Another Round on Israel’s Human Rights Obligations
This is really maddening. I wrote here that irrespective of how bad Hamas or Hezbollah may be Israel has an obligation to abide by international humanitarian law and that Human Rights Watch is correct to highlight credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law. In response, Commentary’s Noah Pollak attributed to me a whole range of improbable-sounding and vile beliefs, so which I simply reiterated the point that irrespective of how bad Hamas or Hezbollah may be, Israel has an obligation to abide by international humanitarian law. I noted that many credible allegations had been raised of such violations and included a link to a B’Tselem report to that effect.
Pollack “responds” to my post with the observation that B’Tselem is critical of the UN Human Rights Council and also has some disagreements with the Goldstone report. But so what? I never mentioned the UNHRC. I’ll add that Richard Goldstone himself has criticized the UN Human Rights Council’s handling of his report. We can all agree—me, Pollack, Goldstone, B’Tselem, etc.—that the UNHRC’s record on Israel is not a good one*.
That said, I’ll circle back around to the point: Israel has obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights norms, obligations that it appears to have violated, and these obligations stand regardless of crimes on the part of Hamas. This observation has prompted a lot of ad hominem attacks, and a lot of smokescreens and huffy rhetoric, but basically nothing in the way of substantive defense.
I note that the argument has nothing in particular to do with Israel. When it comes to the United States of America, liberals generally think the US has human rights obligations and obligations under international humanitarian law. We think that part of being “the good guys” on the world stage is that we are obliged to do the right thing even if our adversaries don’t. Conservatives disagree with this—they think starting wars and brutalizing detainees, for example, are good ideas—and see human rights as basically a concept that should be opportunistically deployed for geopolitical advantage, and then cast aside the first time you want to start copying Chinese torture manuals. But American liberals who think the US should abide by human rights norms aren’t “anti-American.” Nor are American Jews who think Israel should abide by human rights norms “anti-Israel.”
166 Responses to “Another Round on Israel’s Human Rights Obligations”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Wrote a serious piece that consider your argument in a forthright manner, and presented an intellectually-rigorous response?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA…
…gasp…gasp….
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA…
….wait a minute…oh my god…I can’t breath…
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaa…….
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Good on you for standing by what you said. You are in the right here, and should not be pushed around.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I guess they were just waiting for joe from lowell to provide the substantive defense.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Schmitt’s Friend/Foe distinction is still a part of too many people’s thinking.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Speaking of maddening, get a load of this horseshit from former Peretz buttboy Peter Beinart.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
what’s the purpose of your asterisk here: that the UNHRC’s record on Israel is not a good one*? I know you make a lot of typos, but the asterisk is so far away from other keys, that it’s hard to even reach to make a typo from.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Can’t get the link in for some reason.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-21/south-carolinas-jewish-outrage/?cid=bs:featured7
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Re: We think that part of being “the good guys” on the world stage is that we are obliged to do the right thing even if our adversaries don’t.
We aren’t the good guys on the world stage, and we never have been.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Just because they are wrong, doesn’t mean we are right.
To me, the above statement is patently obvious. I’m always shocked by the number of people who do not — or refuse to — understand it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
[via Andrew Sullivan]
DiA rips apart Bernstein’s critique of HRW in a post that ends:
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
This conversation only makes headway if Pollack’s crowd demonstrates the courage of its convictions and just admits what it believes: that Israel does not, in fact, have the same obligations as other states do.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Hah! So you admit it!
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Oh, enough already. Either you’re Zionist or you aren’t. If you aren’t a Zionist, just say so. If you’re a Zionist, then get on with the program, don’t confuse everybody, and don’t risk death threats and stuff for nothing.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Anti American can mean anything you want it to mean, particularly if your a professional American. Professional Americans are Quilings and toadies of anyone who will pay them. Every nation has always had its professional patriots seeking enemies without and within. It’s probably the worlds second oldest profession. It’s a sometimes lucrative career and sure beats working for a living.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
For centuries we of the Illuminati have squirmed under the thumb of the Elders of Zion. But now the Jews are divided, and victory is ours! At long last we, and we alone, shall control the world!
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Nor are American Jews who think Israel should abide by human rights norms “anti-Israel.”
American non-Jews, too. And in fact anyone, Jew or not, regardless of nationality.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Matt,
Israel has obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights norms, obligations that it appears to have violated, and these obligations stand regardless of crimes on the part of Hamas
Ah, if only it were so black and white Matt. Human beings are capable of all sorts of inhuman activity. We may believe in the myth of US exceptionalism in upholding human rights but we would be believing in a lie. We may be better than most in that our occasional sojourns into atrocity are the exception rather than the rule but there is no doubt the US has committed atrocities in the past and will probably do so again if agitated enough. Israel’s behavior is no better or worse than most of the world community. Imagine if Georgia launched missiles on Russia reguarly? Would anyone, including you Matt, be surprised when Russia reacted with brutality and a disregard for human rights? I’m sure the conventional wisdom would be, “well, what did they expect?”
Why do you expect perfection only from Israel?
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
ny nick,
So you think “meh, everybody does it” is an appropriate stance for a human rights group?
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I’m sick of pretending to be the “good guys” on the world stage. We have national interests like any other state, and that occasionally involves some nastiness and amorality. Some honesty is called for, and might actually help dispel some of conspiracy theory stuff that seems rampant in the Third World.
While I don’t think that means we ought to wholly toss out international law, I think it calls for using it on a “tit-for-tat” basis. You respect our civilians, we respect yours. You treat POWs right, we treat your POWs right. And so forth.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
What the hell is the juice box mafia? I get that Matt Y. is suppose to be one from the other guy’s posts, but who are the others?
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
What is the point of the asterisk after “one”? I don’t see a corresponding one in the piece. does it mean something other than a footnote?
Also the distortions and responses of the hawkish Israel crowed have really radicalized me on this issue.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
You respect our civilians, we respect yours. You treat POWs right, we treat your POWs right.
You fight with rocks and stones, we…oh, wait. Never mind.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
W. Burns,
So you think “meh, everybody does it” is an appropriate stance for a human rights group
Well, what I think is this. Human Rights Watch has earned the right to their criticism because they’ve been consistent advocates for the victims of brutality across the globe where ever and when ever they find it. Matt, not so much. Matt’s interest in this particular argument is Israel, not Human Rights. It’s very easy to say Israel should abide by a standard he’s not willing to ask Hamas or Hezzbollah to abide by. That utopian vision may be the ideal but it is hardly the norm in the world we live in. In this world, violence begets violence. Put another way, we may not admit it in pleasant company but there is a direct correlation between Abu Gharaib, Gitmo and the 9/11 attacks.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
NY Nick,
Your position is nonsensical. On the one hand you argue that:
Israel’s behavior is no better or worse than most of the world community.
On the other hand, you object to Israel being held to the same standard of conduct that the rest of the “world community” must abide by.
If it’s just like any other country, why shouldn’t international law apply to it just like any other country?
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
some call me tim,
You fight with rocks and stones, we…oh, wait. Never mind
And bomb vests filled with nails, and truck bombs and rockets and, oh wait…
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
It’s very easy to say Israel should abide by a standard he’s not willing to ask Hamas or Hezzbollah to abide by.
Who says he’s not? Show me where he pleads for a lower standard for those groups.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
And bomb vests filled with nails, and truck bombs and rockets and, oh wait…
On a bet, they take that trade. Wouldn’t you?
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
The reason why the Pollacks and Peretzs and all the other moral perverts are able to tie you up in knots, Matthew, every time you dare question that The Jewish Homeland isn’t The Land Of Milk & Honey, “The most moral”, “vibrant democracy”, ad nauseum is because your moral outrage on their “Ha, ha, ha, we can do whatever we want to these filthy shvatz goyim cockroaches and nobody can do a thing about it! Ha, ha, what a mitzvah!” behavior is so tepid, and mealy-mouthed that they don’t have to quote you accurately, tell the truth, do anything but dispatch you with juvenile glee and until the day you burst like a pink balloon in frustration saying: “But, that’s not what I said! Unfair, unfair! Boo-hoo-hoo” – they’ll keep up the same tactics every day of the week. That shitty little “Nukes, what nukes?” scrofulous country is the #1 Threat to Civilization and everyone including Marty Peretz, Joe Lieberman, Mona Charen and all the other worthless Israel Uber Alles vuntzes out there know it. Apparently, the only people who don’t are the Juicebox J street schlimiels and their needy Shabat goy friends.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Israel has obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights norms, obligations that it appears to have violated, and these obligations stand regardless of crimes on the part of Hamas.
The US and Great Britain had obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights norms, obligations that it appears that they violated, and these obligations stand regardless of crimes on the part of Hitler and Tojo.
There, fixed that for you.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Ryan,
On the other hand, you object to Israel being held to the same standard of conduct that the rest of the “world community” must abide by
Must? Must or what will happen? Need we list the examples of recent atrocities across the globe that have gone unpunished? The point is, there is no standard. There is an ideal and that Ideal is never reached. Not by the US, not by Israel or anyone else for that matter. I object to the notion that Israel’s enemies are immediately granted a pass on their human rights record in order to clear the way for Matt to indulge in his favorite pass time, bashing the state of Israel. Matt’s reasoning is simple. There is no intellectually honest way of comparing Israel’s record on human rights with that of Hamas or Hezzbollah.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“You respect our civilians, we respect yours. You treat POWs right, we treat your POWs right.”
Well, we’re already not doing that, so I guess we won’t be able to complain when we reap the dividends. The reason to adhere to an absolute standard (or as close as possible) of human rights, rather than “tit for tat,” is that our provocations always seem worse to our enemies than they do to us, and vice versa. So escalation is basically inevitable.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
“The US and Great Britain had obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights norms, obligations that it appears that they violated, and these obligations stand regardless of crimes on the part of Hitler and Tojo.
There, fixed that for you.”
SLC, after all these months of disingenuousness and bratty needling, I never thought you’d be able to shock me, but there you are: I’m shocked that you’re trying this again. You tried it in the other thread, and every single respondent said, “Yes, the US and Great Britain did indeed commit war crimes in World War Ii.” What do you expect us to say? That we should retroactively cede the war to the Axis? Please, use all of your mental energy to try and understand that we can believe that the right side of the conflict still did things it shouldn’t have done, that the people responsible should have been held accountable, and that just because they weren’t doesn’t justify atrocities against our enemies now. Please?
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Ryan,
Maybe you’re new here but Matt is not much interested in the human rights record of either Hezzbollah or Hamas. Do a quick google search and see if you come up with much written by Matt that isn’t primarily a post bashing Israel. He doesn’t necessarily condone their viciousness. He is willing to tolerate their bloodlust for the greater good though. You will never hear Matt complain about honor killings or the plight of gays or lesbians inside Gaza or the West Bank. Women who are killed or beaten for the crime of riding in a car with a boy are of no concern. They don’t fit the narrative.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
You will never hear Matt complain about honor killings or the plight of gays or lesbians inside Gaza or the West Bank. Women who are killed or beaten for the crime of riding in a car with a boy are of no concern. They don’t fit the narrative.
Do even you think you give a damn about such people?
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
You’re missing the point, which would be that you use tit-for-tat as the basis for compliance with whatever rules of combat you agree on, whether de facto or de jure.
I’m not arguing that. Of course, that applies to our enemies as well.
I’m saying that you use it as a basis for compliance, not for necessarily formulating the code. So you come up with a human rights and rules of combat code that basically says, “We will not deliberately target civilians and population centers”. If you or the other side break it, then you or the other side are under no obligation to keep it, as long as you don’t start the escalation. Conversely, if the enemy stops using such methods, then if you continue to use them, you are at blame.
