Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumUN RESPONSIBLE FOR CIVILIAN DEATHS IN GAZA. REFUSED TO HELP MOVE CIVILIANS OUT OF HARMS WAY.
http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/site/articles/?a=8143The UN directly contributed to the death of Palestinian civilians during the Gaza war. Arutz Sheva reports that a UN official admitted Israel sought the UN's help in clearing neighborhoods of civilians in advance of imminent Israeli operations directed at military targets embedded in those civilian neighborhoods - and the UN refused.
Eliminating the gratuitous personal complaints, the bare facts admitted at an August 21, 2014 press conference given by Pernille Ironside, Chief of the UNICEF Gaza Field Office, are as follows:
"...neighborhoods and communities in Gaza were...told to evacuate because of the incoming Israeli military operations. They were informed of that through text messages, phone calls, and leaflets from Israel, yes so and you know, the Shuja'iyya neighborhood, the Beit Hanoun, Huza'a...People were asked or strongly encouraged to leave rapidly. Sometimes it was hours..."
In short, the UN refused the "orderly civilian evacuation of areas Israel had warned it would soon attack in several hours....Thus the UN, itself, has had a significant and negative role in the number of Gazan civilian deaths that...resulted."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Israel bombed civilian areas on the flimsiest of pretexts. The propaganda attempt to blame the UN is contemptible.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Israel is investigating their culpability and we will hear soon .
But most of the responsibility for civilian deaths is Hamas'.
From the starting of hostilities aka terror to the failure to accept a cease fire very early in the operation when Egypt first proposed it , to purposefully placing their own people and children in deaths way.
Hamas is ultimately to blame no matter what some people on DU say nor what the UNHRC and their Schabas stooge have pre decided.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)If military targets embed themselves in a civilian population, they bear the responsibility for collateral damage. The attacking forces do have a responsibility to try to avoid civilian casualties, but that responsibility does not extend to "don't attack enemies when they hide in otherwise-civilian targets".
They (Hamas in this case) actually have a responsibility to move civilians out of the way... particularly when the enemy sends multiple "yoo-hoo... we're going to attack over there in an hour!" messages.
Of course... Hamas wasn't going to do that... because they wanted the civilian deaths. All because they knew that the low-information/high-emotion crowd would spin it for them.
4now
(1,596 posts)FBaggins
(26,749 posts)Article 58 -- Precautions against the effects of attacks
The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:
(a) without prejudice to Article 49 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;
(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;
(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.
https://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750074?OpenDocument
LiberalArkie
(15,720 posts)rockets?
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)That would only apply if:
1) They knew where the rockets were going to hit in advance (even Hamas doesn't know that) and
2) Hamas was attacking there because Israel had placed valid military targets in with the civilian population
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)a civilian city making by your logic Tel Aviv a valid military target, also where are IDF bases located. any in Sderot area? if so that's target too in fact any where in Isreal that there are bases, has military personnel or weapons manufacturing by your logic are valid military targets
Aerows
(39,961 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)They have these little time old things called warning sirens and bomb shelters.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. They tend to avoid placing rocket launchers in civilian areas.
People need to get a grip - yes Hamas is using civilians as human shields...yes that is immoral against international convention.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)it said evacuation would be giving in to Hamas' demands and desires. A "retreat."
And in 2006, Israel fired on Lebanon from inside kibbutzim. Even had the residents out amidst the artillery, including their children (who, because Israelis are genetically incapable of hate, were signing the shells "to Lebanon with love."
wercal
(1,370 posts)And being a functioning democracy, they tend to investigate lapses like this.
Hamas? They investigate 'spies' and execute them en masse without due process.
Seriously, any moral equivalency argument is laughable.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
"Israel doesn't do that!"
"Yes they do."
"Well they do, but it's okay because..."
wercal
(1,370 posts)Nobldy can keep a straight face and claim any type of moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel. And no, a lack of Israeli perfection does not excuse a long time deliberate pattern of terrorìsm by Hamas. Terrorists vs functioning. Where do you line up.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)seems unlikely you used the word "deliberately" in your title line here-
182. Talk to me Hamas quits deliberately killing civilians for sport
Nobldy can keep a straight face and claim any type of moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel. And no, a lack of Israeli perfection does not excuse a long time deliberate pattern of terrorìsm by Hamas. Terrorists vs functioning. Where do you line up.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=81041
Good rebuttal , point by point .
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts) 
Hamas blah blah, we know what Israel's "culpability" is.
Anyone with a eyes and a PC can see.
Also why should the UN help the IDF with ethnic cleansing?
No matter what IDF stooges say, Israel lost, they committed war crimes and will never be seen in the same light again.
King_David
(14,851 posts)
daschess1987
(192 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Defending bull like this is weird. You are an intelligent poster.
It's like trying to explain how a donut company has better coffee than they have at the zoo that you visited once.
It's nuts.
shira
(30,109 posts)If you were there in Gaza and could've helped save Palestinian lives by helping them to evacuate, you'd have followed the UN's example and refused to do so....is that correct?
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)It isn't just "if you were there and could have helped"...
... it's "if you were there and your job was to protect and shelter refugee Palestinians"
shira
(30,109 posts)For weeks they've been outraged at the deaths in Gaza. Absolutely incensed.
They demand accountability.
The time for words has passed. They want action.
==================
But here they are running interference for UN refusal to help save Palestinian lives when given the opportunity.
No outrage. They couldn't care less.
==================
Says it all, doesn't it?
DEFINITELY a thread to bookmark.
ann---
(1,933 posts)bug israel didn't care. They killed innocents anyway.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's so cute seeing progressives making excuses for Hamas fascists
ann---
(1,933 posts)people actually argue that Gazans should run and hide when the bombs come from above, even though they have nowhere to hide and israel has killed them even in the safe houses. But, they argue it's okay for israel to kill Palestinian children in a school because they didn't get out. Never heard anything so ridiculous in my life.
The blame for innocents dying is on israel ALONE - THEY are the ones who dropped the bombs and killed innocents KNOWING they were not able to get away. That is pure murder.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Bayefsky speaks out in defense of Israel. She was critical of "the Obama administration's response to Israel's announcement that it will continue to build new homes for its expanding population in disputed territory", calling it "hysterical", and asked, "Given that the United States is supposed to be committed to the parties determining ultimate legal ownership of the land in final status negotiations, what is going on?".[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Bayefsky
The Hudson Institute is an American conservative[2][3] non-profit think tank based in Washington, D.C.. It was founded in 1961 in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by futurist, military strategist, and systems theorist Herman Kahn and his colleagues at the RAND Corporation.
The Institute is committed to innovative research and analysis that promotes ‘global security, prosperity and freedom’.[4] It promotes public policy change in accordance with its stated values of a "commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, confidence in the power of technology to assist progress, respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs, and determination to preserve America's national security."[5]
The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left".[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute
Anne Bayefsky is a lawyer and Senior Fellow of the Hudson Institute, as well as the Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. She has taught at York University, Touro College, Columbia University and the University of Ottawa. She is the recipient of Canada’s premier human rights fellowship, the Bora Laskin National Fellowship in Human Rights Research. She created and edits www.EYEontheUN.org as well as www.bayefsky.com, a leading global database on international human rights law. She has served as a delegate of the government of Canada and many non-governmental organizations, including the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and the American Society of International Law, at UN conferences worldwide. She is the author or editor of eleven books, and a frequent radio and television commentator.
http://www.algemeiner.com/author/anne-bayefsky/
What is going on here indeed.
shira
(30,109 posts)...for the UN's refusal to save Palestinian lives.
