rockets thereby creating a buffer zone. So in effect to buy Israel enough time to notice a launch, track a missile in flight, and nail it out the sky before impact.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Jihadin wrote:
Nuggz. Not going to contradict you or to flame this bit, Clarify a bit. Israel was attacked and they responded in kind by pushing back the threats in an attempt to eliminate them. Think the operation of the Israel military forces was to push back all human threats and launch sites of rockets thereby creating a buffer zone. So in effect to buy Israel enough time to notice a launch, track a missile in flight, and nail it out the sky before impact.

Hezbollah conducted a very well planned ambush in 2006, abducting 2 IDF soldiers and killing a number more. This coordinated attack was followed by Katushya rocket attacks on Israel's civilian population as far south as Haifa. They launched rockets from civilian population centers (apartment buildings, schools, etc.) and the IAF released several videos of this, including aborted airstrikes on such targets. It's a lose-lose situation - either you kill the enemy and the civilians, or you let him fire. We chose to let him fire.

The 2006 war was conducted by a Chief of Staff from the Air Force. He thought like an aviator, unfortunately. Any soldier who spends his time fighting on the ground could tell you that tanks are useless in Southern Lebanon.

Contrast the IDF's performance in the more recent Gaza conflict with its performance in Lebanon. Gabi Ashkenazi, Chief of Staff during Cast Lead (Gaza) served in Golani, an infantry brigade. We killed more of each other by accident than Hamas did on purpose.

We handed their asses to them. I wish he'd been Ramat Kal in 2006.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Jihadin wrote:
Organ donation: Don't let these myths confuse you

Unsure about donating organs for transplant? Don't let misinformation keep you from saving lives.
By Mayo Clinic staff
Over 100,000 people in the U.S. are waiting for an organ donation. Unfortunately, many may never get the call saying that a suitable donor organ — and a second chance at life — has been found.

It can be hard to think about what's going to happen to your body after you die, let alone donating your organs and tissue. But being an organ donor is a generous and worthwhile decision that can be a lifesaver. If you've never considered organ donation or delayed becoming a donor because of possibly inaccurate information, here are answers to some common organ donation myths and concerns.

Myth: If I agree to donate my organs, the hospital staff won't work as hard to save my life.

Fact: When you go to the hospital for treatment, doctors focus on saving your life — not somebody else's. You'll be seen by a doctor whose specialty most closely matches your particular emergency.

Myth: Maybe I won't really be dead when they sign my death certificate.

Fact: Although it's a popular topic in the tabloids, in reality, people don't start to wiggle their toes after they're declared dead. In fact, people who have agreed to organ donation are given more tests (at no charge to their families) to determine that they're truly dead than are those who haven't agreed to organ donation.

Myth: Organ donation is against my religion.

Fact: Organ donation is consistent with the beliefs of most major religions. This includes Roman Catholicism, Islam, most branches of Judaism and most Protestant faiths. If you're unsure of or uncomfortable with your faith's position on donation, ask a member of your clergy.

Myth: I'm under age 18. I'm too young to make this decision.

Fact: That's true, in a legal sense. But your parents can authorize this decision. You can express to your parents your wish to donate, and your parents can give their consent knowing that it's what you wanted. Children, too, are in need of organ transplants, and they usually need organs smaller than those an adult can provide.

Myth: An open-casket funeral isn't an option for people who have donated organs or tissues.

Fact: Organ and tissue donation doesn't interfere with having an open-casket funeral. The donor's body is clothed for burial, so there are no visible signs of organ or tissue donation. For bone donation, a rod is inserted where bone is removed. With skin donation, a very thin layer of skin similar to a sunburn peel is taken from the donor's back. Because the donor is clothed and lying on his or her back in the casket, no one can see any difference.

Myth: I'm too old to donate. Nobody would want my organs.

Fact: There's no defined cutoff age for donating organs. The decision to use your organs is based on strict medical criteria, not age. Don't disqualify yourself prematurely. Let the doctors decide at your time of death whether your organs and tissues are suitable for transplantation.

Myth: I'm not in the best of health. Nobody would want my organs or tissues.

Fact: Very few medical conditions automatically disqualify you from donating organs. The decision to use an organ is based on strict medical criteria. It may turn out that certain organs are not suitable for transplantation, but other organs and tissues may be fine. Don't disqualify yourself prematurely. Only medical professionals at the time of your death can determine whether your organs are suitable for transplantation.

Myth: I'd like to donate one of my kidneys now, but I wouldn't be allowed to do that unless one of my family members is in need.

