Israel war crime charge roils Canada politics

[tocqueville]

By Randall Palmer
45 minutes ago

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The leading candidate to head the Liberal Party was defiant on Friday after opening a political can of worms with the charge that Israel committed war crimes during its Lebanon campaign this summer.

Michael Ignatieff, a human rights expert and a former Harvard don, said at the weekend that Israel committed a war crime when it bombarded the Lebanese village of Qana in July.

That prompted angry complaints from Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper that the Liberals, who have more often than not run Canada, had taken an anti-Israel stance.

"I think we all remember last summer when the Liberals were making all these anti-Israeli comments," Harper told reporters, noting that only two candidates to head the party had distanced themselves from such remarks at the time

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061013/wl_canada_nm/canada_israel_col

[KingFlorez]

1. It's not an anti-Israel comment

No country should be exempt from criticism when it does something wrong.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Seems obvious, doesn't it? n/t

PB

[Boston Critic]

3. Interesting double standard

Apparently Israel is *always* to be criticized, while most other countries get a free pass.

For example, when was the last any of these critics condemned Hamas for its support of terrorism and intransigence, or the Lebanese government for giving Hezbollah free rein to launch missiles on Israeli *civilians*?

I'm not holding my breath.

[Kagemusha]

4. I know for a fact David Ignatieff himself has made such criticisms.

And recently.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boston Critic]

15. Who's keeping YOU honest?

"Megaphonies" indeed.

[Kagemusha]

18. The bright sunlight of open debate.

I don't know what else you're expecting to keep people honest.

[KingFlorez]

5. Like I said, no country should be exempt from criticism

That includes any country that does wrong.

[ThomCat]

6. Israel is more insulated from criticism than almost any nation

on earth. Look at how many UN resolutions disappear into the void because the US vetoes them. Meanwhile, Hezbollah gets blasted in the media constantly. I have no idea what media you're seeing.

If Israel is going to commit war crimes then it's legitimate to call them on it.

[Boston Critic]

8. You must be joking

Israel is the most *criticized* nation on Earth. The UN can't bring itself to condemn China's occupation of Tibet, Sudanese slave rings, all sorts of barbarity in nations like Saudi Arabia or Syria, but they'll jump all over Israel at the drop of a hat.

The double standard is obvious and longstanding. Look at the way that buffoon Kofi Annan was quick to condemn Israel for "war crimes" (that didn't hold up) but who says the UN forces have no responsibility for doing anything about disarming Hezbollah militias.

No nation is above criticism, but if you are under the delusion that Israel is being coddled instead of being held to standards that no other nation is held to, you are either delusional or sadly misinformed.

Just because Bush gives lip service to support for Israel (while doing almost nothing) doesn't mean that liberals should oppose it. Support for Israel used to be a bipartisan cause, and liberals had good reason to support it.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon and from Gaza and was rewarded for these "confidence building measures" with new attacks on civilians. There's a reason that people are no longer cutting any slack for knee-jerk criticism of Israel. People quick to condemn Israel and silent on everything else reveal an agenda whether they care to admit it or not.

[Wonk]

9. ... says the guy with the Groucho Marx avatar.

re: knee-jerk criticism, I take it you have no clue who Michael Ignatieff is? From 2000 to 2005 he was director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. I'd say his criticisms of Israel's policies are hardly "knee-jerk".

[Boston Critic]

13. Big deal

I live in Boston. Citing somebody from Harvard doesn't impress me. As Woody Allen said in response to a similar reference, "Harvard makes mistakes. Kissinger taught there."

And I understand this Canadian pol is now admitting the error of his one-sidedness, which was my point.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boston Critic]

14. Why do you applaud Palestinain terrorism?

Israel was not "forced out" of Gaza or Lebanon. In the case of Lebanon, the UN certified that Israel had withdrawn to internationally recognized borders and had left ALL of Lebanon. That wasn't enough for Hezbollah who demanded more, and started the recent war by kidnapping soldiers and shelling civilians.

In Gaza, Israel made the decision to get out of a territory where the demographics were against them. Here was a golden opportunity for the Palestinians to show they were finally ready to step up and run their own state and live in peace with Israel. Had they done that, they'd be negotiating the withdrawal from the West Bank right now. Instead the Palestinians looted and destroyed property that had been left in Gaza for *their* benefit, and started launching new attacks on Israel. They then elected a terrorist organization, Hamas, for their government, which refuses to renounce terror (i.e., attacks on civilians) or recognize Israel.

Yet there is always a fringe element, whether on the far right or the far left, that sees *Israel* as the problem.

[Kagemusha]

20. Well credit where credit's due, these are reasoned arguments

I can't accept that Israel was completely pure and in good faith in the Gaza withdrawal by any means but, by no means is Israel, even by the harshest realistic judgment, solely to blame for the aggravations of violence. Hezbollah picked a fight, plain and simple; the reasons why are long ago besides the point, because Israel picked a fight with Lebanon as a consequence. As for Gaza, by no means did Israel leave a functioning mini-state behind. However, the Palestinians did *not* do themselves any favors by their collective behavior. One can argue in abstract whether being Ghandi would've helped in this instance (or would've just resulted in their being put on perm-ignore) but, you're not describing anything they didn't do. There's plenty of blame for them to soak up.

But, just FYI, David Ignatieff is very pro-Israel. That he is not pro-Israel ENOUGH for the tastes of many is, quite frankly, a ploy to get people like you, who don't know much about what he's written in the United States and internationally (for which he is much better known than anything he's ever done in Canada specifically), to go biting his head off because he wasn't *100%* pro-Israel and criticized a specific action, one which no responsible army operating in a limited war environment should ever be stupid or malicious enough to do. (This was about shelling that UN compound with precision weaponry.)

So I hope that provides the proper context.

[shergald]

29. If you're going to give context, give it all.

First, it must be appreciated that Hezbollah was created in response to Sharon's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, when over 17,000 southern Shiite Moslems (who have lived there for centuries) and Palestinian refugees were killed, most of them innocent civilians. You may recall the first Qana attrocity. Second, Israel occupied southern Lebanon before and after the invasion for eighteen years until 2000. During that time there was frequent strife between IDF and Hezbollah militants. Third, although Israel pulled out in 2000, it continued to occupy land, which it considered part of Syria, but which Lebanon held to be in dispute.

