AND ... this story just published by the JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) ..
The International Committee of the Red Cross said Israeli forces prevented its first responders from reaching an area of the Zeitun neighborhood in Gaza City where buildings had collapsed because of Israeli shelling.
The agency said it sought access on on Saturday after the neihborhood was shelled, but Israeli forces kept them from reaching the site until Wednesday, where rescuers found 15 people dead and 18 in need of emergency care, including four starving children next to their dead mothers.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009...gency-
situation
Basically, it seems that the standard line is if there is a > 0% probability of there being a Hamas supporter within a 2 block radius of any building, then that building can be legitimately blown to shit and anyone nearby killed without any consequences or punishment.
Their goal is to "stop Hamas' rocket attacks" at all costs. Which implies that as long as there is a > 0% probability of another attack, they have political cover as far as they and their allies are concerned.
This whole situation just makes me frustrated and sickened because it seems there is little anyone can do since most people in power fully support this Gaza affair and the ones that don't support it aren't willing to back up their lack of support with anything more than words and press releases.
How any leader who professes progressive and social justice ideals could outright support Israel in this massacre of defenseless people is beyond understanding or acceptance. That leader is Liberal Iggy - shameless and tasteless.
See this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=s...player_embedded
After Israel bombed the UN schools, it claimed that mortars were fired out of the school -- and all the media repeated the lie.
However, now Israel has withdrawn the excuse -- but no media is picking up the story.
The link above has a UN official on Democracy Now, saying that Israel has quietly withdrawn the excuse.
Is it a war crime?
If we were talking about the Waffen SS and a synagogue of Polish Jews, would it?
If it were a house full of Bosnian and the Serbs started shelling, would it?
Its shocking the question even needs to be posed, however rhetorically.
Yes, it is a war crime.
For the millionth freaking time, Hamas is nasty, Hamas is bad, but nothing Hamas has done warrants the kind of treatment innocent Palestinians are getting at the hands of the IDF.
IDF officers admit there was no gunfire from the UN school.
Ignatieff's remarks hardly surprise me in light of his comments during the 2006 Hizbollah conflict. Something about 'sleep' and 'civilian casualties' as I recall.
When considering Israel's right to defend itself against constant rocket attacks, we should take into consideration that by many accounts, Israel broke a ceasefire in which the attacks had largely stopped. For more information, google "Israel ceasefire November 4 2008".
Digging a little deeper, one finds that after the truce began on June 20, rocket attacks from Gaza continued sporadically, but by October they had dwindled to almost none. No Israelis were killed. The Israelis typically responded to incidents of this sort by extending the blockade of goods into Gaza, itself contrary to the terms of the truce. Meanwhile, reportedly, Israeli security forces quietly continued occasional incursions into Gaza.
On November 4th, while the world watched the US election, the Israelis crossed into Gaza to conduct an operation in which six Palestinians were killed. News reports on the following day widely viewed this as threatening the truce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis..._Israel_in_2008
It is refreshing to see some on the left with some reality. Keep it up Iggy, and you may be PM.
Harper and Ignatieff are both stupid. I can't believe that Canada will become a parter in crime with Israel. Israel does not fear anyone and can commit war crimes at will because they will never be taken to The Hague (international tribunal for war crime) because U.S. will veto it. Harper is an evangelical (just like Bush) and Ignatieff is probably Jewish. Evangelicals and "born-again Christians" are usually for Israel because their preachers told them to. It is sad that Western Canada don't see these things. The rest of Canada will have to be ashame for years to come.
"...and Ignatieff is probably Jewish"
I know he looks like one of Those People(TM), but Wikipedia (that Zionist propaganda pawn) says he's Russian Orthodox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mic...gnatieff#Family
Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, wants an investigation into the shelling of a building where 30 Palestinians were killed. Well, she is wasting her time.
Any report on war crimes committed by the Jews in Gaza will be "dead on arrival" because it will be vetoed by the U.S. Remember? Israel and the U.S. are partner in crime and soon Canada will become part of a trio.