You don't have any problem with the UN's refusal to save Palestinians, do you?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)claims from right winged nuts that you're happy to spread around.
shira
(30,109 posts)You're going out of your way to excuse the UN's refusal to help save Palestinian lives.
Nice.
So if you were there in Gaza and the IDF requested YOUR help to evacuate civilians, you'd have refused too. Is that right?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Enjoy your right wing talking points..bye, shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)...once again that the UN refused to help save Palestinians, when it's their JOB to protect them.
The UNICEF chief said it twice, for the record.
Not just on video. It's in the transcript.
ANYONE can see, read, and hear it for themselves.
==========
So tell me, since the UN and their western activist cheerleaders don't give a shit about the protection of Palestinians, why should anyone else care about the welfare of Palestinians?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)of UNICEF in a court of law. I do hope Israel's government utilizes this nonsense, it would be quite a
show. That you delve into the depths of right wing wackos to defend Israel is no surprise, people
need to see who you rely on for your defense of Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)....for refusing to do its job protecting Palestinian civilians.
How difficult would that have been?
Instead, you're demonstrating for all to see - once again - what it means to be a "pro-Palestinian" critic of Israel. It means being anti-Israel all the fucking way, not pro-Palestinian at all. Palestinians are but mere political pawns. That's all they've ever been and that's what they are now to the western "pro Palestinian" community. Their lives only mean something if the Jewish state can be blamed. Otherwise, meh...
Despicable.
But not surprising, given all the support and defense of Hamas war crimes among western pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel "critics". Defending the UN's abominable inaction goes hand-in-hand....
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"You should have had dinner ready on time, then I wouldn't have to beat you and the children!"
Because that is what this line of argument sounds like.
shira
(30,109 posts)UNICEF has complained that Israel doesn't give them sufficient time to evacuate civilians. Then when Israel does so, UNICEF refuses to protect the people they are there to serve.
This is the same UN that lets Iran run a committee about the death penalty. It's where Saudi Arabia heads the struggle against female discrimination worldwide. The same UN whose troops were getting drunk while Bosnians were massacred. A UN whose troops have been charged repeatedly with rape allegations worldwide.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And sometimes people see things for what they are and no amount of "nuance" is capable of NOT calling it what it is.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I thought I'd point out that UNICEF and Iran aren't the same group of folks.
Oh, Saudi Arabia got dragged in here, so they must be UNICEF, too.
Now I'm reading that UNICEF is raping people.
I think you exhausted your use of the guilt by association card.
FFS. UNICEF is guilty of raping people. I need to head right into the wardrobe, because it will take me to Narnia.
"You should have taken them to the shelters," even though we bomb the shelters, too, and flatten their homes so no one has a place to return to.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)is the only way to get you to understand that destroying your children and your homes is our right."
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... and should be ashamed of yourself.
shira
(30,109 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)simply because they disagree with you, I wonder why you have that perspective. Enlighten us all. Tell us why you believe the UN is an organization dedicated to protecting and perpetrating child abuse.
Provide proof.
shira
(30,109 posts)Apparently, the UNICEF chief doesn't believe that moving children out of harm's way during conflict is an urgent need. Either that or UNICEF didn't receive enough donations. Maybe that's why they refused to meet the urgent needs of Palestinian children.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)No explanation of the assertion made by Shira of why the UNRWA is a child killing organization.
I'll wait for that assertion to be explained.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the question is why, what are we not supposed to hear?
4now
(1,596 posts)for dropping the bombs on a civilian population.
That simply isn't so.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Was explained to you in post 8
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)1. Suppose, some terrorists take hostages in a building. The police decides that rather than laying siege on them, they just bomb the building to rubble and move on. Who is to blame for the dead hostages?
2. Let's say, the IDF had asked the employees of a corporation in Gaza or a group of teachers in Gaza or some random people on the street to remove civilians from certain areas, and those people had refused to obey IDF-orders, would they be responsible for their deaths or would the IDF be responsible?
If those random people had tried and failed to evacuate people, would they be responsible for their deaths or would the IDF be responsible?
3. Exactly how did the IDF expect the UN to evacuate those very same Gazans from the very same areas where they were used as human shields without members of the UN getting shot at or killed by Hamas?
4. The argument is that the UN is responsible for their deaths because it didn't take all possible actions to protect the civilians from harm. At the same time, the IDF also did not take all possible actions to protect the civilians from harm, but somehow the IDF has no responsibility in their deaths. How can this be?
The IDF showed the behavior of a hostage-taker with that demand, you can't deny that:
"Do what we say and we let them live. If you refuse, we will kill them and it will be your fault."
King_David
(14,851 posts)Hamas rejected out of hand an Egyptian brokered cease fire in the 1st week that Israel accepted.
Building materials could of built bomb shelters by Hamas instead they built tunnels and even then didn't allow their use as shelter.
When they hid amongst women and children to launch there rockets they absolutely forbid their children and women from evacuating areas that Israel prewarned them that they were being targeted.
Hamas is almost entirely to blame and now Israel is investigating it's own culpability in incidents that will be prosecuted.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)What are the odds that an israeli organisation will put the well-being of Palestinians above national-security interests of Israel? Especially after a war was waged on the premise of a kidnapping and israeli politicians and military-commanders openly voiced racist and religious anti-Palestinian sentiments.
What about the Israelis systematically sabotaging and destroying private property of Palestinians in the Westbank?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.566087
Have these cases been investigated?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Your kidding , right?
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)1a - If the terrorists are just holding them hostage in a civilian building... it would be out of proportion to blow up the building (though it would still be the terrorists who bore primary responsibility - the police would properly be judged to have acted improperly).
1b - However... if they were holding them hostage while firing at the police, then the terrorists would clearly bear the blame for collateral damage when the police fired back.
1c - If the terrorists were holding hostages in their own building (or tunnel network, etc.)... then the terrorists bear sole blame.
2. Let's say, the IDF had asked the employees of a corporation in Gaza or a group of teachers in Gaza or some random people on the street to remove civilians from certain areas, and those people had refused to obey IDF-orders, would they be responsible for their deaths or would the IDF be responsible?
Neither. Getting civilians out of a combat zone (particularly a combat zone that you created by attacking from that area) is the responsibility of the local forces (Hamas in this case). It isn't the responsibility of a random company or civilian to remove noncombatants. The attacking power has the responsibility to do what they can (not including "don't attack"
to notify noncombatants, but the primary responsibility is with the power that put a military target into the civilian population. Same answer for the 2nd subpart of the question.
3. Exactly how did the IDF expect the UN to evacuate those very same Gazans from the very same areas where they were used as human shields without members of the UN getting shot at or killed by Hamas?
