Ambulances in Gaza:
It's hard to believe that the Washington Post could run a "news" (not opinion) article virtually accusing Israel of war crimes in not better facilitating the mobility of Red Crescent ambulances around Gaza without at least mentioning the well-established, and well-known, fact that Palestinian terrorists have often used such ambulances to ferry weapons, explosives (including belts for suicide bombers) and personnel, and that Red Crescent personnel have been implicated in terror attacks.
I didn't hear the report; it could have been a model of balance, talking about the undoubted war crimes being committed by Hamas. But consider the odds.
I don't right now recall a corresponding report from their southern Israel correspondent.
Perhaps the report was biased, but NPR is forced to use Gazan correspondents, because they are the only ones currently allowed into Gaza. They can use their own (foreign) correspondents in southern Israel.
If the WaPo story went beyond what the IDF spokesperson said to say what might have provoked this controversy, as Professor Bernstein seems to want, then pro-Palestinian people would complain that the story didn't say what Isreali action provoked the Palestinians. And if it said that, then Professor Bernstein would complain the article didn't say how the Palestinians provoked the Isrealis into provoking the Palestinians. And so on, to infinity and beyond.
Why Ambulances Sometimes Get Targeted By The IAF.
Horrible reporting by the Washington Post.
Well, it may make sense to criticize both. But your point is well taken. The Israelis seem uniquely unable or unwilling to generate decent pro-war propaganda.
They remind me of a litigant in a divorce case who, for reasons of dignity or class, refuses to trash the other side with irrelevant slanders.
Such litigants usually get flattened.
AGreed.
I find all of db's posts on the Israel-Gaza conflict to be utterly ridiculous and transparent (mission NOT accomplished), and I intend for this to be my last post on the matter. The WaPo reported on an unusual statement made by the ICRC in Geneva. It provided a response by a brigadier general with the IDF. That is certainly adequate for a news report on a current development, as compared to a feature length article on how nonstate actors carry out their nefarious deeds.
The stench of death is not concealed by misdirection.
If it was, you'd expect the IDF statement to say so, and it's kind of puzzling why they wouldn't. It would be pure speculation for the reporter to muse "Gee, the IDF hasn't said they're afraid Hamas is using ambulances to transport militants, but if they are they'd sure have good cause for it!" I agree with letting the IDF speak for itself.
Also, the accusation in the article (who knows if it's true or not) is that the Israeli military prevented ambulances from reaching a bombed-out row of houses for four days. Prof. Bernstein converts this into an allegation of Israel "not better facilitating the mobility of Red Crescent ambulances around Gaza." That strikes me as slathering on the spin a bit too much.
If they engaged in junk science, or bought a ridiculously priced condo in Northern Virginia in 2006, he'd be all over them.
In all seriousness, he's criticized Israeli policy before. You shouldn't mistake his vehemence for a complete lack of objectivity.
Promises, promises.
ummm.... it's meant to be ironic.
As in all these people complaining about DB could just.... you know.
I believe its because Israel is not currently allowing any reporters (Israeli or otherwise) into Gaza.
If the ICRC is backing the PRCS and its Israeli equivalent as well, and is calling for access, this should not be lightly ignored.
"... don't believe them when they say they are motivated by a non-partisan desire for peace. It is hatred that animates them; certainly at the head. In the ranks, a mix of hatred and gullibility. Towards the tail, hatred, gullibility and the schoolboy's desire to drop his trousers at authority that post-sixties generations have been encouraged not to renounce or outgrow. But now, this basically harmless if pathetic impulse to take up contrary positions whatever they may be and however embattled the supposed authority position is, has turned deadly."
[...]
"First, there is the amazement. Yes, you really are reading this in a serious British newspaper.
"Then the horror, as the implications hit you. Then the fury, that they are still dictating the terms of this issue, that this is not some discredited minority point of view but the one you get from the BBC, still seen as a respected worldwide news source and still, for the majority of Britons, a font of unbiased truth - o, irony of bitter ironies.
"Then the sadness, the depressing, gut-twisting feeling of personal uselessness in the face of this massive assault on decency and reason, orchestrated not from the lunatic fringe but the very centre of approved discourse. ... How can they be called to account, these men and women who smile or look thoughtful from the top of their bylines; who tell it like it isn't on the nightly news, with blood on their hands, blood on their souls, blood all over?"
All too accurate and, if anything, understated.
Israel and Bush have a similar characteristic. They each have a hell of a case to make, they are each opposed by people who lie like rugs, and neither of them can manage to make the case.
Other journos are not allowed in because an outside journo released information on the beginning of the ground offensive before the IDF released it. They'd prefer to keep their ops secret, at least until contact.