That depends. It kept the Allies and Axis powers from using chemical weapons in World War 2 (particularly gas in combat), even though they had been a major feature of World War I.
In other words, I do not consider it a state’s obligation to follow all the rules of combat in a conflict if their opponent is blatantly violating them on purpose (i.e., specifically targeting civilians for intimidation and political purposes, etc).
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Matt is not much interested in the human rights record of either Hezzbollah or Hamas
Nope. His primary focus is on bashing Israel. Just the same as the UN Human Rights Counsel. You take from that what you will.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
“In other words, I do not consider it a state’s obligation to follow all the rules of combat in a conflict if their opponent is blatantly violating them on purpose (i.e., specifically targeting civilians for intimidation and political purposes, etc).”
Do you really not think that an extra moral sanction has to be used when two sides are deliberately targeting civilian casualties, but one side has many thousands of times more capacity to actually harm those civilians?
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
SLC,
Don’t be f*cking absurd. As I said in the other thread, yes, the United States did commit war crimes and hideous moral evils against Japan. Just because you are on the right side, does not give you a blank check to break the moral law. As Elizabeth Anscombe said, it is not permissible to boil a baby alive in order to defeat Japan.
Now I’d appreciate an answer to _my_ question: is there any act of war that Israel could commit in the name of security, that would make you say, “No, that crosses the line?”
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Why do you take these jokers so seriously, Matt?
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Americans have to care about Israel’s human rights record because we created Israel — with close to $100 Billion in past financial support, massive transfers of advanced weapons, massive military support and protection, and with many vetos of UN resolutions.
So when Israel murders Palestinian civilians, the world knows that it is with our weapons and our money.
One would think that Real Americans would be ashamed that their whoring for a foreign nations has bought on the deaths of 7000 Americans –their fellow countrymen and in a number of cases — the deaths of their fellow American Jews.
One would also think that a reasonable degree of intelligence would suggest to Noah Pollack that he should shut the fuck up — lest the Jewish Community as a whole be tarred by his treachery.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Nick, I’m not new here — been reading Matt for near on a decade. The world — and, more to the point, the world of American Jewish punditry, and of American punditry on Israel — is full of people condemning the actions of Hamas et al. Matt has made it crystal clear (and you don’t need google for evidence — just read the last couple of posts he’s made on this subject) that he shares that condemnatory attitude. He is making a separate point — that Israel deserves condemnation, too. This is really not complicated.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
I agree with everything you say, except for the final part about conservatives: don’t you need to be careful here. That is a broad term that would include folks like Powell and Ritter–to take just two examples. On the other hand Bush’s war-mongering and GWOT was enabled by many Democrats.
Is this informing or poisoning the well? Isn’t it in everyone’s interest that conservatives reconnect with a rational tradition. After all it is a bunch of mutant liberals that are primarily responsible for the nonsense of which you speak.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Just in case anyone was under the impression that I am an admirer of Norman Podhoretz or his execrable magazine, Commentary, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Podhoretz has printed pseudoscientific crap by a fake mathematician, one David Berlinski, rejecting the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bank Theory of the origin of the universe. Neither of these gentlemen have the slightest expertise to pontificate on these matters.
The reason why Mr. Podhoretz does this is to curry favor with the born-agains and Christian fundamentalists, who reject both theorys, based not on the scientific evidence which is overwhelming, but on their loony interpretation of the bible. In his latest book, Mr. Podhoretz laments the failure of the bulk of the American Jewish community to get in bed with these clowns. Considering that the American Jewish presence in the American scientific communities is far out of proportion to their percent of the population, this is hardly surprising. One could not expect scientists like Steven Weinberg, Murray GellMann or Jerry Coyne to get in bed with scientific nincompoops like Hagee, Robertson, Falwell et al.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
You’re missing the point, which would be that you use tit-for-tat as the basis for compliance with whatever rules of combat you agree on, whether de facto or de jure.
Yeah, I think you’re missing the point: they didn’t/don’t get a chance to “agree on” anything.* If there was a negotiation for the rules of combat, one assumes that they’d have the weapons limited to those that they actually had. I.e., stick and stones and nail gun vests.
* With which I am completely fine.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Re Hector
I answered that question on the other thread.
Re Don Williams
Mr. Williams continues his campaign to blame the Jews for WW 2, and the invasion of Iraq. I fully expect him to start quoting the Protocola of Zion and Mein Kampf any day now.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
His primary focus is on bashing Israel.
Do Israel-related posts make up even a tenth of his ouvre? I’d be surprised.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Matt is not much interested in the human rights record of either Hezzbollah or Hamas
Putting aside whether this is true or not (and it’s not), it’s a goddamn non-sequitur. It’s logically irrelevant. It’s just a way to dodge the question, which is did Israel commit human rights violations in connection with the Gaza campaign? People who keep using that dodge as a defense to allegations of human rights violations by Israel are intellectually dishonest.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Hector: “Now I’d appreciate an answer to _my_ question: is there any act of war that Israel could commit in the name of security, that would make you say, “No, that crosses the line?””
SLC: “I answered that question on the other thread.”
For those just tuning in, SLC’s answer was, “No, there is nothing Israel could do that would be in itself immoral.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
The Palestinians have been conquered and under ancient traditions are obligated to disperse and integrate with other nations or sit still and be wiped out. The world allowed a people to be conquered against all modern precedent and thus is unable to find some solution, because of course there is no solution. Even Hitlers Germany didn’t really seek to conquer the French and replace the French people and state with a Germana and a German state.(He did however envision this for Russia and all Slavic countries) So the only way out of the dilemma is to revert to older solutions. That being the disappearance of the Palestinians as a people.
This is the Old Testament solution after all which is why it is so resonant with our fundamentalists. The entire situation is ahistorical and/or out of place in modern history. Nothing modern, no law or obligation applies except as quaint theory. One can decry it and put a lot of emotional energy into it but it won’t matter.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
As Elizabeth Anscombe said, it is not permissible to boil a baby alive in order to defeat Japan.
And in case you’re wondering, yeah, we did that:
But the swimming pool was the most horrible sight of all. It was hideous. More than a thousand people, we estimated, had jammed into the pool. The pool had been filled to its brim when we first arrived. Now there wasn’t a drop of water, only the bodies of the adults and children who had died.
Richard Frank, Downfall at 13. The pool in question was at a school in Tokyo during the March 9-10, 1945 firebombing. The bombing did little if anything to persuade Japan’s leaders to surrender.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
The problem with this whole discussion is that if HRW and its supporters truly cared about human rights abuses then they would focus their efforts toward denouncing and condemning Hamas as international war criminals of the worst sort – and they would have done this the day after Israel pulled out of Gaza when Hamas fired the first Qassam into S. Israel. They would have demanded that day the the UN send in a multinational force to occupy Gaza until the threat was neutralized and the Hamas perpetrators facing war crimes trials and hanging – as happened with the Nazis found guilt of starting WWII.
Firing that first rocket was the act, followed by several thousand more mortars and rockets over the next few years, that was the cause of all the deaths on both sides of this conflict since that day. This is verified by international law that is completely ignored by HRW, by the UNHRC and by all those now calling for investigations and war crime trials against Israel.
By ignoring that highest and most severe crime against humanity of starting a war of aggression – and instead parsing questionable and unverifiable acts in the fog of the war of defense that only Hamas’ actions made necessary – the UN and the world is making a terrible mistake. They are making wars of aggression and the resultant deaths of untold innocent civilians more likely in the future.
But not to worry. With any luck they’ll be able to destroy the only democracy in the ME before they get us.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
@34: Dude, you have serious problems. Have you read or understood a single thing about Palestinian culture, or do you just assume all ‘Scary Arabs’ are like those from backwards areas of Saudi Arabia?
I mean, seriously: “Women who are killed or beaten for the crime of riding in a car with a boy are of no concern.”
What the hell are you talking about? In Palestine?
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Can we seriously stop calling Qassams “Rockets”? They’re nothing more than pipe bombs. They inflict considerable psychological damage, but you’d have to be hit pretty much directly in the face with one to die.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“Firing that first rocket was the act, followed by several thousand more mortars and rockets over the next few years, that was the cause of all the deaths on both sides of this conflict since that day.”
Ray: By that logic, we should have made Serbia, not Germany, pay reparations after World War I. After all, without the assassination of the Archduke, tens of millions of people wouldn’t have died!
And Osama bin Laden is guilty for Abu Ghraib, and the Viet Cong for the My Lai massacre. I love this approach!
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Re tomemos
Mr. tomemos has not quoted me accurately. Just for the record, here is what I wrote on the previous thread.
The question as to whether the application of Hama Rules to the Gaza Strip would be a moral act depends on the provocation. If that would be the only way to stop the denizens therein from using the strip as a launching pad for Qassem missiles, the answer would be yes. However, it would have to be demonstrated that lesser measures have been tried and had proven ineffective.
Apparently, Mr. tomemos has a reading comprehension problem as he neglected to read my last sentence. But of course, like Mr. SS, Mr. tomemos obviously believes that the State of Israel has no right to self defense.
By the way, I happen to believe that Hiroshima and Nagashima were not war crimes (Dresden perhaps was because there was no particular military presence there). They were effective in ending the war and saved millions of lives, including those of US soldiers.
Re rapier
Of course, Mr. rapier neglects to mention that French Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps. But to Mr. rapier, Jews are untermenchen and don’t count.
Re Hector
Mr. Hector, people living in glass houses should be careful about throwing rocks.
Re SomeCallmeTim
Has Mr Yglesias ever said anything positive about the State of Israel? Of course not, he’s too busy currying favor with his left wing pals who believe that Israel is the root of all evil (Richard Dawkins says it’s religion).
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
“They [Qassams] inflict considerable psychological damage”
Well, yeah; according to Ray in Seattle, they made a supposed liberal democracy absolutely lose its mind and indiscriminately kill civilian populations. That’s psychological damage if I ever saw it. Will those evil Palestinians stop at nothing??
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
SLC, I know what you wrote. I linked to it, remember? And it corresponds exactly with what I attributed to you: you don’t believe that there’s anything Israel could do, that would be immoral in itself. Given sufficient provocation, and unsatisfactory results from other actions, the massacre of civilian populations (beyond what we’ve seen already, I mean) would be completely acceptable. If you explain the difference between that and what I said, I’ll honestly try to see it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
By the way, my views on war echo those of General Sherman who said that war was all hell and can’t be civilized; there is no glory in war, only butchery and savagery.
Those who think that war can be conducted according to some kind of Marquis of Queensberry rules are sadly mistaken. The only rule of war that has any merit is, to quote Raiders owner Al Davis, just win baby.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Andrew said, “Can we seriously stop calling Qassams “Rockets”? They’re nothing more than pipe bombs. They inflict considerable psychological damage, but you’d have to be hit pretty much directly in the face with one to die.”
I guess then several Israelis must have been hit in the face. And, did I miss something in international law that says that terrorizing a civilian population is not a crime against humanity. Actually, what is considered a crime against humanity is an attack against a civilian population regardless of if it “hits someone in the face”.
Your passionate defense of terrorist acts of aggression against the Jews of Israel is heartwarming, especially to the families of those Jews who were killed.
Can we seriously stop calling such apologists, sincere?
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
tomemos, Did the IDF “indiscriminately kill civilian populations“?
There is no credible evidence that happened. You have none. Goldstone presented none. Try again for coherence and logic in your argument. This one failed.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“And, did I miss something in international law that says that terrorizing a civilian population is not a crime against humanity.”
Of course it is, but as we’ve already discussed, crimes against humanity have degrees of severity. And “they started it” is for third grade, not international law.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Tomemos says, “And “they started it” is for third grade, not international law.”