So you're here admitting that Hamas, rather than fulfill their duty to remove the civilian population, actively worked to keep them there?
Good... that's progress.
Seriously though... that's part of why the UN is there in the first place.
4. The argument is that the UN is responsible for their deaths because it didn't take all possible actions to protect the civilians from harm. At the same time, the IDF also did not take all possible actions to protect the civilians from harm, but somehow the IDF has no responsibility in their deaths. How can this be?
That isn't the case. The IDF took all reasonable actions short of "just don't attack the enemy". The standard isn't "all possible actions" because that would oblige them to never fight back (the same is true for the Palestinins).
The UN's responsibility is because this was their mission. UNRWA was sent their to shelter refugees. It's Hamas' responsibility, but they refuse. Obviously Israel can't do it... so the UN sent people in there to provide essential services that Hamas wasn't providing.
So yes... that puts some burden of responsiblty on them if the IDF tells them of upcoming attacks on military targets that are colocated (illegaly) with civilian populations.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)1a +1c) Is it still a civilian building if there are terrorists in that building?
1b) Your point could be read in a way that police would automatically be absolved from wrongful deaths.
2) So we agree that only the warfaring parties can be blamed.
3) That's no answer. How was the UN supposed to pull this off? It would have been tricky in peace-time and even more so in a war-zone.
4) I refuse to believe that the moral responsibility for people dying can be waived with some legalese. It was israeli bombs and bullets. The IDF had the choice not to attack, but it made the decision that the civilians are less important than killing the bad guys hiding behind the civilians.
The IDF had the power of life&death in that situation, so it bears at least part of the responsibilty.
The Hamas had the power of life&death in that situation, so it also bears at least a part of the responsibilty.
For the UN, see point 3.
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)The various laws of armed conflict were created for the very purpose of outlining moral behavior during a military conflict.
Now... you might hold to the belief that no such conflict can ever be moral. But that's an entirely different discussion (and firmly at odds with the rest of the world).
1a +1c) Is it still a civilian building if there are terrorists in that building?
It can be. Yes in 1a... no in 1b.
1b) Your point could be read in a way that police would automatically be absolved from wrongful deaths.
Nope. In 1b they wouldn't be wrongful deaths. If there's a crowd of people and a gunman holds his weapon to a child's head when surrounded by police... the police shouldn't shoot him (for fear of harming the child). If he instead hold the child in front of him while firing into the crowd and at police... then they're obligated to shoot him. If one of them misses and hits the child by mistake, he doesn't need to be "absolved from wrongful death". The gunman is still responsible for placing that child into the line of fire in a craven attempt to protect not only himself, but to allow him to do more damage to his targets.
2) So we agree that only the warfaring parties can be blamed.
Nope. Because the UN isn't a corporation or a group of uninvolved civilians. They're an international organization that's there specifically for that purpose (to aid and protect Palestinian refugees).
3) That's no answer. How was the UN supposed to pull this off? It would have been tricky in peace-time and even more so in a war-zone.
Which part? That Hamas isn't fulfilling their obligation to get civilians out of the way (and to avoid placing military targets in civilian areas)? That's beyond rational debate. So I'll assume you mean this completely new line of argument (not that it wasn't their responsibility, but that they couldn't have done so if they tried). Why would Hamas fire on the UN? They're the ones operating he shelters and ambulances (etc). Seriously... why would they be in danger in this scenario at all?
You're also missing the context of Ironside's response. She didn't say "we would have if we had the ability"... she claimed that evacuating the civilians would have been facilitating Israel's military operations "against the civilian population" (which borders on the insane).
4) I refuse to believe that the moral responsibility for people dying can be waived with some legalese.
I haven't done so. It's simply the fact that moral responsibility for people belongs with the people who are primarily responsible for putting them in the line of fire. That's both a "legal" and "moral" judgment.
The IDF had the choice not to attack
The same as the police did in my example above. They could choose to allow the gunman to continue firing into the crowd out of fear of unintended collateral damage. It would not have been moral to do so.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I always am staggered by how grotesque the defenders of Israel get, in their desperate need to justify the slaughter of Arabs.
Police don't use bombs to solve hostage situations, do they?
Protect them from who? Israel never targets civilians, and if you claim it does, you're a nazi member of ISIS who loves Hamas and pat Buchanan. Or something. Shame on you.
Well, since we're arguing legalisms and not morality now... You know Hamas actually doesn't have any such obligations, legally speaking. Hamas is not party to any treaties that would bind Hamas to international law or standards.
Actually that is the entire point of your argument, that Israel has no moral or ethical culpability for the massacres Israel has perpetrated, because Israel says Israel is protected by international law.
More moral than dropping a bomb on the entire crowd - and the rest of the neighborhood, just to be sure.
But of course, it's a crowd of Palestinian Arabs being bombed. over. and over. and over. and over, and over again. Which makes all the difference when you need to justify it.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Do you actually believe that?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)But you contend that they have no culpability under international law because they aren't party to these treaties?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The whole point of not being party to a treaty is that you are not bound to the terms of that treaty, Shaktimaan. That's why Israel is not party to the NPT, for example, and why the United States has been avoiding joining both the ICC and the Ottawa anti-landmine treaty.
In fact, the only body that Hamas is legally culpable to is the government of Palestine, as it is a criminal / political group operating within Palestine.
In either case of course, whether internationally or domestically culpable, the response is the same - arrest the individuals, assess whether they can be charged with criminal acts, then put them on trial.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Some treaties, like the NPT or the Rome Statute require a signed and ratified state commitment before they can expect benefits or restrictions applied to them. But other standards of law have universal applications, which all states are obliged to obey. Especially wrt the subject of war.
Committing these sorts of violations aren't likely to earn anyone any kind of international response at all. Enforcement was always rather lax when it came to these rules to begin with. When was the last time you heard of anyone actually getting prosecuted for crimes against humanity, or something similar? No one gets indicted. They get condemned by the world community. Sometimes there are economic consequences.
In palestine's case, what it'll do is make anyone fighting them in the future less likely to abide by the same rules that Palestine broke ... Laws that'd normally serve to offer Palestinian civilians at least some protection. Which is why you see ambulances denied special treatment by Israel now, occasionally even targeting them. Because in the past they've been used to ferry weapons and fighters unmolested. THAT'S the true response.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)What an interesting argument for a gay Jewish person to make.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Israel says UN didn't move the people we killed so it is the UN's fault!
hlthe2b
(102,304 posts)This is a pretty dismal attempt to try to deflect guilt, IMO.
hlthe2b
(102,304 posts)We can't deflect out own blame for US actions either. No country can, no matter the scale of the PR campaign.
Countries who commit war atrocities can not be held to top of the pedestal.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Nothing's changed though.
World opinion on The Jewish State has been the same and unchanged for 2000 years.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The reality, however, is that responsibility for the harrowing transition from the kidnap and murder of three Jewish teenagers by Hamas members to 4 million Israelis running in terror from Hamas rocket attacks leads directly to the White House.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/12/israel-crisis-obama-moral-relativism/
King_David
(14,851 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)are we supposed to keep that secret?
King_David
(14,851 posts)I never read it because unlike you who posted it ,I don't trust or use it for sourcing here.