Given the proclivities of such as the WaPo, or AFP, or the NYT, not to mention ME journos, it would be folly to allow them to know anything at all that the IDF didn't want Hamas to know within thirty seconds. Either the journos would call up their oppos in Hamas, or they'd simply publish and be damned.
It is really odd to have to make a case for trying to keep one's operational planning secret, as if it's some new and atrocious war crime or something.
I thought that was pretty appalling until I clicked the link and saw the remainder of the sentence: "And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza." Man, the raw dishonesty of some people.
Nice trick... when your original justification for criticizing the article is shown to be flawed, just change your rationale. Not that I disagree with you on principle.
Until the American MSM fully supports Israel stooping to the level of it's enemy, there will never be peace.
Is there an exception for "against enemies who abuse the Red Cross/Crescent for hostile purposes"?
Israel exists because it displaced the lawful occupants of that land. An unlawful occupation has no right to defense. Defending israel merely continues the illegal taking that occurred in 1948.
Check out this link from the ADL site on the ICRC....
I think there is a way towards peace, and I think this Gaza op is deeply flawed. Here is what I think needs to happen:
1) Israel needs to basically announce to the world its plans to re-occupy Gaza for the purpose of creating a strong and viable Palestinian state. As part of the deal, Israel will evacuate all settlements outside the 67 border in the West Bank and commit to a recognition of Syria's claim over Golan (but note that negotiations must occur before Golan is handed over to Syria-- Israel just agrees in principle that Golan belongs to Syria).
2) Israel needs to FULLY re-occupy Gaza (without settlements) and begin training and arming police and army units. They should try to make the Palestinian army a competent fighting force capable of both battlefield and urban warfare. Israel also needs to commit to infrastructure development in Gaza.
3) After one year, they should offer a referendum in Gaza over whether to extent the occupation for one more year or not.
4) At the end of occupation, the Gazans should be given one final referendum: To immediately rejoin the PA or whether to negotiate re-joining the PA on their own.
I think that if Israel made some clear moves towards stating clearly that the 67 borders were it, and that they were committed to a strong Palestinian state, it would mute a lot of criticism. Then the really difficult issues could be tackled, such as the handling of displaced persons in the 49-50 war. Here, I think a general international fund needs to be set up and countries who expelled Jews or Arabs during that time need to put money into the pot. The money would then be used to help displaced persons and their descendants build a new life wherever they are (moving out of refugee camps), and excess would be spent on memorials to these problems. Money put in would be understood to foreclose any future claims and to fully close the issue.
Sorry, in case you don't remember Israel doesn't exist because the UN said so in 1948. Israel like many countries exist because THEY WON THE WAR IN 1948. They were attacked by almost all the countries next to them and others that just had to get into the war.
So there was no illegal taking in 1948. There was a war for the existance of Israel touched off by the UN saying that Israel was a country and the USA recognizing Israel as a country.
Israel didn't displace the lawfull occupants. The other Arab states scared the muslims in Israel so much with propanganda that they ran as fast as they could to get out. Those that didn't run weren't bothered and still have their property. So Israel didn't displace anybody.
Try looking at history without blinders on.
Countries come into existance most offen through wars. It is valid and since Israel has maintained itself through many wars in the last 60 years there is no doubt that it is a legal country.
The ethnic clensing (Dair Yassin, etc) is a bigger issue. Of course Jews in the rest of the Arab world were subject to ethnic clensing as well. So we need a pan-Middle-Eastern solution to that problem. I think the 67 borders are the only reasonable borders at this time, but the displaced people and their descendants who still live in refugee camps should be helped out of that problem. In reality this probably means a negotiated settlement by all of the major parties, with all of the main countries in the region who expelled Jews or Arabs paying into a pot for this.
Ouch!
I think that one shouldn't go back before the Israeli War of Independence in determining what territory Israel should have. However, my general feeling is that Israel should either have to annex the full WB and/or Gaza or none at all. Cutting PA towns off from the WB like Nihlin is not conducive to peace. However, the 49-50 war created a permanent refugee community which needs to be addressed.
If a territory is annexed, I think they should give full citizenship to its population. The settlements which amount to asserting territorial sovereignty but refusing to grant citizenship benefits to the residents is a horrid practice and needs to end.
However, the fact that the expelled Jews from elsewhere in the Middle East were welcomed in Israel and given land to start over does not excuse the ethnic cleansing which forced them out. Therefore, all parties need to admit fault, and pay into solving the remaining problem. It will help spread the cost around more fairly, and it will help with reconciliation.
I have concluded that peace will be attained when the core issues are resolved and there is a negotiated peace among military powers. Already most Palestinians do want a mutual end to hostilities, and so foreign proxies are the big problem. If the PA had a strong and competent army, answerable to the Palestinian people, there would be less fighting than there is now.