Finally, no one believes, given US complicity and information about Israeli officers presenting Lebanon invasion plans in the US at least a year earlier, that the invasion was not preplanned including its excessiveness. Olmert (and probably Sharon before him) was just looking for a pretext. This point is controversial for some, but no less controversial than the notion that Israel cared about two abducted soldiers, who were easily retrievable through prisoner swaps, which happened a number of times in the past. Governments don't lie, right?

[Boston Critic]

32. Thanks for the context

I admit to not know much about the Canadian politician, and certainly to not believe that it is forbidden to criticize Israel. Heaven knows *Israelis* do it often enough.

The original post made it seem this was just some far-left Israel-bashing which I find just as odious (if not more so) than when it comes from the right. I assume thugs like Pat Buchanan are antisemites as being par for the course. I would prefer to think better of the left and am disappointed when the exremists prove themselves no different.

As for Gaza, I certainly wasn't suggesting Israel left a functioning Palestinian government in place. It wasn't there business to do so although if there was some actual leadership there it might have led to negotiations rather than unilateral action. The Palestinian "response" amply demonstrated the intransigence and irresonsibility (to put it mildly) that they are up again. As Abba Eban famously noted, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Your reference to Ghandi is quite to the point. Peaceful resistance only works against societies with a conscience. There's a famous science fiction story in which Ghandi is fighting not the British but Nazi Germany. Of course he and his followers are slaughtered. If Arafat had been a Ghandi instead of a terrorist thug who stole from his OWN people, Israel would not have been able to withstand peaceful, non-violent protest.

Perhaps someday a Sadat will arise who can make peace with Israel. Even a hardened rightwinger like Menachem Begin was able to do so when there was a sincere attempt from the Arab world. Of course, in Sadat's case, he made peace and ended up assassinated by his own people, so it's not likely to happen any time soon.

[shergald]

28. Definition of terrorism.

"defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

By this traditional definition, there is no such thing as Palestinian terrorism at the present time, and neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, the State Department's pandering to Israeli propaganda notwithstanding. It was not always the case for the PLO, which used terrorism, e.g., Munich in 1972, to publicize its political agenda. Suicide bombings in Israel were revenge/retaliatory acts for the killings of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. They had no political, religious, or ideological objectives beyond being a direct response to Palestinian deaths during the military occupation of the Palestinian people, e.g., during the second Intifada. Before any suicide bombers went into Israel, many Palestinians had already died including 27 children (documented by name, place, and date by Alison Weir), most of whom were shot in the head by Israeli soldiers.

Given the definition of terrorism, however, one might argue about a concept of Israeli terrorism, state terrorism, given that the purpose of this 39 year military occupation, in which thousands of Palestinian civilians have died, is distinctly political, religious, or ideological, the achievement of religious or historical Zionism, the Greater Israel dream which entails the annexation of the entire West Bank.

So let's understand what it means when someone uses the phrase "Palestinian terrorism." It just does not exist any more.

[IntiRaymi]

36. Same tired statements.

Palestine is inordinately dependent on Israel for its viability. It is very telling that you adopt a paternalistic attitude towards them in your post:
"..to show that they were ready to step up and run their own state..."
You are apparently above the entire mass of palestinian humanity, and they have failed you.
How superior of you.

[Boston Critic]

41. Odd admission

How is noting that the Palestinians obviously AREN'T able to run their own state tantamount to claiming to be "superior" or "above" them or that they have somehow "failed ."

It's a sad, pathetic fact which -- I note -- you don't bother to refute.

[IntiRaymi]

114. The issue is your attitude.

In case you haven't noticed, you have been typing one colonialist precept after another.
This is a common theme with many pro-israeli bigots in DU. They don't even know what is wrong with their mindset, and you find yourself arguing with a robot stuck on 'repeat.'

[Boston Critic]

119. "Colonialist" fantasy

You think you're fighting the British Empire (while ignoring the real colonialists such as Syria and Iran in Lebanon, Muslim Arabs oppressing non-Muslim Arabs in Sudan and Ethiopia, and the dhimmi culture in such bastions of freedom as Saudi Arabia).

It's no wonder you're unable to do anything except repeat slogans against Israel. You simply don't have a clue as to what's going on in the real world.

[HamdenRice]

23. to quote you, "that buffoon Kofi Annan"

That pretty much explains who you are. Annan is one of the most competent Secretaries General the UN has had in decades.

Enjoy your brief stay.

[shergald]

30. One man's buffoon is another's Nobel Peace Prize winner.

There have not been many SGs of the UN that has risen to his stature and that have done more for the impoverished and oppressed in the world.

As to who might be the buffoon....

[Boston Critic]

33. In what alternative reality?

Kofi Annan competent? As liberals we don't have to defend liars and fools because we think they're on "our" side.

He may be one of the very *worst* SGs in the history of the organization. Of course we know he can't be the worst. Kurt Waldheim has that locked up.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boston Critic]

79. Tom Lehrer said it best

"I've said that political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize."

Who cares that Kofi Annan got the same prize that went to Kissinger and Arafat? It proves nothing.

[shergald]

112. Short memory?

Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin shared the Peace Prize with Arafat. Are their efforts somewhat more genuine than Arafat's? The truth is that what Rabin had in mind for a Palestinian state was no right of return, no East Jerusalem, and about 75% of the West Bank somehow configured in the manner of the Camp David offer, yes, the "generous offer." Peres likewise is or was until recently at least, Labor's chief strategist, and as we know, its political platform as far as the Palestinians are concerned repeats the bantustan solution that was and will forever be rejected by the Palestinians. The view of Palestinians as equivalent to Blacks under South African Apartheid is disgusting at best.

So let's get all of invalid Peace Prize winners under the same roof, shall we. For that matter, it could be argued that only Arafat had a true peace in mind as a consequence of the Rabin breakthrough.

[Boston Critic]

116. I t could be argued...

...only by people who know nothing of the facts or history of the region.

Israel proposed no "bantustan" solution. That's yet one more lie applied to Israel.

And the notion that "only Arafat had a true peace in mind" is so absurd that one can only assume you meant it as a sick joke.

[pampango]

22. Hezbollah and Hamas might get a pass from charges of human rights

abuses since they are not sovereign countries. In international law, in order for human rights abuse allegation to be proven, do you have to prove intent or just that the tragedy happened?

Hez and Hamas have proudly and openly targeted missiles at civilian targets, but due to poor weaponry have not successfully killed large numbers of Israelis lately. They have the intent to kill civilians, but have not been very good at it lately. I am not sure whether they are not accused of human right abuses, because they are not sovereign or because they are ineffective at carrying out their goals.