How sadly mistaken you are. The question of who started it (who is the aggressor) is the essence of the most basic concept of “crimes against humanity”. During the Nuremburg trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated, correctly:
It is really a simple concept. If no-one starts a war by attacking someone else, then there will be no war. There will be no military casualties and there will be no innocent civilian deaths as a result of the aggression or as a result of the necessary need to defend against it.
I suggest you think about that as you continue to apologize for the Palestinain murderers who bear responsibility for all the deaths in this conflict according to international law as established in Nuremberg – and according to any sensible understanding of conflict and especially according to any decent moral desire to prevent innocent civilian deaths in the future.
You are giving a huge incentive to any megalomaniac who wants to attack a peaceful state for whatever reason. If he hides his rocket launchers and fighters among his own civilians he can effectively turn his victim into a criminal subject to sanctions and condemnation if he tries to stop the aggression – and get a pass on his own aggression – as Goldstone has just given to Hamas.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I could see and accept Israel kicking ass if it was under assault by real rockets –in which case hundreds of Israelis would have been dying per week.
But my understanding is that the stuff Hamas was firing was hardly more powerful than the Estes model rockets that hobbyists buy. Again, I ask what I asked earlier: Out of the thousands of rockets fired by Hamas over what? a year? Two? — what were the Israeli casualities?
After killing 4500+ Americans in Iraq with Lies, why does the Israel Lobby show not the slightest shame and remorse But rather renews its con games with vigor?
We suffered 3000 dead on Sept 11, 2001 due to –in part — our past support for Israel. Does Israel think massacring Palestinian civilians helps America in its war on terror? Does it think people in the Islamic World will give up Al Qaeda extremists when the USA is letting its Israeli extremists murder Muslims?
If SLC doesn’t like Mein Kampf , maybe he can ask his Israel Lobby buddies to stop trying to live up to Mein Kampf’s depictions of deceit, treachery, and ingratitude.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
@64: Well Don, I guess you would have no problem if your next door neighbor randomly fired shots into your living room every evening – as long as he only killed one of your kids every month or two. I mean, you can always make more kids unless your neighbor kills your wife. And even then you can always find another wife. So don’t over-react.
But you better not expect the cops to do anything. They’ll probably be tired of your whining buy then. And you better not do anything to defend yourself. Somebody might accuse you of acting like a Jew.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Re Ray at 65: ” Well Don, I guess you would have no problem if your next door neighbor randomly fired shots into your living room every evening – as long as he only killed one of your kids every month or two”
————
Isn’t this more the case of massacring the entire family next door because their six year old kid shot at your house with a paintball gun? And crying about the Holocaust while you do it?
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
But you better not expect the cops to do anything.
Presumably, when you call the cops, you don’t expect them to firebomb the neighbor’s house in response. That’s the criticism here.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks
“From 2001 until December, 2008, there have been over 4048 rockets and 4040 mortars fired at Israeli targets,[7][8] mainly against Sderot and the Western Negev. From 2001 when the missile attacks started until 27 April 2008, 13 Israelis were killed by Qassam rockets.”
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks
I mean, if you want to save Israeli lives, wouldn’t it be better for the IDF to declare war on automobiles? Or Sweet deserts?
Again — what justified the massacre of Palestinian civilians in Gaza?
Aside from Bibi’s need to show that he could still get up an erection, I mean.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
SCMT, I’ll try to make this simple. The cops will do whatever is required to make the guy stop shooting. If they can’t convince him to stop by any other means then they very well might assault the house – even if his family is in there.
They will make a determination as to the continuing danger he poses to innocents outside his house. If he keeps shooting and it becomes necessary to kill him and possibly his family to protect the lives of his innocent neighbors then they are bound to do that. If any of his family are killed in the assault on him by the police and if he survives he will be charged with felony murder – as he damned well should.
It’s called reality. It’s how the free world responds to deadly threats. I suggest you leave your dream world behind and deal with that reality. Israel has no obligation to allow its citizens to be attacked – nor does any non-aggressive state.
When an aggressive state initiates a war against a peaceful state their civilians lose much of the protection of international law by that act. It becomes provisional and subject to the right and necessity of a defending state to protect its own civilians from attack.
Every person who died in the Gaza conflict to date died because of Hamas and its criminal aggression. If you cared one bit about civilian deaths this would enrage you and you would hardly be apologizing for them.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Israel’s Minister of Defense, General Yaakov Toran, speaking in 2006 re the Qassam rockets:
” Clearly everyone wants to be surrounded by concrete block, but we need to remember that Qassams are more a psychological than physical threat. ”
Ref: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3222783,00.html
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Re Ray at 69: “Every person who died in the Gaza conflict to date died because of Hamas and its criminal aggression.”
Speaking of criminal aggression, how are those settlements in the West Bank coming?
And how many more hundreds of acres of Palestinian land has been swallowed up by that slowly creeping big wall?
Oh yes — what are the boundaries of “Greater Israel” exactly?
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Don, When Hamas starts firing paint ball guns at Israeli houses give me a call. Until then you are not being sincere. You are simply apologizing for deadly aggression and condemning Israel for self defense. I won’t bother replying to any more absurd comments like this. If anyone wants to carry on an intelligent conversation on this important topic let me know.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
They will make a determination as to the continuing danger he poses to innocents outside his house.
Mmmm. But the “they” there isn’t the family next door (Israel), it’s the cops, the justice system, and–through its laws and institutions, the broader society (no easy parallel, but the best fit is the broader international community). If you bomb your neighbor’s house in response to some pot-shots, you’re going trial and probably to jail for a long, long time. Again, that’s the complaint.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
@72 I know the insinuations about anti-semitism are more or less pro-forma at this point, but when is it whining or defending yourself that is supposed to be Jewy?
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Don, OK, fair enough.
Criminal aggression has a legal definition. It is not building communities on stateless land as permitted by the controlling authority. The controlling authority (Israel IDF) is not there by choice. Israel offered a peace treaty and that Jordan resume control of the WB after the Six Day War. The Arab League said no, three times. Now they don’t like the arrangements.
The Palestinians can still negotiate for peace any time they want to. They don’t want to. I say too bad about the settlements but the Palestinains and Arab League made their choice. Had they made a different choice there would be no settlements. Now they must live with their choice. That’s how it goes sometimes. Reality catches up and you become responsible for your bad choices – even if you are Palestinians.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Re Ray at 72: “Don, When Hamas starts firing paint ball guns at Israeli houses give me a call. Until then you are not being sincere. You are simply apologizing for deadly aggression and condemning Israel for self defense.”
————–
Er.. in the same way I would condemm a psychopathic killer for gunning down a group of 10 kids simply because one of them had shot at him with a paintball gun.
Even if the killer argued that the massacre was justified because in theory, a paintball pellet fired 50 feet away could still hurt an eye if it hit properly.
It has been a rule of Law for 2000 years that Bare Fear does NOT justify use of Deadly Force to kill innocents. Doing so puts the Israel Lobby and the Likud on the same moral level as the Nazis.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
There is a more Israeli critique of the “Shoot and Cry” zionist, where you blow up Gaza or Lebanon or Ramallah and then talk about how sad it made you, but that would be the opposite of what you proposed above.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
“The problem with this whole discussion is that if HRW and its supporters truly cared about human rights abuses then they would focus their efforts toward denouncing and condemning Hamas as international war criminals of the worst sort – and they would have done this the day after Israel pulled out of Gaza when Hamas fired the first Qassam into S. Israel. They would have demanded that day the the UN send in a multinational force to occupy Gaza until the threat was neutralized and the Hamas perpetrators facing war crimes trials and hanging – as happened with the Nazis found guilt of starting WWII.”
a) When Israel “pulled out of Gaza,” they instituted a crippling blockade upon Gaza’s citizenry. A blockade is, itself, an act of war. What would Israel do if *she* were blockaded? Probably fire some rockets, right?
b) HRW has–time and again–denounced and condemned Hamas’s war crimes, and continues to do so.
c) To the extent that you perceive American supporters of HRW (such as Matt Yglesias may or may not be) as more vociferous in their opposition to Israel’s war crimes than they/we are to Hamas’s war crimes, that may very well be because of what Don Williams explains upthread (in comment #41), and which I quote below:
“Americans have to care about Israel’s human rights record because we created Israel — with close to $100 Billion in past financial support, massive transfers of advanced weapons, massive military support and protection, and with many vetos of UN resolutions.
So when Israel murders Palestinian civilians, the world knows that it is with our weapons and our money.”
This, to me, is the crucial difference, and it’s why I’ve spent more time voicing opposition to Israel’s war crimes than to those of Hamas, or the Laotian LPA, or the erstwhile Tamil Tigers. It’s because, as a U.S. citizen, I bear personal culpability for the crimes of the IDF in a way that is distinct from the crimes of Hamas, or the LPA, or the Tamil. And since the U.S. is a representative democracy, I bear a unique responsibility to do whatever I can to get those crimes to stop, and to atone for their commission.
I don’t think that should be such a difficult concept to grasp, nor should it even be all that controversial.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Re SomeCallMeTim at 73: “If you bomb your neighbor’s house in response to some pot-shots, you’re going trial and probably to jail for a long, long time. Again, that’s the complaint.”
————
Unless, of course, you have your Rich buddies buy off the cops, the Judge,and the prosecutor. Which is what the Israel Lobby does with the US COngress and the White House.
Which is why Iran and Al Qaeda snicker when Obama appeals to “International Law”.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Patrick, The “crippling blockade” was put in place in response to a series of Qassams being launched into S. Israel starting the day after Israel pulled out and continuing for the following days and weeks. The tubes for those Qassams were being manufactured from the irrigation pipes Israel had left for the Palestinians to take over the greenhouses that were built by Israelis and foreign donations to establish jobs, income and industry for the Palestinians.
Aside from that – the blockade was not “crippling” by any stretch of the imagination. Israel allowed food and other goods in that could not be used to attack Israel. Despite the propaganda no Palestinians starved. When the Palestinians rushed the Egyptian border they did not return with food. They came back with motorcycles and TV’s.
Get your facts straight and stop apologizing for the criminal Hamas thugs who are the cause of all the deaths in the Gaza conflict and who have explained their startegy as continuous attacks across the border into israel until there are no more Jews in Israel and israel becomes greater Palestine. Is your hatred of the Jews of Israel so great that those undisputed facts make no difference at all to you?
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Well, if we really want to blame who really started this conflict, then both Hamas and Israel should attack England. Their deliberate mismanagement of the Mandate led to all of this. That’s the starting point. But if you’d like to find a more recent flashpoint, Israel’s blockade of Gaza after Hamas stopped firing rockets would be it. The agreement between the parties stated that Israel had to lift the blockade and Hamas had to stop firing rockets. Hamas complied, Israel did not. Only after months of Israeli non-compliance did Hamas resume the rocket attacks. Since the war, Hamas has stopped firing rockets, and Israel still maintains the blockade of Gaza. And if you think a blockade isn’t a justification for retaliation, then surely you think that Israel’s invasion of Egypt in 1967 was a war crime. That was precisely Israel’s justification for their attack on Egypt. And it wasn’t even the first time they attacked Egypt first. The did an even less justified first strike in the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Pre-emptive SLC response to fostert: Fakestinians! HAMA RULES!!!!!
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Thanks for the discussion. I’ve got to go. But (most of) you guys should consider the possibility the you have picked the wrong side in this conflict. You have been swayed by slick propaganda and PR to see Israel as the bad guy. I know that’s hard to see because of the power of your strong emotional beliefs – but those beliefs are non-rational. If you make the wrong choice you are helping to turn a very dangerous world into a deadly world for your children and grandchildren where simply surviving long enough to have children of their own will be a major concern. It’s a world where any thug gets to use asymmetrical warfare against any free society who will not be allowed to defend themselves.
