Obama Inc. Rejects Joint Chiefs of Staff Defense of Israel

jen-psaki

Who exactly appointed Psaki to speak for the administration? In a dispute between the military and the State Department, it’s strange that Kerry’s official hand-holder is the one who speaks with the voice of Obama.

Or maybe it’s not so strange considering who is in the White House.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs defended Israel’s actions during its campaign against Hamas terrorism and even said that the military was learning from Israel’s attempts to prevent civilian casualties.

“I actually do think that Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties. In fact, about 3 months ago we sent, we asked [IDF Chief of Staff] Benny [Gantz] if we could send a lessons learned team – one of the things we do better than anybody I think is learn – and we sent a team of senior officers and non-commissioned officers over to work with the IDF to get the lessons from that particular operation in Gaza.”

“To include the measures they took to prevent civilian casualties and what they did with tunneling, because Hamas had become very nearly a subterranean society. And so, that caused the IDF some significant challenges. But they did some extraordinary things to try to limit civilian casualties to include calling out, making it known that they were going to destroy a particular structure. Even developed some techniques, they call it roof knocking, to have something knock on the roof, they would display leaflets to warn citizens and population to move away from where these tunnels.”

“But look in this kind of conflict, where you are held to a standard that your enemy is not held to, you’re going to be criticized for civilian casualties. So I think if Benny were sitting here right now he would say to you we did everything we could and now we’ve learned from that mission and we think there are some other things we could do in the future and we will do those.”

“The IDF is not interested in creating civilian casualties they’re interested in stopping the shooting of rockets and missiles, out of the Gaza Strip and in to Israel, and its an incredibly difficult environment, and I can say to you with confidence that I think that … they acted responsible.”

State Department spokeswoman Psaki however countered that the administration still hates Israel.

State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki said that Israel “could have done more” to prevent civilian casualties during the 2014 Gaza War.

Psaki’s comments contradict Gen. Martin Dempsey’s statements on Thursday that Israel went to “extraordinary lengths” to limit civilian casualties and “did what they could” to avoid them.

“It remains the broad view of the entire administration that they could have done more,” Psaki said during a press briefing Friday. “And they should have taken more feasible precautions to prevent civilian casualties.”

AP reporter Matt Lee pointed out that, according to Dempsey, Israel had lived up to the “high standards” to which the Obama administration holds Israel. Still, Psaki said, Israel’s efforts were not enough.

So who is a better expert on preventing civilian casualties in combat… Obama, Psaki or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

  • Sara

    Of course Obama is the expert military guy, he even had no strategy against ISIS.

    • Gee

      He appointed Susan Rice (who once saw a soldier) to command the attack on ISIS

      • Biff Henderson

        Only the best will do.

        • Pete

          Psaki is trying really, really hard for the

          “If she were the last woman on earth I would not touch her”

          Physically she is not a bad looking woman, but her negatives are off the scale.

          I would say the same if the spokesperson was man. i would just change 2 words.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Physically she is not a bad looking woman, but her negatives are off the scale.”

            Dude, why did you go there? Oh, OK. She’s OK. She needs a makeover.

          • Pete

            I said not bad looking which is not the same thing as saying good looking. It leaves the possibility of plain, average or homely.

            I wrote the comment to emphasize her negatives. If you were the type to wolf whistle (I am not saying you are; I would say that you never do), would you whistle at Psaki?

            The only way I would, would be to irritate her and try to throw her out of sorts. Get her off her game.

            Whenever I see Psaki on TV all that comes to mind about her world view, her professional lying are the words, smug and stupid.

            Psaki and Harf have negatives as high Carney, Obama, Kerry, Josh Earnest, Holder and the rest of the ilk.

          • marsha982

            before I looked at the bank draft of $5497 , I didn’t believe that…my… brother was like trully bringing home money in their spare time on there computar. . there brothers friend has done this for under twenty two months and just now cleard the dept on there apartment and bought a new audi . hop over to this web-site …..>> -> FINANCIAL ANALYSIS!!! <-

      • objectivefactsmatter

        She also screened Green Zone (she loves Matt Damon) if I’m not mistaken. Some say more than just one time.