Would Kim Jung Il be guilty of a human rights abuse, if he tried to explode a nuclear weapon in Seoul, but it was a dud and didn't explode? Intent, but no execution.

It must be tempting for some in Israel to "allow" the formation of a private militia that the government "could not control." As a form of "reparations" Germany could provide weaponry to this militia. While we all know that the world would not let Israel get away with this subterfuge for a heart beat, it would present an interesting parallel, in terms of lack of legal restrictions on this new non-state actor.

[Tom Joad]

7. How is that controversial? Isn't it obvious?

It is not "anti-Israel" any more than saying the US is committing war crimes in Iraq. It is just reporting what most of the world already knows.
Harper/Bush/Olmert are cut from the same dirty cloth, so of course they are going to be supporting one another.

[Zhade]

10. Ignatieff is right.

NT!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

27. Yeah, I got the memo. And it makes me nauseous!

[legin]

17. You need to be careful of Michael Ignatieff

Following 911 when some people were froathing at the mouth for revenge, he had the chance to cool things, in articles that he wrote. He did the opposite.

I think he was for attacking Iraq.

Basically I got three people for sure on my 'list' when this is all over, Ignatieff, Michael Burleigh (?) historian, and that deputy secretary of state guy under Clinton.

All for pouring oil on the flames right after 911.

Chompsky thinks Ignatieff sucks also.

[Kagemusha]

19. Sure. All that is totally true. I have hardly embraced the man personally.

But the sanctimonious, holier-than-the-pope criticism against him seems an attempt to import the untouchability of Israel into Canadian politics from its normal nesting place in American politics. A lot of Canadians must be glancing up and going, "Huh?..." at random, having no idea where this expectation of uniformity behind the Israeli nation state comes from, and also, where it is going. Even if it's all about Ignatieff being on the right side of the argument by accident - through a gaffe, an unintentional slip of the truth (as he sees it) - that puts him on the right side nonetheless.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[legin]

95. Thanks for the analysis ! n/t

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Harper_is_Bush]

24. Israel did commit war crimes.

It's quite simply a fact agreed upon by both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The current rightwing political correctness makes it such a terrible thing to say.

[donsu]

25. true

nt

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boston Critic]

102. Utterly false claims against Israel

Your mistake is assuming that Israel defending itself against ACTUAL terrorists is the same as Bush's tragic fantasy war in Iraq.

You seem to be totally blind to the fact that Hezbollah provoked the war -- and even Nasrallah admitted this -- and that they were deliberately targetting civilians in their missile attacks while hiding their own forces behind Lebanese civilians.

There were war crimes committed here, but it was by Lebanon (Hezbollah is PART of the Lebanese government) for not disarming Hezbollah as they were required to under previous UN resolutions.

[breakaleg]

109. While there have been many accusations that Hezbollah was

hiding behind civilians, there has been no real evidence of this.

[Boston Critic]

113. Except in the real world...

... where Hezbollah locating missile launchers in civilian neighborhoods was widely reported.

[breakaleg]

26. This is the same kind of useless argument we see here every day...

that criticism of Israel, even when justified, is being anti-Israeli or anti-semetic. Some times it's just the truth. Why can't we criticize a nation when it deserves it? We criticize the US and every other country all the time, it doesn't mean we hate them or don't support them.

[Boston Critic]

34. Because sometimes it IS antisemitism

When the UN passes resolution after resolution against Israel for real and imagined wrongs, but is silent on the activities of other nations, it's not because Israel is worthy of being singled out in this fashion.

Yes, some people shout antisemitsm to shut down debate. But sometimes antisemites wrap themselves in the banner of "free speech" and are simply glad they've found a new cover for bashing Jews.

[breakaleg]

35. I'm curious as to what you consider an "imagined wrong" especially

when that charge comes from the United Nations!

Perhaps if other nations were participating in their wrongs for 40 years, it would get the world's attention, like in Israel. I prefer to look at it like 'it's about time' people started calling Israel into account rather than we are focussing on Israel and not everyone else.

[Boston Critic]

40. Imagined ESPECIALLY when it's from the UN

When it comes to Israel, the UN is one of the least reliable sources of information. And what do you mean "IF other nations were participating in their wrongs for 40 years?" Are you kidding? Where is the condemnation of the occupation of Tibet? Where are the dozens of resolutions on Northern Ireland? Where's the condemnation of the abuse of women in Muslim nations, or the lack of religious freedom there? Or slavery in Sudan?

The hypocritical double standard is absolutely astounding. Whatever wrongs Israel may have committed pale in comparison, given that the Palestinian Arabs have brought this on themselves. When Egypt and Jordan seized Gaza and the West Bank there were no claims of being "occupied." Only after 1967 did the Palestinians (newly self-named) decide they were an oppressed people. The terrorist attacks -- too numerous to list -- ensured that there would be no peaceful resolution and when President Clinton helped move along the Oslo accords, it was Arafat who, in the end, preferred to be a terrorist to a head of state.

You want an example of an "imaginary" criticism? How about claims that Israel is building an "apartheid wall," as if the purpose was racial separation when, in fact, it is for protecting innocent civilians against terrorist bombs focused on supermarkets, buses, college cafeterias, pizzerias, discotheques, and other "military targets."

It should be noted that for all its flaws -- no one is claiming Israel or any other nation has achieved perfection -- Arabs and other minorities have more freedom and civil liberties in *Israel* than in any other state in the Middle East.

Perhaps it's about time you stopped swallowing the Hamas propaganda hook, line and sinker and started exploring the facts for yourself.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

54. they planned to only keep a small percentage?

Well, when they carve it up with "Israeli-only roads" running in every direction (kind of Apartheid like, I'd say) then how can that be called a state?

I saw the maps, and peices of land bisected by Israeli roads does not make a state of any kind.

I love the terminology that comes out of Israel - "security wall" indeed. Why must they separate Palestinians from one another? Why must they separate them from their crops and farm land? Perhaps they don't want some of the hard working Palestinains to make a success of anything in the West Bank.

And I actually find it laughable to be accused of falling for Palestinian propoganda. My opinions were formed from mainstream media, reputable sources. How anyone can find an excuse for any of the ways Palestinians are tortured, neglected, murdered by Israel is beyond me. As if stealing their land wasn't enough.