I know most of you will not accept that. Just think about it though. The price for being wrong on this will be very high. 9/11 was just a preview of what could come. Israel and the US are not perfect but we are far better than any ME Arab state in terms of human rights and personal freedom. And most important, we have a government that provides us a way to to improve and correct our miss-steps – and we have been getting progressively better since we started. Don’t enable the criminals.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Well the opposition sincerely does believe liberals are anti American. Their problem with Abu Grahib was not the deliberate war crimes that President Bush ordered, but the photos that the liberal media published.
Good for you, Matt, for having the patience to argue with these bastards. They’re the ones who crapped in the pool and they need to STFU about the chlorine.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
@83 That pious, purple-prosed rot would be sort of sad on it’s own, but given the history of exactly how Israel got there and it’s use of “any thug gets to use asymmetrical warfare” pre-1948 it blows the top off the irony meter.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Re Ray in 83:
Ray, I try to look at the facts — not at cartoon depictions of who are the bad guys and who are wearing the white hats. WHAT do you think created Hamas — did aliens drop them into Gaza one night? Ever hear of something called the Irgun?
Adolf Hitler, after all, claimed he only invaded Poland because Poland attacked Germany. There was a minor border incident, as I recall. Which most people agree did not justify invading Eastern Europe and trying to kill every living thing within a 500 mile strip.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 pm
“You have been swayed by slick propaganda and PR to see Israel as the bad guy.”
Really? You honestly think the Palestinian PR machine is slicker and more effective than Israel’s? Yeah right. You, sir, are delusional. I don’t actually know the budgets of AIPAC and CAIR, but I’m sure AIPAC’s is at least 200 times larger. And Israel has every major news outlet in America solidly in its corner. Most notably, the New York Times, will never criticize Israel because about a third of it’s readership is Jewish. And they’re the supposedly “liberal” newspaper.
If you do think I’m swayed by anyone, well you are right. I was always reflexively pro-Israel and would defend any of their actions until I had an Israeli roommate. He had just left the IDF after his stint in the 1982 Lebanon invasion and was simply appalled by Israel’s behavior. It was he who explained to me Israel’s history and how they are as much to blame as the Palestinians for how bad things have become. And this is a guy who faced Palestinian bombs and bullets and killed those Palestinians. He certainly was no naive peacenik without knowledge of the realities of war.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
“Patrick, The “crippling blockade” was put in place in response to a series of Qassams being launched into S. Israel starting the day after Israel pulled out and continuing for the following days and weeks.”
War crimes do not justify additional war crimes.
“the blockade was not “crippling” by any stretch of the imagination. Israel allowed food and other goods in that could not be used to attack Israel.”
Says who? ‘Cause Amnesty International says different ( http://tinyurl.com/7matft ) and so does the International Red Cross ( http://tinyurl.com/m5bhta ). I’ll go ahead and go with the say-so of the International Red Cross on this one, until you gimme a better source to the contrary.
“Get your facts straight and stop apologizing for the criminal Hamas thugs who are the cause of all the deaths in the Gaza conflict and who have explained their startegy as continuous attacks across the border into israel until there are no more Jews in Israel and israel becomes greater Palestine. Is your hatred of the Jews of Israel so great that those undisputed facts make no difference at all to you?”
a) I don’t apologize for the criminal Hamas thugs. I want the criminal Hamas thugs to cease their crimes. I also want the criminal Israeli thugs to cease their crimes. The only difference between the two sets of criminal thugs is that one of ‘em is using my money to commit the crimes, which gives me a special responsibility to stop ‘em.
b) It’s true that the ruling party in Gaza has a charter which denies the legitimacy of an Israeli state, and pursues a murderous policy toward that end. It’s similarly true that the ruling party in Israel has a charter which denies the legitimacy of a Palestinian state, and pursues a murderous policy toward that end. If the former is evil (and it is), then so is the latter.
c) I don’t hate the Jews of Israel. I don’t hate anybody. I believe that the people of Israel (of all faiths, including the Jewish faith) have the right to live in freedom, security, dignity and self-determination. And I believe the same thing about the people of Palestine.
“Thanks for the discussion. I’ve got to go. But (most of) you guys should consider the possibility the you have picked the wrong side in this conflict. You have been swayed by slick propaganda and PR to see Israel as the bad guy.”
Speaking for myself, I don’t see Israel as the bad guy. I don’t see *anyone* as “the bad guy.” I see Israel the way I see Palestine: a collection of people filled with fear and rage. The only real difference is that Israel has more and better guns, and the freedom to use those guns, thanks to the nation in which I live, and the tax dollars that I pay.
“If you make the wrong choice you are helping to turn a very dangerous world into a deadly world for your children and grandchildren where simply surviving long enough to have children of their own will be a major concern.”
I think the very best thing I can do for the safety of my 4 year old daughter, my unborn son (due in December) and the children that they will someday bear (God willing) is to urge my nation to stop actively participating in the subjugation of powerless people around this planet (including Palestine). I believe that the U.S.’s unquestioning support of Israel’s domination of Palestine is a net negative to the U.S.’s security. In fact, I’d be shocked if there’s really much debate about that in objective circles.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Well said, Pat.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Patrick Meighan says:
Your sense of responsibility is very commendable, but I would take you and Yglesias more seriously if you applied these high moral principles more consistently.
After the recent bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul (the Afghan Taliban, supported by the Pakistani army and ISI, took “credit”) Yglesias wrote a charming piece in which he said that as long as India was building roads, dams and schools in Afghanistan, it was entirely understandable that Pakistan would take “countermeasures” to maintain strategic depth against India. Of course other recent “countermeasures” by Pakistan have included suicide bombing of the Indian embassy last year (58 dead, the NYT reported NSA intercepted calls from the Pakistani ISI aiding this atrocity), training and harboring the Lashkar-e-Toyyaba (responsible for the Mumbai massacre of 158 civilians last year), ethnic cleansing of 300,000 Hindus from Kashmir, etc.
Pakistan is kept afloat with US dollars ($8 billion since 9/11 , another $9 billion just approved). It is taking delivery of F-16 jets from the US, and it has traditionally been armed by the US. It is more of a US client state than Israel is.
In the wonderful world of Yglesias:
deliberate slaughter of Indian civilians by Pakistani terrorists, funded courtesy Uncle Sam: understandable countermeasures by Pakistan playing the great game
Palestinian civilians killed accidentally by IDF when attacking Hamas gunmen hiding among civilians: get panties in a knot about IDF war crimes.
Consistency I suppose is the hobgoblin of little minds. Or perhaps dead Indians don’t move Lord Yglesias as much as dead Palestinians.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
I haven’t heard Matt come out in favor of gravity, either. That bastard wants us all to fly off into space!
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Consistency I suppose is the hobgoblin of little minds. Or perhaps dead Indians don’t move Lord Yglesias as much as dead Palestinians.
Or, possibly, we get shit from Pakistan. Like help with Afghanistan (and–secret, secret–Pakistan). Does anyone really believe that we prefer to be tied to Pakistan? The place is a mess and, as I understand it, they believe we abandoned them the last time we felt able to do so. Assuming that’s right, I don’t know why wouldn’t do the same again.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
FedUpIndian @90,
You didn’t quote Matthew’s post. It seems unlikely that you are interpreting it correctly. Pakistan has interests, and (correct or incorrect) perceptions of its interests, in furtherance of which it will predictably design much of its foreign policy. The US should take this fact into account in designing our own response in the region. I suspect Matthew was saying something more along these lines, as he often has elsewhere. I find this view eminently sensible.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Israel has obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights norms, obligations that it appears to have violated, and these obligations stand regardless of crimes on the part of Hamas. This observation has prompted a lot of ad hominem attacks, and a lot of smokescreens and huffy rhetoric, but basically nothing in the way of substantive defense.
Matt, thank you for saying this, and please keep saying it.
Smokescreens and huffy rhetoric, indeed. Or what Lester Bangs once called “a fusillade of styrofoam.” But the point stands.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:42 am
FedUpIndian, right on! Not that I agree with you, but maybe we should give a shit about the real terrorism that is regular in India and Pakistan. For every bomb in Israel, twenty go off in India. But it’s a larger population, so such actions would be more likely to happen. But Israel gets press, India does not. Twenty people die in a car bombing in India, nobody knows about it. Five people die in Israel, everyone in the world knows about it.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 am
Yglesias,
You still don’t get it and quit making strawman arguments. No one is saying Israel doesn’t have obligations under international law or that it doesn’t violate those obligations at times.
The problem with HRW is that it offers flimsy evidence to support its claims that make no technical sense and would not pass the laugh test in a court of law. For instance, HRW claimed Israel attacked civilians with drones based on Palestinians claiming they “heard” them. All military leaders who have commented on this report have noted that it is impossible to identify a drone simply from a sound. Or what about HRW’s highlighting the case of Abed Rabbo? He has given at least 16 different and contradictory versions of his story to the press and human rights groups making him inherently unreliable. An Arabic paper reported he was a Fatah activist and that Hamas had shot rockets from his property. Perhaps, he had reason to make up stories about the Israelis? Yet, HRW does not mention these contradictions or conflicts of interest in its reports.
And HRW makes legal claims based on information it doesn’t possess. How can it make claims about Israeli intent when it has examined absolutely no evidence to make such assessments. If there is no intent, there is no war crime. Goldstone himself in the Forward notes that if his inquiry was a “court of law, nothing would have been proven” and that he wouldn’t be embarrassed or surprised if the claims he made turn out to be untrue — which is a basic acknowledgment that his “fact finding” mission didn’t find anything.
And why does HRW refuse to provide the raw data from its inquiries? We have asked them for it numerous times yet they continue to suppress it. What are they so afraid of?
Another point: HRW joined Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Cuba, China, Malaysia, Venezuela, Hamas and Islamic Jihad (nice cohorts) issuing at least 28 statements advocating for the Goldstone inquiry and its report when the books were cooked from the beginning and everyone involved knows it. In contrast, it has issued only 18 statements on the democracy protests in Iran. Isn’t there something fundamentally wrong with this disparity?!! And what about Congo? During the Gaza War, HRW issued 20 or more statements condemning Israel, yet only 1 on DRC after thousands had died and were systematically raped there during the same time period.
Do I even need to bring up Marc Garlasco? What kind of “human rights” organization employs someone who has a fetish for swastikas and uses the name of a gun and a neo Nazi symbol for Heil Hitler as his screen name? Even Helena Cobban, certainly no friend of Israel, thought this was crazy. Why do you refuse to acknowledge something is totally screwed up at that organization?
Apparently though, it is impossible to have this conversation with you or your lackey Sullivan b/c you refuse to debate substance, instead diverting attention to nonexistent claims.
Anne Herzberg
Legal Advisor
NGO Monitor
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 am
Look, Anne, nobody gives a shit about any release on how Saudi Arabia is a ruthless regime. We all know that, and we all agree. But we need their oil, so we don’t care. Gas in your car, or human rights? Which do you really care about? Obviously, gas in in your car. That’s why we whitewash Saudi human rights violations all the time. But Israel has no such bounty. There is nothing there. So why should we give a shit? We don’t give a shit about anyone even if there’s some resources nearby. Why should Israelis get special treatment? I don’t get special treatment, so why should the Israelis? If you want to prove to me that they really are the Chosen People, then do it. Otherwise, you need to operate in the concept that Israelis are just normal people without special rights. If the Israelis want want more support, they better produce some oil real soon. Otherwise, it’s just religious fanaticism supporting them. And that’s when there is no way I’d support them.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:46 am
And, Anne, I will go the other way. I really would like to have this special treatment. And I can only get it as an Israeli citizen. So can you get me Israeli citizenship? I want to live as the most elite people of the world. The only people immune from all responsibility. Sure, we’ll be criticized, but we can do whatever we want. America will always bail us out.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 am
“He had just left the IDF after his stint in the 1982 Lebanon invasion”
And he’d only spent five years in Lebanon in full combat mode. He became a colonel in the IDF for that combat service, and he left the country in fear. He was afraid of what his country was becoming, so he left. He would be a hero in Israel for his service, but he refused to accept his medals. In America, he’d get three purple hearts and two silver stars for his service. In Israel, he could get the same, but he refuses to go back.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:26 am
Anne Herzberg, legal advisor for the Zionutty propaganda outfit, NGO Monitor, writes:
You still don’t get it and quit making strawman arguments. No one is saying Israel doesn’t have obligations under international law or that it doesn’t violate those obligations at times.