Fact: While that used to be the case, it isn't any longer. Whether it's a distant family member, friend or complete stranger you want to help, you can donate a kidney through certain transplant centers. If you decide to become a living donor, you will undergo extensive questioning to ensure that you are aware of the risks and that your decision to donate isn't based on financial gain. You will also undergo testing to determine if your kidneys are in good shape and whether you can live a healthy life with just one kidney.

Myth: Rich and famous people go to the top of the list when they need a donor organ.

Fact: The rich and famous aren't given priority when it comes to allocating organs. It may seem that way because of the amount of publicity generated when celebrities receive a transplant, but they are treated no differently from anyone else. The reality is that celebrity and financial status are not considered in organ allocation.

Myth: My family will be charged if I donate my organs.

Fact: The organ donor's family is never charged for donating. The family is charged for the cost of all final efforts to save your life, and those costs are sometimes misinterpreted as costs related to organ donation. Costs for organ removal go to the transplant recipient

I'm a "Donate my Organs" member.
I'm curious though say that my heart is considered excellent condition (notionaly)......I die of natural causes at 50. How long can "my" heart last if they place it in someone whose 25. A bit of wear in tear in the ole ticker....

About 10 years, and they will be on anti-rejection medications untill they die.

You may recall there was a bit of a stir when Dick Cheney got a heart transplant not to long ago. The feeling being that a 70 year old man is not going to get as much out of an extra 10 year lease on life (if something else doesn't up and quit on him first) as a younger man might.

**Relapse**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Did you even bother to check the date on the article?

Israel's critics are slacking if they have to dredge up news articles from 3 years ago.

It was donated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Is it because the majority if the world is anti-semetic? Or is it because Israel does a lot of stupid gak?

Europe loves to hate on the US.

Is it because we have stupid foreign policies? Or is it because people are anti-WASPic?

If you can't reach the conclusion that the world hates Jews by looking at this figure, then there is no help for you.

Clearly Israel is worse than North Korea, which starves its people into submission and executes Christians, or Iran, in which homosexuals are hanged.

It's been long prophesied that the world would be against Israel.

**Steve steveson**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Is it because the majority if the world is anti-semetic? Or is it because Israel does a lot of stupid gak?

Europe loves to hate on the US.

Is it because we have stupid foreign policies? Or is it because people are anti-WASPic?

If you can't reach the conclusion that the world hates Jews by looking at this figure, then there is no help for you.

Clearly Israel is worse than North Korea, which starves its people into submission and executes Christians, or Iran, in which homosexuals are hanged.

And you completely ignore the fact that there were more against Palestine than Israel.

The simple fact is that neither side is 100% right, and that both sides would benefit allot by being willing to talk to each other and drop the dogmatic refusal to agree with the other. Seriously, its like watching Congress or the House of Commons, but with guns.

Anti semitism has nothing to do with it. It's amazing how fast people are to pull that argument out whenever anyone criticizes Israel.

**Orlanth**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

There have been isolated incidents and various heavy handed actions committed by Israel, but the actions by the Palestinians and other terrorist groups have been far worse. Trying to claim that Israel is in the wrong is like trying to claim that the Allies were in the wrong during WWII because there were isolated incidents of crimes by soldiers during occupation.

One Jew gets killed by a rocket attack. Dozens of Palestinians die from artillery and airstrikes.
And an iorder is not specified. Israel has bombed in 'retaliation' and also because they find a target. Time and again they have shown no compulsion about using a missile attack on a crowded street to get rid of someone they dont like.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Anti Israel claims are used as a cover for anti Jewish claims. It's just a proxy argument.

Bollocks.
If I asked a random bod on the street is it ok (for example) for a government to restrict access to a community to goods on account of their race practically everyone will say no.
If I then told them the government in question was Israel and that if they didnt change their minds on the subject they were proven to be anti-Semitic how do you think they would react.

Most people who oppose Israel do so because the Israeli government does reprehensible things, not because they hate Jews. Clear exception can be made for many radical Islamists.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

I am very familiar with right wing extremists and their arguments.

Judgeing from this thread, you ought to be, or you would not be self aware.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

The Anti Israel argument as a cover for Anti Jewish arguments is similar to the Allied warcrimes argument being a cover argument for Holocaust denial arguments, particularly in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal.

First they are not at connected.
Anti-Israeli arguments are logically and morally distinct to Anti-Jewish arguments. The former is a just concern at well recorded instances of extreme bigotry, extortion and race crimes, the latter is in itself bigoted.