The Big Lie, traces the history, c. 1948, of refugee related issues, including the 800,000 Jewish refugees that are so infrequently mentioned. A lengthier pdf version is here.
If there were 800,000 Jewish indiviuals who were expelled and 250,000 Arabs in British Palestine who were expelled, and the cost of dealing with the current refugees was spread around fairly, that would mean a bit under 25% would be borne by Israel. I think we should push for that sort of resolution.
Could well be the case that this is more nonsense propaganda on the "Jenin Massacre" or "Mohammed al-Dura" model.
Since it's been established that the MSM doesn't bother checking anything, they can't be taken seriously without additional confirmation.
The more interesting question is why do so many liberal pacifists fall for the Arab propaganda about Israel? It's clear that the Palestinian Arabs (and their supporters on the left) are not interested in peace with Israel because they don't think Israel has any right to exist. Why do so many liberal pacifists then blame Isaeli settlements, or Israeli security measures, or Israeli counter-attacks for the lack of peace?
I'm not sure if these settlements qualify as de facto annexation. They seem more like non-state action to me, but I admit my knowledge on the subject is a little sketchy. The defence wall, on the other hand, was state action, and therefore justly condemned by the ICJ as a de facto annexation of those lands that lay on the Israeli side of the wall. That includes some West Bank settlements.
The outline you sketched above seems reasonable to me, but then again, I'm not sure if reasonable is the way to go here. Your plan would probably work about as well as the US efforts in Iraq, i.e. not very well, because the Israeli-trained forces would be seen as traitors to the Palestinian cause. No Palestinian government set up in this way would be perceived as legitimate by the Palestinian people, because their hatred of all things Israel would forbid it.
The only alternative approach I can think of, though, is for Israel to swallow it for a very long time. After all, time heals all wounds, and if the Palestinians can be limited to a moderate amount of violence towards Israel without making their territories completely unlivable, that would probably be the lesser of a whole range of evils for Israel. That way, some semblance of a Palestinian economy could emerge, and with time some of the irrational hatred of Israel would degenerate into "mere" habitual rhetoric. Many Palestinians would end up working in Israel, and through economic ties and general social connections between Israelis and Palestinians, some of the hysterics might be reduced. But what I'm talking about here, though, is for Israel to put up with these missile attacks over decades without any large scale reprisals, and that is a lot to ask.
Consider this. The continental United States and Alaska are separated by about 1,000 miles running through the sovereign and independent nation of Canada. Yet no one seems to think that jeaopardizes the viability of Alaska as part of the US. Why is that? Because the US and Canada are at peace, a full, warm, trade-and-investment filled peace. If the Palestinian Arabs wanted to have a peace like that with Israel, as opposed to a "hudna" where they just prepare for the next war, they would find that the separation between Gaza and the West Bank wouldn't be a big thing at all.
Steve, how does that change anything?
Oh wait, he did....
And is that example really the same as this one, where the Red Cross and Red Crescent apparently requested clearance to pick up the wounded, and were denied repeatedly? But since Hamas fighters rode around in ambulances at some point, it would be a grave security breach to permit verifiable rescue personnel near the site, or even allow them to finish doing their jobs of picking up emaciated children.
When do you guys just flat out admit that some of this looks pretty bad? Honestly, what can Israel do that people like Bernstein won't defend?
What do you base this opinion on? That's not consistent with anything I've seen or read.
Aren't you aware that UN resolutions 242 and 333 envisaged that the 1967 borders would have to be modified, because they are not compatible with Israel's security needs?
Without the IDF spokesperson stating that as an explanation?
Every poll I have read suggests that a strong majority of Palestinians favors:
1) Mutual cessation of hostilities, and an end to Israeli security control over all parts of the PA (note the WB Separation Wall means Israeli security control over at least some portions of the PA such as all entrances and exists to Nahlin).
2) Retaliatory attacks against Israel by Palestinian militias
3) The establishment of an armed Palestinian state co-existing with Israel.
The majority do NOT support in any poll:
1) Unilateral cessation of hostilities
2) The development of a Palestinian state without an army
3) Israeli military control over entrance/exit from any part of the PA.
This is consistent across polls. Sometimes though analysis doesn't go very deep, such as this NYT article.
Better analysis:
here.
The most recent poll is an outlier but I can't find out what their methodology is so I can't verify its validity. However, if you note, the support for the existence of Israel has been dropping with continued conflict. One thing that strongly comes out of the An-Najah poll is a very cynical look at the conflict, the PA, Hamas, and prospects for peace. In particular, questions relating to personal security suggest a dismal outlook.