[Boston Critic]

56. Pointless to go on

Your choice of words reveal a propagandist, not someone actually understanding the facts.

[Stockholm]

47. P5 vetoes & apples and oranges

To the best of my knowledge Northern Ireland never collectively punished anyone for atrocities committed by IRA or others?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3940527.stm
http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/71744.htm

http://www.tibet.com/Resolution/index.html

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/d789915c58e86bc4c12563e20038f407?OpenDocument
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/d789915c58e86bc4c12563e20038f407?OpenDocument

Whose hook line and sinker have you swallowed?

[IntiRaymi]

100. Apparently you forget that this is the I/P forum.

If you want to deflect criticism, or comments, you are not in the right place for it.
And this has little to do with Hamas. Qana is not in Palestine, Hamas has nothing to do with Lebanon, etc, etc.
You are mixing things up.

[Boston Critic]

103. Ignorance of the Middle East does not excuse you

It is the Arabs themselves who claim everything is tied up to the fate of the Palestinians (who they never actually do anything to help). Israel has been surrounded by forces that publicly commit to its destruction. Lebanon/Hezbollah deliberately opened up a second front after Hamas kidnapped a soldier and began missile attacks from Gaza.

Your pretense that this is an entirely separate issue shows you either informed or deliberately obfuscating the issues.

[IntiRaymi]

38. Yes, but defending Israel in the face of its actions stinks.

"Antisemitism" is fast losing its rhetorical impact. An apartheid regime is what it is: a white colonialist imposition of Great Britain on the middle east.
In other words, call a turd by its proper name, and don't try calling it a Baby Ruth.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. "Antisemitism" is fast losing its rhetorical impact.

Probably because so few care.

[IntiRaymi]

42. Defending the idefensible destroys the meaning of words.

Continually accusing critics of Israel of being antisemitic destroys the meaning of the word. This is proof that the critique is valid - words acquire meaning via their usage, placed in proper context, of course.
Or, if you refuse to accept this, be faced with a mounting denial of reality (which I am starting to notice), and a more or less complete loss of credibility.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. The real reality.

There are some that do in fact use anti-Semitism too easily. However, there is a real problem with Jew-haters latching onto anything anti-Israel because it allows their hate to be "mainstream." The very idea that you cannot see that is a shame, but not unexpected. Criticizing Israel is not a problem in of itself. However, constantly finding fault, taking examples such as this and using them as an example of all Israel (whether directly or through implication), does border on bigotry. Sometimes, that bigotry against Israel is fueled by anti-Semitism, sometimes the bigotry against Israel is simply anti-Israeli bigotry.

Defending the concept of the nation of Israel is not the same as defending actions of certain individuals or certain policies, but that seems to escape some here, as well as many in the world because it is acceptable many places to be an anti-Israeli bigot.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

50. The idea is to control the public revulsion at Israel's tactics.

This is done using the antisemitism smear. This essential premise is how I am interpreting your posts.
And yes, I can see what you are stating. I just don't feel that it applies to this discussion - I have yet to see any actual antisemitism posted in DU, just honest-to-goodness people who are scandalized by the sanctimonious "Let us kill the palestinians, let us kill the Lebanese, let the IDF finish its work, etc, etc" statement that emanate from that country.
And it is not 'bigotry against Israel' - it is 'strong disagreement with the actions of a rogue state.' Keep your definitions within the correct dimensions.

[Boston Critic]

53. Rogue statements

Barring extremists (yes, Israel has them too, although they are marginalized on such issues even when part of the government), there is no Israeli argument to "let us kill the palestinians, let us kill the Lebanese." These are lies, plain and simple.

In fact, if the Palestinians threw out Hamas tomorrow and Abbas emerged as a leader who could bring his people together to negotiate a REAL peaceful two state settlement, Ohlmert would be rolling out the red carpet. As Golda Meir put it nearly half a century ago, "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."

[IntiRaymi]

58. Have you read Israel's own press?

If you did your homework during this last event in Lebanon, you will notice that this was the spirit of the editorial pages, as well as the military leadership.
And, as has been noted before, none of these logical gymnastics change the realities in Gaza and the West Bank.

And that was Golda Meir's singularly racist insult to the arab people. If you, yourself, feel that way about arabs, then you have sinned in the same manner - so we can now start talking about:

"Anti-arab bigotry"

Which can be found, both in Israel, and amongst some of Israel's supporters worldwide. It almost appears as if though Israel's founders imported a nasty stew of european pathologies with them.

[Boston Critic]

60. Dancing in the streets

When Palestinians danced in the street at news of 9/11 they condemned themselves more than any false claim of "racism" against those who would denounce their support of terrorism.

[IntiRaymi]

101. Your hatred towards palestinians is in blatant display here.

[Boston Critic]

104. Reporting facts is not "hatred"

And someone who wants the Palestinians to renounce terror and hatred and learn to live in peace with Israel is not engaging in "hatred" either.

But dancing in the streets celebrating the attacks of 9/11 certainly was.

[Boston Critic]

52. Alas, you've got it exactly right

Even more unfortunate, we see examples of your analysis right here. There is a contingent on the let that either hates Jews or -- more likely IMNSHO -- they are associated Israel with Bush. (I.e., if Bush supports something, they have to be against it.)

Giveaways include comparisons of Israelis to Nazis (which thankfully hasn't happened here yet), claims of "war crimes" while remaining silent on the butchery of terrorists from Hamas and other groups (or, even worse, making excuses for them), or claiming that Jews have no right to engage in self-defense by claiming the security barrier meant to keep the suicide bombers out is an "apartheid wall."

I don't see changing the minds of these people who are so fervid in their mistaken beliefs. At best we only speak up, point out their hypocrisy and errors, and make it clear that their views are marginal and unwanted among mainstream liberal Democrats.

[IntiRaymi]

59. Loyalty to Israel is more important than loyalty to USA?

This is running squarely into that other sub-thread in this one thread, the one concerning the nature and purpose of the "anti-semitism" smear.
---
Why must any criticism of Israel be appended with an obligatory token of criticism directed at the Sudanese Government, Mark Foley, Henry Kissinger, etc, etc?

The contingent on the left that hates Israel (if it does exist) does so for reasons that I do not understand, and I am not a part of it. What I personally reject are the abuses that the state of Israel commits, the bigotry that is required of me in order to ignore what is all too obvious (the subhuman status to which palestinians have been reduced by their overlords), and the astoundingly hypocritical statements I continually encounter in these forums.

