Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: My only post on the ME crisis [View all]Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)7. Your deleted post contained other info that's not strictly accurate
While human rights organizations havent yet addressed human shields allegations in the ongoing round of Israel-Gaza violence, they did after the 2009 round when Israel killed at least 773 Palestinian civilians, compared to three Israeli civilian casualties (a ratio of 257:1), and used the same human shields argument to deflect responsibility for those deaths. When the dust settled, Amnesty International investigated the matter and concluded that there was no evidence that [Palestinian] rockets were launched from residential houses or buildings while civilians were in these buildings. More attention-worthy was the reports note that,
in the cases of [Israeli] precision missiles or tank shells which killed [Palestinian] civilians in their homes, no fighters were present in the houses that were struck and Amnesty International delegates found no indication that there had been any armed confrontations or other military activity in the immediate vicinity at the time of the attack.
Israels Use of Human Shields
By contrast, the same report found that in several cases Israeli soldiers also used [Palestinian] civilians, including children, as human shields. Going back in time just a little further to put this into context is important: when the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the Israeli military had to stop using Palestinian civilians as human shields, the Israeli defense establishment objected to the ruling. The appeal against the ruling failed, and the practice remains technically illegal, but Israel implicitly encourages it to continue by offering an inadequate slap on the wrist, as Human Rights Watch put it, to Israeli soldiers caught using this reprehensible tactic.
This reveals two important things: the first is the moral hypocrisy and chutzpah on display when Israel ignores its own use of human shields as it accuses its enemies of using them. The second is Israels self-contradicting logic: If Palestinian militants had such disregard for Palestinian civilian lives, why was the Israeli military so invested in maintaining the ability to use Palestinians as shields? The fact that the Israeli army wants to use Palestinian human shields actually proves that they believe Palestinian militants prefer not to endanger their own civilians.
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/18/israels_military_has_no_moral_superiority_and_its_time_the_media_covered_gaza_fairly/
in the cases of [Israeli] precision missiles or tank shells which killed [Palestinian] civilians in their homes, no fighters were present in the houses that were struck and Amnesty International delegates found no indication that there had been any armed confrontations or other military activity in the immediate vicinity at the time of the attack.
Israels Use of Human Shields
By contrast, the same report found that in several cases Israeli soldiers also used [Palestinian] civilians, including children, as human shields. Going back in time just a little further to put this into context is important: when the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the Israeli military had to stop using Palestinian civilians as human shields, the Israeli defense establishment objected to the ruling. The appeal against the ruling failed, and the practice remains technically illegal, but Israel implicitly encourages it to continue by offering an inadequate slap on the wrist, as Human Rights Watch put it, to Israeli soldiers caught using this reprehensible tactic.
This reveals two important things: the first is the moral hypocrisy and chutzpah on display when Israel ignores its own use of human shields as it accuses its enemies of using them. The second is Israels self-contradicting logic: If Palestinian militants had such disregard for Palestinian civilian lives, why was the Israeli military so invested in maintaining the ability to use Palestinians as shields? The fact that the Israeli army wants to use Palestinian human shields actually proves that they believe Palestinian militants prefer not to endanger their own civilians.
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/18/israels_military_has_no_moral_superiority_and_its_time_the_media_covered_gaza_fairly/
And Israel is under no threat of "losing" to the Palestinians, except in the court of world opinion; they're the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, no-one is going to attack them. And there are "war crimes", but Israel is committing them; international law doesn't actually recognise non-state actors as capable of committing war crimes (see the Rome Statute...to which Israel is not a party).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
106 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yup, why the Palestinian Red Crescent is recognized as a national Society
nadinbrzezinski
Jul 2014
#20
They’re a state when it’s convenient; they’re not when it’s inconvenient. Just like the land is
Chathamization
Jul 2014
#50
So once more, they’re a state when it’s convenient; they’re not when it’s inconvenient.
Chathamization
Jul 2014
#62
What he's trying to tell you is that both Israel and Palestine are recognized as states
Hugabear
Jul 2014
#64
your HuffPo is not about extra judicial killings its about the execution of a confessed child killer
azurnoir
Jul 2014
#30
the second and third are from the same 2012 incident the forth is no longer availible
azurnoir
Jul 2014
#43
Welcome back, nadin. A rec from me because your opinion matters as much as anyone's. nt
ChisolmTrailDem
Jul 2014
#10
As far as not supporting any side, perhaps our government feels it has no other option.
Buns_of_Fire
Jul 2014
#34
I couldn't agree more. But that makes too much sense to ever be implemented.
Buns_of_Fire
Jul 2014
#42
What do you think having nuclear arms is about? MAD is backed into the cake.
TheKentuckian
Jul 2014
#36
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jul 2014
#29
You want to break the cycle, call out Israel on the occupation and quit the false equivalency.
BillZBubb
Jul 2014
#84
Sorry, but I can't agree with you here. Hamas hadn't fired rockets for 18 or 19 months and it would
magical thyme
Jul 2014
#89