The question of long-term territorial claims is thus somewhat severable from the question of current peaceful coexistence.
Finally, while most Palestinians want all of Israel to assimilate, the polls overwhelmingly show that they would accept peaceful coexistance.
BTW, I have seen a number of articles in the Egyptian press calling for the creation of a Palestinian state as a springboard for eventual reunification talks creating a single state out of the land in the Green Line, Gaza, and the West Bank. So the idea of one state vs two states can itself even lend to a number of points of view.
In general, I tend to ignore the questions of rejectionism for the reason that those can be addressed slowly and later, and focus instead on the questions of whether peaceful coexistance is possible outside of that question. While a majority of Palestinians have generally argued for a one-state solution, they have also expressed willingness to coexist peacefully in nearly every poll that has asked that question.
Yes, it is called perfidy.
NPR is not forced to do anyhing.
So do we.
One of the driving forces in my proposal is the point I would make that social benefits by conquerors tend to eliminate hatred. The US failed to provide those benefits in Iraq for a number of reasons, but now things are starting to go better because in part of the Surge, and in much larger part because of political reforms tied to the Surge.
Consider the Islamic conquest of Spain for example. What took Rome a long time to do, the Abbasids did in something like 50 years. The reason had to do with the fact that non-Muslims could not hold Muslims as slaves, so when slaves converted, they were then sent back and educated. This, combined with the Jewish support for the Islamic invaders over the Catholic rulers, helped make sure that the conquest was rapid and more enduring than the Roman conquest.
The resentment of Israel is real, which is why Israel might also need to work hard to bring in Islamic allies into the process, such as Turkey.
wfjag is right that wars stop when one side gives up wanting to fight. One thing I would point out is that this usually happens when two things happen together:
1) One side looses and
2) The losing side is helped back up by the winning side.
See Germany and Japan following WWII and contrast to Germany following WWI.
Indeed...they could merely not report on the conflict! Which would be fine with Bernstein and a host of commentators here.
Incidentally, does Hamas routinely use UN vehicles to ferry their men around?
Tentative answer: It would have to be uninhabited land. If the land in question were inhabited, the Security Council authorisation would amount to authorising either a violation of the right of self-determination (art. 1 of the ICCPR) or a forced expulsion (art. 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute). Even for land that is not populated, I suspect the principle of self-determination would require the consent of the sovereign of the territory of which it is a part before it can be transferred to the occupying power, Security Council resolution or not.
That is something they could do, but I can't comment on how anyone else would react. NPR can evaluate available sources and determine if it is better to remain silent or broadcast misleading information. There is nothing forcing any news outlet to report on a story when they don't have a reliable source. For example, NPR chooses to remain mostly silent on the war in Sri Lanka.
"Incidentally, does Hamas routinely use UN vehicles to ferry their men around?"
I don't know. Do they?
I am not as optimistic as you. A majority of Palestinians may say that they favor a 2-state solution, but when you get down to questions of the alleged right or return and the status of the old city of Jerusalem, things get very difficult. And it's hard to picture Israel allowing an armed Palestinian state with full control of its air space and borders.
It may seem like a pie in the sky now, but perhaps a Jordanian solution for the West Bank and an Egyptian solution for Gaza would be more realistic.
However, all we have thus far are accusations by the IDF. No third-party investigations, so this is largely on the IDF's say-so. If this were a limited restriction, I might be willing to accept it, but when ICRC war surgeons who have experience working in conflict regions elsewhere are barred, I think a reasonable person can and should demand more proof than the IDF's say-so.
But the ICRC? Are we ready to boycott the Magen David Adom for their involvement in this enemy of Israel?
A completely worthless comparison. Sri Lanka has very little significance in the grand scheme of things.
Sucks to be the good guys, I know, but there it is.
The fact is that when you take these together with barring veteran war-surgeons from the ICRC into Gaza, this looks like a campaign aimed at the civilian population. I would go so far as to say the unwillingness to let the ICRC operate in the area IS a war-crime, and concur with the opinion of the ICRC in this matter.
What grand scheme? Are Sri Lankan lives worth less than Palestinian lives? Does the grand scheme force NPR to use unreliable sources?
Martinned and einhverfr are having an interesting and reasonable discussion of justifications and possible ways out of this. If I had any hope there was someone in the PA who would go along with any of it, I would recommend that this thread be required reading. I have no such hope. This has gone on my entire life (I am 55). I believe this will end only when one side or the other is utterly defeated. I deeply wish that were not so, but am driven to that conclusion.
I am not so optimistic. I think this will only end when one side is utterly defeated and then rebuilt with a strong helping hand by the other.
Unfortunately, Israel's approach is largely that of managing the conflict by ensuring that it continues perpetually at a low level. This prevents both requirements from occurring.