More civilian casualties!
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009...of-two-stories/
Oh...
claudia:
You don't have to be Jewish to be an apologist for Israel's actions in Gaza. And indeed, many Jews aren't.
Yes, there are good Jews and bad Jews. (But let God sort them out.)
http://engageonline.wordpress.co...e-in-the-world/
Why does the UN give Hamass a pass when it sends its terrorists to shoot from buildings where there are civilians. Isn't that a violation of international law?
Hamass knows the world will yell at Israel when Israel shoots back.
Al:
Please try to keep up. The IDF has retracted its claim that Hamas militants were in the school, and they certainly weren't in the house that was shelled.
Geo:
Of course there are good Jews and bad Jews. As a group they're no different from any other group. I'm glad that news is finally getting out.
What some Hamas guy says in response to scores of dead Gazan kids is precisely what might be expected. Your point?
Seems to me that Hamas does a lot of threatening. The IDF, on the other hand, does a lot of killing and denying.
isreal will not stop until they completely subjugate the people of Gaza.
How quickly they forget about the their own experiance
Everybody loves underdog. Unfortunately for many here, the underdog is Israel. They just want peace. What Hamas wants is Israel. But not just the land but free and disinfected from those infidel Jews. To understand little bit Hamas read Aljazzeera.net (Arab station), PressTv (Iranian station). Hamas took lessons from Hitler's National Socialist Party. The Nazis used Communists for their end in early 20s then butchered them. Read Goebells memories.He said if you lie enough times it will become truth. Most of the reports are propaganda
Are you sure? International Red Cross is the same organization which facilitated Jewish transport to death camps by Germans through Switzerland. Their word does not mean much. They lied about Janin, They lied about Qana in Lebanon. They lied then, they are lying now.
Dawg:
What some Hamas guy says in response to scores of dead Gazan kids is precisely what might be expected. Your point?
So if Olmert, Livni or Barak declared that Hamas' suicide bombs or its rocketing of Israeli schools now justified the killing of Muslim children anywhere in the world, you would say that it was "precisely what might be expected"? Glad we cleared that up.
Grip1:
I'm not exactly sure what the "they" in "their own experience" refers to. As this is about Israel, you must mean years of suicide bombing and assorted carnage. In which case I imagine that, indeed, Israelis have probably not forgotten "their own experience".
No historical analogies are exact fits, but the closest one here from WW2 is probably Berlin 1945.
I hope the Israelis find the bunker equivalent as soon as possible.
And why doesn't Egypt simply open its border with Gaza and allow the free flow of supplies?
If there had been no rocket attacks would there be any bombings by Israel?
Idealist need to wake up! In the modern world, it is the first aggression that provokes the violence.Despite repeated warnings,Hamas continued to rocket Israel. Now they face retribution.
Get Hamas out of your country or at least stop the rocketing and YOU WILL NOT BE BOMBED! Simple!
"Seems to me that Hamas does a lot of threatening."
Well, and hiding, there is a lot of hiding and you should give them credit for that.
Arguably, the 30,000 or so thugs in Hamas are effectively holding the 1.5 million Gazans hostage in the hope that, if enough hostages are killed (largely by misadventure) Israel will have to stop before the Hamas leadership and gunmen can be killed, are the stupidest lot of terrorists the Palis have produced to date.
Does fervent Islam make people stupid? Does banging your head on the ground in prayer five times a day create cognitive impairment?
The poor child you have at the top of this post is dead because he or she lives in a place run by homicidal idiots who are apparently just too dumb, or jihad obsessed, or totally indifferent, to realize that poking a lion with a stick leads, in time, to unpleasant consequences.
At some point, and Lord knows I hope it is soon, the Palestinians are going to dump the Idiot Party and make a peace with a nation which has a huge number of people within it who want peace desperately.
But, for now, the Palestinians remain cursed with corrupt dimwits because, well, they elected them. Which will mean that some of them will be killed or horribly wounded because, well the bright lads at Hamas HQ know that if it bleeds it leads.
