Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumIsrael Did Best To Limit Gaza Casualties, Report From Pro-Israel Group Asserts
Israels military went far beyond its legal obligation last summer during its Gaza operation to prevent civilian casualties, according to report by a panel of former senior U.S. military officials and legal experts.
The Gaza Conflict Task Force report, which was released Wednesday, was commissioned by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, or JINSA.
The task force called the conflict Hybrid Warfare: where non-state actors equipped with advanced weapons operate in densely populated urban areas, disregarding the safety of civilians and capitalizing on its enemys efforts to comply with the law.
The report praised the Israel Defense Forces for its effort to limit civilian casualties, such as alerting residents in a targeted area through phone calls, leaflets and low impact explosives, but also emphasized that the United States and Israel should study the conflict in order to find a balance between mitigating civilian casualties and achieving mission objectives.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/216520/israel-did-best-to-limit-gaza-casualties-report-fr/#ixzz3UCWZnefm
King_David
(14,851 posts)Truth to any objective observer, unfortunately the UN investigation will not be as impartial.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)From the Guardian about Amnesty International: Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes.(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/05/israel-accused-war-crimes-gaza--amnesty-international)
Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes.
A report released by the group on Wednesday says Israel displayed callous indifference launching attacks on family homes in the densely populated coastal strip and in some cases its conduct amounted to war crimes. It adds that war crimes were also committed by Palestinian militants.
The 50-day war killed more than 2,100 Palestinians, most of them civilians, and 72 people on the Israeli side, all but six of whom were soldiers.
Israels Gaza operation came after increased rocket attacks by Gazas Islamic militant Hamas rulers. Israel also arrested scores of Hamas activists in the West Bank, following the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers.
Israels foreign ministry rejected the reports findings, saying Amnesty ignores documented war crimes perpetrated by Hamas and had produced no evidence to back up its claims.
Amnesty says it documented eight instances in which Israeli forces attacked homes in Gaza without warning, killing at least 104 civilians including 62 children.
The report reveals a pattern of frequent Israeli attacks using large aerial bombs to level civilian homes, sometimes killing entire families, Amnesty said.
While possible military targets were identified in some cases, the devastation to civilian lives
was clearly disproportionate, it added.
The report charges that when it appeared to have failed to identify any military target in a Gaza residential building, Israel may have directly and deliberately targeted civilians or civilian objects, which would constitute war crimes.
The group said it had to conduct research for the report remotely as Israel denied it and other watchdogs access to Gaza.
The following link from the UNRWA speaks to the Israeli's targeting a school. A violation of International Law.
http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/unrwa-strongly-condemns-israeli-shelling-its-school-gaza-serious
I suppose that when JINSA commissions a report with the aim of justifying what The Israelis have done the report should be in Israel's favor.
JINSA is a right wing group dedicated to US/Israeli cooperation with the aim of supporting the war hawks in Israel. See the Nation article below for more on JINSA:
http://www.thenation.com/article/men-jinsa-and-csp#
King_David
(14,851 posts)Hamas are the most extremist Right Wing bigoted homophobic mysogenistic group in the area.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)assessing Israeli tactics. Somewhat the same as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld assessing the Bush War with Iraq.
If Amnesty International had praised the Israeli conduct during the 2014 operation in Gaza I would have been more impressed.
I would never argue that Hamas represents a progressive government, but the same can also be said about the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
If you have any response to the substance of my remarks I am willing to have a conversation.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or whether or not a Pro-Israel think tank says they were accidental or unavoidable, it's not a contest as to who is more Rightwing unless of course interjecting that was some sort of justification?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Needs repeating as often as possible .
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)How does Gay Rights relate to over 2000 dead with 500 of those being children?
you're free to bring up Gay Rights but I am not sure how it relates here
King_David
(14,851 posts)Uganda , IS , Palestine- Hamas ,Iran and Russia.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)LGBT rights are very important to us liberal progressives and they do not take a back seat to 'convenience'.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)is that taking a "back seat" in your mind?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)is just to make up some word salad and offer it up as the main course.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)According to the national Bureau of economic Research, roughly 20% of the population is gay, or at least attracted to their own sex.