It looks to me like "utter" defeat is not possible as long as there is still a healthy Palestinian left standing. The more Palestinians get killed, captured or are forced to flee, the more angry those that are left behind get. (And understandably so.)
Annexing the Gaza strip back to Egypt, on the other hand, might be a solution. They would have more legitimacy to deal with the likes of Hamas. Unfortunately, I highly doubt that Mubarak would go for such a scheme.
War in Sri Lanka has much less impact on the US than a war in the Middle East involving one of our biggest allies to whom we provide significant funding and arms.
This provides merely one example of the fallacious and obnoxious "either/or" style of argument of which some amateur rhetoricians are all too fond.
The choices are obviously not between "deny all ambulances access" and "admit all ambulances, no questions asked." It implies a very stupid audience to even make such a claim.
If anyone's seriously denying that the IDF has the right to stop and inspect all ambulances, that's one thing. But I don't see anyone making that argument.
The allegations are that the IDF is prohibiting ambulances from entering certain areas, or delaying them for DAYS. That is not excusable.
Defending such crap is what makes Israel look like the bad guy in the first place. If DB et al. could just once say, "wow, the IDF really shouldn't be doing that," then we'd find 'em a lot more credible the rest of the time.
Right, of course. "Oh, goody! More Islamists to conspire against my government! Welcome, enemies!"
And if Israel is utterly defeated (more possible, in the long run), I am pretty sure it will not be rebuilt "with a strong helping hand" by its enemies. They will just dance on its grave. That is their nature.
Some situations are just utterly hopeless. Despair exists for a reason. Not every problem will be reasoned away. We must try, surely, but we must also accept that we may fail. And the crushing demographics here make that a very real possibility--no, probability.
I suspect that someday (and not that far down the road), something catastrophic is going to happen in the Middle East. Call me a pessimist, but the numbers just look grimmer and grimmer the longer you project things. Forgive me for being an "America Firster", but my primary concern is what happens to this nation should that come to pass.
Utter defeat could mean a number of things. One option would be an occupation and nation-building exercise. If Israel can't do this alone for political and resentment reasons, maybe the Arab League would agree to help provided that the settlements outside the 67 borders are dismantled? The only thing that is necessary is giving up the will to fight.
I didn't say I blamed him, although I'm thinking there's probably already quite a Hamas presence in Cairo, if only to arrange for supplies.
I don't think so at all. Many Middle Eastern countries and groups get a lot of mileage out of painting Israel as the enemy. Many anti-semites do too (and that overlaps quite a bit, of course). Whether Israel actually does something wrong won't make any difference.
Heck, we have people here saying that Israel's existence at all is illegitimate.
Duh. The only helping hand Hamas will ever give the Jews is a push into a grave. If the Moslims win there will be no Jews to be helped. I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting that Hamas and all the other terriorist groups mean just what they say. They want Israel destroyed and they mean the destruction of all the Jews in Israel. They keep repeating this and refusing to back down but people will just not believe they are serious. They are willing to blow up themselves, their children, and other moslims just to kill a few Jews. They are serious. Believe them.
Israel wins or is completly destroyed or the war continues. It is impossible to have peace with a people that are determined to kill you and your children. So determined that they teach their children that killing Jews is good and that blowing yourself up is a good thing as long as you take some Jews with you.
Why are so many people so foolish they cannot see that there can be no peace until the Moslims decide to stop killing Jews. The day that they do Israel will make peace.
The IDF's point would also be a lot more credible if they weren't blocking ICRC war surgeons from going to hospitals in Gaza. I fail to see how international war surgeons are likely to be facilitating terrorist attacks.
And, no, it is not irrelevant as it goes to motive. I don't think the IDF's motive here is good as the blocking of war surgeons from Gaza suggests a strong element of collective punishment.
Why are so many people so foolish they cannot see that there can be no peace until the Jews decide to correctly spell Moslims. The day that they do Israel will make peace.
They aren't. BUT they will facilitate terrorist propaganda and PR. Not so small effect. Israel has seen such tactics in the past. why should they alow it now. It does nothing for them and helps their enemy. They lose either way but they lose less if they stop them.
You know the pictures of the Angle like war surgeon working on some little child saying into to the cammera "Why, Why is Israel doing this".
Some how you never see pictures of war surgeons working on an Israelly child hurt by a Hamas rocket saying "Why, Why is Hamas doing this".
More then enough reason to keep the so called war surgeons out.
How many of the 14 total people killed by Hamas rockets have been Israeli children.
Shame, shame, shame on those of you Jewish men who support killing Palestinian children, and can always find some way to justify it in the name of 14 Jewish deaths. Shame!