The denial of Israeli obligations under international law is the raison d’etre of your racist propaganda outfit. I would like you to provide an example where your organization has ever condemned Israeli war crimes. I would like you to provide an example where The New Republic has ever condemned Israeli war crimes. I would like you to provide an example where Commentary magazine has ever condemned Israeli war crimes.
This should be easy. You are one of the officers of NGO Monitor, an organization whose stated goal is to attack Western human rights NGOs, while The New Republic and Commentary are the two American magazines most prolific in their “support” of Israel.
Oh, and to save me wasting my time waiting for this post to drop off the bottom of Matthew Yglesias’s list of posts I expect you to respond by 6pm ET Friday. You, an officer of NGO Monitor, came on this blog whenever it pleased you to insult the host and most of the other guests. And I don’t give a rats ass if the Sabbath starts tomorrow. You apparently don’t give a rats ass about worshipping false idols or lying so why should I care about the other commandments.
I will regard your failure to provide the requested material as proof that your following statement is a lie: “No one is saying Israel doesn’t have obligations under international law or that it doesn’t violate those obligations at times.” Furthermore, since you made this statement in your official capacity as “Legal Advisor, NGO Monitor” I will take your failure as proof that your organization condones your lies.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 am
“Why should Israelis get special treatment? I don’t get special treatment, so why should the Israelis? If you want to prove to me that they really are the Chosen People, then do it.”
“I really would like to have this special treatment. And I can only get it as an Israeli citizen. So can you get me Israeli citizenship? I want to live as the most elite people of the world. The only people immune from all responsibility.”
“Zionutty propaganda outfit”
“racist propaganda outfit. I would like you to provide an example where your organization has ever condemned Israeli war crimes. I would like you to provide an example where The New Republic has ever condemned Israeli war crimes. I would like you to provide an example where Commentary magazine has ever condemned Israeli war crimes.”
“I expect you to respond by 6pm ET Friday. You, an officer of NGO Monitor, came on this blog whenever it pleased you to insult the host and most of the other guests. And I don’t give a rats ass if the Sabbath starts tomorrow. You apparently don’t give a rats ass about worshipping false idols or lying so why should I care about the other commandments.”
Fostert, ndm — Wow, you guys have some major issues — Get some psychological help, immediately!
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:01 am
Yglesias and his ilk opposed the operation in Gaza before it even started. Same for Lebanon in 2006. They never believe Israel has a right to self-defense.
To later claim that they just want to impose some objective standard on “war crimes” is laughable.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:01 am
What’s interesting is that I’ve met all kinds of soldiers from all over the world. The officers always had long fights. Whatever benefits you might have as an officer, if there’s a war, you’re going anyway. And you’ll stay for a while. You have to, this really is your life. I avoided it by being too young, my father was married with kids. My uncle was in ROTC (MIT), got a deferment to go to medical school and get a PhD (Penn), and had a really bad draft number. He was going to be drafted if he didn’t go through Officer Training. But they obviously go light on surgeons in OTC. Certainly light on their hands. So after a year in Asia, he led a hospital in Da Nang. And that’s as ugly as it gets. Hospitals are not pretty places during wartime, and a military hospital is even worse. Needless to say, two years of that is about all anyone can take, even doctors. As he said: “I never saw combat, I only saw the results.” And that is certainly something you do not want to see. But you know what? I met a guy about my age who was delivered by my uncle. In Da Nang. It’s impossible to verify that because many babies were delivered by many people. But what was scary was what happened when they questioned me and determined that I really was “Uncle Charlie’s” nephew. At that point, my motorbike driver had to speed me away.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 am
@ny nick:
It’s very easy to say Israel should abide by a standard he’s not willing to ask Hamas or Hezzbollah to abide by.
I think it’s right about here that you reveal yourself to be a disingenuous shit.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:19 am
Ron drug his ass out of bed at 6am to get outraged at us for finding something objectionable about bombing a besieged ghetto and killing a few hundred children. You gotta have priorities.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
What uniform do hamas “militants” wear to distinguish themselves from REAL civilians?
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:15 am
I’ll give the Israeli military credit: before they bombed any Palestinian building, they dropped fliers letting the people know they should leave. Hamas never extended that courtesy to Israelis when they fired their Qassam rockets.
…of course, the Palestinians had nowhere to go, because they were living in an open air prison completely besieged, and anywhere they went, they had cluster bombs and white phosphorous raining down on them – but at least they got to burn alive with some nice reading material!
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
[...] Matthew Yglesias responds: Pollack “responds” to my post with the observation that B’Tselem is critical of the UN Human Rights Council and also has some disagreements with the Goldstone report. But so what? I never mentioned the UNHRC. I’ll add that Richard Goldstone himself has criticized the UN Human Rights Council’s handling of his report. We can all agree—me, Pollack, Goldstone, B’Tselem, etc.—that the UNHRC’s record on Israel is not a good one*. [...]
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Re Edward at 106: “What uniform do hamas “militants” wear to distinguish themselves from REAL civilians?”
———
AK-47s and associated web gear to carry magazines. Although some like to add RPGs for some bling bling.
My understanding is that you are not supposed to shoot unarmed people, even if you suspect they are Hamas. ALthough you may take them prisoner for interrogation.
Unless, of course, your Rules of Engagement are “Kill Them ALL and let G*D sort them out.”
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
Re Paul at 147: “I’ll give the Israeli military credit: before they bombed any Palestinian building, they dropped fliers letting the people know they should leave. Hamas never extended that courtesy to Israelis when they fired their Qassam rockets.”
————-
That , of course, is misleading bullshit in several respects.
One, there is a big fucking difference between a small chickenshit “rocket” fueled by saltpeter and sugar vice a high explosive 500 lb bomb dropped by an F16.
Two, when the spiritual head of Hamas called for a ceasefire a few years ago, Ariel Sharon responded by bombing a fucking apartment building in the middle of the night, killing several children as well as adults.
Sharon expressed regret to America, saying he thought the apartment was unoccupied except for a Hamas leader.
Except that GAZA is one of the most densely populated places on earth — there ARE NO unoccupied apartment buildings there.
Sharon’s casual lie to the American people merely shows what PSYCHOPATHIC liars the Likud and their Israel Lobby allies are.
Just like Sharon, Shimon Peres, and Bibi Nathanyahu urged us to invade Iraq in 2002 and take out Saddam’s nukes. Has Mossad found those nukes yet?? The families of 4500 dead American soldiers would like to know.
Ref: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast/index.html
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
You clearly didn’t read my whole post, did you.
That’s the risk when using sarcasm, I guess.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
109# Don Williams,
This may be news to you but AK-47s are weapons, not uniforms.
Are you saying that hamas “militants” dress as civilians to hide their role as combatants?
How many of those dead “civilians” were infact “militants”?
It makes good propaganda to portray AK-47 toting “militants” as defenseless “civilians”.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Re Paul at 111: Sorry, you are right. I was thinking more of the Likud apologists than of you specifically when I wrote.
———-
Re Edwards at112: “It makes good propaganda to portray AK-47 toting “militants” as defenseless “civilians”.”
Yes — because we all know that Richard Goldstone sees his mission in life as being a Hamas propagandist:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/goldstone-attacks-un-reso_n_324069.html?show_comment_id=32954751
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Re Edward at 112: “Are you saying that hamas “militants” dress as civilians to hide their role as combatants?”
I’m saying that every soldier and policeman is trained to distinguish between an armed combatant and an unarmed human. You do not fire on the latter. If justified , you take them prisoner and determine their status later.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Don Williams #113, #114,
I ask you a second time, why would hamas “militants” NOT wear uniforms when attacking, repositioning?
Are they posing as “civilians”?
If they are posing as “civilians” as a tactic?
How many of the dead in Gaza were REAL civilians
and how many were TERRORISTS posing as civilians?
Is it a war crime for hamas “militants” to fire from hospitals, mosques, use ambulances to ferry fresh fighters, more weapons?
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
You know, however people might dress, nobody’s hiding an AK-47. Unless you have one really good Burka. And that would really stand out in Palestine, anyway. So just shoot the people with guns and Burkas. Not the guys in hospital scrubs. Not the regular people trying to survive. Israel targeted doctors and EMTs and prevented people from entering hospitals. When you prevent injured people from entering a hospital to get medical treatment, you are committing a war crime. And there is simply no way around that one. That is simply inhumame. But it comes down to the basic principle that Israelis believe that Palestinians aren’t even dogs. The Israelis would treat an injured dog. But they’d step on a dying Palestinian to do it. There should be a basic concept of humanity, and even we are generous enough to do it most of the time. The Israelis are not ever so generous, unless it’s a dog. They simply wouldn’t give that help to a Palestinian, because he’s not even a dog.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
@102, Ron says:
I think Ron hits the nail here but let’s deconstruct this a bit. Many on the proggressive left have a strong emotional belief that Israel is a ruthless Arab-hating people out to inflict pain and punishment on a defenseless population whose land Israel stole in 1948. Such sentiments drip from the edges of many of comments in this forum. No matter the objective absurdity of this revisionist view of history, such beliefs persist because they fit with and reinforce even stronger emotional beliefs that are crucial components of the post Viet-Nam liberal zeitgeist – the cornerstone of liberal identity for many who went through the anti-Viet Nam war experience on the left – as I did.
My anti war generation got many things right. One thing we got wrong was our belief that war and the death of innocents was only caused by first world countries electing RW leaders who made immoral decisions.
I still consider myself a liberal but I think my side has arrived at a dangerous place in terms of our beliefs about the world and the nature of war and those who use it to reach their goals. There is a liberal and a conservative style to solving problems in life. Nature does not send problems to us that can only be solved with one of them.
Consider the historic reality: Jews immigrated to the stateless land of Palestine. They bought land from the Arabs who were there and started building a community for themselves and their neighbors. When it became clear that some Arabs would rather start riots and pogroms against the immigrants to further their own political power – and that a multicultural society was not possible – then the Jews petitioned the UN for a peaceful solution.
Regardless of whether one approves of the Partition Plan, it was a peaceful response to potential conflict – an almost unheard of event in the sordid history of this world. It required that no Arab or Jew sell or be removed from his home and relocated. It only specified that Jews would administer sovereignty over the Jewish majority partition – and Arabs the other. Both were free to move their families a few miles to establish their lives on either side of the new borders if they wished – or free to stay. The Jews assured the Arabs who wished to remain, equality under the law and full citizenship in a democratic polity.
Only one side reacted – starting the day after the Partition vote – to this extraordinarily benign arrangement when viewing all of human history – with repeated wars of aggression and continuous deadly violence focused on the killing of civilians, something they boast of and celebrate when successful. All the violence that has occurred since, is at its core, the result of this racist rejectionism. It was blatant violence against Jewish immigrants fleeing persecution and seeking self-determination and refuge in their historic homeland (that was legally stateless at the time) – from a world that has kicked them like dogs for 2000 years.