Since we all know by now that people are born with their orientation, and similar studies in other nations have given similar results, we can safely guess that ~20% is a global constant.
it would therefore stand to reason that Gaza, with a population of 1.8 million people, is home to somewhere in the ballpark of three hundred and sixty thousand gay persons (We can also safely guess these folks are closeted by necessity, given Hamas rule in Gaza.)
483 of them were obliterated in Protective Edge. 2,179 GLBT people were maimed to some degree during the assault.
21 gay Palestinians were eradicated in the course of Pillar of Cloud, and another 194 mutilated in some way.
283 GLBT Gazans were reduced to charred flesh and twisted bones by Israel in Cast Lead, and another 1,060 suffered bodily harm.
And the remainder who have survived these assaults and the Tyranny of Hamas, still live amid ruins in a starvling territory under the thumb of a state that will evidently give them no respite whatsoever.
But that's okay, 'cause you can go party at Evita. That makes it all worth it, right?
King_David
(14,851 posts)But that in of itself is not important.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Seems a pretty simple question.
Oh, let me guess, I'm 'interrogating you".
King_David
(14,851 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean okay, you're all for gay rights, evidently... but when it comes to the actual, living, breathing men and women and children that are supposed to be receiving those rights... you don't really seem very concerned. It's kind of like, you likethe idea of gay rights, you like to paint yourself as a supporter, but when it comes to do the lifting and application, you're just nowhere to be found.
It creates a curious situation where you're more concerned about whether gay people in Gaza have nightclubs and parades than whether they have drinkable water and roofs over their heads.
King_David
(14,851 posts)File among your other bizarre accusations where you call proud Gay dudes "homophobic" and proud Jews "antisemites"
It's becoming creepy as well as bizarre.
Just stop it ....
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Gay people can be homophobes. Jews can be anti-semites. Apparently hatred takes all types.
And it's not a "bizarre accusation" at all. You're more worried about whether gay people in Gaza get to throw pride parades, than whether they get to have shelter, water, and the right to not be bombed into human slushies. You're all for demolishing gaza. You're all for "strangling" them, as Chuck Schumer put it. You don't have a problem with the loss of life Israel's results cause. All these things impact the gay population exactly the same as they do the straight population.
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #64)
King_David This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Is that you Scootaloo believes that you ,yourself could possibly be in a position to be an arbiter of this , at all.
Mosby
(16,328 posts)FYI, if you want your arguments to be persuasive, you might want to use actual facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-survey-gives-government-its-first-large-scale-data-on-gay-bisexual-population/2014/07/14/2db9f4b0-092f-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html
First time I ever saw 20%
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Makovsky has promoted numerous confrontational "pro-Israel" U.S. policies in the Middle East, particularly on Iran. For instance, Makovsky opposed a 2013-2014 interim deal struck between Iran and the P5+1 negotiating powers to exchange limited sanctions relief for restrictions on Iran's nuclear enrichment while a comprehensive deal was negotiated. He was especially critical of the Obama administration's refusal to consider leveraging new sanctions against Iran during the comprehensive negotiations, accusing the president of taking a "potential source of leverage off the table."[2] Critics of the new sanctionswhich were introduced by Sens. Mark Kirk and Robert Menendez and vigorously supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)argued that they were designed to scuttle the talks altogether.