Are you, DB? Are you really proud of what you are willing on behalf of your daughter here? I hope one day she is disgusted by your Israel advocacy, and falls in love and marries one of those beautiful brown-eyed Palestinian boys. I do. I hope your grandchildren are of mixed blood, and one day you hold a little part-Palestian life in your arems and tell us again how mighty Israel is in killing children in order to protect little ones like your girl. I hope it brings you to tears the innocent deaths that are occurring in Gaza today.
Does that force NPR to use unreliable sources?
Checking ambulances does not "restrict access." It ensures that access is in fact being given to ambulances.
... So, Dan Hamilton -- saving children's lives is to be discouraged where politically undesirable? I'm trying to be sure I understand your point.
Absolutely. Tell that to the children and parents today in Gaza.
Sow... Reap. Choose Love, not Hate. Follow Christ's living example.
While I'm playing Rhetoric Cop, Stevie, something tells me that example is not going to fly much with Israel or Hamas.
And remember, they have only killed 14 in the past years. The devil is in the details.
Remind me -- how many of those 14 killed by Hamas rockets were babies and toddlers again? And how many of the Palestinian babies and toddlers were found carrying weapons and needed to be summarily exterminated for the survival of Israel's children?
Details, details.
So your argument is that refusing to allow neutral parties to provide medical care where Israel as a nation cannot should be supported because of propaganda reasons?
This gets right to the war crime complaint, doesn't it? The idea that Israel is deliberately interfering with medical supply for propaganda and collective punishment reasons?
I note that the IDF's public defender here on VC (Prof. Bernstein) won't address the ambulance closure issue in context with the bans on war surgeons entering Gaza.
I just hope G-d doesn't stoop to wiping out his people with another Great Flood, so disgusted he is at finding no men worth saving amongst them.
Umm.... you mean let other people torture and kill you?
Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, scrupulous adherence to religious doctrine has actually been part of the problem in this area of the world? I'm just wondering.
I suspect the parents knew it when they voted for Hamas.
I think the 14 were only killed by rocket fire, not tortured. Think of them as collateral damage, like all the dead Palestian babies. And Shalit was a soldier, meaning he chose to fight.
Once a victim, always a victim, even when the score apparently is 14 v. Thousands, I guess.
Sadat wanted no part of it. I wish he had. Thirty years of Israeli occupied West Bank and Egyptian occupied Gaza would have made for a fascinating contrast. But anyway, what's happened in the last thirty years that would make Gaza a more desirable place to be responsible for?
Yep, but it's not Christianity making the problems, now is it?
Once you get over the "G-d gave it to us" and start realizing that you can't be given a state, but you have to actually live in it peaceably for centuries to retain it, you start to realize perhaps why the Jews are a landless people.
I suspect Hamas' delivery of necessary humanitarian services -- better than Fatah in the face of Israeli blockages and occupation -- led them to win that one. Thanks for nothing Israel!
Poor Israel -- sometimes I wonder if she indeed needs to provoke because without an enemy, what has she?
14?!? It's a hell of a lot more than just 14!
Shame on you murder supporters who urge on terror attacks on Israel and always diminish the terror threat to Israeli citizens. Shame!
I would think that the propaganda value of allowing ICRC war surgeons into Gaza would be far lower for Hamas than the value of not allowing them in.
After all, by not allowing the war surgeon team in, Israel is undermining the messages that:
1) They care about reducing the harm from civilian casualties and hence
2) The restrictions on ambulances are reasonable.
In short refusing to let them in makes Israel look far more guilty of war crimes because it calls into question the affirmative defences Prof. Bernstein has mentioned.
I'd be careful going down this particular path. Before you know it, you're arguing about who shot at who first, and that kind of debate tends to end up involving Old Testament quotes pretty quickly.
how far back are you going to go? Did Hamas rockets really kill anyone back in 1948? Or are you just puffing the threat so you can try out some of those new methods of killing kids?
14 killed in the past years.
Compared to thousands slaughtered by Israel.
We know the score. And that's why it only works if Israel keeps the reporters out, and keeps puffing the threat to her own children.
Again, who was the last Israeli child killed by Hamas again? Can you say OVERKILL by the Israeli forces? I knew ya could!
do folks like DB honestly believe that killing civilian children makes Israel safer?
Really do they believe that? Or they are so excited at thinking themselves, powerful! that they are honestly willing to risk the futures of their own for the satisfaction of seeing so many more of their neighbor's dead?
I mean, this stuff doesn't work. You can't bomb innocent people into submission. Isn't that clear yet?
1. Be angry at Hamas for killing Jews like Dan Hamilton. This means you needn't be angry at any Hamas Jew-killers or their compatriots dying.
