I couldn't agre more with you about your arguments.
Tu quoque logical fallacy
Which arguments, specifically, do you have in mind?
I didn't have to subscribe and it's exactly about that.
As an regular reader of Haaretz.com I have, presumably, exceeded their monthly limit, of which I was previously unaware.
The Israeli press is freer to report honestly on events and debates inside Israel than most of the US/UK and other Western countries' press which trembles subserviently before powerful Israeli lobby groups.
It wasn't politicians, it was military commanders who were using it as a communications center. The IDF was able to monitor these communications.
Ramez Harb was as much a politician as Benjamin Netanyahu.
Where in the article you linked to does it say the two bombed media buildings were military command centers?
Even die-hard Zionists wouldn't pretend that the IDF is an honest source of objective, accurate information about their military activities. Hopefully, with Palestine's now increased international status, alleged Israeli war crimes and human rights abuses will now be examined in court, where concrete evidence can be sifted through objectively, outside of propaganda apparatuses.
Himself. He was standing next to it and watched them.
Please provide documentary evidence for Cooper's alleged claims.
No, you didn't. You have provided anecdotes and nothing that shows that the two targeted media buildings were military command centers or that targeted journalists' cars contained ongoing military operations
You go learn what evidence is and then come talk to us.
What do you mean by "us"? I look forward to your sharing of any substantive evidence you are aware of that shows that bombing media buildings is permitted under the Genva conventions.
You also posted a link with no comments. That's considered spam.
By whom?
What's your argument with the link about settlements? That it's OK for the PA to circumvent the peace process, but not Israel? Had the PA come to negotiate instead of trying to strong arm Israel, those settlements would not be built. But since there is no intent from their side to negotiate, that's what they get.
Tu quoque logical fallacy
My argument about the settlements is that they are are aggressive, illegal land grabs, i.e theft.
I don't agree with it, but if you make your bed you lie in it.
Which "bed", specifically, do you have in mind