[Boston Critic]

61. Palestinian overlords

If you object to the "subhuman status" of the Palestinians, take it up with the people who put them there -- the Arab nations who kept them in refuguee camps rather than absord them into their own populations -- and those who keep them there -- the kleptocrats of the PLO and terrorists like Hamas.

Israel does not force them to send their children out to be human bombs. Israel does not force them to teach hate generation after generation, or to support leaders who do nothing to end their suffering.

Part of the problem is that peculiar strain of racism of the left that absolves the Palestinians of any responsibility because they're just ignorant Third World victims akin to children while Israelis, living in a modern democracy where its Arab citizens enjoy more freedom and civil liberties than in the rest of the Middle East, are "obviously" First World colonial oppressors.

Oh, and that "dual loyalty canard" -- about being more loyal to Israel than to the US -- is a historic marker for antisemitism. If you honestly didn't know that, realize it now. If you did, then you're part of the problem, not the solution.

[IntiRaymi]

85. Keep trying. Keep trying.

To make it stick.
All roads do not lead to Rome....all roads lead ot the Anti-Semitic Smear!

[Boston Critic]

90. If you can't address the facts....

...just say so. No need to make empty claims.

[IntiRaymi]

98. What about that peculiar strain of Israeli racism...

That absolves that State of Israel of any responsibility?

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

88. Hey, you should have been here last week.

Giveaways include comparisons of Israelis to Nazis (which thankfully hasn't happened here yet), claims of "war crimes" while remaining silent on the butchery of terrorists from Hamas and other groups (or, even worse, making excuses for them), or claiming that Jews have no right to engage in self-defense by claiming the security barrier meant to keep the suicide bombers out is an "apartheid wall."

There was an outbreak of that last week, Nazi-era language was used to describe the actions of the
Israeli govt, in this thread;

'Not an internal Palestinian matter. Amira Hass.'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=150303&mesg_id=150303

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

46. "Israel can't make peace by itself"? Why then, even during

peace negotiations in the past, did Israel continue it's expansion of settlements in the West Bank? Why does it continue them today of peace is what it wants?

There can be no peace until EVERY settlement is removed. Israel knows this, but in their greedy grab for land they don't care. Proof positive that peace has never really a priority for Israel.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

57. If I read this correctly...

You are suggesting that removing the settlements in the West Bank - ILLEGAL settlements, no less - would be considered ethnic cleansing? On what basis? They should never have been built there in the first place. And since Israel knew this from day one, it's really their problem to deal with.

And why should they get ALL of Jerusalem?

So it's only Palestinians that are participating in killing, is that so? Perhaps then you can explain why a child was murderer while she slept just this week by a helicopter gunship? The fact is, BOTH sides in this things are killing one another. Israel isn't called cruel since they have sophisticated weapons courtesy of the US. So even though they kill more people, inflict more damage, including to civilians, they are the good guys.

As I said, Israel is deep into a greedy land grab and peace is a word they throw around for fun and games. It's not an actual goal they seek to attain.

[Boston Critic]

62. Why the double standard

Why do you demand Arab territory be cleansed of Jews when you would obviously denounce as racist an attempt to exclude all Arabs from Israel?

Why shouldn't Israel have its united, historic capital of Jerusalem? Are you really unaware of how Muslim holy sites have been protected by Israel and kept under Muslim control as opposed to the way Jewish sites were treated under Muslim rule?

As I said, Israel is ready to make peace when the other side shows a sincere committment. The lie of being "greedy land grabbers" (who dare to maintain their tiny nation in the Arab/Muslim Middle East) is shown to be false by the peace with Egypt where Israel returned the entire Sinai and destroyed Israeli settlements before doing so.

The problem is that the Palestinians don't want a two state solution. They want it *all*. Who are the real "greedy land grabbers?"

[breakaleg]

63. You reiterate your ethnic cleansing charge without answering my

question. If you actually consider removal of the settlements to be ethnic cleansing, then it's clear what your position is. And all arguments with you will be as pointless as this one.

And the whole historical argument regarding Jerusalem for the Jews is total crap and has no basis in this current conflict.

[pelsar]

64. jewish "holy sites" under arab protection....

actually the palestenians usually deny any jewish connection and tend to destroy the jewish holy sites as per the example below

Joseph's Tomb, sept 2000 : Palestinian mob entered the site and set fire to it

http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/septoct00/tomb.html (jerusalem post)

_______________________________

well well well...seems we have here a "problem"

whole historical argument regarding Jerusalem for the Jews is total crap and has no basis in this current conflict.

can we also say then that the palestenian historical argument for jerusalem, etc is also "crap" and has no basis in this current conflict"

if we can deny one culture its history, let us be fair and deny the other as well......btw is this "denying thing"..does it have a time limit on it as well?
-------

and then theres this:
There can be no peace until EVERY settlement is removed. Israel knows this...actually israelis know quite the opposite: Gaza and Lebanon proved both. The problem is not the settlements, removing them will not stop the killing......just ask Hizballa and islamic jihad...they'll explain it to you.

[breakaleg]

65. There is no point in arguing with you Pelsar....

The things I would say have been said here many times and won't change this argument.

The Palestinian claim on half of Jerusalem is not simply a religious one - they have lived there for many years, they are the indigenous people.

[Boston Critic]

67. Jews are also indigenous to Israel

Your bias is showing. Prior to the 1960s no one even talked about "Palestinians." There was no separate people or culture. They were simply the local Arabs.

Apparently Arabs are allowed to have ties to the land but Jews are not, even if the Jewish presence there goes back milennia and predates the arrival of "indigenous" Arabs.

You're right on one thing. Your refusal to face facts and simply repeating the Hamas talking points certainly won't change anything.

[breakaleg]

69. The difference is one side goes back to bibilical times to get

their justification, and the other simply says they've been living there.

It's one thing to say that both cultures have a claim on the land and they both want to stay. It's another to say we will change the face of politics in the region based on a promise made in the bible.