    • Pete

      Obama has a strategy. It is a domestic political strategy. A foreign affairs strategy not so much. A t least not a good one.

      The generals have done as well as they could with the forces and the funding the president has allowed them.

      I think ISIS will be in full retreat or finished in 6 months to a year. But it does not make it an Obama victory. Not when it could have been over in 3 or 4 months or not happened at all.

      A GOOD victory is not just that ISIS is kaput. a good victory would have been to minimize the # of refugees or to have none at all.

      Obama strategy has maximized the # of refugees. We will be dealing with the ruined infrastructure and the harm done to the refugees and others for decades. #IOBAMA_FAIL

      • JayWye

        “The Obama Doctrine can be described in just nine words: Embolden our enemies, undermine our friends, diminish our country.” Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

        Comrade Obama IS the muslim Manchurian Candidate.

  • Texas Patriot

    There is no question that Israel “could have done more” to prevent civilian casualties, and General Dempsey did not imply otherwise. What Israel could have done under international law is to confiscate a strip of land from Gaza as a permanent forfeiture for the acts of aggression of Hamas against Israeli citizens including rockets and tunnels. It didn’t do that. Why? It obviously lacked the guts to do it. Instead it shelled civilian areas, and now it wonders why people are upset. Israel needs to grow up and start acting like a sovereign nation instead of a pouting, vengeful child. When it is attacked, it must take aggressive action to defend its land and its people, and the most direct way to do that to confiscate the land of the aggressors under the laws of war.

    • Gee

      The land already belongs to us. The Arabs are the ones without any sort of legal claim

      • Texas Patriot

        Why not take some of it back, then? Eventually, the attacks would cease or Hamas would run out of land to launch the attacks. A nation that attacks another nation with hostile intent must be prepared to accept all of the consequences of the aggression, including complete annihilation. By shelling civilians areas, Israel is committing the worst possible blunder, strategically and politically. Get aggressive. Stand up for your rights. Or fold up your tent.

        • Sara

          Do you really believe it’s as simple as that?

          • Texas Patriot

            At the end of the day, you either stand up and fight for your rights, or you roll over and die. There is no middle ground.

          • Sara

            So kill or die? That’d be a whole lot of dead people.

            Israel obviously has the military capability to wipe out/annex Gaza, which means you’re saying that your idea hasn’t occurred to Israel’s world-class leaders who have been living and dealing with this issue for decades.

          • Texas Patriot

            Not at all. The whole idea is to stop the violence, once and for all. And the best way to do that is to warn Gaza that aggression will result in the gradual forfeiture of territory until (a) the aggression stops or (b) there is no more territory to launch it from.

          • Pete

            The UN would not allow forfeiture of property although it goes on all the time around the world. They are kind of 2 faced that way.

          • Texas Patriot

            The continued relevance of the UN is questionable at this point. As long as we had China and Russia on our side, there wouldn’t be a problem.

          • Sara

            My point, once again, is that if it was as simple as that it would’ve been done a long time ago.

          • Texas Patriot

            The concept is clear and straight-forward, and it would work But implementing it would take political courage and steadfastness of political will. That’s what has been lacking.

          • Sara

            You lack a fundemental understanding of Israel’s situation.

          • Texas Patriot

            Israel is like any other nation. When it is attacked it must adopt effective countermeasures to stop the attacks. Otherwise the attacks will continue. The only effective countermeasure available to Israel is to progressively confiscate lands of its attackers and expel hostile inhabitants. In that way, either the attacks will cease altogether, or Israel will continue to expand its borders and its security, and its attackers will be progressively diminished. It’s a law of war as old as mankind; it’s always just; and it always works. If hostile nations don’t want to lose any more land, all they have to do is refrain from violently attacking their neighbors.

          • truebearing

            Yes. He does. He has an idea, so crowns himself king. He hasn’t figured out that his idea is deeply flawed, nor does he see that Hamas would use human shields against what he is proposing too.