It is time for liberals to accept that the conservative approach to this violent and genocidal rejectionism, exemplified by the viciously antisemitic Hamas and Hisb’allah factions – is the only sensible and morally justified response that has any possibility of improving things for both Jews and Arabs in the ME. Instead Matt, by applying liberal notions of fair play and equal treatment to racist murderers you are giving credibility to their violent rejectionism and are wrecking hopes for any peaceful outcome.
There is no problem with demanding that Israel be judged by legal standards in combat. But you are completely ignoring the reality of the situation in your zeal to appear fair and balanced. The reality is that Hamas’ strategy is to force Israel to kill Palestinain civilians in the process of stopping or diminishing the rocket attacks. Hamas is not dumb. They succeeded in causing at least several hundred Arab civilian deaths in the Gaza war. I am willing to accept that some of those may have been intentional and unnecessary. And if any IDF committed such crimes they should be punished. I have seen no real evidence for this yet.
But, your liberal identity beliefs (that the far better armed IDF must be in the wrong) are preventing you from seeing the bigger picture, the far greater crime, the one that was the actual cause of those unnecessary civilian deaths as well as all the incidental but legal civilian deaths on both sides of this conflict: the firing of the several thousand rockets and mortars into S. Israel. That’s the crime that must be punished first and foremost if there will ever be peace in the region. One side can not attack the other to reach their political goals – period. To ignore that while prosecuting possible crimes committed in the heat of combat – combat caused because Hamas knew they would not be prosecuted for starting the war and making Israel’s defense necessary – is simply giving those who start wars immunity for their crime and assuring that they will repeat it as soon as they think they have an advantage. Certainly you don’t want that but that’s exactly what you are supporting.
It’s as if a neighbor enjoys firing his BB gun at your dog out playing in his own yard. You’ve warned him repeatedly over the months. Your dog is now an emotional wreck and defecates in the house, your wife is threatening to take the kids and leave you for failing to protect the family and the police refuse to do anything – and so when you finally go and confront the guy he starts a fight which you manage to win and you forcibly take the BB gun from him and break it – then cops show up and arrest you for trespass and battery.
I’m sorry but this will not result in a kinder more peaceful world where everyone’s rights to life and happiness is respected. Isn’t that what we were all trying to find in 1969? It will result in the exact opposite as anyone who steps back from the hot rhetoric can see. It’s time for liberals to acknowledge that there are a**holes in the world whose first choice in disputes is to kill and maim to get their way. There are whole patriarchal societies for which that is how things work and has for centuries – it is how they normally solve their political problems and how one achieves the only political power that is attainable there. Responding to them as if they were members of a civil polity that respected human rights is madness.
I don’t question anyone’s motives here – only your conclusions which I believe are horribly misguided.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Two things must happen and they must be declarations from the Israeli Parliament. First, Israel must declare that Palestinians are human beings under Israeli law. Second, Israel must accept that Palestine is a legitimate country. Until that happens, I see no reason to give a shit about Israel. They are a rogue country that routinely invades their neighbors and refuses to accept the right of the Palestinians to exist. They even refuse to accept that the Palestinians are human beings. And they even assert that whatever the Palestinians might be, they don’t even exist. Until Israel can accept that Palestine must exist and always have existed as humans, they should be treated as terrorists, just like Hamas. Hamas at least is willing to say that the Jews are human beings. Let’s see Israel admit that Arabs are human beings. They have not, and will not do that. Want to talk about the “Who is a Jew” laws? Don’t even go there. Jews can’t even be Jews there.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
fostert, You can’t hide an AK-47? Is an AK47 8 feet long? Does it require two men to carry it?
Combatants are required to wear uniforms. The IDF does. hamas, hezbualah terrorists don’t. Why is that? hamas has funds to acquire weapons but not uniforms? hamas “militants” wear their uniforms for their hamas pep rallies (the ladies love a man in uniform), but not when firing rockets, guns?
hamas fired weapons from the rooftops of hospitals, forced REAL civilians to stand on rooftops to act as human shields.
hamas intentionally puts REAL civilian Gazans in harms way as a tactic. And THAT is a WAR CRIME – that islamofascists commit over and over again.
Considering that hamas does NOT wear uniforms to identify themselves during attacks, how many of the claimed dead in Gaza are REAL civilians and how many were hamas “militants” dressed as civilians?
BTW, have you ever read the “Hamas Charter” of 1988, the same year that Pan Am 103 was bombed? It’s quite horrifying. I found the paragraphs denouncing Freemasons and Lions and Rotarians as Zionists quite horrifying. I believe the nazis had some animus with Freemasons too.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
fostert, likewise I demand that hamas, hezbullah, al qada, Saud family, whabbists, the islamofascist regime of iran, declare that Israelis are human beings.
All that RACIST crap where islamofascists teach their children that JEWS are the sons of pigs and monkeys, has to go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbHVEGnYD8
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Re SomeCallMeTim at 73: “If you bomb your neighbor’s house in response to some pot-shots, you’re going trial and probably to jail for a long, long time. Again, that’s the complaint.”
How stupid it that analogy? Here’s another analogy that actually makes sense. What do you think would happen if
Tiawan started shooting rockets at China or Kyzakistan started bombing Russia? The aggressor could expect a vicious and disproportionate response. There is no such thing as a world police force idiot.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
@117 My liberal beliefs made me read a couple books and your history of Mandate Palestine is drek. No A-list hasbara peddlers even try that anymore. Daniel Pipes would probably be embarrassed by it in 2009. You just ossified sometime back in the 70’s when it wasn’t questioned.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
“Jews immigrated to the stateless land of Palestine.”
No, they immigrated to a land controlled by the Ottoman Empire first, and then mostly to a land controlled by England. Both of these entities were clearly states. I’ll grant you that The Ottoman Empire was in a severe state of collapse, and thus doesn’t deserve classification of statehood, but that represents about 2% of all the migration. The other 98% happened under the British Mandate. And if you want to claim that England was never a real country, be my guest. You’d be full of shit on that one. There was a very clear state there, and it was England that controlled the Palestinians. This was not an empty land, it was a colony of Arabs controlled by England. And England executed an ethnic reorganization involving the replacing of Arabs with Jews. Learn some fucking history before you spout off your bullshit.
And let’s make this clear, before the British Mandate, the Jewish population of Palestine was less than 1%. And that’s not even the original Jewish population of about 0.3%. The Jews try to claim they are the real people there, but they are clearly invaders. If they were the original inhabitants, you’d think they might rise above 1% of the population. But they don’t, and England deliberately imported Jews for religious reasons. The reasons having to do with the Book of Revelation.
The only intent here is to fulfill that book, the Jews have to be there so Christians can slaughter them. Well, we’ve done that. Now it’s time to slaughter the Christians before they slaughter the Jews. And the Book of Revelation makes the Christians’ intent very clear. The Christians have a long history of killing Jews and now they have them corralled. So it’s either kill the Christians now, or watch the Jews get slaughtered again. Either way, it’s a big ass bloodbath.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
@34: Dude, you have serious problems. Have you read or understood a single thing about Palestinian culture, or do you just assume all ‘Scary Arabs’ are like those from backwards areas of Saudi Arabia?
I mean, seriously: “Women who are killed or beaten for the crime of riding in a car with a boy are of no concern.”
What the hell are you talking about? In Palestine?”
Dude, you better learn to get your facts straight. Do a quick google search. You’ll find hundreds of examples of honor killings inside the territories. Are you seriously suggesting honor killings do not happen in Gaza or the West Bank?
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
fostert, Your incoherent diatribes hardly deserve a response, but the British Mandate was not a state. I guess your going to claim now that the Arabs voted them in. Palestine was a stateless region – even under the Ottomans it was only a zone for purposes of tax collection – into which thousands of Arabs and Jews migrated without crossing any meaningful political borders – the Jews at great risk and cost to themselves – the Arabs to find jobs and the higher living standards produced by Jewish investment. Is there something about the Jewish portion of that migration you find particularly distasteful?
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Oboe says:
“@ny nick:
It’s very easy to say Israel should abide by a standard he’s not willing to ask Hamas or Hezzbollah to abide by.
I think it’s right about here that you reveal yourself to be a disingenuous shit.”
Is there a coherent argument here? Does Matt expect Hezzbollah or Hamas to abide by any recognized standards of human rights? The answer is an obvious NO. His argument is that Israel should be criticized for not fully living up to these standards. Standards he does not expect Israel’s advisaries to uphold. Standards that are violated consistently in every major conflict since the beginning of time. Israel is hardly unique in this regard. They’re merely upholding a time honored wartime tradition.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
@125 You need to put something in your library that isn’t “From Time Immemorial”. You are just wrong in the most extreme way you could possibly be regarding a historical event regarding immigration to Palestine.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
err, you know I meant.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Ed, I’ll bet my library is more complete and well read than yours on this topic. Possibly the most complete, up-to-date and well-referenced historical reference on this is “1948: A History of the First Arab Israeli War” written by Benny Morris and published in May, 2008. It contains much new source material recently uncovered from Israeli archives.
It’s been in my library for several months now and has been read twice. Have you read it once?
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Re: But they don’t, and England deliberately imported Jews for religious reasons. The reasons having to do with the Book of Revelation.
Fostert,
With all due respect, that’s wrong. The Book of Revelation says nothing of the kind. It uses “Israel” as a figurative symbol for the Christian church, and it doesn’t say much about Jews at all. It states that sorcerers, murderers, the sexually immoral, liars, and various other categories of people will be “outside the gates” of the city of God, but it doesn’t state anything about the status of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or non-Christians in the next life.
if you really want to get me to do a line-by-line exegesis of Revelation, then just let me know, but trust me on this one: the Book of Revelation is not about twenty-first century Middle East politics, it’s about the eternal struggle of good and evil, and to the extent that it does have specific historical references, those references involve the Roman Empire, the Christian Church, and other historical agents who resemble one of those two to a greater or lesser extent. St. John wasn’t really very interested in the fate of the Jewish state one way or another.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Yes, I have a copy myself. It’s an impressive historical work, a little light on Palestinian perspective and when he starts editorializing in the last chapter you can put it down.
Whatever ideological problems I have with Benny Morris, he didn’t write any narrative about an empty Palestine competed for by Jews and Arabs.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Your exegesis is sort of quaint, Hector. Dispensationalism did have a place in British behavior. It’s by far dominant in American protestant faith.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Re Ray at 117: “Consider the historic reality: Jews immigrated to the stateless land of Palestine. They bought land from the Arabs who were there and started building a community for themselves and their neighbors. When it became clear that some Arabs would rather start riots and pogroms against the immigrants to further their own political power – and that a multicultural society was not possible – then the Jews petitioned the UN for a peaceful solution.”
—————-
This, of course, is a crock of shit. Woodrow Wilson sent an investigative Commission to the Middle East in 1919 — the King Crane Commission — to determine what the people of the region wanted — in line with his 14 Points re self-determination.
Primary Findings of the Commission:
a) “Wishes of the People.-The Moslems constitute about four-fifths of the actual population of Palestine, according to a recent British census ”
b) “E-Zionism
1-2-3. The petitions favoring the Zionist program have been analyzed above in the discussion of programs. In opposition to these are the 1,350 (72.3 per cent) petitions protesting against Zionist claims and purposes. This is the third largest number for any one point and represents a more widespread general opinion among both Moslems and Christians than any other. The anti-Zionist note was especially strong in Palestine, where 222 (85.3 per cent) of the 260 petitions declared against the Zionist program. This is the largest percentage in the district for any one point. ”
c) “4. The Zionist Program: Eleven petitions with varying wording favor the Zionist Program of a Jewish State and extensive Jewish immigration. These are all from Jewish delegations. Eight other petitions express approval of the Zionist colonies in Palestine without endorsement of the complete program. :Four of these latter are statements by Arab peasants that they are on good terms with the Jewish colonies. “
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Here is the link to the King Crane Commission Report of 1919:
http://www.ipcri.org/files/kingcrane.html
So what happened to Woodrow Wilson’s loudly proclaimed principle of “national self-determination”??