[pelsar]

68. now were getting somewhere.....took some time...

i've discovered that at times it takes several months before the posters finally let go of the "PC" type talking points and finally get down to their own biases...

so the Palestinians are the "indigenous people"...and the jews are not?....

is it a time thing?...if your gone long enough you no longer considered "indigenous"?...or is its a culture thing?...and the jews culture is not as "valid" as the Palestinians?


betcha cant really answer the questions can you?
_______________________________________________

oh i'm quite easy to talk to...i usually have quite a few questions that once answered usually lead to more..unfortunatly here, my questions are for the most part skipped over, claimed that "they've been answered"...(usually at best only partially).....I've found that only one type of person cant really have a discussion with me...the religious types, it can be the "god said" type of stuff or it can be the "67 border/removal of all settlements" will bring peace" religion...both have an inability to discuss things in a rational western type of logic thought pattern that also requires one to discuss not just various options but a "what if" scenarious....only the religious have no use for that.....if you fit the pattern, your right, not much use in talking to me, if you see your self as having a western thought process that can actually discuss various types of scenarious and environments, as i have in the past with palestenians and those on the right and left it can get interesting...but it does take an ability to keep to the relevant facts, relevant sequence of events (in their order...), accept that fact that different cultures are at play here(remove your colonial mentality) etc.


and you really should read up on the palestenians...they're claim is to Jerusalem is religious, even if you dont like it (third holiest city)..if your going to defend the Palestinians may i suggest learning a bit more about them? and their culture....jerusalem as a muslim holy city is a basic building block of their culture. If you dont know that, one must wonder what do you actually know?

[breakaleg]

70. It's about present day politics.

Two cultures can have a claim on a land. But if say the green people have lived on the land since forever, and the politics in the region where such that those green people were citizens of that land and all it entails. And then there is another group, smaller in number, say the blue people, who have also lived on the land. And one day someone comes along and says that we will change the politics so that it's a blue state and the blues have more rights than the green people who were also here and have larger numbers. And the green people are welcome to stay, but they will now follow our laws and do things our way.

Do you think the green people would just say ok?

[pelsar]

71. your biases are showing....let me modify it:

the blue people were once populous and lived on the land...and governed the land...and they were then kicked out. During the period where the roamed the earth, being restricted and killed in every country they went to, many of the greens came from nearby areas and moved in and lived under various govts, never governing themselves and being immigrants themselves to that land

Then the blues having had enough returned to their home......and found the greens there, who moved in after they left.....governed by a third color -reds

thats a better more accurate narration.

yours claims the greens were there 'first" and the blues smaller in numbers (did you just make that up?...to begin with many of your greens came from other countries (the arab village next to mine for instance - Yemenites meaning they're immigrants after the jews were kicked out.

______________

fact is the situation was fair to no one.....and the idea that one has a "greater claim" than the other is pure BS. Those who claim such a bogus thing have to by nature "disclaim' the other. Which is precisely what you are doing.

making the jewish claim a "lesser" claim......perhaps you would like to back it up with some facts ( a population census when the jews governed israel back then?). or better yet, how does one measure the validity of a culture?....that is after all what your doing.

[breakaleg]

72. if a 1000 years went by before the...

blue people decided they wanted to return, then I'm afraid they lost their claim. There are limits.

If the Native American Indians came and told me they wanted my house back, then I would have to say, no, I'm sorry but too much time has passed and you lost your claim. They would have to take it up with the current government.

There are cases of Arabs with land deeds that predate Israel who are currently being kicked off their land.

[pelsar]

73. do you stand by that?...1000 year limit?

well thats pretty arbritrary of you...but at least your being clear about it.

can it be 500 years?..or how about 250?.......for the indians its been about what 200 years and you claim that that is enough....so

if we want to be consistant, all israel has to to is hang on for another 150 years and you'll back the change, that the palestenians have now lost their claim to the land? (no one disputes which indian tribe lived on the land your house now sits, the US history is detailed enough)


on a different angle.....
in your scenario the blue people are guilty of not "rushing back" to their original home as soon as they could...or could they? even after WWII, the brits didnt want them, and before that, the turks didnt want them back in large numbers....in essence its even debatable if they ever could have returned....kind of a lose lose situation for the blues....couldnt go back home, and treated like dirt everywhere else. (kind of like many of the "greens" today)

i do however certainly appreciate the honesty.....its rare when we get this far.

[breakaleg]

74. gor god's sake I chose a number to represent a large quantity of time.

I don't "stand by" any particular number and as usual, your being nit-picky is riduculous.

Do they have deeds to the land? Other than some nonsense from the bible, that is? If not, then too much time has passed.

[pelsar]

75. you chose 200 years.....

that is the aproximate time that has passed since the americans kicked off the indians, and you now claim they can no longer return and take your house.
I'm sorry but too much time has passed and you lost your claim. They would have to take it up with the current government.

The indians history to the land is well documented.

why is that number of years good for you and not good for the "blues".

according to your logic its not even relevant where the invaders came from, just as long as 200 years have passed. Most americans never had a previous claim to the "new world" no deed, no history.

______________

the bible is not even necessary, archeological digs have shown jewish presence, unless you want to discount that as well, roman history...that too you want to ignore?...i guess what your saying is that the jews really have no historical link to israel......am i correct in that assumption? (which would mean their culture is "bogus")

[breakaleg]

76. you are now putting words in my mouth? I shouldn't be surprised...

[pelsar]

77. what words?

you specifically said that the indians have no right to your home because too much time has passed.... do you deny this?

the indian wars were during the late 1800s (1876-litte big horn).....2006- 1876 = 130 years. Since then they live in reservations

I have a simple question: if a 130 years is good enough for the indians to "lose their claim" on your house, why cant that same principle be applied to the palestenians?

(no palestenains in israel for 130 years, they now lose their claim). I dont mind the double standard as long as its admitted, (then we can discuss why it exists.)


_______________________________________
actually its not clear what your claiming:
x amount of years past, means losing ones claim (130? 1000?)

jews have no history (bible claims are to be discounted) to israel

they were those before the jews (how do we know this?), who are now the palestenians

[breakaleg]

78. let me turn it around....

Do you think the Native American Indians have a right to my house or any house in North America on the basis that the land was theirs at one time, that predated my ownership?

[pelsar]

83. no I dont.....

not because they dont deserve it....if we want to keep to a single standard, they do. Such a change however would literally ruin America.

that same reason applies to israel (and my house). Let the palestenians who left/kick out back to their former homes that would destroy israel. Infact, that and that alone is the argument from the israeli side:

How much do we give the palestenains without planting the seeds for our own destruction as a state.....
______

(that said, some states in my mind have no right to exist, but its those based on dictatorships not western democratic values)

you seem to be saying that one culture (palestenians) have a "greater right" to the land over a different culture (jews).....is that true?