Allies committed war crimes and got away with it. What has that got to do with the Holocaust or either type of Holocaust denier.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Please study Antisemitism. Anti-Semites never come out announcing plans to put Jews in gas chambers; it's always more subtle arguments (such as anti Israel nonsense) that are designed to convince people that Jews are bad without having to admit it.

You get two types of anti-Semitism
The first is anti-religious either from a fundamentalist or communist atheist dogma that wants to wipe out Jews.
The second is a reaction to exploitation, especially in the financial industries. This can be at least partly the fault of Jews themselves.

The UK had an amicable solution to this centuries ago that still works. Let Jews have free reign over certain industries, notably the diamond trade, merchant and investment banking and allow them to build any kind of business in their own community, but to restrict them from domestic banking and insurance. This is why the UK has a large stable Jewish population, the problems that occurred in Germany in WW1 cant occur here and the return concessions are acceptable to the Jewish community.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

The idea that Jews are oppressing Palestinians is no different then the idea that Jews oppressed Germans. How often we shout "never again" but we constantly fail to recognize Antisemitism.
It's simple: Anti Israel = Antisemitism

Your conclusions are a complete non sequitor.

If I chose to hate the guy down the street because he had black clothes a hat and wiggly side hair I would be a racist feth.
If I choose to hate that Palestinians are kicked off their farms to make way for settlements because they are not the 'chosen people' I would be right thinking.
You can have one without the other.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Is it because the majority if the world is anti-semetic? Or is it because Israel does a lot of stupid gak?

Europe loves to hate on the US.

Is it because we have stupid foreign policies? Or is it because people are anti-WASPic?

If you can't reach the conclusion that the world hates Jews by looking at this figure, then there is no help for you.

Clearly Israel is worse than North Korea, which starves its people into submission and executes Christians, or Iran, in which homosexuals are hanged.

You only need one or two resolutions against North Korea, because they are allowed to stick.
You need a zillion resolutions against Israel because the US keeps vetoing them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:

And you completely ignore the fact that there were more against Palestine than Israel.

These figures are on what the Resolutions are about, not who they are against.

Some of the resolutions regarding Israel are against the October 73 war and other acts of agression against Israel, others are about activities caused by the Israeli government within their borders.
Those on the Palestinians are almost always about their lack of access to basic rights, statehood and raw materials, but again some address the Infitada.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Orlanth wrote:

The UK had an amicable solution to this centuries ago that still works. Let Jews have free reign over certain industries, notably the diamond trade, merchant and investment banking and allow them to build any kind of business in their own community, but to restrict them from domestic banking and insurance. This is why the UK has a large stable Jewish population, the problems that occurred in Germany in WW1 cant occur here and the return concessions are acceptable to the Jewish community.

Or, you know, you let Jewish people do the same things as everyone else?

To get back on topic, I'll just leave this here. Massive allegations of "anti-semitism" and condemnations from all over the place. Too bad they were telling the truth. I guess real-world must be anti-semitic.

My main beef with Israel is that they take it upon themselves to speak for all Jews as though they were some sort of universally accepted pan-Jewish government. They're not, though, they're just a state which happens to be Jewish, just as the Vatican isn't a pan-Christian government or the Dalai Lama a pan-Buddhist Overlord. They're actively working to make Israel irreversibly linked to Judaism and vice versa, as evidenced by the allegations of anti-Semisism as the go-to attack on people of differing views. As someone who strongly feels that religion should have nothing to do with government, I'm opposed to this. I have no problem with Jews or people from Israel, they're humans like everyone else except Frazzled, but I DO have problems with the state of Israel. The State and its People are not 100% the same.

**Bullockist**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Do I need to point out that you picked 2006, a year on which Israel participated in a war, or is it pointless?

The war was initiated by a Hezbollah ambush. Israel didn't "participate in a war" - it was attacked.

Has anyone else noticed that as soon as things seem to be calming down in israel/gaza/west bank some militant gets assasinated , the militants start doing ambushes and getting much more rocket happy and israel responds with an incusion. May be just my tin foil hat talking , but it seems to happen often.

**AlmightyWalrus**

I can't say I blame Israel for reacting though, it's just that the way they do it in is a bit overdone, to say the least. Stuff like firing white phosphorus shells in populated areas in direct violation of international law hurts Israel's credibility quite a bit when they say that they've done "everything they can" to keep casualties down.

I rather like the Iron Dome program though, it's an elegant solution to the whole rocked business. Shoot them down and you don't have to bomb civilians in Gaza to stop the rockets. It's a win-win solution.