UK officer says views of Israeli forces 'anti-Semitic'

[shira]

UK officer says views of Israeli forces 'anti-Semitic'
By John McManus
BBC News

A former senior British army officer has said international media including the BBC are being exploited by "dark forces" who want to harm Israel. Col Richard Kemp, who was a commander in Afghanistan, said some international criticism of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) was motivated by anti-Semitism. He was speaking at a dinner in London hosted by a pro-Israel lobby group.

Col Kemp had defended the actions of the IDF at the UN Goldstone Hearings into the Gaza incursion of 2008. The Israeli minister for Information and the Diaspora, Yuli Edelstein, was also present at the dinner hosted by the Zionist Federation. He refused to comment on rumours that the Israeli secret service Mossad had fraudulently used the passports of British citizens during an operation to kill the Hamas boss Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

Col Kemp, who is now retired from the Army and makes a living from writing, said the advice he received from the Israeli armed forces on how to tackle Afghan suicide bombers had been invaluable, and formed the basis of official army guidelines used by soldiers on the ground there. There were some "bad" soldiers in the IDF, Col Kemp acknowledged. But he added that despite similarities between the IDF and British forces, UK soldiers did not have to deal with the same amount of criticism from the international community.

"When we go into battle we do not get the same knee-jerk, almost Pavlovian response from many, many elements of the international media and international groups, humanitarian groups and other international groups such as the United Nations which should know better... of utter automatic condemnation. We don't have to put up with that."

more...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8527563.stm

[shira]

1. NATO Kills 27 Civilians; Time to Call Judge Goldstone

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/nato_kills_27_civilians_time_t.php

Seriously. There should be a single standard here for judging the way Western democracies fight asymmetrical warfare against enemies who often hide behind screens of civilians. It's quite obvious to me that NATO didn't intend to kill these 27 civilians.

LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022200842.html?hpid=topnews

It's also quite obvious to me that Israel didn't intend to kill civilians in Gaza. I don't believe these things because NATO, and the IDF, are excessively moral. I believe these things because it's not in either organization's self-interest to hurt civilians. Although of course NATO and the IDF are in a different moral category than the Taliban and Hamas.

[Chemisse]

4. Actually, news from Gaza indicated that the Israeli soldiers did just that

Such as when they reportedly ordered people out of an apartment building, then opened fire on them, killing children and others.

The motive for Israeli to kill civilians is to frighten the Palestinians. Rather reminiscent of terrorism, isn't it?

[shira]

7. yeah, I hear they raped the livestock too

:sarcasm:

[Chemisse]

23. No, the UN report said nothing about livestock

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLN537222

But they did say a lot about killing civilians.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

6. so help me to understand this...

Why are Israelis or Zionists some strange form of life for whom the usual rules don’t apply? When it comes to this particular group of people, the same level of evidence, balance, or level of right vs. wrong is not required. Why is this?

In fact, Israelis or Zionists do not even have to be dealt with for who they really are, but rather as they exist in the imaginations of those who busy themselves portrayaying Israelis in the darkest colors imaginable.

Why is this happening and what is the explanation if not pure unadulterated bigotry or antisemitism?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. You tell me.

The idea that the usual rules don't apply to Israel and Zionism is common among supporters of Israel's government - the most obvious recent example being the recent Dubai assassination.

Perhaps you can explain why it was OK to target South Africa for sanctions, but when Israel acts as badly or worse it receives 4 times as much aid per capita from the US as any other nation? Is that applying the same standard?

[shira]

16. okay, I'll tell you

1. What about the Dubai assassination? Why rush to assume Israel is behind it? Why does this story rate as FAR more important to so-called human rights activists (who could care less about Israeli human rights) than the 27 civilians the US killed in Afghanistan recently?

2. S.Africa had to be prodded to end a bad situation. Israel has given up Gaza and Olmert in 2008 just offered a 100% land deal, E.Jerusalem as Palestinian capital, and limited RoR. What more should Israel be forced to do via sanctions, and does the Palestinian side have any responsibilities whatsoever?

[shaayecanaan]

84. I think there comes a certain time when denial becomes pointless...

1. What about the Dubai assassination? Why rush to assume Israel is behind it?

The assassination of a Hamas operative was carried out by European-looking people (evidently not Arabs) who were all carrying passports belonging to people who were all dual Israeli nationals.

There comes a time when you have to ask, if it wasn't Israel, who else could it be?

[WhiteTara]

15. I remember Sabra and Shatila. n/t

[shira]

17. exactly my point - Why remember Sabra and Shatila but never mention Srebrenica?

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp458.htm

"In the UN safe area of Srebrenica, 6-8,000 Bosnian Moslems were murdered in July 1995 by the Bosnian Serbs, making it the largest civilian massacre in Europe since the Holocaust. The United Nations leaders, those of their peace-keeping forces, and the Dutch government had known for some time that the enclave was not defensible and had not taken adequate protective measures. Although aware that Serbs were executing Bosnian Moslems, the Dutch UN forces fled the area. Before that, Dutch soldiers helped separate the Bosnian men from the women. No UN or Dutch political or military leaders have ever been held accountable for their failure to prevent these crimes."

==========

You make my point for me.

[shergald]

22. The UN force evacuated the area on orders.

Apparently, Madlovich gave promises he had no intention of keeping. Hope that evetually catch the SOB.

Why not mention Srebrenica? I suppose because this is an IP site. But I have heard such arguments before. Why pick on the Israelis? There are people out there that were just as bad. Don't get it.

[WhiteTara]

25. this thread is about "anti-semitism"

not muslim/serb. So why switch subjects in the middle of the conversation?