[breakaleg]

84. I don't believe in greater rights for any one group.

I view it on a case by case basis. And I don't see how reverting to the 1967 borders will destroy Israel. It's the illegal settlers that will be most effected, but the Israeli government should be responsible for their displacement since they put them their in the first place.

[pelsar]

86. but that the "jist" of the matter....

the israeli govt is very much responsable for the settlers......each govt that was elected by the people...so there is no "shirking" the responsability that it was the israeli "people that agree to it (passively). I could go and explain how a the govt reps really dont rep the people but thats another discussion.

if you talk to almost any israeli, left or right, the fear is the same: Katushas and mortors from Hebron, Jenin on the surrounding cities......since we've come this far, and that scenario is a very real one.....what then?

Even if you believe it wont happen, western thinking demands understanding that things dont always work out so well (iraq...) and there should be alteranative plans.


the history of the area has made it clear: strong govts can make peace/non violence with israel, weak ones cant:

Egypt, Syria, Jordan....vs Lebanon, and now gaza
_______________________________

[pelsar]

87. just a "footnote"

if the settlements are "illegal"...than again using a single standard, so too are the suburbs of arizona, chicago, (and your home) etc. After all they too were taken in a war. Infact Americas war of expansion was without the provocation of neighboring states declaring an aim to destroy it....and this was a mere 130 years ago.

here too, your declaring a double standard, one for you as a homeowner in america vs one for the israeli homeowner. The indians as you said have no right to your home, but the palestenains have every right to some israeli homes.

You did state that its a case by case basis, but i 'm not sure what that means. If 130 years is good enough for you,(americans vs indians)...why isnt it good enough for me (israelis vs palestenians).

Obviously there are other factors involved, but you havent explained them (american can give back more to the indians without destroying itself, just as you claim israel can give back the westbank....).
___________________

what it comes down to is a double standard. You wont do in your own backyard what your demanding of israel, so too with China and Russia and so many other states. As i mentioned, i have no problem with the double standard, but lets at least admit it.

[breakaleg]

93. "if the settlements are illegal"

If you can't agree to this basic statement of fact, then what point is any discussion? International law says they are. The only people who seem to disagree with that is Israel. It's about time Israel faced facts.

[pelsar]

108. illegal?...legal..... dont know...

I cant recall a court case when they were brought up....trial by popularity never really impressed me...reminds me of the salem witch trials. But thats not the issue....you seem to have avoided the more interesting aspects of my post.

dont quit now..this is when we really get to check out your thesis:

double standard?....consistant?.....reasonable?....workable....substanable.......what good is a political belief if you can defend it on rational grounds? (unless your a "believer" in which case rational, logic western thought is irrelevant)

[pelsar]

115. and we were doing so well....

i dont know if your just skipping the more interesting parts or if the lack of consistency in your views (american/Indians vs Palestinians/israelis) or perhaps its the various scenarios of "return to the 67 borders syndrome isnt where you want to go....as it does make ones simplistic views a bit "wobbly" at best.....ah well, happened again to me.......discussion ended just as it was getting to the interesting parts (if i'm wrong and you simply missed the posts above, etc i apologise...)

[breakaleg]

117. if this

is directed at me, Pelsar, then I'm having difficulty following this thread at this point - purely mechanics.

It's my understanding that those settlements are illegal as per international law, which I'm sure you are aware, and hardly qualifies as Salem witch trials. I think a lack of respect for any opinion that disagrees with Israel is prevalent with your posts and in Israel in general. Perhaps you should explore why the world often finds questionable the acts of the Israeli government. It's not enough to say that you simply disagree with public opinion. These are many countries with a longer history of being democratic than Israel.

[pelsar]

118. yes its for you....breakaleg

i understand that you believe the settlements are "illegal"...i also understand that there has never been any kind of intl court case where such rulings have been handed down, etc..meaning your and many others who believe they are illegal is no more than an interpretation of the law....I know lawyers could easily show how they are as legal as the suburbs of chicago. Just by saying so doesn't make it real....i believe thats how it was when people believed the earth was flat, when they believed witches existed, and when "people" believe that jews make matzo out of christian/Palestinian blood. I'm sure you'll understand if us jews dont take world opinion of us to seriously (we've had some rather bad experiences with the world....)

other than that, the settlements are just a "side show"....hardly the meat of the matter, as far as most israelis are concerned. I'm more interested in how you believe that the indians have no right to your home, yet the Palestinians have a right to mine....

or further more, and feel free to correct me as these forums are not always the best way to communicate, you seem to be saying that jewish heritage to israel has a lesser value than the Palestinians, and the jews in essence have no right to return and live within their culture (and then you say that no culture has "greater rights).

the reason being that the jewish rights are "biblical oriented" and not the present. So it seems your putting a time line on culture. (which would make sense since the indians a mere 130yrs ago have lost their rights)

as i understand it, your saying basically that the jews had no right to return to israel because they came back to late, too many years have gone by...i think thats your belief....can you clarify it?


I dont lack respect for opinions...i lack respect when one isnt consistent or disappears when were applying ones argument to the "ground" as it were or when i'm asking for further clarification and when the double standard crops up....it suddenly ends

perhaps you dont understand how israelis see it?.....i would think that someone who is interested in the middle east would at least be curious....not to be interested in our views/values strikes me as a bit odd. (at least on a pseudo progressive site-i've seen opinons here that match those of the far right)

[Boston Critic]

80. Jews have been there all along

Jews have been in Israel for thousands of years. And much of the land claimed from Arabs prior to the series of wars launched to destroy Israel was bought and paid for by Jews. Those Arabs who didn't flee in anticipation of the destruction of Israel in 1948 held on to their land.

You really need to get over the false notion that there was this long term relationship between peaceful indigenous Palestinians and the land that was disrupted by Jewish usurpers. It's not true, but it is the lie that the Palestinians keep telling themselves to avoid facing the reality of making peace with Israel.

Uninformed Westerners sometimes buy this tripe as well.

[breakaleg]

82. I'm not saying they haven't been there all along, I'm saying

that it hasn't always been a Jewish state.

How can you expect Palestinians to make peace with the people that are starving them? I think it's remarkable that they manage to hang on to what little pride they have left and fight the illegal occupation.

[Boston Critic]

89. There has NEVER been a Palestinian state

Do you know anything of the history of the region? The last government (as opposed to occupying force) on the land prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was the Kingdom of Israel. In the centuries since then it was occupied by the Romans, the Saracens, the Crusaders, the Ottoman Empire, and the British.