In a 2014 Wall Street Journal op-ed coauthored with former Lt. Gen. David Deptula, Makovsky argued that if the administration wouldn't agree to pass new sanctions on Iran, it should instead arm Israel with B-52 bombers and "bunker buster" bombs capable of destroying underground facilities like the Iranian enrichment plant at Fordow. "Iranian planners," they wrote, "might hope that [Israel's existing bunker buster arsenal] will prove insufficient to do major damage. The U.S. should remove such doubt by providing Israel with the capability to reach and destroy Iran's most deeply buried nuclear sites." By arming Israel with such advanced weaponry, Makovsky and his coauthor concluded, Washington "would send a signal that its ally, which already has the will, now has the ability to prevent a nuclear Iran. Once they are deliveredideally as the current six-month interim deal is set to expire in JulyIran will be put on notice that its nuclear program will come to an end, one way or another."[3]
Critics argued that making such a weapons transfer would implicitly green-light an Israeli strike on Iran and effectively make U.S. policy toward Iran contingent on Israel's discretion about using the weapons. In his memoir, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recalled counseling President George W. Bush against a similar transfer in 2007. "I recommended saying no to all the Israelis' requests," Gates wrote. "Giving them any of the items on their new [military wish] list would signal U.S. support for them to attack Iran unilaterally: 'At that point,' [Gates told Bush,] 'we lose our ability to control our fate in the entire region.' I said we would be handing over the initiative regarding U.S. vital national interests to a foreign power."[4]
michael-makovsky
Track Record
Makovsky has long been associated with key neoconservative figures, many of whom he worked with in the Washington office of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-created entity that governed Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion.[5] The office operated within the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon, where Makovsky served under Douglas Feith and reportedly advised the Office of Special Plans.[6] Before joining the George W. Bush administration, he worked as an energy market analyst for trading companies, "focusing on markets and hedging strategies for oil, petroleum products, natural gas and electric power, as well as regulatory and tax issues."[7]
Before joining JINSA in April 2013, Makovsky worked for six years as foreign policy director at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), an ostensibly centrist think tank that espoused a hawkish approach on Iran and other foreign policy issues during Makovsky's tenure. His track record also includes working as a visiting fellow at the rightist Claremont Institute and at the Institute of Contemporary British History.
Some reports suggest that Makovsky, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, has associated in the past with various far-right Israeli factions. Discussing his research into Makovsky's background, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com wrote: "A USA Today article published in 1995 quotes a Michael Makovsky who lived at a settlement in the West Bank, and was a friend of Yigal Amirthe right-wing extremist who murdered Yitzhak Rabin. According to this report, Makovsky's extremist allegiances aren't limited to palling around with assassins. He was reportedly a member, in his student days at least, of the neo-fascist 'Betar' organization, which has a military structure (members wear uniforms, and engage in 'drills') and calls for a 'Greater Israel.'"[8]
On Iran
A major theme in Makovsky's work on Iran is the purported need to maintain a "credible" military threat against the country. In this regard, he has proposed arming Israel with sophisticated weaponry that could encourage Tel Aviv to unilaterally strike Iran, opposed negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear energy programs, and called for U.S. military build up in the region.
In a March 2012 Weekly Standard article published during the lead-up to President Barack Obama's appearance at the annual AIPAC convention, Makovsky argued that the United States should work to prevent Iran from developing the "capability" to build nuclear weaponsin contrast to preventing the acquisition of the weapons themselves.[9] In another Standard article published in February 2013, Makovsky claimed that Iran was using the P5+1 negotiations with the UN Security Council and Germany to delay "the day when it is ready to make the dash to a nuclear weapon," thus skirting the Israeli "red line" of nuclear capability, but ultimately "ensuring that the dash will be as short as possible." Makovsky did not elaborate on how exactly the United States could prevent Iran from securing nuclear capability, except to say that Washington "should make abundantly clear, in both word and deed, that it remains committed to using all means of power to prevent a nuclear Iran."[10]
- See more at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Makovsky_Michael#sthash.hEX5rBur.dpuf
King_David
(14,851 posts)The Israeli military has the right to attack Palestinian hospitals and schools in self defense if Hamas has put rocket launchers next to them, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said last week at a local town hall, according to the Cape Cod Times.
Warren, in defending her vote to send funds to Israel in the middle of its war with Hamas, said she thinks civilian casualties are the "last thing Israel wants."
"But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself," she said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/elizabeth-warren-defends-_n_5733164.html
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)However, Americans who are aware of all the human rights groups report, which are numerous,
know better. Most of the world knows better. If Israeli policy was in the best interests of the
US, they would not need such a heavily funded lobby. When it comes to Iran, Obama is not
interested in another war, unlike Bibi.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The thing is we know that US foreign policy in the ME has been one where we
see Israel as a strategic partner for control and when it comes to the Palestinians,
we don't seem to feel we benefit enough from freeing them from the occupation
and ensure them a viable state to force the issue. If we did, the WB would
be vacated quickly. I thought the CENTCOM report would help Obama at the time,
but I was wrong.
We have two separate issues,so let them do as they please on the occupation as they are reliable
for US interest as a military power etc in the ME.
That is not to say, if an Israeli government put forth an agreement that followed international law, the US would be against it.
It is not as if we are telling them, hey..don't do that! I sometimes wonder if Americans understand that
distinction.