        • camp7

          So how do you “confiscate the land of the aggressors” without civilian casualties? Just curious.

          Jen ‘the promise of hashtag diplomacy’ Psaki is nothing more than a shill liberal spokesperson for the “broad view of the entire administration” meaning BO, Jarret and Rice. No clue Kerry is a pull-toy bumping into the boots of international players at the table above him. These idiots are hardly the sentiment of America and definitely the pot calling the kettle.

          There’s no such thing as war without civilian casualties. Especially with Islam who kill their own to splash blood on their enemies with the inane scheme of peddling the victimization card. Hamas is the ‘civilian areas’.

          And I don’t think the Jews will be folding any more tents. They’ve been there, done that, and the fat lady is almost done singing.

          • Texas Patriot

            I couldn’t agree with you more about Jen Psaki, but the point is not to give her any ammunition. Confiscating lands is by far the more civilized approach than the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian areas. As I just indicated in a response to Daniel Greenfield above, the first step is to neutralize the hostile military forces and then to evacuate the civilians. At least they would be given an opportunity to leave peacefully, and that is probably a lot better treatment than the Israeli citizens could expect to receive at the hands of Hamas or Isis.

          • camp7

            The confiscation of land is usually the premise of war. I once heard that war is the presumption of heredity. The Israeli – Palestinian conflict models that thesis.

            I have no objection to your approach except for the methodology. Israel has every right to control land won from their enemy. However, the following of rules of engagement, Israeli defense policy and procedure will still be messy with civilian loss and under international scrutiny platformed by the sick ideology of Islam empathizers in the White House administration and UN counsel. The jerks who fund Hamas.

            For civilians it’s always a loss. Hard to say if your method mitigates that loss or simply (and painfully) reinforces the sovereign authority of Israel’s self-preservation, damned the rhetoric and prejudice of political correctness.

          • Texas Patriot

            What my proposal would do is give the civilians a choice. If they wanted to leave peacefully they would have the opportunity to do so.

          • JayWye

            Israel does not want MORE muslims as citizens,and packing the Gazans into an even smaller territory (by force) is only going to convert more of them to active jihadis. I’d venture you haven’t thought this out all the way.

          • truebearing

            Who said that the attacks on Hamas positions were “indiscriminate bombardment?” If Israel hits a hamas position and inadvertently kills civilians that Hamas forced into the area, it isn’t Israel’s fault. You can’t seem to figure out that the Hamas strategy of using human shields would still be used if Israel decided to follow your plan of confiscating land. The net result would be the same, so how is it that your “solution” wouldn’t result in civilian deaths?

    • Daniel_Greenfield

      And is that a policy that Obama or Hillary would have supported or even accepted?

      Why defend Obama’s condemnation of Israel by turning things inside out and blaming Israel for not doing something that Obama would have been even more opposed to?

      • Texas Patriot

        Who cares whether Obama or Hillary would have supported it. Israel had a right to do it, and should have done it. Instead Israel chose the “easy” way and shelled civilians. Absolutely absurd.

        • Yehuda Levi

          No, you are “absurd.” Israel did not do things the “easy” way. They took extraordinary precautions to prevent civilian casualties.

          They shelled enemy targets who happened to be using civilian infrastructure. They did not shell civilians.

          • Texas Patriot

            Hamas placed its rockets in civilian ares so that Israel would shell civilian areas. Instead of confiscating Gazan territory under the doctrine of forfeiture which would have been legitimate (and taken guts), Israel took the bait and shelled civilian areas. It could not have been more absurd or ridiculous. Israel has a right to drive hostile nations into the sea or grind them into the dirt, and that’s what it needs to do if it wants to have any hope of surviving the firestorm now engulfing the Middle East.

          • Yehuda Levi

            Israel does not want Gaza, therefore it would not want to seize Gaza for any reason.

            Israel will survive with or without Gaza.