The rest of the "secret" part I have no idea what you mean by that or what point your making . Try explain it to us.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)why should this fact not be mentioned ?
King_David
(14,851 posts)But I don't take your posts from Fox News seriously .
Do you find Fox News credible ? Most of us here are Democratic Party supporters and don't post from them . Same as our support of Jews Zionism and Israel -- all positive Democratic Party principles .
I don't even read your posts from Fox News - sorry .
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And you seem to be taking it as holy writ.
King_David
(14,851 posts)If I had a cigar I would smoke it .
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That you will dismiss fox news, but that you're embracing Arutz Sheva.
Is there any logic at work there?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Are you making another baseless accusation here?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And that you are taking the statements of the Arutz Sheva op-ed very seriously.
King_David
(14,851 posts)If you say so .
Thanks.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You dismiss Fox, but clearly hold arutz sheva to be an unimpeachable source - or did you criticize the bullshittery of the OP and I just missed it?
King_David
(14,851 posts)To debate on this thread by lots of people I am not even engaging in any kind of meaningful responses at all.
Carry on ...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Carry on with your "lols" and "okis" my good man
King_David
(14,851 posts)Appreciate it .
shira
(30,109 posts)Do you have a problem or not with the UN's refusal to help save Palestinian lives?
hlthe2b
(102,304 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Do you think the UN did the right thing refusing to save Palestinians when they had the chance?
hlthe2b
(102,304 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)And here you are defending them.
If the UN couldn't care less about the welfare of Palestinians, and western supporters of Palestinians have no problem with the UN's inaction, why should anyone else care about Palestinians?
With friends like the UN and western "friends" who think it's okay to refuse protecting Palestinian civilians, the Palestinians don't need any enemies.
hlthe2b
(102,304 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)....to protect Palestinian lives, given the opportunity.
Imagine the worst, most depraved Arab hating settlers. They would applaud the UN's refusal b/c they would've done the EXACT same thing given the opportunity. They'd have refused to help protect civilians. Just like their Hamas counterparts.
Or would they? I'm not sold on the fact that even THEY are as bad as Hamas and the UN when it comes to protecting Palestinian civilian lives.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)they'd be out there destroying Israeli missile bases, mortars, and weaponry, since that's what is killing Palestinians. I don't think you really want them to do that.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/site/about/who/
That person is Anne Bayefsky who is a regular writer for Fox News here is a recent sample of her work
As Palestinian terror dramatically escalates, the Obama administration is working hard – not to defeat the terrorists, but to tie Israel’s hands behind its back.
Sure, there is background noise paying lip-service to an Israeli right of self-defense and babbling about a Palestinian peace partner.
The reality, however, is that responsibility for the harrowing transition from the kidnap and murder of three Jewish teenagers by Hamas members to 4 million Israelis running in terror from Hamas rocket attacks leads directly to the White House.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/12/israel-crisis-obama-moral-relativism/
hasn't changed much from 2009
This was the very first meeting with Jewish community leaders. Earlier requests for an audience with major Jewish organizations had reportedly been ignored. Six months after taking office, the president finally got around to issuing an invitation – to stop the bleeding.
The meeting, however, did not showcase the president’s trademark engagement and dialogue routine. Instead, he cherry-picked his Jewish audience to include pro-Obama newcomers with little support in the mainstream Jewish world, such as J Street, while blackballing the Zionist Organization of America. This is a president willing to engage Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but not ZOA President Mort Klein.
The White House did its best to keep a lid on the meeting, refusing to make it public until leaked, demanding strict confidentiality and going mum after the fact. But there is no papering over the distressing reality.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/024088.php
note I apologize for the Rightist sources but these are who this woman writes for
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts).....innocent civilians.
A reporter followed up and questioned her just to make sure.
There's no sugar-coating it. No defense whatsoever. The proper response is to be appalled and call the UN to account for what it did.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The reality, however, is that responsibility for the harrowing transition from the kidnap and murder of three Jewish teenagers by Hamas members to 4 million Israelis running in terror from Hamas rocket attacks leads directly to the White House.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/12/israel-crisis-obama-moral-relativism/
shira
(30,109 posts)....to protect Palestinians should have been shock, outrage, or condemnation.
Of course, given that you would describe yourself as someone who deeply cares about the welfare and protection of Palestinian innocents.
How can you advocate on one hand for the human rights of Palestinians while defending UN refusal to help save Palestinians when they had the opportunity?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the ploy Bayefsky attempting here is pretty desperate indeed
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)IDF is responsible for it's actions and what this piece could show is that IDF was aware of the presence of civilians when it chose to attack and did so without regard for their lives
Mao Shung
(55 posts)If the UN could have saved lives and failed to, I don't see how anyone could be praising it. No, the UN is partially responsible here.
shira
(30,109 posts)As you can tell from the responses, that doesn't matter. The UN gets a free pass. Why? Because the only narrative allowed when it comes to Palestinians is to keep the focus and blame ALWAYS - and I mean ALWAYS - on Israel. No matter what. As you can see above.
Remember, these are folks who care so much about Palestinians.
They'll continue to praise (and give a free pass) to a UN that refuses to save Palestinian innocents BECAUSE, in part, they enjoy seeing the UN used as a useful tool to bash Israel. The other part is that Israel must be blamed, not anyone else. Not the UN, not Hamas either. They'll defend anything the UN does, as well as Hamas (human shields, executing "collaborators", enforcing sharia law) even if that means Palestinians will suffer.
And you thought the Israel bashers really cared about Palestinians?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)or order them dropped.
Enough victim blaming and pointing at people off to the side.
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)Applying that "logic" to other examples in history makes clear how laughable the claim is.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Each side of any conflict is always responsible for choosing how they act or react.
That's a little thing we call 'free will'. There is no fate, no destiny. Each individual always has a choice to decide what they will do, and they're only lying to themselves if they claim differently.
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)It is, nevertheless, true.
Each side of any conflict is always responsible for choosing how they act or react.
Which to you somehow doesn't include the actions they take that cause the other side to react.
"Hey! It's the prison guard's fault that I'm locked in this cell! - It doesn't matter that the court told him to do it... and it sure doesn't matter that I killed that family last year... They still didn't have to lock me up!"
"It's not my fault that I got shot. It doesn't matter how many times I fired at the stinking cops... once they fired back they became the only ones who are responsible!"
Yeah... that makes sense. 
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)because of the thousands of Palestinians killed by Israel?
That's your 'logic'.
That each side should respond with violence because of previous violence.
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)Your claim was that they would be the ONLY ones responsible.
Which... as I said... is ridiculous. As ridiculous as the criminal in my prior post claiming that they didn't have to lock him up for murder. They could have just ignored the crime.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The 'criminal in your prior post' wherever he is, is entirely responsible for his own actions, as I've stated all along. And the police are entirely responsible for their own actions. If they 'lock him up', they are responsible for so doing - not that I have any problem with that. If, on the other hand, they blow up an entire neighbourhood, or kill a bunch of civilians while clumsily attempting to do so, they're likewise responsible for those actions. Not the criminal.