Horrendous civilian casualties, yes. But maybe this is one of the reasons why...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/0...er.html?_r=1&
hp
Jay,
after reading your incoherent post, I am convinced that you are not only the biggest moron on this thread but a supporter of terrorism.You and the rest of your cohorts are so lacking in shame and decency that the genocidal slaughter of innocent civilians does not move you.You sir are as wicked and depraved as the Israeli terrorists whom you support.
And charmed to meet you too ajsuhail. Now, try really hard and come up with an argument which suggests that the Palestinians have been fortunate in their leadership.
Geo:
So far, it's just angry wind after scores of Palestinian kids have been killed or left to starve by their dead mothers' sides. I could trot out the usual quotations from Israeli leaders about Arabs over the years, but you've seen them all before.
Jay:
Let's move away from the bland generalities. Do you support putting 110 people in a house and then shelling the house? Or shelling schools where civilians have gone for safety, and lying about it until people do enough digging to force them to retract the lie?
General word to all--let's keep the discussion civil and avoid name-calling.
'Do you support putting 110 people in a house and then shelling the house? Or shelling schools where civilians have gone for safety, and lying about it until people do enough digging to force them to retract the lie?"
Nobody sane supports this. I'm sure Jay doesn't support "putting 110 people in a house and shelling" it.
But that doesn't mean that incidents like this will not happen in war.
Two things: I'll be honest enough to admit that Israel is engaged in apartheid-like activity in the West Bank (expanding settlements, building walled highways, and generally turning the whole West Bank into a field of Jewish settlements with spaces in-between for Palestinians).
I know that supporters of Israel like to just avoid this fact. Not talk about it, and focus on Hamas.
That being said, Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza was an extremely positive step. One that went so unappreciated by the Palestinians, that, instead of celebration, they burned whatever infrastructure was left behind that to be fair -- the Israelis didn't burn themselves before leaving.
To Jays point, the Palestinians have acted like idiots. Not in their own self-interest. But rather like enraged fools.
Rather than embrace the opportunity that disengagement by Israel presented them with an in-kind show of good faith, they elected Hamas, tried to kill their president (who was acting in good faith) and effectively put in a government that's goal was the destruction of Israel.
I don't know about you Dawg, but you seem to have been involved in a lot of collective bargaining within the labour movement if I've followed you correctly. So I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of bad faith negotiations.
While you are striving to put into perspective the human cost of this, I think you're also overlooking the broader problem here: the Israeli street feels just as helpless to fix this problem, because even when they pull out settlements, they see no reward.
People will point out that this is due to the conditions that Palestinians have lived and the frustration therein. This is a valid point. But at some point, there needs to be some give. And given Israel's acts of good faith in regards to disengagement from the Gaza strip, and given Hamas' continued outward violence, I believe that it is not unreasonable to expect that Israel would respond in it's defence.
The other option would be sending in an international stabilization force to enforce a cease fire. But in this case: the PLO, Hamas and Israel have all made clear they would not accept this. Well, Israel has said they would accept such an international force in the Gaza strip, but not in Israel. And Hamas won't accept that by any means.
As for people hoping international pressure will bring an end to this problem, I think people have a poor understanding of what both the Palestinians and Israelis think about international opinion; they both only care when i
... it suits them.
Do the Palestinians care that the whole Western world and half the Arab world thinks Hamas is a terrorist organization? Did the sudden loss of aid as a result phase their support? Nol
Does Israel care about what the UN--an organization that's passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other nation--thinks? No. They think they are a piece of shit. And you would too, if you were the object of such habitual disaffection.
Mike:
We agree on the West Bank. And we could have agreed on the Israeli disengagement from Gaza--if it had really happened.
But it didn't. Gaza was sealed off, periodically besieged, with commando raids into it from time to time to spice things up a bit.
Jay keeps raising Egypt, which of course has helped to maintain the prison walls. If his best argument is that Israel is no worse than Egypt in this respect, then I submit that the argument is rather lame.