          • Texas Patriot

            There is no law requiring Israel to tolerate neighbors who attack its civilians with rockets and tunnels. It’s an outrage that Hamas has been tolerated for this long. The only realistic alternative is to let it be known that if the attacks continue that Gaza will steadily forfeit more and more territory until (a) the attacks cease or (b) Hamas and all the current residents of Gaza are driven completely into the sea. Nothing else has any chance of stopping the attacks..

          • truebearing

            How will they take the land if Hamas surrounds itself with civilians? Duh. You’re chasing your tail.

          • truebearing

            How does Israel drive them into the sea if it can’t shell enemy positions, Einstein? How does it take land without destroying Hamas’ positions?

            You use the words “absurd” and “ridiculous” in a most ironic way…

        • Daniel_Greenfield

          That’s the topic.

          We are very specifically discussing Obama Inc criticism of Israel and the views of different figures in the administration.

          If you want to talk about what Israel ought to do, that’s very nice, but it’s not the issue here.

          • Texas Patriot

            The point is that Israel has brought the criticism on itself by falling into the trap of shelling civilian areas instead taking effective strategic measures to defend itself.

          • Daniel_Greenfield

            Anything Israel does will be controversial, will lead to “civilians” being killed and therefore, by your argument, bring criticism on Israel.

            Fighting terrorism will invariably lead to civilian deaths because that’s how terrorists operate.

            If you want to avoid all civilian casualties, surrender now.

          • Texas Patriot

            Not at all. if Israel wants to proceed in an effective “no nonsense” manner in protecting its land and its citizens against hostile attack, it could announce very clearly that any aggression by Hamas in the form of rocket attacks or tunnels would result in the forfeiture of lands used in such aggression.

            Then, if the aggression occurs, Israel could take steps, first, to neutralize the military forces involved and, then, use standard civilian evacuation techniques to remove the hostile civilian populace from the forfeited lands. Appropriate warnings would be given that the civilians are being asked to leave peacefully and to take their possessions with them, but that no resistance would be tolerated, and any violence would be forcefully suppressed.

            This is war, Daniel, and everybody knows it. Israel is in a fight for its life, and no one can complain if it takes reasonable steps to secure the safety of its people. Under the circumstances that exist in the Middle East today, no one is exempt from the fate of of the people of Mosul, and ISIS has already declared that Israel’s days are numbered.

          • Yehuda Levi

            You and Obama need to get your talking points coordinated. The president, who you support, has a totally different take on this issue.

            BTW, Israel is not acting like a “spoiled child.” The only child in the room is Obama and his frustration that Netanyahu won’t kowtow to his imperial will. It is the puerile foreign policy of an America led by Obama, Kerry and Psaki.

          • Texas Patriot

            Netanyahu walked straight into the trap set by Hamas by shelling civilian areas, when there was a perfectly good alternative to doing that. It should be no surprise to anyone that Israel is being condemned for unnecessary human casualties.

          • truebearing

            Fighting wars in wishland doesn’t result in civilian casualties and always works out exactly as fantasized.

          • Pete

            Texas Patriot is picking fights like he has not done for several months. I don’t know what is up with that. It started the day after the election.

        • http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ Edward Cline

          Well, Texas, if Hamas puts the civilians in the line of fire, is that Israel’s moral conundrum, or Hamas’s? Hamas put them in the line of fire to stymie Israel’s capacity to defend itself and eliminate the enemy that was attacking it. If those civilians wish not to be pawns of Hamas, then they should rise up against Hamas. But they don’t. They tolerate Hamas. If they get smoked in the process of Israel taking out the enemy, I’m not shedding any tears for them.

          • Texas Patriot

            Hamas put civilians in the line of fire so that Israel would shell them and Israel took the bait, with the result that Israel is being criticized for inflicting unnecessary human casualties, just as Hamas intended. Instead of walking into that humanitarian trap, Israel should have elected to confiscate a strip of land along the Gazan border where Hamas was building tunnels with the warning that if the rocket attacks and tunneling continue, more and more land would be confiscated until the aggression eventually ceased or Hamas and the residents of Gaza were pushed into the sea.