2. Be angry at the Jews for killing Palestinians like Stevie Miller. This means you needn't be angry at any Jews Hamas kills.
People like Anderson who try to look at both sides are clearly secretly in league with whichever side you are not on.
Oh, heavens no.
Or a better alternative:
Kill 'em all and let Odin and Freya increase the size of their armies..... [/sarcasm]
History shows that who ever can take and hold the land gets to retain their own country. Living peacefully on is is not a requirement.
Yes, being on both sides at once is exhausting ... all those costume changes!
I would think that the propaganda value of allowing ICRC war surgeons into Gaza would be far lower for Hamas than the value of not allowing them in.
The utter incompetence of Israel when it comes to Propaganda 101 goes a long way to refute many obnoxious stereotypes about Jews.
For that matter, Olmert makes Bush look competent in just about anything.
However, back to my original point. All we have on the PRCS allegations are allegations by the IDF. I would find them a lot more believable if the limitations were restricted to PRCS matters and if ICRC personnel were allowed into the field properly.
Does "slaughtered" refer redundantly to the relative number of killings (i.e., it's rhetorical overkill) or does it refer to the relative quality of the killings? If the latter, please explain.
SEE THIS SITES THEN YOU CAN TALK
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlJazeeraEnglish
You're making a guess about what the voters were thinking of when they elected Hamas. At the time, Bush made a different guess:
Actually, it sounds like he was describing 11/4/08. Even though he spoke in 2006.
I think this is an example of what you're talking about:
I don't know what they were thinking. I am presuming they were aware of Hamas' public advocacy of the destruction of Israel, and Israel's history of violent reaction to any such attempts.
One of the big problems here is that although Hamas did win a majority vote, they then staged a violent rebellion against the PA in 2007. Hence the Hamas government in Gaza wasn't elected by the people in any reasonable sense.
BTW, I think one of the big issues with the Hamas electoral victory was the level of corruption in Fatah. Unfortunately, their violent takeover was further evidence that they are not immune from that corruption.
The problem is at the end, the patterns should convict the jury of voters. When the UN suspends aid shipments complaining of being targets of Israeli attacks, when the ICRC surgeons are blocked from Gaza, and so forth, the defence that Bernstein offers looks a lot less plausible. Instead it looks to any objective observer that this is part of a larger pattern where the medical system is under indirect but deliberate attack in violation of international humanitarian law.
But more to the point, I think that any reasonable observer will think twice about buying Israeli or Palestinian goods in a case like this. I can hope our European friends are willing to leverage their buying power to bring about positive change.
As for the UN, given the UNRWA has been an implicit arm of the Palestinian national movement for decades, I don't give any credence to anything that emanates from the UNRWA without objective verification. As it happens, Israeli eyewitness sources say it was Hamas fire that killed the UN driver that led to the suspension of aid.
If Israel was concerned about terrorists in ambulances, couldn't they at least be honest enough to just say that they would not promise not to attack said installations and vehicles?
If that were the case, we would certainly be seeing headlines about Israel refusing to allow humanitarian aid, but we are not.
I guess we interpret that revision a little differently.
Israel banned journalists, despite a ruling by their own Supreme Court.
This is such a dramatic example ("of putting words into the opponent's mouth") that I think it's worth a quick review.
You said this:
bernstein replied as follows:
In other words, bernstein is taking the position that when ICRC says "ambulances must be given unrestricted access to the wounded," this means that ICRC is "denying that the IDF has the right to stop and inspect all ambulances."
Trouble is, ICRC is not "denying that the IDF has the right to stop and inspect all ambulances." ICRC is simply pointing out that a four-day delay in allowing rescue services is unacceptable. Then again, maybe the ambulances are very large, and it took four days to inspect them.
I suspect that a majority of US Catholics are generally supportive of Israel as well.
But please do keep in mind that the reason Israel's attacks on ambulances is immoral and illegal is because it is Israel. So, really, you can't say Israel isn't Israel can you?
QED
I've been saying the same thing as you regarding the UN and the ICRC. The latter has to be taken seriously. The former has to be viewed as an anti-Israeli organization, and no one is bound to give credence to UNRWA statements.
I'm "critical but supportive" of Israel. But Camp David/Taba was a wake-up call for me. I no longer accept that there is a critical mass of Palestinians who are willing to accept something other than the eradication of Israel. The fact that so much of the elite media has a double standard on Israel//Palestine has become clear to me since 2000-2001. Such as the reporting of massacres that never happened. And the blatant failure to retract these stories.
I now find myself being much, much more skeptical about anti-Israeli coverage.
LINK
Nobody cares about the Israeli Supreme Court, which is a big part of the problem.