So yes, what you said IS ridiculous.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and I kill those children, I'm still ultimately culpable despite the fact that I didn't intend to kill children. Blaming the liquor store where I bought the booze doesn't make me any less guilty. Maybe I drank at a bar, too. The bar that served me also isn't culpable that I made the ill fated decision to drive after drinking.
You are blaming the liquor store owner, the bar tender and the bus driver. The liquor store owner because I bought liquor, the bar tender that served me and didn't know that I was intoxicated, and the bus driver because the bus driver wasn't omniscient.
Hell throw in the manufacturer of the bus since obviously the bus wasn't constructed to prevent children from dying when somebody driving drunk plows into it. Blame the police for not pulling me over before I caused the accident.
The reality is, though, that I would still to blame in that situation, not twenty other entities, because I made the choice to get behind the wheel.
Obviously there are failures along the way that could have prevented it in my analogy, but ultimately, he who drives the car and he who fires the bombs is the person culpable.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's a war crime to deliberately embed themselves within a civilian population while firing at Israel/Israelis. When they do that, the area from which they set up their military operations becomes - under law - a legitimate military target for Israel. Hamas simply cannot set up their operations within civilian areas and EXPECT those areas to be off-limits to Israel. That's not how IHL works. You'll notice that Israel's most hostile critics deny Hamas human shielding - NOW - even after multiple reports by the media, by the EU, and UN of Hamas human shielding. Hamas has even admitted it. It's still denied, just as this video of UNICEF admitting they refused to help evacuate Palestinians is being denied.
It's absurd. Welcome to pretend world where facts do not matter.
Israel bashers feel the need to put 100% of the blame for Palestinian deaths on Israel, not anyone else. This is deliberate. There were 2 articles posted, alerted on, and hidden about 160 Palestinian kids killed by Hamas while digging tunnels.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/At-least-160-children-died-digging-tunnels-for-Hamas-369138
That couldn't be acknowledged or condemned by the Israel bashers either. They prefer the story be censored. It's all about bashing Israel. It's NOT and has NEVER been about the welfare of Palestinians.
What the UN did is utterly reprehensible and cannot be reasonably defended. After all, they have claimed on multiple occasions they WEREN'T given sufficient warning or time by Israel to evacuate other targeted areas. They cannot have it both ways.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and you respond by blowing the entire building he lives in up, that's not self-defense. Civil people don't and won't defend smug actions like that "just because we can."
Self-defense is self-defense - it isn't going overboard to the point where the response to a slap is not only killing the person who slapped you, but their children, relatives and destroying the infrastructure of the place they live.
That's why so many have said it was out of proportion response. Nobody said Israel, or any other nation for that matter, doesn't have the right to defend itself. It's merely that civilized people don't wipe out the hand that slapped them, then proceed to decimate their entire community infrastructure, do away with entire families, and then claim moral superiority.
shira
(30,109 posts)...from Hamas fascists.
Just ask them what a proportionate military response would look like from Israel and you'll see.
========
And BTW, you're now trying to minimize Hamas' rocket attacks, comparing them to a child's slap. They're a real threat. Iron Dome doesn't exist because of baby slaps or harmless firecrackers. Millions of Israelis do not run to bomb shelters day and night due to harmless baby slaps.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)since I stated plainly that Israel has the right to defend itself. It just is morally wrong for going overboard.
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's not self-defense. And your assertion that Jews believe it is, is some of the most disgusting anti-semitism I've seen from you.
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Twenty-one hundred people died
~1,800 of them civilians.
five hundred of them were children.
Fifteen hundred orphaned, over ten thousand wounded, and similar numbers homeless.
Who knows what the human impact of the destruction of power and water plants is going to be, on top of the continued siege.
And you cast this as some sort of great achievement for the Jewish people.
That's amazing.
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)The ratio now is closer to 1:1 as it was back then.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/06/israel-says-gaza-death-toll-11-combatant-civilian-kill-ratio-same-as-in-previous-hamas-wars/
I bet if I look for it, you were claiming 80-90% civilian casualties 5 years ago.
You were wrong then and wrong now.
But maybe if you repeat the lies and propaganda over and over again, you'll get someone to believe it. That's point, right? Besides baiting...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
But okay, algemeiner cites an august 4 report from OCHA.
That report has been updated
Going by those numbers, a total of 2,131 were killed. According to OCHA, 1,473 were civilians. Alright, let's revise my numbers to reflect this, shall we?
So, the base ratio by this count is 1,473:658. Now you can't actually simplify this ratio cleanly, but it ends up with in the neighborhood between 5:2 and 3:1.
So yes, you're correct in your earlier statement that it's not nine out of ten - by OCHA's numbers. Rather it's between five out of every seven, and three out of every four.
Woo hoo, go Israel? it maintains a civilian kill ratio on par with Vladimir Putin's war in chechnya.
And by B'Tselem's numbers, OCL had a ratio of 3:2, or 60% civilians. That's about the same as World War 2.
shira
(30,109 posts)Despite all the false claims of 80-90% civilian casualties, eventually the truth came out as Hamas admitted to their losses:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-admits-600-700-of-its-men-were-killed-in-cast-lead-1.323776
So who was right 5 years ago? Israel or its enemies?
Come on, you can do it...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Because Israel is wrong - police are counted as civilians, not combatants.
This corroborates with B'tselem's numbers. And with PCHR's numbers. To achieve it's 1:1 ratio count, the IDF not only counted police and politicians as combatants, but also reduced the total casualties by over two hundred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War_%282008%E2%80%9309%29
And in this operation, it's got itself a ratio between 5:2 and 3:1, according to the united nations.
I believe the IDF's numbers as much as I believe hamas'. Or the LAPD's internal investigation results. or any other secret self-reporting by a deeply interested party.
shira
(30,109 posts)Hamas TV: 180 killed are from Hamas armed forces
Among those killed Hamas Police Commander, Tawfik Jaber
Hamas TV acknowledged this morning that the vast majority of those killed are from the Hamas military. A news ticker running repeatedly from 10:00 AM announced:
"More than 180 Palestinian policemen were killed including the Commander, General Tawfik Jaber."
In the background Hamas TV is repeatedly broadcasting the same scenes of dozens of bodies of the uniformed Hamas soldiers who were killed in Israel's first attack yesterday when Israel hit the Hamas officer's course graduation ceremony.
Hamas TV, Dec. 28, 2008
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2678
Here's more...
http://jcpa.org/article/palestinian-%E2%80%9Cpolicemen%E2%80%9D-killed-in-gaza-operation-were-trained-terrorists/
Sorry, but Hamas admitted half of the casualties during OCL were combatants. Pretty much exactly what the IDF claimed.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)What the fuck is this, international law applies, until it doesn't, then it does again? Police are not combatants. Politicians are not combatants. "all males over 15" are not combatants.
B'tselem's numbers are accurate. The IDF is cooking the books. Three out of five people killed in OCL were civilians.
And in Protective Edge, that number has increased to between three out of four and five out of seven.
shira
(30,109 posts)I posted this one over 4 years ago:
Edited on Sat Nov-13-10 07:58 AM by shira
Hamas TV: 180 killed are from Hamas armed forces
Among those killed Hamas Police Commander, Tawfik Jaber
Hamas TV acknowledged this morning that the vast majority of those killed are from the Hamas military. A news ticker running repeatedly from 10:00 AM announced:
"More than 180 Palestinian policemen were killed including the Commander, General Tawfik Jaber."