So the notion that there was no Israeli state prior to 1948 does not mean that Arabs have a superior claim to the land to the Jews who were living there.

[breakaleg]

94. I don't

believe I said there was a Palestinian state. What I said was Arabs were the majority at the time, and to take a land and give it to the minority, then change the laws such that they favor that minority and push out the people currently living there, is wrong.

[pelsar]

107. and at the sametime....

to keep the jews "wandering the earth" and not letting them return to their original home to establish a community where they no longer live in fear because they are jews is also wrong...


so whos wrong is "more wrong" ...and whos going to judge?

What I said was Arabs were the majority at the time, and to take a land and give it to the minority, then change the laws such that they favor that minority and push out the people currently living there, is wrong.....you do see the irony of this coming from an american....

I would like to remind you, that in the case of your own home, your ancestors did far worse not very long ago and were probably just looking for a better way of life, not escaping one of continual persecution....and for that you refuse to accept the wrong and let the indians back....

yet you say that i have to (or at least some of my fellow citizens)

[breakaleg]

110. You are talking about their historical home, as in a very long

time ago. Images of the bible come to mind as I read your post. I'm talking about the present.

[pelsar]

111. yes we've discused that...

you put a "statue of limitations on ones right to a homeland at about 130yrs. (at least to YOUR home)

so in your view the jews will just have to be satisfied with ignoring their own history/culture and forever be potential victims of antisemitism.

(in case you dont know, jewish culture/religion is full of references to israel as is modern history starting with the romans)


btw can i tell the palestenians that part of their culture is no longer valid...as that is precisly what your telling me.

[shergald]

96. Are you skipping a little history here?

Some historians date Palestinian ancestry to the Philistines. Others will go back as far as the preCrusade period when Islam was established, while other look at the preOttoman era. Whatever the case, the Arabs of Palestine were resident in the region for over a thousand years. To suggest that they were not is rediculous, even though some would argue that the Jews never left and that Arabs only came into the region a century ago.

I asked the person who contended the latter point to supply the evidence, but he never did.

What we have here is an Israeli presence until the Romans, then a relatively empty region until they returned in the 19th century. Very convenient history. I guess Palestinians are just Jordians at heart, as Sharon contended, and that since they are just Arabs, they can live anywhere in the middle east, Arabs being Arabs. Transferring Palestinians to Arab countries seems the likely solution.

[Hoping4Change]

31. Ignatieff's PR stunt backfired on him. Ignatieff who has been

compared to Harper made the comments about Israeli war crimes to distinguish himself from Harper. The back-pedalling he's doing now simply reveals his political opportunism and total lack of credibility.

[nicoll]

91. just the facts

Michael Ignatieff, a human rights expert and a former Harvard don, said at the weekend that Israel committed a war crime when it bombarded the Lebanese village of Qana in July.

If they really believe that it is a war crime there is no point in quietly speaking out. A legal path should be looked into where Israel could ( if a war crime can be proven) be charged with war crimes for bombing the city. There must be a legal avenue for pursuing this if it is believed strongly enough that a war crime has been committed by a country. All to often if is left for to long a period of time before a specific charge is brought and obtaining witness statements becomes harder and harder.

[Boston Critic]

97. But Lebanon and Hezbollah get a pass?

We KNOW that Hezbollah fired missiles at Israeli communities, deliberately targeting civilians.

How come the people gnashing their teeth about imagined Israeli "war crimes" have nothing to say about that?

[Englander]

106. There isn't anything "imagined" about the recent war crimes.

Hezbollah are responsible for the damage, & deaths caused by firing hundreds of rockets at Israeli
towns. If you're trying to compare that damage with the deliberate destruction that the Israeli
military are responsible for, or are trying to claim that the war crimes committed by the Israeli
military weren't a deliberate act of targeting civilian populations & the civilian infrastructure,
then you're not providing an accurate/objective view of the situation.


' Israel/Lebanon
Deliberate destruction or "collateral damage"? Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure

>snip

Deliberate destruction or ‘collateral damage’?
During more than four weeks of ground and aerial bombardment of Lebanon by the Israeli armed forces, the country’s infrastructure suffered destruction on a catastrophic scale. Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground, reducing entire neighbourhoods to rubble and turning villages and towns into ghost towns, as their inhabitants fled the bombardments. Main roads, bridges and petrol stations were blown to bits. Entire families were killed in air strikes on their homes or in their vehicles while fleeing the aerial assaults on their villages. Scores lay buried beneath the rubble of their houses for weeks, as the Red Cross and other rescue workers were prevented from accessing the areas by continuing Israeli strikes. The hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who fled the bombardment now face the danger of unexploded munitions as they head home.

The Israeli Air Force launched more than 7,000 air attacks on about 7,000 targets in Lebanon between 12 July and 14 August, while the Navy conducted an additional 2,500 bombardments.(1) The attacks, though widespread, particularly concentrated on certain areas. In addition to the human toll – an estimated 1,183 fatalities, about one third of whom have been children(2), 4,054 people injured and 970,000Lebanese people displaced(3) – the civilian infrastructure was severely damaged. The Lebanese government estimates that 31 "vital points" (such as airports, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities) have been completely or partially destroyed, as have around 80 bridges and 94 roads.(4) More than 25 fuel stations(5) and around 900 commercial enterprises were hit. The number of residential properties, offices and shops completely destroyed exceeds 30,000.(6) Two government hospitals – in Bint Jbeil and in Meis al-Jebel – were completely destroyed in Israeli attacks and three others were seriously damaged.(7)

In a country of fewer than four million inhabitants, more than 25 per cent of them took to the roads as displaced persons. An estimated 500,000 people sought shelter in Beirut alone, many of them in parks and public spaces, without water or washing facilities.

Amnesty International delegates in south Lebanon reported that in village after village the pattern was similar: the streets, especially main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length. In some cases cluster bomb impacts were identified. Houses were singled out for precision-guided missile attack and were destroyed, totally or partially, as a result. Business premises such as supermarkets or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were targeted, often with precision-guided munitions and artillery that started fires and destroyed their contents. With the electricity cut off and food and other supplies not coming into the villages, the destruction of supermarkets and petrol stations played a crucial role in forcing local residents to leave. The lack of fuel also stopped residents from getting water, as water pumps require electricity or fuel-fed generators.

Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield". However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage" – incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE180072006