Having read the reports I have found, it looks like Hamas was firing mortars from the vacinity of the school. There are some allegations of mortar fire from the school yard. I have not seen any allegations that the building itself was used based on eye witnesses. Perhaps you can send a link?
My general problem though is that you seem to be overly dismissive of the ICRC as a whole. Why not simply allow PRCS ambulances to operate by ICRC personnel with notice to the IDF if this was the problem? But the fact that international ICRC personnel are blocked from entering Gaza suggests to me that the IDF simply does not want ambulances on the ground. Hence I have to ask for third party investigations of the allegations against the PRCS.
Allegations about possible criminal acts don't exonerate Israel from supporting Law's Rule; too, Red Cross has accused Israel of violating International Law, so your allegations of Red Crescent's past crimes don't even protect Israel as rhetoric. Using your reason, US would have a right to carpet bomb Mexico City, because Mexico doesn't let US Courts have Mexicans suspected in US of capital crimes. Don't excuse War Crimes by protecting Israel's unprovoked aggression against defenseless population.
Stevie Miller is advocating a made-up Christianity that has little to do with the real deal, by the way. This picture of Christ-as-early-verion-of-Gandhi has grow tiresome.
Even before the Gaza campaifgn, foreign news sources like BBC, AP and NPR relied on Palestinian "stringers" who had the local connections to get them access. (Jews not only lacked these connections, but they risked being murdered for setting foot in the wrong place at the wrong time.) This has practice at time has led to embarrassment when it turned out the stringers were working for terrorist groups.
Reporters are banned from the current war zone because Israel will be blamed if they come to harm, no matter how stupidly they act, and because Israel has caught reporters giving out sensitive military information (troop strength, location and movement) to the enemy. Any country with an ounce of brains enforces similar bans in war zones during active military operations, if it has the power to.
1. Who teaches their young children that putting on a Bomb vest and blowing up Jews (or anyone else)is a good thing.
2. Who attack not the enemy's military, or government, etc but attack at random. Who when they can attack women and children.
3. Who say over and over again that they want to completely destroy Israel and push the Jews into the sea.
4. Who treat their women as chattle, kill their daughters for some warped concept of Honor and find more importance in killing Jews then providing for their families.
5. Who think that being Gay means a death sentence.
Please explain to me how people of the West can support the people that do these things.
They support people that continue to say that they want to destroy the West, kill all who refuse to become muslims, have used force to make people convert to Islam not centuries ago but in the last few years.
Why? I just don't understand. Supporting muslims who continue to say they want to destroy everything that the West stands for. And have proved that they mean it.
Hamas is a monster, seaking to kill anything that doesn't belive as it believes. How can people in the West support it?
Please go to www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the Join The Chat Room button to speak with Shariv on Monday and Ibish on Tuesday.
Thanks,
Gary
Please don't take my positions as supporting Hamas per se, but I think that you have to look at the larger situation here. I nice comparison might be the struggles for Irish independence in the early 20th century. Similarly we saw terrorism used and eventually the UK allowed an independant and armed Irish Republic to form on most of the land of that island.
Unlike what happened in Northern Ireland, the IRA quickly disbanded and a legitimate state was born. In Northern Ireland, after decades of additional struggle, the Good Friday agreements were signed, and the PIRA is still a force in politics and black markets in that area.
There are a number of important structural similarities between the Irish in Ireland in the Palestinians today. Both peoples have been horribly dominated and mistreated by foreign powers. Rabin, for example, when he was Defence Minister advocated bludgeoning the Palestinians into submission, breaking bones of protesters, and the like. Sharon appears to have provided some support for the massacres of Palestinians in Lebanon 1. Certainly you can understand the rage on the Palestinian street?
Surely you can also understand the rage on the Israeli Arab street when court rulings affirming their equal rights have been nearly universally ignored and when court rulings allowing some to return to their homes in border towns cleared for security reasons have also been unimplemented for decades? And when even the Or Commission recommendations that they found so inadequate to address their grievances have been set aside indefinitely? When the right-wing calls for their expulsion, like the Spaniards did to the Jews? Certainly comparisons to South Africa seem kind.
The end goal has to be changing hearts and minds on the Palestinian street. I acknowledge that military force may need to be a means used to that end. All other roads (beyond changing attitudes) IMO lead to either eternal war or genocide. This means true equal rights for Israeli Arabs and true self-determination for Palestinians must be the end goal, and every military exercise to be just must make us closer to that goal. If it does not then Israel should abstain from such conflicts until there is a plan in place to make such progress.
I have already said that I think a full re-occupation of Gaza followed by Israel rebuilding Palestinian police forces, and building new army forces, will probably be required. I am not fully a dove on these things.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.