In the background Hamas TV is repeatedly broadcasting the same scenes of dozens of bodies of the uniformed Hamas soldiers who were killed in Israel's first attack yesterday when Israel hit the Hamas officer's course graduation ceremony.
Hamas TV, Dec. 28, 2008
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2678
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And Israel killed a lot of civilians (five out of every seven slain), five hundred and one of whom were children, three hundred who were women. In addition, israel has orphaned over a thousand, maimed over ten thousand, left many, many more than that homeless (over 100,000 are still dependent on UN shelters as of this post) and its attack on Gaza's water and electrical infrastructure will undoubtedly cause far more problems for these people down the line.
You call this "Jewish self-defense." I think that makes you a disgusting jew-hating freak.
shira
(30,109 posts)The fact is that Israel claimed a 1:1 ratio back in 2008-09 and eventually Hamas confirmed the IDF's data. There was more evidence out there as well (Meir Amit Center).
Same is happening today and once again you're going with the propaganda in order to incite more hatred against the Jewish state and its supporters.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Read your own article. Add the numbers up.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Responding to accusations that the people of Gaza had paid the price for Hamas' war with Israel, Hammad retorted, "They say that people who are affected by this war, but is Hamas not a part of the people?"
Talking about losses in the war, Hammad confirmed significant personnel losses in Hamas' military wings for the first time. He said, "On the first day of the war, Israel targeted police stations and 250 martyrs who were part of Hamas and the various factions fell." He added that, "about 200 to 300 were killed from the Qassam Brigades, as well as 150 security personnel."
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Hamas is saying 250 police were killed and somewhere around three hundred Qassam dudes, and 150 security personnel.
And police are not combatants.
And this still does not change the abysmal civilian kill ratio Israel chalked up for protective edge.
shira
(30,109 posts)Those 250 martyrs were the police officers.
Mao Shung
(55 posts)Palestinian kids haven't thrown stones since the 80s.
Now those kids are old, and they are launching missles aimed at civilians. One missle killed a 4 year old Israeli. Under international law this was murder because the missle was aimed at civilians. Under international law, Israeli bombings are not murder, so long as they are aimed at militants.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Blame the missile launcher, not everyone in the vicinity that didn't know a violent idiot was firing missiles. Just like blame the driver, not everyone that was present didn't realize the idiot that got behind the wheel of a car was going to kill a busload of children.
Should police arrest the entire family of that person because the couldn't prevent a family member from doing something idiotic?
There are idiots in every family. It doesn't make the entire family, including the children, guilty.
Mao Shung
(55 posts)Let's say you are driving drunk, and a cop sees you driving drunk. Say for instance, he pulled you over and tested you as drunk. Say instead of arresting you, he lets you drive off drunk. Say you hit a bus.
Then as a matter of law, the police is liable.
The same with the UN.
Similarly, under American law, if a bartender serves you alchohol when you appear drunk, and you drive home drunk, the bar is liable for the car accident. Bars have to buy insurance for this.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I wasn't caught by the police before getting into my car and doing something heinous. Is it the fault of the police because I wasn't apprehended beforehand? Should the police station be bombed because they failed to catch me before I did something horrific?
Because that is what this entire argument boils down to - if people didn't want to get bombed into the stone age they should have been omniscient.
The UN should have been omniscient. The residents and children of the buildings that were destroyed and subsequently were killed by bombs should have been omniscient.
Talk about not passing the smell test, that's a wife-beater's argument. "She shouldn't have done _____ and then I wouldn't have to beat the crap out of her."
bravenak
(34,648 posts)After Israel bombs UN Schools, they blame the UN for not moving the people that Israel's bombs killed out of the way of Israel's bombs.
"We have to get to the terrorists inside that school!"
"But, there are children there! Not terrorists!"
" I know there are males aged 15-99 in that school! Terrorists!"
"Um, last time we moved people, you bombed them anyway, so, no. Just avoid bombing the UN SHELTER. Here are the coordinates.... For the tenth time. You know we have no where to put them, don't bomb us."
"BOOOM!BOOOM! Bomb, bomb,bomb!"
"Why the hell did you just bomb the shelter? You killed kids, mothers, and UN workers!!"
"It's hamas' fault. They used you as sheilds."
"WHAT?!? There was no Hamas here!!"
"They rode by on a motorbike, that made the shelter a legitimate target."
".... NO..."
"Then blame yourselves. We asked you to move."
"You know we had no where to put the people."
"How about Egypt? We PROMISE we would let them back in after the place is leveled. Just like last time when we let EVERYONE go back to their homes."
"Um... You never did let everyone have right of return.. They are still asking for it."
"WHY DO YOU HATE ISRAEL?!?"
Mao Shung
(55 posts)The most glaring fact that is wrong is that Israel did not let people return.
It is undisputed that after the 1948 war, Israel announced all Palestinians could return, and almost all Palestinians chose not to, likely under the belief that Israel would be miliarily defeated later.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)All.
shira
(30,109 posts)That's what the UN is there to do. Their JOB is to protect Palestinian civilians and they refused.
You support that?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Israel is using MONEY that could feed American children to kill Palestinian children. And they just said they were stealing MORE land. And after demanding Our MONEY, they want us to shut up and never second guess them. How arrogant.
When the UN starts dropping bombs, I'll b l a me them. Until then,this is on Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)...you support the UN's refusal to protect Palestinian civilians when presented with the opportunity and given that their JOB is to protect Palestinians.
Is that correct?
You know, the UN is also supported by your tax money and they refuse to protect Palestinians you say you care about. This is the same UN whose troops and peacekeepers have for years abused their positions and raped thousands of innocent girls. Look it up for yourself WRT Haiti, Sudan, and Somalia. All paid for with your tax dollars.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
GeoWilliam750
(2,522 posts)Sociopaths have a much diminished sense of smell.
Which kind of explains a lot of what some people write here.
shira
(30,109 posts)The same UN up to its eyeballs in rape allegations against its "peacekeeping" troops worldwide. The same UN whose troops were busy getting drunk while thousands were massacred in Bosnia.
Same UN that puts Iran in charge of its committee on the death penalty.
Same UN that puts Saudi Arabia in charge of women's issues.
==========
And pertaining to IP, the same UN that refuses to protect Palestinian lives in order to "stick it" to the Israelis.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)I was spot on. That scenario played out this summer. There is no excuse for it, but if you object.... You get called a hater or a racist or stupid or ignorant of history or too young and undereducated to understand nuance.
I told you months ago that the attutude of Israel's leaders and supporters would lose allies for israel. Cant just call everyone antisemite or a hamas supporter if you ever want them to side with you. Israel is losing the suppoert young people, brown people, black people, democrats, europe, etc. When your survival depends on the good will of the US, Its probably best to not lose a whole generation of americans. But the startling arrogance abounds in Netanyahu's likudinik Israel.