          • JayWye

            Didja ever consider that if Israel were to act as you suggest (“driving the Gazans into the sea”),it would be a perfect excuse for Comrade Obama to completely abandon Israel,and cut off all support?
            it would allow Comrade Obama to entirely wash his hands of Israel. He’d LOVE that.(Perhaps you would too…)
            I suspect you are ignorant of the population density of the Gaza Strip. they don’t have any spare land to cede,Israel does NOT want more muslim citizens,and no other nation will accept them.

        • truebearing

          Israel didn’t shell civilians. They shelled Hamas terrorists who dragged people at gunpoint and forced them to to occupy sites Hamas was launching rockets from. Instead of blaming Hamas for the civilian casualties, youare blaming Israel for defending itself. Your position is idiotic to say the least.

    • truebearing

      Your “solution” makes no sense. Israel wasn’t shelling civilian areas for the fun of it. They were trying to take out sites where the rockets were being fired from. If they didn’t take out those sites, the rockets would continue to rain down on Iraeli civilians.

      How exactly, does confiscating land stop the rocket barage? I know you’re all excited because you had an idea, but your idea is nonsensical. If a man was raping your wife, would you steal his car in an effort to stop him?

      You state at the end of your maunderings on Israel’s self-defense that “When it is attacked, it must take aggressive action to defend its land and its people.” That is what they did and you criticized them for it. You’re contradicting yourself, yet again.

      • Texas Patriot

        TB, you’re a brainless sycophant, and everyone on this board knows it. No one respects you less than the Israelis whom you find it impossible to disagree with under any circumstances. Have a nice day.

        • truebearing

          Let me get this straight. You write an obnoxious, idiotic comment that draws fire from a horde of sane, intelligent people, but I am therefore brainless? Yes, of course. That makes as much sense as the rest of your blithering, but at least you’re consistent.

          Which Israelis am I finding it impossible to disagree with? The ones on the Left or the ones on the Right? I don’t suppose it ocurred to you that not all Israelis think alike. really subtle distinctions like that fly right over your head…or through it.

          Have a nice day? Isn’t that a bit insincere? Well, I will have a nice one, just for you. Knowing you disgree with me vehemently is a good thing.

          • Texas Patriot

            With friends like you, Israel is in trouble.

          • truebearing

            Yet another lie. It is people who understand the intractable nature of Israel’s position that are their best friends. You go out of your way to pretend simplistic solutions are at hand and the only reason the conflict persists is because Israel is too stupid or cowardly to follow your ridiculous advice.

            They’re used to enemies like you.

      • Crazycatkid

        Wow what a load of Israel hatred by Mr Texas under the guise of helping Israel. What will we see next? A two headed dog on roller skates? How very much typing and ranting this troll from Texas did – all to blame Israel!
        Thanks for responding to his nonsense but sometimes silence is the best response

    • Simcha M.

      Easy for you to say, you aren’t Israeli. I am, and let me tell you that we can’t do half the things we want or NEED to do for a multitude of complex historical/religious/sociological reasons.

      If it were up to me, I’d nuke Teheran in order to send a message to the ragheads. Too bad I’m not king of the world.

      • Texas Patriot

        SM: Too bad I’m not king of the world.

        I’m sure it’s difficult for all of the multitude of complex reasons you suggest, but just think how difficult it was for the original Jews following Moses to think about going into the Promised Land full of giants! Some were up to it. Some weren’t. Some had faith. Some didn’t. But the ones who had faith and courage made history.

        The truth is that same kind of challenge and same kind of opportunity exist today, and it’s going to take faith and courage to meet it and take advantage of it. Somebody’s got to do it, Why not you?

        You don’t have to be king of the world. But you do have to be the master of your own doubts and your own fear. And you do have to have faith in the one God who singled your people out for a special place in history.

  • Gee

    Let’s see – in Kosovo NATO killed over 1,000 civilians without getting any combatants. In Iraq NATO managed 10 civilians per combatant, in Afghanistan 3 civilians per combatant.