I don't think there's much good faith in any "negotiations" that have taken place in the past, including the Oslo process. For real negotiations to succeed, there have to be broad objectives that coincide--a conjunction of interests. I don't hold with interest-based bargaining in the workplace for a lot of reasons, but it's a sensible approach for two equal partners in a conflict. In the case before us, with world participation, the two principal partners here could be allowed to proceed on an level playing field that otherwise is an illusion.
It seems to me that there is the basis for a settlement in the two-state solution, but I mean two states, not one reduced to a form of municipal government. And the Abdullah proposal needs to be implemented: that Israel revert to its pre-1967 borders, with the Arab states guaranteeing the security of those borders and dealing themselves with rejectionists, and, IIRC, that compensation be paid for past dispossession, perhaps as part of a larger global effort to build infrastructure and capacity within the new state of Palestine.
The convergent interests are easy enough to determine. Everybody but fanatics wants an end to the blood and gore. Not a ceasefire, not a truce, not a lull, but an end.
Israel wants security. The Palestinians want the dignity of a state, and the ability to set one up and run it themselves. They need a contiguous territorial land base. Less evident, but evident nonetheless, is that the settlements have to go. Every last one of them.
What is needed, in other words, is a comprehensive solution. You can't go at this stuff piecemeal--everything needs to be on the table. Israel has been content thus far to do a little bit of this and a little bit of that, while not substantially giving up its own regional dominance. And Hamas just wants to kill every Jew in Israel, if I read its Chrater correctly. Without a serious, committed, long-term global intervention, the two parties are too entrenched to work this thing out.
cont'd.
cont'd.
Take it right out of Israel and the Palestinians' hands. Decisive international moves, not a bunch of stupid resolutions in the UN. A two-state solution. A stable peace is possible, but it's a long way off--and frankly, rationalizing or denying every bit of IDF barbarity while highlighting every bit of Hamas barbarity (which seems to be stunningly ineffective, other than ceaseless bloody-minded rhetoric and purges of "collaborators") isn't the way to build a context for what I'm suggesting.
Hamas is a symptom, not the disease. It represents the blind fury of a captive people. I wish they were gone (Hamas). Hamas is not "the Palestinians," but a bunch of thugs with martyrdom on their minds. With a comprehensive plan, brokered by some genuinely neutral third party approved by the world community (not the US, which is too evidently parti pris, and not Canada, which has lost its international reputation for fairness), there would be no more oxygen for Hamas to breathe.
I could trot out the usual quotations from Israeli leaders about Arabs over the years, but you've seen them all before.
Given everything else that's been said in this thread, I could let this slip by unnoticed. But I won't. So, no, Dawg, I haven't "seen them all before". And it would never be "precisely what might be expected".
I have never heard Olmert, Livni or Barak (or Sharon, or Rabin, or even Nethanyahu) declare that Hamas' suicide bombs or its rocketing of Israeli schools now justified "the killing of Muslim children anywhere in the world." If you have, kindly supply a citation (and, no, localized anti-Arab rhetoric doesn't count; show us an outright call to engage in worldwide pogroms against Muslim children).
And the antisemitic setiments the Hamas guy was expressing are being put into practice as we speak.
http://blog.z-word.com/2009/01/a...n-116th-street/
and...
http://blog.z-word.com/2009/01/p...ampage-in-oslo/
and...
http://blog.z-word.com/2009/01/i...demonstrations/
Were I a Jew I would say, ruefully, plus ça change. Indeed, I could borrow your words: this is "precisely what might be expected".
I wasn't referring only to this conflict.
I was thinking of this sort of thing:
"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." --Rafael Eitan
"One million Arab lives are not worth a Jewish fingernail." --Rabbi Yaacov Perin
"I said, and I repeat, no one will be exempt." --Ehud Olmert, on Lebanon
"rationalizing or denying every bit of IDF barbarity"
You see, this is where I go offside though. I don't think the IDF is being barbaric, relatively speaking. I believe they are trying to the best of their ability to avoid civilian casualties.
