International Red Cross says Israeli forces hit clearly marked ambulance workers

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The International Red Cross on Sunday deplored the killing by Israeli forces of two clearly marked ambulance workers removing a body from a previous Israeli attack in Gaza.

The paramedics of the Palestine Red Crescent Society were wearing clearly marked fluorescent jackets and the flashing lights of their ambulance were visible from a great distance when they were hit by Israeli fire after dark Friday evening, said the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"The ICRC is appalled by this failure to protect personnel engaged in emergency medical duties," a statement said. "The individuals concerned and their means of transport were clearly marked with a distinctive emblem conferring the protection of the Geneva Conventions" on the conduct of warfare.

One of the paramedics was killed on the spot when Israeli Defense Force munitions suddenly hit the area, it said. The other died of his injuries a few hours later."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/05/europe/EU_GEN_Red_Cross_Gaza_Killings.php

[Tom Joad]

1. Sounds like Lebanon. I suppose now we will hear doubts about the

International Red Cross.

Also awaiting the "proof" from the National Enquirer or World Tribune or some such dysfunctional website that the Palestinians did this to themselves or staged this or whatever the idiocy may be. Fortunately, only fools will believe it.

Despite that, the world is seeing this (and the larger picture here), and many are seeing the truth as to what is happening. The charade of what "the only democracy in the Middle East" is doing to the people of Gaza is clear. It is a massive terror attack on a people under a brutal occupation.

The whole world is watching.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[IntiRaymi]

3. Yes. And 12 year olds put stilts on, to make better sniper targets.

Check out the exchange near the top of the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x153143

[Nolo_Contendre]

4. I saw that and vomited earlier but it's not the first time

This is continuous hasbara.

[Tom Joad]

5. Sounds like Rush Limbaugh talkin about Michael Fox...

screaming its a set-up. Kinda pathetic really.

[Englander]

29. That it does. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

6. How incredibly stupid.

i wasn't the one that came up with that warped "theory."

[Englander]

30. Yes, that's true.

You just said it was a set-up. Completely different warped theories.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Actually, it is.

It is just passed over as "resistance" against the evil Zionist empire.

[Tom Joad]

8. What is?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Do not presume that you know anything about me.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

15. I seriously doubt it.

[Nolo_Contendre]

16. Hubris comes before a fall

Israelis are going to THUD loudly

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Your opinion. Your wish.

[Nolo_Contendre]

22. Keep bleating until the gnashing of teeth resumes

You can't swim against the tide of history.

[Tom Joad]

11. And the International Red Cross covers up for them?

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Actually, the IRC has condemned them for using ambulances illegally.

[Nolo_Contendre]

17. Link to any source?

Nope, just the usual accusations from Israel and her defenders worldwide.

[Tom Joad]

19. I googled, found a few Righist sites that mentioned it.

Nothing from the IRC...

In any case, there is no evidence that this ambulance was being used for weapons or anything other than saving a persons life.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Tom Joad]

18. Care to cite? Another World Tribune exclusive?

famous for fabricating reports attributed to reputable organizations. Where is the IRC condemnation?


Even if there were a case, in the last several years of some ambulance used inappropriately, I still think think targeting ambulances is not kind.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. The ICRC calls for respect of the medical mission

Tel Aviv, 27 March 2002 (ICRC) : The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is shocked and dismayed by the reports today of explosive material being found in a Palestine Red Crescent Society's (PRCS) ambulance. The ICRC condemns such abuse of an ambulance and of the Red Crescent emblem.

ICRC delegates have immediately been in contact with the Israeli authorities and the PRCS, and went to the site near Ramallah where the ambulance was stopped. There they observed how a device was taken out from the vehicle and detonated in the presence of a number of on-lookers.

source

[Tom Joad]

25. This does not excuse the repeated targeting of ambulances...

do you support this statement of the IRC you just cited?
Do you support the statement of the IRC in the original post?

I support both statements.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. I support both sentences.

I do not support the statement that incidents involving ambulances or medical personnel are due to "targeting."

[Englander]

27. That's not supporting both statements, is it?

Because the PRCS volunteers were clearly not respected, or protected in this instance.

[Englander]

28. Where does it say that?

Where, in the ICRC statement, does it say that these ambulances were 'targeted'?

Making-shit-up = very bad thing.

[Englander]

42. Thought so. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

43. Stealing from post #23...Making-shit-up = very bad thing.

[Englander]

41. From ICRC;

(Looking at the bigger picture)

'Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001)'

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList325/D86C9E662022D64E41256C6800366D55

[Scurrilous]

23. Report: IAF missile strike near school bus kills Gaza youth, 16

<snip>

"An Israeli aircraft fired a missile into a town in the northern Gaza Strip on Monday, killing a 16-year-old Palestinian youth and wounding four other people, witnesses and hospital officials said.