    Whereas we managed 1 civilian per combat.

    The President has announced that it is too difficult to go with the Afghanistan model so that has been abandoned.

    Yet we are terrible in our ratio – even though it is far superior to the rest of the world

    • Pete

      Just want to back you up on your assertions on NATO during Kosovo.

      Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force

      “Both Serbs and Albanians were killed in 90 Human Rights Watch-confirmed incidents in which civilians died as a result of NATO bombing. It reported that as few as 489 and as many as 528 Yugoslav civilians were killed in the NATO airstrikes”

      - Refugee columns
      - Hospital
      - Embassy
      - trains

      • Gee

        Others put the casualty figures much higher – over 2,000 civilians without any military casualties

        http://www.kosovo.net/natobomb.html

        • Pete

          I am not going to dispute that.

          I was chagrined that the casualties figures I found did not quite match yours, but I believe the point is still valid.

          The very large and very sooty kettle is calling a nearly spotless pot black.

          I kind of believe that the Chinese embassy was hit on purpose to send a message because the Chinese were abusing their neutrality by letting their embassy be used for purposes of war.

          The refugee column I think was hit by an F16, because it was an F16. Those guys fly to fast to make a good ID. An A10 pilot would not have made that mistake I think (at least as readily).

          The train was a mistake, but the bridge was legitimate target. Still the planners did not think very far ahead. Even if they did not hit the train if the engineers did not know the bridge was out , people still would have died. Did they know the train schedule for the rail line? I am not sure taking out a bridge which is also used for passenger service is legit if you don’t declare war. I don’t think a UN resolution really covers it.

          I did not read too deep into the wiki article. Just enough to know the U.S. isn’t perfect, but that it is perfectly hypocritical by some to castigate Israel

          • Gee

            I believe that the ROEs are to blame for most of the casualties and those are totally political.

            I do not believe that the US wants to inflict civilian casualties anymore than we do.

            My point is that the US has not lived up to their much lower standards and point the finger at us for exceeding the highest standards in the world and saying it is not enough

          • Pete

            “I believe that the ROEs are to blame for most of the casualties and those are totally political.”

            True for military deaths. For civilian deaths I don’t know if it is true. In the long run civilian deaths would be lower as the war is over sooner.

            “I do not believe that the US wants to inflict civilian casualties anymore than we do.”
            True

            “My point is that the US has not lived up to their much lower standards and point the finger at us for exceeding the highest standards in the world and saying it is not enough”
            True

        • Pete

          The whole Yugoslavia break up bothers me.

          It was figuratively a slow motion train wreck with 4 acts. Why did not people care about the 1st two acts? It makes me want o puke and castigate them when they care so much about the latter 2 acts.

          The 4 acts were Slovenia, the Serbo-Croatian war, Bosnia & Kosovo.

          Act 1 (1991), the Slovenia break away lasted about 2 weeks. Serbia wanted to keep it in the union but it was too far away, they had to go through hostile territory to prosecute the war, and there were no Serbs there. So it fizzled without much or any fighting. Anyway that should have been a wake up call for the European and diplomats. As far as the common man is concerned the dips and the Euro-trash did absolutely nothing. It was right in their back yard and they could not project power an inch beyond their borders. DISGUSTING!

        • Pete

          Act 2 was the Serbo-Coatian War. Vukovar and Osijek were town apart, A lot of people died. I don’t know what people thought. It was good TV? They have been fighting for hundreds of years? The started WW1 and this was par for the course?

          Once again the Eurotrash and the dips did nothing tangible.

        • Pete

          Act 3 Bosnia. Why do we care when we did nothing with the 1st 2 acts?

          “On 12 May, the US Senate adopted S. 2042 from Sen. Bob Dole to unilaterally lift the arms embargo against the Bosnians, but was repudiated by President Clinton.[103][104] Pub.L. 103–337 was signed by the President on 5 October 1994 and stated that if the Bosnian Serbs had not accepted the Contact Group proposal by 15 October the President should introduce a UN Security Council proposal to end the arms embargo and that if it was not passed by 15 November only funds required by all UN members under Resolution 713 could be used to enforce the embargo, effectively ending the arms embargo” -wiki

          Well apparently Bill Clinton did not care.