While I sympathize with the Palestinian position, and generally agree in principle with the position that Israel return to pre-1967 borders, I also tend to sympathize with the Israeli position. That, the annexed territories were a direct result of a systematic plan to invade and depose Israel. Yes, Israel engaged in "provocative agricultural activities" by farming in disputed territory, and yes, Israel pre-emptively attacked Egypt, but the fact remains that Syria, Egypt and ultimately Jordan were conjuring up serious plans for a full-scale assault against Israel.
Given your left-wing position, I'm sure you'll characterize this as a bit of a "colonialist attitude" but sometimes, to the victor goes the spoils.
For better or worse, a plurality of Israelis feel their very survival as a country depends on maintaining a steadfast military superiority. And while we can dispute the intellectual or practical merits of this attitude, particularly their failure to achieve a "durable and lasting peace", the fact remains that terrorist attacks directed at the civilian population of Israel help re-enforce this view.
I do not believe this problem can be solved the way you propose. Israel will never accept anyone else's authority over their land. The very mythos of their state is dependant on the idea that Israel is their place to hang their hat. Never will they be the minority. Not by numbers and not by authority. Not in Israel.
If the international community attempted any imposition, I am certain that Israel's response would lead to a conflagration of conflict beyond your wildest dreams.
Mike, the "imposition" I was talking about would be over the disputed territories, not pre-1967 Israel proper. Let's get that one out of the way.
And I'm sorry, but shelling three schools where civilians have fled for shelter, and packing 110 Palestinians into a house and then shelling the house, are barbarities. Unless you have a new definition I should look at.
Jay,
ironic that you have not been able to come up with an honest post that condemns the terrorism indulged in by Israel and its leaders.Israel is a rogue state surviving solely on the largesse of America.Founded on land stolen from the Palestinians by leaders who were terrorists, it is hardly surprising that it continues to brutalise and murder innocent civilians.Which leads me to reiterate that anyone who supports Israel is a supporter of state sponsored terrorism and is complicit in the genocide being carried out against the civilians of Gaza.
I wasn't referring only to this conflict.
Neither was I. But a flippant "this sort of thing" is simply not good enough. You still haven't shown me a single quote from a high-ranking Israeli official (the Rabbi Perin guy was a widely-vilified low-level religious thug and even he was referring to local Arabs) inciting the murder of Muslims around the world. If you can't see the difference...
"And I'm sorry, but shelling three schools where civilians have fled for shelter, and packing 110 Palestinians into a house and then shelling the house, are barbarities. "
What I'm trying to understand is whether or not you making a consequentialist argument, or whether you are accusing Israel of the intentional killing of civilians.
Mike:
It's hard to conclude otherwise in the house-shelling incident. On the shelling of the school that made all the headlines, the IDF claimed they were returning fire, and subsequently were forced to retract.
What are your conclusions? That the saintly IDF merely made a few mistakes and misspoke themselves a few times?
Geo:
Sorry, I thought you were asking for similar statements. I quoted two leaders, other than that disgusting rabbi, and their statements (admittedly confined to the ME) strike me as morally equivalent vis-a-vis non-Israeli civilians.
Here are more:
"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs." -- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts"' [New Statesman, June 25, 1982.]
"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." -- Israeli Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers [New York Times April 1, 1988]
Show me the Muslims (worldwide).
I didn't say identical statements, I said equivalent ones. Or is it morally superior simply to call for exterminating Palestinians in the ME rather than Muslims world-wide?
Here's the source for the Shamir quote, although it falls far short of genocide:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/ful...8+shamir&
st=nyt
I hope I am not being called upon to defend the words of that Hamas leader, by the way. They are indefensible.
They are not equivalent. Equivalent would be for Livni to call for Jews (or even Israelis) to kill Muslims around the world.
To my knowledge, no high-ranking Israeli leader has ever called for such a thing. But many have dehumanized Palestinians. And they have been successful in some respects. Now cramming them into a house and then shelling it, or preventing Red Cross ambulances from reaching kids clinging to their dead mothers, or shooting up schools where civilians have taken refuge, can be extinguished in a moment by referring to one bloodthirsty utterance by an Islamist who was referring to these very matters.