Obama realized early on that even the suggestion of a settlement freeze was going
to be unacceptable and this is where the lobby has its decisive edge and control.
One needs only to look to the region and consider how much good this relationship has
brought us to help a stable ME exist...add Iraq and Afghanistan..thanks to Bush and company,
now they want to go after Iran.
With this latest stunt by the hawks, they have pushed things to a rift, we'll see what develops
for the long term...one poll so far, have Americans supporting Obama on Iran by 61%.
I truly believe Obama is pissing off all the right people with the deal he wants with Iran,
it is the intelligent and responsible thing to do.
The thing about these things is you can't control how people think, the hawks opened up
almost seamless support for Israel, now voters may consider another viewpoint going forward, I feel.
That's how I see it, for the most part, and it is difficult to measure what will be the threshold of
hey, you've gone way too far...so we'll see.
King_David
(14,851 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)On the subject of International Law and attacking schools and hospitals:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-presses-attack-16-killed-at-un-school/2014/07/30/4a643588-17a5-11e4-85b6-c1451e622637_story.html
Again, on the subject:
https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/effects-of-conflict/six-grave-violations/attacks-against-schools/
There are more examples, but there is no right under International Law to attack schools and hospitals.
Her opinion is just that, an opinion.
King_David
(14,851 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that does not mean the support is uncritical. I say the same about President Obama. He has my support and had my votes but I have many disagreements with some of his policies.
But I value consistency. Crimes are crimes no matter who commits them. There are no innocent parties in the Middle East but there are many victims.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Mine is the same as Elizabeth Warrens.
Do any Democratic party reps agree with you on Israel/Palestine? Link.....
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)both major parties march in lockstep on the Israel/Palestine question. I try to base my opinions on information, not focus groups. I am not currently aware of any US politician who does not profess to stand with Israel.
But is US support for Israel based on principle or geopolitics? Does Israel represent a true friend or does the US see Israel as a forward base for power projection?
The US stood by during the Holocaust and allowed millions of deaths. Anti-Semitism has a long history here, as in Europe. My feeling is that the US does nothing without a strategic purpose and is always willing to discard allies when it suits. Remember how the Kurds were encouraged to rebel against Saddam Hussein and later abandoned by the US. Same with the Afghans in the war with the USSR, same with the Vietnamese.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)just another example of this groups thinking
An acceptable diplomatic solution to the danger posed by Iran's nuclear program might have been available, but only had the United States maintained tough sanctions and a credible threat of military force. President Obama instead utterly undermined U.S. leverage and has offered so many irresponsible concessions that any deal struck under this president would be a dangerous deal.
http://www.jinsa.org/jinsa-media/jinsa-ceo-makovsky-obamas-unforced-errors-iran-weekly-standard
King_David
(14,851 posts)Looks like a "task force".
Will be interesting to see if Democrats have an issue with this report.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)So this is what Elizabeth Warren says :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113497152#post14
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)people max are on the extreme margins of our party. The other half of Democratic Party supporters in this group are pretty much in sync with party policy as it pertains to supporting the Jewish State....
The Huff post readers comments were probably a result of marginal websites directing their flock to comment... 'go comment here or do that poll'....airlines do that all the time 'vote for our loyalty program here' - extremist right wing sites would of sent many there too as they did in supporting the Presbyterian church and their pathetic attempt at BDS.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and it can hardly be called an extreme margin anymore
King_David
(14,851 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and that's how change starts
King_David
(14,851 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and then only if you lived in Massachusetts, national elections not until 2012 some of us learn to compromise though, knowing change will come and vote for those most likely to bring it about
King_David
(14,851 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Name calling might be satisfying but is hardly a substitute for fact based debate.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)After 33 plus years as a Union representative dealing with angry and ignorant supervisors and managers, name calling is really not a problem. I have heard them all. I realize that people here feel very strongly about many issues. But my experience here and elsewhere is that when name calling starts in a discussion it is often a sign that the person has no response to the argument.
That said, I like the passion here and the great links that I find.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That's a more accurate headline.
King_David
(14,851 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Obviously.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Really ?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)is to limit casualties to the enemy, not to themselves. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)an interesting link:
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000639
MisterP
(23,730 posts)in the 80s JINSA was considered the furthest right, and even the Reagan WH sometimes kept them out