          Until he had his Monica problem and the during Act 4 he got fully involved.

  • herb benty

    As the intelligent, atheist, arrogant leftist’s excuses for their own racism on Jews, Christians gets thinner and thinner. On civilian casualties, “they could have done more”!? What nation is hounded like this when attempting to get at the rockets that rain down on Her? Did you see them “tsk, tsking” Pol Pot, Mao, Russian expansionism, the Chinese in Tibet, No! And ISIS, an Islamic State, an idea Obama seems to like. How much screaming have you heard from the Marxist professors, SPLS, NAACP, the “MSM”, Democrats for the slaughtered Christians, the Copts in Egypt, Christians in Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia. Why are Democrats acting like the enemy?

  • drygoldfeld

    The USA under President Obama , all Islamist terror groups , the European Union , the United Nations and every other anti-Semite are going to find fault with Israel hour by hour whatever the country does . Israel should ignore all these hate mongers and continue its endeavors better the life of its inhabitants .

  • namberak

    ‘So who is a better expert on preventing civilian casualties in combat… Obama, Psaki or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?’ Obama, duh. He has a Noble Piece Prize– those other guys are just war mongers!

  • EaglesNest

    Just trying to remember the average civilian casualty expectations we calculate every time we launch a drone. Think I’m gong to have to go with the JCS Chairman on this one. Don’t trust these State Dept. officials about anything they say anymore.

  • Space Cowboy

    The saddest part about their conflict is neither side of the conflict is competent enough to understand that there are no civilians in Islamic totalitarian society. As Jihad is a fundamental holy obligation COMPULSORY for all Muslims in one form or another, including women and children. Indeed, we often observe women and children throughout the Islamic totalitarian world waging jihad by volunteering to serve as human shields.

  • ElmoGlick

    Sure, Israel “could” have done more, but the question is, “should” it have done more? The answer is NO. They did just what they should have done. In fact, it might have been too restrained. Israel “could” have done more by not defending itself. This is just more State Department anti-semitism (it’s existed forever) and Israel-hatred by the Obama Administration. (Jeffrey Goldberg has persuaded nobody.)

    • JayWye

      I would have used some of those GBU-28s Israel received from the US,to take out the deep bunkers where Hamas hides.and bust up the tunnels. but Israel needs to keep those in reserve for Iran’s nuclear facilities.

  • donqpublic

    Maybe her name was spelled Psake originally? Psake would seem to make more sense because having too much sake could explain a lot of repeating situational aberrant thought processes, besides having to go too much. A lot of surnames originally were derived from descriptions or titles for recognized social activities and occupations–for example, Running Bear in America and Man Eating Coconut in Samoa. I wonder what the total six year collateral damage is for Barack’s drone strikes in order not to take prisoners for Gitmo? And then how would that total compare to the Gaza War’s collateral damage? And I wonder what the collateral damage will be for Barack’s trading five high level Taliban in Gitmo for one army deserter in Afghanistan?

  • MindWatcher

    This is another example of Anti-Antisemitism at the State Department & White House. Of course, the US Military know the whole truth and nothing else but the truth, who else? The EU? not a chance.. State Department Spoksman Psaky? She is too naive & ignorant of the truth, like the rest. The U.N.? Not there either. The IDF is the only ones, because they did the fight alone. Torturing and harassing Israel has become the “disgrace” of the US government and its dumb employees.. YOU BELIEVE A LIE AND LIVE A OUTRIGHT LIE. The IDF is the best army in the world and its Prime Minister defends its people – the Jews, from whiners like you at the State Department… SHAME ON YOU!! As an American, I deeply regret we have to have people like you working within the government and attacking Israel blatantly open. Are you a Muslim by any chance??

  • kiwi41

    When the revolution comes, that skank should be treated as Goebbels was after WW 2.