"One bloodthirsty utterance"?
In case you haven't read the Hamas charter, that's what they have been saying about Jews all along.
I thought you were referring to a specific statement by a Hamas leader. Did I miss something?
I'm aware of the Hamas Charter. I've never held a brief for Hamas. What I have said is that they're a symptom, not the disease itself, but that obviously doesn't excuse them.
I hope, by the way, that we can have these discussions without the nonsense that happens over at Damian's (for example), where being critical of claims in secondary sources immediately leads to charges of being a "de facto terrorist supporter." I'd rather not be forced to defend myself against that sort of thing.
I know you aren't saying that, but I got the distinct impression a few comments ago that you were maybe hinting it.
That (that you are a Hamas supporter) is not what I am saying. But why can antisemitic Hamas rhetoric (enshrined for all to see in their permanent charter!) be so easily disregarded? Their words have had murderous consequences. Why does Hamas get a "precisely-what-might-be-expected" pass but not the Israelis? Is it just the soft racism of low expectations? The "Arab street" seethes and must always be taken into account but sentiments of ordinary Israelis can be summarily dismissed. It's always deux poids, deux mesures where Israel is concerned.
Re: UN school bombing: You guys should go to Arab websites. Interestingly they are more objective then western media, when you put all the nonsense aside. What I understand the Hamas shoot from just outside of the wall of the school. The Israel's drone shoot right back killing 2 Hamas operatives (even names were supplied, so good is the optics) but unfortunately there were people (children) around.
Questions arises, were they just "Joe the Plumber" bystanders or forced to stand there? You make your mind.
Peace
Now re: the Palestinians killed in the house. Again please, go to Aljazzera.net (arab), Press-TV (iranian) and when you discard the nonsense wrapping you get rather objective reporting.
Basically 110 people went in (They say forced in) and 110 were taken out by Red Cross/Crescent alive but some injured. Some how 42 not 30 bodies were found later. I know mathematically it's impossible. Only what I can say Arabic ancestors gave us 10 and 12 base count, can they now use it? I don't know. At the same time read excellent story "people's war" gives you idea how Hamas fights this war and why you hear these stories.
Dawg, I am with you on the need for international - and effective - intervention. And I have long advocated a two state solution with real help (not welfare) for the Palestinians.
I am not at all sure that the Israelis would oppose such an intervention providing that the international force was sufficient to control Gaza and prevent attacks on Israel.
And I am pretty certain that the PA and Fatah would be prepared to accept this with the proviso that the Israeli settlers are removed from the West Bank.
The sticking point is Hamas. An ideology of resistance is ill suited to a reasonable, multi-lateral, internationally enforced peace.
On that basis the current Israeli operations make both tactical and strategic sense. Eliminating Hamas is not feasible without really appalling mass casualties; however weakening it and destroying its arms and its means of getting more arms is an achievable goal. Unfortunately it will take several more weeks of fighting and during those weeks there will be civilian casualties.
However, at the end of the operation the roadblock Hamas has put in the way of peace will have been removed. In itself that will be a huge step forward.
(And on the house shelling - this sort of thing happens. It is horrible but war itself is horrible. Now, if you are suggesting that the Israelis deliberately put the people in the house and opened fire - and you have evidence of that intent - that is a whole other story. But I don't think you do.)
Jay:
On the house shelling, the UN considers that it has "the elements of a war crime."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ys-UN-
gaza.html
Why are you so all-fired eager to explain away every single Israeli atrocity as an accident, even when they're caught lying (as in the school shelling), whereas every Palestinian has horns and an insatiable thirst for blood?
Frankly that's not helpful. Not to trumpet too loudly, but I called the AP story before the IDF folded, and I called the Hamas "crucifixion" nonsense, and I'm calling the "anti-Semitic trade union in Rome hands out flyers calling for boycott of Jewish businesses"* crap for good measure. And I am able to do this by going to the sources, and having a good look at them, and thinking about what I'm reading.