They said the missile landed near a school bus in Beit Lahiya. Among the wounded was a teacher, who was in a critical condition. The identities of the other casualties were not immediately known.

An IDF spokeswoman had no immediate comment."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/784374.html

[PrgressiveJ]

40. Well a lot of it was `staged` ,theres no changing FACT nt

[cali]

31. Inexcusable. Period. n/t

[msmcghee]

32. It is common knowledge that Arab militias . .

. . use Red Crescent ambulances to transport both weapons and explosives as well as fighters. There have been many documented instances of this. They also concoct faked attacks on ambulances as recently occurred in the Lebanon war - so laughingly defended by so many of the Israel bashers in this forum. (I'm still waiting for the "war crimes" trials on that one. You'd think with all that friendly press coverage invited in from Australia they'd have the Israelis off to prison in the Hague by now.) BTW the ICRC supported the Red Crescent claims on that obviously bogus accusation at the time, which justifably makes their claims suspicious now, as well.

However, in a wartime situation, even one instance of using ambulances for wartime operations is enough to justify the IDF in being highly suspicious of all Red Crescent ambulances. Any sane nation defending itself from ongoing and committed attacks against its citizens would prudently adopt a policy that would allow attacks against ambulances in those cases where there are grounds to suspect they are being used to fight the war rather than carry off the wounded.

Whatever death and suffering of innocent non-combatants that results from that policy - is obviously caused by the cowardly and callous decision by the Arabs to use ambulances to carry weapons and explosives in the first place - violating one of the more humane provisions of modern armed conflict.

This is just another stark example of the many we see every day - of the way that the Arabs use women, children and even wounded civilians in ambulances to hide behind - rather than fight their ill-conceived wars in a way that would reduce the suffering of innocents. I find that utterly reprehensible and disgusting.

[AliceWonderland]

33. The cowardly and callous decision by The Arabs

The way that The Arabs use women, children and even wounded civilians...

Goodness. The Arabs. All of them?? I hadn't realized, even though such things are clearly common knowledge.

[msmcghee]

34. Did I say all of them?

The context was a discussion of the IDF callously attacking innocent Red Crescent ambulances. The reference to Arabs was "as opposed to the IDF" - as anyone could see.

Have any facts to back up the inferences behind your straw-man argument?

[AliceWonderland]

35. Merely questions.

"The Arabs" was a very vague term, and it was, frankly, difficult to know precisely what cowardly, callous Arabs were being referenced. Even the statement above is a long way from self-evident -- "Arabs was 'as opposed to the IDF' " -- what does that mean? An Arab is anything that is "not-IDF"? Even in this specific kind of discussion, people have quite rightly criticized the conflation of IDF with Israelis, even Jews. That's not acceptable -- no matter what anyone in the IDF does or doesn't do, it's not a reflection on Israelis, and never a reflection on Jews. Groups are variegated. Collective punishment is wrong. Indeed, one could argue that this was a revealing slip. I don't know if I would, but one could.

In any case, demonization leaves us with a sense of inevitable divide, that there's an Other who is less human and deserving of human rights. That can't lead to better solutions.

[msmcghee]

36. This seems to be an important distinction for you.

And that since I don't get it (in your opinion) - you think my opinion will lead to "demonization" and a "sense of inevitable divide".

OK - let's look at that.

My statement was:

Whatever death and suffering of innocent non-combatants that results from that policy - is obviously caused by the cowardly and callous decision by the Arabs to use ambulances to carry weapons and explosives in the first place - violating one of the more humane provisions of modern armed conflict.

It seems pretty obvious that I was not referring to "all Arabs". I was referring to those Arabs "who made the cowardly and callous decisions to use ambulances to carry weapons and explosives in the first place" - since that's what I said. And that kind of wrecks your premise that I was promoting some form of "collective punishment." I would include in that condemnation any Palestinian leaders who condoned that practice and even those who failed to condemn it.

I don't recall any Palestinian leaders condemning this practice nor do I recall any Palestinians in the street holding demonstrations to protest those actions either. Instead I see the usual demonstrations calling for the destruction of Israel. But my condemnation - as I specified - is for those Arabs who made the decisions and carried out this practice.

If that's "demonization" then I am guilty. I think people who would put their own wounded in a situation where they could justifiably be attacked while being evacuated to hospital - are demons. No, they are worse. They are despicable cowards violating the most fundamental humanitarian rules of warfare.

Failing to call them out and condemn for actions like that is what leads to the contunued war and violence. There is a difference between the two sides here. Those who don't recognize that difference are contributing to the violence. As long as cowards like those believe that some misguided souls in America think they are heroes instead of cowards - they will be encouraged to continue with the suicide attacks and the kidnappings and the Qassams - and smuggling weapons and explosives and fighters in Red Crescent ambulances.