Simple. Woodrow was a DEMOCRATIC President — and like most such, he was bought off by Rich Supporters of Israel. Zionists like Frankfurter and Brandeis twisted his arm– but it didn’t take much.
After all, Woodrow was just continuing a robust Democratic tradition of Whoring going back to the Founding of the Republic, when James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson that Madison was deeply in debt to Heym Solomon here in Philly.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
British Prime Minister David Lloyd George NEEDED America’s strong support in WWI — as he noted, Britain was about to lose the war.
THAT is WHY goy Lloyd George CREATED Israel — to bribe Woodrow Wilson’s Zionist supporters. Even over the protests of Jewish leaders like Lord Montague.
Plus Britain was bankrupt — and desperately needed to borrow money. Desperately needed to “make a bargain with World Jewry”. Look at to WHOM the Balfour Declaration was addressed.
http://mailstar.net/l-george.html
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Don, The opinion surveys you quote don’t refute any part of the statement I made that you quoted and characterized as a “crock of shit”. What’s your point?
As an aside, I’m well aware that my views are opposed by the consensus here. Characterizing my statements as a “crock of shit” may provide you some tingle of group approval and I wouldn’t deny you that – but that doesn’t really add much to the quality of the discussion. Let’s both try to be polite. Shall we?
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Don, The last couple of comments you slipped in do show a decided antisemitic bent. You know, Jews have all the money and control world politics, they start or are behind all the world’s wars . . and such. Maybe you should throttle back a bit. The spittle on your comments is giving you away.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Ed says, “Whatever ideological problems I have with Benny Morris, he didn’t write any narrative about an empty Palestine competed for by Jews and Arabs.”
Neither did I.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Wilson was a dispensationalist and highly religious. He thought he was divinely chosen to lead the U.S. and thought of himself as Cyrus restoring the Jews to Israel.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
From Ray at 117: “The Jews assured the Arabs who wished to remain, equality under the law and full citizenship in a democratic polity.”
So how is that working out?
Re Ray at 136: “What’s your point?”
That your meme was false, The population of Palestine did welcome Jewish immigrants initially — but was overwhelming opposed to being displaced by the Zionist program once the real nature of that program was revealed.
And the “Peaceable Solution” created by outside powers –Great Britain and USA — was to stab those indigenous people in the back in exchange for some loans and campaign donations from Rich Zionists.
It is somewhat ironic to argue that Hamas should be judged by “civilized” moral codes and norms — when the entire birth of Israel shows that that moral code is nothing more than two faced hypocrisy and deceit. Spurned when expedient both by the Zionists as well as by the goy politician whores they buy.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Re Ed Marshall at 139: “Wilson was a dispensationalist and highly religious.”
Woodrow Wilson was a two-faced hypocrite and pathological liar — as shown by his imprisonment of Eugene Debs.
I for one hope Woodrow’s soul screams in Hell for all eternity for the grief and misery he bought down on this world. He did more than George W Bush to destroy the idea that mankind should be governed by ethical norms.
He gave lipservice to those norms — but managed by calculated incompetence to discredit the very idea of international law. Not even Dick Cheney was as effective.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
– the Jews at great risk and cost to themselves – the Arabs to find jobs and the higher living standards produced by Jewish investment. Is there something about the Jewish portion of that migration you find particularly distasteful?
The equivalence doesn’t make a bit of sense unless you think the Palestinian Arab and Jewish Israeli populations were both equally foreign. Maybe you do know better and wanted to disemble. Maybe it was just a hook to get the anti-anti-semite riff off with.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
How stupid it that analogy?…There is no such thing as a world police force idiot.
Don’t tell me, tell Ray in Seattle. He’s the one who introduced the analogy.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
@140: “So how is that working out?”
Pretty well. Arab Israelis enjoy higher incomes, higher standards-of-living, lower infant mortality, greater longevity and better health and better access to health care – than any Arabs in the ME, except perhaps for the ruling oligarchy families.
“— but was overwhelming opposed to being displaced by the Zionist program once the real nature of that program was revealed.”
The real nature of that program? You mean to share the land of Palestine under democratic principles and build a multicultural nation state that would become a model in the ME – to show what democracy and rule of law could do for ordinary people?
How il-liberal of those Zionists. No wonder you despise them so.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Re Ray at 137: “Don, The last couple of comments you slipped in do show a decided antisemitic bent. You know, Jews have all the money and control world politics, they start or are behind all the world’s wars . . and such.”
———-
Fuck you. 4500+ Americans are dead in Iraq because Israeli billionaire Haim Saban dumped $15 Million into the Democratic Party in 2000-2002. Terry McAuliffe said ole Haim “saved the Democratic Party”.
And what does ole Haim want for that money? Well, as Haim himself has stated, he’s a one issue man and that issue is Israel. He sees it as his duty to use his money to ensure that America protects Israel — and that US Presidents fetch Haim soft drinks whenever he visits the White House.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Saban
and http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html
Of course, as JJ Goldberg noted in his 1996 “Jewish Power”,
the vast majority of America’s Jews have NO idea what activists are doing on their proclaimed behalf. The Israel Lobby serves its own ego — not Israel and certainly not the
American Jewish Community.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Some call me tim,
My apologies.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
@142: Ed says “The equivalence doesn’t make a bit of sense unless you think the Palestinian Arab and Jewish Israeli populations were both equally foreign.”
Equally foreign? I always thought that the privileges and responsibilities of democracy should be shared by all the population regardless of race creed or color. I always thought that was what being liberal was all about.
Would you also deny those privileges to the majority of Arabs who immigrated after 1881 to Palestine? Or does your liberalism not apply to Jews?
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Re Ray at 144: “The real nature of that program? You mean to share the land of Palestine under democratic principles and build a multicultural nation state that would become a model in the ME – to show what democracy and rule of law could do for ordinary people?”
————
Ask American Jews who immigrate to Israel about the “multicultural” nature of Israel.
Evidently, Reform Jews who want to get married are not quite ..er.. kosher in the eyes of the Orthodox rabbinate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02jewishness-t.html?ei=5088&en=44ecd3791c67f578&ex=1362114000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
That seems kinda like an ..er.. ungrateful way to treat people who give you $3 Billion per year in Welfare. Much less people who serve in the IDF to protect you.
By the way, how many Orthodox rabbis have served in combat?
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
In #147 that last senetence would read better as:
Would you also deny those privileges to the majority of Arabs who immigrated after 1881 to Palestine? Or do you reserve your liberalism only for non-Jews?
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
@148
Don, I’ve heard all the “terrible stories” about the “oppression” of minorities in Israel. The fact is that Israel is comparable on that record with any other democracy in the world that has to weigh rights between competing religious and secular sensibilities – and much better than some. Such pathetic attempts to denigrate Israel do not mean that Israel is not a highly successful multi-cultural, multi-religious society. Get a grip.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Re Ray at 150: “The fact is that Israel is comparable on that record with any other democracy in the world that has to weigh rights between competing religious and secular sensibilities – and much better than some.”
———-
Yes — every other nation in the world goes out and exterminates it neighbors every other month.
Russian pogroms against Polish Jews vs Israeli pogroms against the Palestinians: Compare and Contrast.
I waiting for you guys to argue that Matthew’s suggestion that moral standards apply to Israel is “Beyond the Pale”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement
Bottom Line: The US Government and Israel have all the power — the Palestinians have none. The fact that a peace plan has not been defined –and ENFORCED — by the US Congress is not the fault of the Palestinian people.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
@148, Really Don, I almost have to laugh at this. You say that orthodox Jews frown on reform Jews in Israel as regards marriage.
You say this with a straight face while a few miles away in Gaza, Fatah operatives are shot in the legs and thrown from tall buildings with their hands tied behind them and others are shot in front of their families. Children are taught in schools and on state TV that Jews are the offspring of pigs and apes and the greatest honor is to die a martyr while attempting to kill innocent Jewish civilians and children.
I almost have to laugh but when I read your crap but I really feel more crying.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I see that Andrew Sullivan is now farting in the general direction of propaganda outfit NGO Monitor – following on from his dissing of fellow propagandists UN Watch a few days ago.
And I’m still waiting for NGO Monitor’s resident gerbil on this thread, Anne Hertzberg, to point to even one case where her organization has criticized Israeli war crimes. Given their extent that should have been an easy task. Of course, I didn’t really expect a response from her. After all the primary goal of organizations like NGO Monitor and UN Watch is to gnaw away at the truth and implicitly, when not explicitly, support these war crimes.
The Bernstein op-ed has turned into a complete clusterf*ck that has caused far more damage to him and the Zionist organizations who support him than it did to HRW.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Re Ray at 152: “I almost have to laugh but when I read your crap but I really feel more crying.”
1) Actually, what makes me feel like crying is that 3000 Americans were killed on Sept 11, 2001 and our US COngress is such a pack of despicable Whores that they can’t even TRUTHFULLY examine WHAT provoked that attack.
2) Our support for Israel was one of the 3 causes cited as the motivation for that attack — but instead of feeling ashamed, Likud leaders Ariel Sharon, Shimon Peres, and Bibi Nathanyahu felt it was okay to LIE us into a disasterous war in Iraq that took out their enemy Saddam Hussein — at the cost of 4500 American lives and over $3 Trillion in US money that could have to gone to provide healthcare to our citizens.
(ANd yes, I acknowledge that Big Oil is just as malign as the Israel Lobby in this regard.)
3) After all of the above , i cry at the idea that some people claiming US citizenship still think it is acceptable to promote Israel’s interests at the cost of American lives.
And to expect us to cough up $3 Billion per year in aid and to give Israel F16s to continue her slow motion extermination of the Palestinian people.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
@154 Don, I’m glad to see we’re past the fuck you’s – at least for now.
You say “1) Actually, what makes me feel like crying is that 3000 Americans were killed on Sept 11, 2001 and our US COngress is such a pack of despicable Whores that they can’t even TRUTHFULLY examine WHAT provoked that attack.”
What provoked the attack? Aside from whatever conspiracy theories might be fermenting in your brain at this moment – I would propose that the only thing that would possibly, in any remote way, justify that attack – would be if a significant number of the people in the WTC that day were actively sitting at a control console getting ready to launch missiles and bombers at some peaceful al Quada retreat in the ME. That if they didn’t destroy the WTC then their own lives would be at serious risk. I fail to see how processing insurance policies and recording securities transfers qualifies as a threat against Islam that must be defended against with violence.
Just curious but do you think the Jews were told not to go to work that day?
You say, “2) Our support for Israel was one of the 3 causes cited as the motivation for that attack — but instead of feeling ashamed, Likud leaders Ariel Sharon, Shimon Peres, and Bibi Nathanyahu felt it was okay to LIE us into a disasterous war in Iraq that took out their enemy Saddam Hussein — at the cost of 4500 American lives and over $3 Trillion in US money that could have to gone to provide healthcare to our citizens.
(ANd yes, I acknowledge that Big Oil is just as malign as the Israel Lobby in this regard.)”
Well damn. Let’s not support anyone who some Arab theocrat doesn’t like. Unlike many liberals these days, many Americans are not ashamed of supporting the only democracy in the ME, the only state that gives all its citizens political freedom and human rights. You must be in the amp that believes that once Israel is gone peace will break out spontaneously throughout the world and the peace-loving Islamists, finally relieved of the terrible psychological pressure created by the existence of Jews in the ME who are not subjugated dhimmi, will be able to put down their scimitars and stop executing their daughters for refusing to marry the 80 yo geezer who just paid her father for the privilege. Is that how it goes?