And more and more people see the crap for what it is. Projection.
shira
(30,109 posts)I know you don't believe the Jewish state has any right to protect its civilians, but that's why folks like yourself are considered fringe extremists within the Democratic party.
Good luck electing Democrats with your views on I/P. Lemme know when some are elected to either Congress or the Senate.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Because I never mentioned Jews. I try not to conflate the two. Israel has no more right than any other state or people to self defense. If Palestine has no right to bomb children in Tel Aviv to get to an IDF soldier, then Israel has no right to bomb Gaza children to get to a Hamas soldier. Giving one side more rights than the other side is racial discrimination. And it will be called out no matter if Israel doesnt like it.
And if you want to call my generation, black people, and hispanics the fringe, lets see how that plays out in twenty years. We are americas future, dear. And we hate what we see and will be around for a long time. The vigorous defenders who are mostly older will not be around to talk us down or get us to continue paying for bombs or iron domes. So condescend all you want. It just breeds more dislike and disgust.
shira
(30,109 posts)‘Lesson: The Jews will defend themselves even if it means killing children’
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/themselves-killing-children
1. The Jews: It is an objective and implacable fact that Zionism is the largest and most significant Jewish project in at least 2,000 years, probably more. There are non-Jews who are Israeli citizens, there are Jews who intensely dislike Zionism, there are even a handful of anti-Zionist Jews in Israel. None of these facts can change the fundamental truth: in Zionism the Jews set out to re-create a national existence on the political playing field, in their ancestral homeland, and Israel is its expression, or outcome, or whatever you wish to call it. The fact that about 50% of the world’s Jews live in Israel strengthens this, (the proportion will soon tip over to more than 50%), and the fact that a majority of self-identifying Jews among the non-Israelis are Zionists, bolsters its strength, but doesn’t change it. You can’t have Jews pining for Israel over millennia and then going there, and not have it be the most important development in all those millennia.
You can rail against this for every remaining day of your life (until 120, as we Jews say), and it still won’t make the slightest difference, not even if you gather around you thousands or tens of thousands of like-minded American Jews. I think it was Abe Lincoln who once said in court something about the strength of a fart in a blizzard or some such. Live with it, Phil, because there’s nothing you can do to change it. Nothing.
(Apropos numbers: there were more Jews at the funeral of Max Steinberg last month, which I blogged a bit about, than all the committed Mondoweis Jews together, and it was just one funeral).
2. Will defend themselves: Look, I know you’re convinced Israel is the once and always, perpetual aggressor. Of course this doesn’t explain how if we’re such agressors the Palestinians keep multiplying and acquiring new assets such as the PA, parts of WB, all of Gaza, international standing etc etc. We must be really really bad at getting our job done. But as we both know, you and I can’t agree on the basic facts of this point, so let’s leave it as I said: A majority of the Jews worldwide and a total majority in Israel know we’re defending ourselves from enemies who would eagerly destroy us if they had the power, just as happened in the past. (Lots of non-Jews agree with us, by the way, either because we’ve got them under our thumb as you see it, or because it’s a simple fact, as I see it).
3. Even if it means killing: My PhD was about Nazis, and I know more about them than most people, so Godwin’s Law doesn’t APPLY to me. I can speak about Nazis as a scholar, not a demagogue. So here’s a thought experiment. Say that in order to end Nazism you had to kill 70,000 (not a few hundred) innocent, non-German civilians, Frenchmen, say. Would that be defensible? 70,000 dead French civilians, all innocent, many children, to end Nazism and as a by-product also end the Holocaust? Would that be moral? Permissible? Defendable in some later discussion? I ask because it’s not a thought experiment, it’s what the USA and UK did in 1944 as they went through France so as to destroy Nazism in Germany. Some goals, my friend, justify even horrible side effects, or collateral damage, or whatever you wish to call it. The reason being that the alternative, of allowing Nazism to stay in place, would hvae been far worse.
So If Israel has to chose between its own safety or refusing to kill any innocent bystanders whatsoever, we’ll choose to defend ourselves. You bet. Of course, we can seek shades of gray, alternatives of greater or lesser destruction, and we can argue about those and indeed, we must seek them and argue about them. But the basic framework remains solid. Our safety is to be assured even if there’s a price to it, even if some innocents die. As few as possible, hopefully, but inevitably some, yes.
4. Just like every warring nation in history: Simple. Every single nation in human history, including in the 21st century, which finds itself at war, has one of two options regarding the moral dilemna in the preceeding paragraph. Either it accepts that it will kill some inocents in order to protect ts goals, or it doesn’t care. The Syrian don’t care. ISIS certainly doesn’t care. The North Vietnamese probably didn’t care, so far as I can tell. I don’t think the North in your Civil War much cared. The US in WWII didn’t care at all when it came to German civilians in bombable towns. Hamas certainly doesn’t care – well, actually it does. It regrets it doesn’t manage to kill more Jews and Arabs who live among them.
Anericans nowadays do care, as do the British, and a small handful of other mostly enlightened nations, Israel among them. Yet whenever they chose to go to war, they also accept they’ll be killing at least some innocent bystanders – and they then do. In Serbia in the 1990s, in Kuwait in the 1990s, in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s, and yes, I’m sad to tell you, against ISIS in 2014 (and 2015? 2016? 2025?). No-one has existentially threatened the US since the 19th century, or maybe even ever. Which isn’t to say the US hasn’t fought just wars. But they were never about its very existence. And in every one of them they have killed civilians. Tragic, but true. And as long as the US CONTINUES to be at war, for whatever reasons, it will continue to kill civilians. As few as possible, one hopes, and one assumes they’ll take great efforts to limit the numbers, but to pretend you can go to war and not kill civilians is being willfully blind.
Israel, unlike the US, faces enemies who proudly broadcast their intention to destroy it, in the most basic meaning of the word “destroy”. So Israel must choose: will it defend itself even if thereby some number of innocent civilians die, or will it not defend itself, and thereby large numbers of its own civilians will die.
The answer is clear. Any other answer would be immoral.
So, that’s it. I know your methodology, and that of your fans. You’ll now turn to all sorts of other objections and whatabouttery. But I’ve responded to the questions as you posed them, and that’s enough. The whatabouttery is, by definition, about other matters.
- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/themselves-killing-children#sthash.LfQpHmEV.dpuf
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I do not agree that all Jews agree with the above. And i do not equate Jews and Israel in that manner.
I speak of the nation state and its policies, not the people
shira
(30,109 posts)....non-Jewish political leaders. Only their Jewish leaders. So tell me, which NON-Jews in Israel do you have a problem with?
And if you have no problem with any of Israel's non-Jewish leadership, then why all the disproportionate focus on Israel's Jews since Israel isn't synonymous with the Jews in your opinion?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Hence, my disgust for Israel increases daily. Israel is far right, and its right is making the decisions. I don't have to pick and choose which right wingers i hate. Most of them.
shira
(30,109 posts)...then you'll have to do better than just pick fights with Israel's Jews.
Your problem isn't just with Israel's right but with Israel's LEFT as well because most of them would disagree with you too. Not the extreme left, but the Israeli Left in general.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I don't like to see the Jews blamed for the crimes of Israel. Especially since not all Israeli's are jews and not all Jews are Israeli. I was told that equating Jews and Israel, seeing them as culpable for each others actions is anti semetic. I agree, I find it to be antisemetic and racist to blame " The Jews" for what Israel does to palestine.
shira
(30,109 posts)They're very clear about their intentions.