Perhaps you might do the same, unless you seriously believe that the UN, the Red Cross and independent observers are all a bunch of lying anti-Semites.
Yes, I'm annoyed. Can you tell?
*I found the union's website, and their statement that they had issued no such flyer and indeed roundly condemned anti-Semitism on the left and on the right. I took the trouble of translating this (I read Italian), and posted it over at Damian Penny's. The result? I was accused of deception and denial. One thing the right wing can't be accused of--seeing things as they are, rather than as their cartoonish fantasies dictate.
(There's quite the uproar in Italy as the result of the initial article in La Repubblica. But in my experience, folks who want to take positions such as the one ascribed to Flaica-Uniti-Cub know well what to expect, and don't back off as soon as the inevitable controversy erupts. This doesn't add up, much as conservatives would like it to. I could go on about the oddities in the story, but I'll wait for the truth to emerge, as it almost always does.)
Geo:
Why does Hamas get a "precisely-what-might-be-expected" pass but not the Israelis?
A pass? Like hell.
Here's the point: Hamas has never pretended to be anything other than it is. Israel is always pretending to be what it isn't., and has a lot of allies in these parts helping to foster the illusion.
Hamas is composed of fanatical jihadists who hate Jews, and they've never made a secret of it. Israel pretends to be a besieged saint, kills hundreds of Palestinian civilians, commits war crimes with impunity--and gets that "pass" you're on about.
Two weights and two measures, indeed. I don't hold Israel to higher standards. I hold it to exactly the same standards as any other state or governing entity. And it isn't meeting the bar.
Dawg,
I don't have the time to rebut this key assertion (I'd have to start back at the turn of the 20th century when the first Zionists endeavoured to resurrect a modern "Israel" that would be un pays comme les autres, a place where Jews were safe from pogroms and where they would no longer be at the mercy of Russians, Poles, Germans, Syrians, Yemenis etc.), but I can simply remind you what I said on a thread a long time ago: only when Israel is not the single country outside North America where you are interested in human rights abuses (how many posts have there been?) will I agree that you are holding Israel "to exactly the same standards as any other state or governing entity". In short, Israel is not "pretending to be what it isn't"; by your ceaseless vilification, it is you who are pretending. Pretending that Israel is the most monstrous nation on earth. All Israel itself claims to be (warts and all) is a democracy. Do any of its neighbours meet that bar?
Geo:
I've made this point many times before, but here goes again:
Where there is no debate (e.g., North Korea, Saudi Arabia), why try to start one when we all agree? Where there is considerable debate (e.g., Israel), why try to avoid it?
I am reacting to our pro-Israeli media, our pro-Israeli foreign policy, and, in general, the willful blindness of our politicians, for whom Palestinians are interlopers in their own land, while Israel can do no wrong. My recent posts indicate that even in the face of glaring violations of morality and international law by Israel, there's some kind of mental somnambulism in play in which every action by the IDF, no matter how vile--shelling a school full of civilians and lying about it, filling a house with evacuees and shelling that--is somehow the fault of Hamas.
There's something positively Orwellian about the double-think going on, and frankly that's impetus to post. In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
And for the record:
http://
drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com...complicity.html
http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com...-to-
people.html
PS: Israel is a democracy, eh? Perhaps of a special type.
Regarding the IDF retraction of its claims about Hamas fire coming from the UN school, David Warren's Sunday Ottawa Citizen column says:
"Moreover, almost all of UNRWA's staff is locally recruited Palestinian, and thus the entire operation is open to subversion to the ends that they decree. For instance, this week, as the Israelis have alleged, the use of a UN school as an arms cache, use of the building as a defensive fortification by Hamas gunmen, use of its inmates as 'human shields'"
I haven't seen anything even in the initial reports claiming that the UN school was used as an "arms cache". This would seem to be incorrect.
This would seem to be incorrect.
And with that masterpiece of understatement, JJ wins the thread.
Commenting by HaloScan