BTW, Israel advised the US that Iran was the threat, and not to waste time and resources on Iraq.
You said, “3) After all of the above , i cry at the idea that some people claiming US citizenship still think it is acceptable to promote Israel’s interests at the cost of American lives. And to expect us to cough up $3 Billion per year in aid and to give Israel F16s to continue her slow motion extermination of the Palestinian people.”
Well, the IDF must be pretty incompetent. You must have missed this:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3504621,00.html
So much for your slow motion extermination.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Let’s listen to someone who knows something about warfare and preserving human rights in the midst of war: http://ow.ly/whTE
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“Equally foreign? I always thought that the privileges and responsibilities of democracy should be shared by all the population regardless of race creed or color. I always thought that was what being liberal was all about.”
Here Ray from Seattle opposes the idea of “Israel as the Jewish State”.
For a democracy, Israel has an unusual number of laws that treat citizens and residents differently on the basis of their ethnic and religious status. The most stark are immigration laws. The laws concerning who is allow to marry whom are MOST peculiar. To marry, both you and your partner have to belong to the same religious community, and the State recognizes 14 of them (or is it 16). Consequently, a truthful non-religious person cannot marry at all. The ownership of land is again, extremely peculiar, sui generis. Vast majority of the land is not owned privately but belongs to an ethnic agency that sometimes LEASES some plots to other ethnic groups, but only if it agrees with the overall plan of that agency, namely, where the “other ethnic groups” should be allowed to live.
And then there is OCCUPATION, which is the most peculiar institution. In them good old days various states had conquered territories and colonies. Now there are still some quaint small colonies in which the residents tend to enjoy full freedom of movement, trade etc. There are also contested areas which states claim as their own territories and where the majority of inhabitants beg to differ. However, invariably those states view the inhabitants as citizens, with full rights (which can be more valuable in, say, India, than in, say, Sudan, but full rights they are).
Thus already in the realm of theory the existence of occupied territories is totally unique. In 21-st century. In the realm of practice, it is very unique indeed. For example, I do not recall ANY historical example of an occupying power deciding if some occupied territory can be deprived of, say, chickpeas, pencils, writing paper, noodles etc. And deciding negatively in most such cases. Romans basically invented the template of modern political hypocrisy — they had theories of just war, and even laws about it, and the practice of “making desert and calling it peace”. But can you imagine Roman officials depriving a rebelious community of chickpeas, dried fruit, writing materials, building materials etc. etc.?
Cruelty of contemporary Israel is clearly within historical norm, although among 21st century democracies it is definitely an outlier. But in small-mindedness Israel reach the all-time global pinnacle.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Re Ray at 155: “What provoked the attack? Aside from whatever conspiracy theories might be fermenting in your brain at this moment”
1) Actually, the “conspiracy theory” was the Big Lie that Big Oil and the Israel Lobby agreed on to deflect any examination of their guilt for provoking that attack. I.e, that the attack occurred “because they hate our freedoms”.
2) Bin Laden gave several interviews to US TV networks in 1997-1998 in which he listed why he and Al Qaeda were going to declare war on the US:
a) US Government had killed 600,000 children in Iraq (by bombing water treatment plants and then blocking import of water purification materials, triggering pandemics of typhoid,etc.)
b) US Government had propped up the dictatorship of the House of Saud for decades in order to steal the oil wealth of the Saudi people (which will ultimately leave the Saudi people with nothing but eternal poverty.)
c) The US had supported Israeli massacres of the Palestinian Muslims. Bin Laden reiterated this last point as justifying jihad in a Nov 2001 interview with Pakistan’s DAWN journal.
Which the New York Times refused to print. Instead, the New York Times lied to the American people, telling them that our support for Israel was not a factor in the Sept 11 attack.
3) I justify nothing. But counterinsurgency is a political war — and we needed people in the Islamic World to tell us where Al Qaeda was hiding. To do that , we needed to address
the grievances that Bin Laden was using to recruit and gain support — as noted by Michael Schuerer, the CIA officer trying to locate and destroy Bin Laden.
4) But as Ernest May — the Harvard professor who was a consultant to the 911 Commission –noted, the Commission decided it could NOT examine WHY the Sept 11 attack occurred –because it was too hot politically:
From Ernest May’s 2005 account for The New Republic “When
Government Writes History”:
“For one thing, the report skirts the question of whether American policies and actions fed the anger that manifested itself on September 11. … The commissioners believed that American foreign policy was too controversial to be discussed except in recommendations written in the future tense. Here we compromised our commitment to set forth the full story.”
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/when-government-writes-history
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
@157 That whole thing was precious. It’s “fuck the border” for the me, and “you want to kill us demographically” for thee.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
piotr, All that is very interesting. But you miss the point. Sharing in the privileges and responsibilities of democracy means simply that citizens vote for representation, that suffrage is reasonably provided, that some constitution-like document describes the essential rights of the people and that there be an independent judiciary to oversee rule by law that applies equally to all citizens.
We may approve or not of various provisions in another democracy’s law and even their implementation of it. I don’t particularly like the way England limits the free speech of its citizens by allowing almost unlimited defamation and libel actions. But, that does not make England a dictatorship. And likewise for Israel’s laws accommodating their ethnic and religious sensibilities and their desire to balance the rights of these groups.
If Israeli’s don’t like it they can bring suit in their courts against unconstitutional laws and they can elect new members to the Knesset to correct what they don’t like. Democracy never guarantees perfection – just the means by which to pursue it according to every citizens definition, which will change over time.
You say Israel doesn’t treat all its citizens as equally as you might like. Your concern for the “oppressed” Israelis is touching. I’d remind that Israelis are free to demonstrate, carry placards and write letters to the editor just as we are. I read Haaretz and J-Post frequently and I don’t see any great outcry by Israelis against their laws or government. If this really bothers you how can you sit there and not scream outrage at their neighbors who teach their children the vilest racism and who look the other way when a family executes their daughter and where there is no practical recourse to change the society except by assassination or suicide belt.
Convince me you are not just trying to discredit and delegitimize a people whom you despise.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Re Ray at 155: “BTW, Israel advised the US that Iran was the threat, and not to waste time and resources on Iraq. ”
Yes — years after the fact we are now hearing that story — and it appears that Ariel Sharon wanted us to first send tens of thousands of Americans to die to take out Israel’s enemy Iran AND THEN to spend more lives taking out Israel’s enemy Iraq. Nice to have such an Ally.
I myself prefer to simply LOOK at what Likud’s leaders were telling we –the American People — in the Summer of 2002.
And what Ariel Sharon, Bibi Nathanyahu, and Shimon Peres were telling us was that we needed to take out Saddam Hussein RIGHT NOW before he used his NUKES.
So, has Mossad FOUND those Nukes yet?
See the news story links I posted earlier:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654345
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
See also http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654354
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
See also http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654366
Again, what kind of an ALLY is this? ANd WHY is Ray defending a treacherous political faction on the far side of the world so vehemently after 4500+ Americans have died?
October 24th, 2009 at 11:46 am
WHY is Don Williams defending a treacherous jihadist political faction on the far side of the world so vehemently after 4500+ Americans have died in Iraq/Afhanistan?
after the 1993 bombing of the WTC
after 3,000 died on 9/11
after 200+ died in the bombing of two US embassies in Africa
after the bombing of the USS Cole
after the 7/7/05 bombings in London
after white supremecist nazi filth timothy mcveigh murdered 186 Americans when he bombed the Murrah Federal buliding in Oklahoma City. Don, did you “understand” mcveighs motivation too?
October 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Edward, Thanks for writing that comment (#164). I thought about saying something similar but you beat me to it.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
This is cross-posted from a discussion I am having on another site with someone who posts here. I put some work into it and it encapsulates some of the ideas I have floated in this thread. I’m not sure anyone is even following this now but here it is, just for the record.
Previous to this comment I established my belief that aggression is an act of violence that was not part of legitimate defense against a similar act. In this context, the first Qassam fired into Sderot the day after Israel withdrew from Gaza was an act of aggression – as were the thousands that followed – because none of them were fired in defense against some act by Israel or the IDF. They were aimed at civilians who were not attacking anyone and they were aimed at the civilians of a state that was not attacking anyone.
Text follows: [snip]
First, I think that HR violations are bad and should be noted and dealt with whenever they occur. The political philosophy of Western democracies is to provide governments that protects human rights and eliminates HR abuses and I am glad I am part of that society.
Second, it’s good that human rights orgs focus on HR violations within ongoing conflicts, regardless of who started it. I’m sure we agree so far.
I think the problem though is that once a conflict reaches the stage of violent war those concerns have the potential to make things even worse – to cause or allow more violations of human rights, more human suffering than would otherwise occur. That’s especially what will happen if those concerns are used by the aggressive party to impede the ability of the attacked party to defend itself.
Thus, the HR concerns of the defender become a weapon in the hands of the aggressor that severely limits their ability to reduce or eliminate the threat against their people.
You might say then that even so, it is still important to prevent atrocities in war and that without that focus they are even more likely to occur.
I agree – but only with the provision that the HR watchdogs understand the huge advantage to the aggressor if they allow their HR watchdog work to be used to delegitimize the defender’s attempts to defend itself – and if they go to extreme lengths to assure that that does not happen. I would think HR watchdogs would do this voluntarily and document their efforts thoroughly and transparently if they were truly concerned about human rights and their future ability to credibly defend those human rights in conflict.
In this case HRW and UNHRC have done the opposite. They have willingly allowed themselves to become a part of the aggression and attempts to hinder the defender’s ability to protect its citizens’ lives. There is indisputable voluminous video proof that Hamas does the following:
a) They wear civilian clothes when fighting.
b) They locate and fire from civilian areas and “protected” zones and buildings.
c) They encourage and sometimes force civilians to remain in those areas while fighting is ongoing.
d) They use ambulances to ferry fighters around combat zones and escape from IDF forces.
e) They store weapons, bivouac their fighters and put command centers in mosques, schools and hospitals.
Each one of those is a very serious war crime. That’s because each of those acts eliminates the human rights protections of civilians in the war zone under international law as protected parties in war. Each of those acts makes it highly likely that those civilians will be harmed by Israel’s legitimate attempts to defend its citizens from attack.
With this being the case, any human rights organization that was sincerely concerned about civilian human rights in a war zone, would make this the focus of their efforts. They would point out that any civilians killed under these circumstances were caused by Hamas’ blatant disregard of the rules of war meant to protect those civilians. They would be demanding the arrest and severe punishment of Hamas’ operatives and especially their leadership for so severely endangering the human rights of their own population by removing their status as protected persons.
But what do we see? We see little or no mention of such violations in their reports. Instead, we see highly questionable and unverified accusations that the IDF purposely attacks innocent civilians.
As someone who cares about the human rights of innocent civilians – don’t these facts make even some difference to you in your judgment of Israel’s actions, and Hamas’ actions and of course, Human Right’s Watch’s actions in this conflict?
I can’t help but wonder why someone who has a sincere concern for the welfare of Palestinian civilians would not be enraged at Hamas’ behavior and demanding that their leaders be arrested and sentenced to life prison terms if not hung. I can’t help but wonder why you support organizations like HRW that so willingly allow themselves to be part of Hamas’ efforts to de-legitimize Israel’s lawful defense of its citizens’ lives. In a better world it seems to me you would be demanding that HRW be scorned, sued by their donors and disbanded for doing so much to damage the lives of the innocent civilians they profess to care about.
How can you care about the suffering and deaths (the human rights) of innocent civilians and do otherwise? I’m interested in your explanation.