I want to see fewer Palestinians die at the hands of the IDF - including those riding in ambulances. I am sure the vast majority of Israelis feel the same way. What would you like to see?

[AliceWonderland]

37. Excellent.

I'm very glad to know that you see Arabs as a variegated group, and it's always good to clarify these things when there's uncertainty. I'm not sure what you're referring to as an important distinction to me -- people from a group who commit wrong acts vs. the group itself as whole? If that's what you mean, then you're absolutely correct: it is an important distinction to me, and I would argue, an important distinction in general. I would certainly hope we could agree on that point.

If you are discussing with the assumption that anyone who does not want Arabs demonized must defend Palestinian leaders, then I'm afraid I'll disappoint you. I'm a universal human rights and humanitarian law type. I want those standards for all, within and beyond the Middle East. So, then, I take it you are making some sort of point with your last question -- what would I like to see? Human rights and social justice for Palestinians (whatever religion, gender), Israelis (whatever race, religion, gender), and hey, if I'm making a list, the same for Rwandans, Uzbeks, Tibetans, kids in Chicago, families in New Orleans, and so forth. Whenever I feel like I have too much of a personal stake in the I/P situation (and I have a couple of complex competing personal stakes, actually), I try to step back, take a breath, and see things through the lens of human rights. So, that's what I'd like.

[msmcghee]

38. I like your post.

I just scanned it quickly because I have to run to the dentist - but I think we could have an interesting conversation about some of the things you mentioned there.

I'll be back. Cheers

[msmcghee]

39. OK - here I am with a new crown, . .

. . a fine dinner of leftover fried rice and a couple of glasses of wine in me. Let me try to address your post from back to front.

Alice: "Whenever I feel like I have too much of a personal stake in the I/P situation (and I have a couple of complex competing personal stakes, actually), I try to step back, take a breath, and see things through the lens of human rights. So, that's what I'd like."

Me: Well, OK - but choosing a particular lens can be a way to escape the tough choices. I'm not saying that's what you're doing - just that it's a possibility you should be wary of. I mean it's hard to be against either human rights or kittens. And it's in the balancing of rights where the problems arise. I'm sure many Palestinians and various other Arabs and Persians - are absolutely certain that it's solidly within the realm of their human rights to have a ME cleansed of all Jews. They say so all the time.

Alice: "So, then, I take it you are making some sort of point with your last question -- what would I like to see? Human rights and social justice for Palestinians (whatever religion, gender), Israelis (whatever race, religion, gender), and hey, if I'm making a list, the same for Rwandans, Uzbeks, Tibetans, kids in Chicago, families in New Orleans, and so forth."

Me: The context for that question was: "I want to see fewer Palestinians die at the hands of the IDF - including those riding in ambulances. I am sure the vast majority of Israelis feel the same way. What would you like to see?"

So, I was sort of making a rhetorical statement that I'm sure you'd also like to see fewer dead Palestinians - just as I would and just as most Israelis would. However, I'm sure that I and most Israelis would also like to see human rights and social justice extended to all Palestinians, Rwandans, Uzbeks, Tibetans, kids in Chicago, families in New Orleans, and so forth". So, we were writing past each other there - but I think we generally agree, anyway.

Alice: "I'm not sure what you're referring to as an important distinction to me -- people from a group who commit wrong acts vs. the group itself as whole? If that's what you mean, then you're absolutely correct: it is an important distinction to me, and I would argue, an important distinction in general. I would certainly hope we could agree on that point."

Me: Well, yes - we agree. But in that statement you pass quickly over a most important concept - the nature of right and wrong - in terms of both individuals and culture. I do believe there is such a thing as right and wrong - because that single concept (in the context of the values of the enlightenment IMO) has the proven ability to prevent much unhappiness, death and destruction in the world - on both the individual and cultural level.

I think we all have one life to live and that every human has a right to live that life in some measure of happiness. I think we all have a responsibility to think about our actions (both individually and as a nation) in terms of how they impact others - and make the best choices in terms of optimizing whatever happiness is available for all parties. (I'm a hopeless liberal.)

I think this applies not only on the playground but to how nations act on the world stage toward other nations and cultures. Unfortunately, not every person or every culture shares this opinion. For that reason, I think both the playground monitor and the world-at-large needs to enforce such notions occasionally, in cases where others would use force and intimidation to get their way. (I also have a conservative side you see.)

For me, that's the meat in this discussion - the application of notions of right and wrong to the balancing of rights. I've given you some idea of where I am with that - something I'd like to think about and discuss in more detail. I'd love to see any additional thoughts you might have on this topic in the interim.

Cheers