You won't hear about Hamas calling for the murder of Israel's non-Jewish population. There's a reason I keep stating that Jews have a right to defend themselves against Hamas fascists who wouldn't hesitate to slaughter Jews in masses if they had the opportunity. Hamas' beef isn't with Israelis. When they rant in Arabic, their enemies are the Jews.
Keep it real, okay?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But they are not. They are killing whole families. And they attack anyone who objects and calls them racists for checking them on having gone overboard. And now they give themselves more palestinian land. Why the land grab if that was not the reason to invade Gaza? We on the actual left think the land grab that just happened is wrong and unjustifiable. And no israel defender can explain it. They want to pretend the land thefts are not happening and are not causing more violence. But its blatant and obvious thefts like this that show israels intentions. No wonder the pals are angry. They get robbed and robbed and are called the criminal. No one believes israel does not intend to do what ut so blatantly does. Steal more land.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"If you would have made dinner on time, I wouldn't have to beat you and the kids. You made me beat you."
bravenak
(34,648 posts)My ex was like that.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)I think the UN is pretty negligent on most things (not just in the ME), but seriously! are we going to take FarRightSettlersNews as our authority?
shira
(30,109 posts)The UNICEF chief admitted very clearly that they refused to clear out areas Israel was about to target. The UN decided quite deliberately NOT to save civilians they are there to protect. In addition, the UN has complained in the past that Israel has NOT given them enough time to move civilians out of harm's way. They can't have it both ways.
that UN woman felt that to clear areas might save lives, but at the cost of damaging Palestinian rights, favoring Israel politically, and transforming the neutral UN into a political tool. At the time, she made the decision there was no guarantee Israel would go through with its threats, and standing her ground still had the possibility of discouraging Israel from following through.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)what weren't we supposed to hear?
rateyes
(17,438 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)rateyes
(17,438 posts)making an observation, calling your op what it is. Israel and Netanyahu are responsible for the murder of children, and no amount of deflection will change that truth. Thus, again, the op is just another big pile of shit.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)The only replies here have either been to attack the messenger or yell "bullshit" like an immature teen.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)rateyes
(17,438 posts)israel ALONE is responsible for all the innocents it killed in Gaza - period. They weren't FORCED to bomb civilian areas knowing babies would die, but israel did it anyway. Nutandyahoo is 100% responsible for every single death in Gaza.
shira
(30,109 posts)The UN has complained before that Israel has NOT given them enough time to evacuate areas targeted against Hamas fascists.
So they were given ample warning, and now they refuse to do their job.
-----------
Are you proud of UNICEF's decision?
ann---
(1,933 posts)but, first of all, I believe NOTHING that israel claims any more, nothing.
shira
(30,109 posts)She never claimed those who had to be evacuated had nowhere to go.
ann---
(1,933 posts)She never claimed there WAS somewhere for them to go, especially when israel KNOWINGLY bombed a school where they KNEW Palestinian children were being sheltered by the UN. Don't blame people for not trusting israel. They lie and we know it now. Most smart people in this world have seen israel for what it is in this last massacre. They've lost a lot of supporters - and I'm one of them who doesn't feel sorry for them any more.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Especially in the Israeli sponsored chaos in Gaza?
I'm sorry but all you are doing is spewing Israeli propaganda without thought. This amounts to bigotry.
shira
(30,109 posts)...ample warning or time to evacuate.
Here we see they are given warning and time, and they refuse.
============
What's bigoted about criticizing the UN for refusing to do their job protecting civilians?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You remain a mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda.
How long do you think it takes to fully evacuate an area? 5 minutes, 5 hours? 5 days? Stop spouting the nonsense that the Israeli propaganda machine wants you to spout.
shira
(30,109 posts)And then there's the UNICEF chief on video admitting they refused to evacuate civilians when given the opportunity.
So which is it?
They can't have it both ways.
========================
You also claimed my criticism against the UN is bigoted. Please explain why it's bigoted to criticize or condemn the UN.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Why? Because then much of the population being evacuated would have been in the open at the time of the strike. The UN then informed the IDF that there was no evacuation. At that point any attack on the areas concerned was a war crime.
Now will you condemn Israeli war crimes just as I have specifically condemned Hamas war crimes?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)deaths caused by Israeli mortars, missiles and bullets? Nice try.
Fantasyland.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Setting aside the issue of the UN's possible (though unlikely IMO), culpability here; we're discussing the short term evacuation of specific neighborhoods in Gaza.
In what way is this analogous to "ethnic cleansing?"
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but also I wish to thank you for resurrecting this thread it's good to have the Rightwing antiObama sources used here on prominent display
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Launch the bombs/mortars/rounds etc that killed people living in Gaza. Blaming the UN for the deaths would be like blaming the person the drunk driver hit because they were in the way of the drunk driver.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's perfectly reasonable for Israel to ask the UN to assist in clearing the area of civilians in order to strike at Hamas targets.
The UN refused.
They admitted it on video.
Worse, it's their JOB to protect civilians in Gaza and they refuse to do THAT.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)At the end of the day the people who pulled the trigger are responsible for the deaths caused by that action.
shira
(30,109 posts)Maybe you should write a thank you letter to the UN for its refusal to save Palestinians you claim to support. Let them know that with this lack of action, they've earned more respect from you.
Actually, I'd expect the Palestinians' worst enemies to do that...
deathrind
(1,786 posts)To have an objective conversation on this subject? I have seen your threads on this issue and read your replies. More often than not you resort to personal attacks or blatant assumptions towards or about the posters you are replying to which ends any constructive conversation that may have been had.
shira
(30,109 posts)When given an opportunity to move children out of harm's way the UN refused.
You want to defend that?
deathrind
(1,786 posts)After the IDF shelled UN shelters killing people awaiting UN evacuation it is understandable that the UN would decide not to put their people in imminent danger to evacuate more people. But this is beside the point the deaths were caused by those who pulled the trigger as I previously stated.
shira
(30,109 posts)It was just last week that UN peacekeepers ran over the border to Israel to avoid being killed in Syria. They knew they were in no danger of being shot by the IDF.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.613189
According to your logic, if you were consistent you wouldn't blame Israel at all had they refused (like UNICEF) to assist in evacuating UN troops fleeing Syria for their lives.
========================
Look, let's face it.
There's no defending what the UNICEF chief said. We both agree, it's just that I can admit it and you can't.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)responsible for any and all military activities by the UN not UNICEF, not UNRWA, not UNESCO if fact no other branch of the UN
shira
(30,109 posts)...the same way UNICEF refused to evacuate children.
You wouldn't have blamed Israel for UN peacekeeper deaths in Syria had Israel refused to let them in, would you?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I'd have blamed the ones that you know like actually killed them, just the same as I do in Gaza
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I can see how 'saving' a few South Sea Islanders who are serving Peace Keepers makes good PR for Israel
Like I said I tend to blame deaths on those that actually do the killing, not some convoluted political theory