[shira]

26. the point is that what the UN and Dutch did in Srebrenica is 100x worse than Sabra/Shatila

and to this day no one has been held to account for Srebrenica. When most "concerned humanitarians" (who lack concern for Israeli human rights) bring up Sabra/Shatila, they tend to have no clue as to what happened at Srebrenica or Hama 1982 for that matter - nor do they care. They've never heard of those, only Sabra Shatila for some odd reason. :eyes: These "pro-Palestinian peace activists" also tend to be indifferent WRT Hamas or Fatah crimes against Palestinian innocents and do nothing to promote civil society or real human rights within the Palestinian territories.

If Israelis or Zionists aren't involved, it's just no big deal, which brings us back to the OP.

The hypocrisy is astounding, but attempting to embarass anti-Israel activists by bringing up that hypocrisy is about as pointless as trying to embarass dogs with accusations they lick their own balls.

[WhiteTara]

28. note he only has chest pains

not heart pains. Proof the man has no heart.

[shaayecanaan]

85. what rubbish...

"the point is that what the UN and Dutch did in Srebrenica is 100x worse than Sabra/Shatila"

Shameful.

[shira]

91. More people were killed, the UN was involved, and no one has been held accountable

That makes it worse.

[shergald]

41. This idea of, why us, not them? not the Sudanese is anti-Semitism is old hat..

This idea of "why us and not them" is anti-Semitism is a staple of Israeli propaganda, and a good talking point recommended by the GIYUS site, which sends bloggers all over the internet to defend Israel. It is a corollary of the meme, criticism of Israel is antiSemitic.

[shira]

43. disproportionate focus on Israel is antisemitic

As is...

a) believing zionists have too much power and influence

b) zionist Jews have dual loyalties

c) blood libel accusations (Jews harvest organs, murder Palestinian children, etc..)

d) double-standards or impossible standards for Israel



I could go on, but what's important is that it's just not enough for antisemites to criticize Israel in a measured and rational way. They feel they MUST go way over the deep end into irrational criticism that dehumanizes and demonizes Israelis and Zionists and deligitimizes the existance of Israel. The facts aren't enough so there is a need to exaggerate, go into hyperbole, lie by omission, comission, etc. Many feel it's okay to obsess and and passionately criticize Israel like no other country is criticized w/o ever feeling the need to criticize Palestinian or Arab leadership and never giving Israel credit or kudos where it's due.

It's easy to spot this.

Stay away from the usual dead giveaway memes and tropes and there won't be accusations of antisemitism.

Criticize.

Don't demonize.

[shergald]

61. Disproportionate concern about Israel from Americans is totally warranted.

Americans support Israel to the tune of 6 billion a year, half of it in terms of military aid. Those were mostly American weapons that killed those 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza, including the experimental phosphorous and DIME bombs used, and of course, a few years earlier, the cluster bombs used in Lebanon that went on killing and maiming after the invasion stopped. It is as if not enough children were already killed by direct bombing and artillary.

Israel is our largest foreign aid recipient. As far as I'm aware, we do not give aid to Sudan or Myanmar.

This concerns me and others, especially after what the Goldstone group found in its investigation of Gaza. This is not antiSemitism. It is pure antiArab bigotry that caused this incident by Israeli soldiers. You say accusations that Israelis "murder Palestinian children" is antiSemitism. Well here's a good example of your antiSemitism. Take a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHDoH4hrFfs&feature=player_embedded

[oberliner]

66. The disproportionate concern about Israel is not from Americans

In fact, most Americans are pretty supportive in Israel.

The disproportionate concern about Israel comes primarily from other states and the UN General Assembly itself.

Last I checked, the Arab League, for instance does not give Israel any support, financial or otherwise. yet many of their member states seem to have selective outrage when it comes to apparent human rights violations by Israel versus those committed by other countries.

The particular example in the OP is about neither Americans nor Arab League states but rather British and international media coverage.

As to your other comment, one could also argue that "Americans murder Iraqi children" or "British murder Afgahni children" or "Russians murder Chechnyan children" or even "Palestinians murder Israel children" as there is evidence to support that examples of each of these have occurred.

[shergald]

68. The main point is that the atrocities of Gaza were bought and paid for by the American taxpayer.

And now we even have our Congress and Senate approving Gaza war crimes, and doing its usual duty of supporting Israel rather than the world community at the UN. Are you asking, why didn't Judge Goldstone go to Afganistan and look there for war crimes at the same time?

Is Judge Goldstone ergo an anti-Semite?

These arguments intended to excuse Israel of its war crimes in Gaza are just apologetic if not totally supportive of them. After some point, these proIsrael 'talking points' get so watered down that they become meaningless and a waste of time. And it's a waste of time responding to them.

[shergald]

69. It's all theme and variations on the propaganda: criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitism is then trivialized by such accusations, which has also been noted on numerous occasions by peace activist groups, Jewish and nonJewish.

Maybe you ought to reconsider this line of reasoning, even though it is still recommended as a propaganda tool.

[shergald]

70. Another point.

Since DU apparently keeps Israel (as opposed to other foreign news) off the frontpage, in spite of all this energetic banter, not many people are going to read it. And that applies to you and me. So don't get so piqued when people contradict your 'opinions,' your defense of Israel, and your avoidance of reality terms like, ethnic cleansing, occupation, colonization, and so forth.

[Shaktimaan]

73. Here is the thing...

While this is a charge that I see levied against Israel frequently, I seldom actually see anyone arguing that any and all criticism against Israel is based on anti-semitism, and thus unfounded.

Personally, I don't think that the majority of criticism against Israel is really based on a widespread hatred of the Jews or a desire to discriminate against Israel because it is a Jewish state. That said, it is apparent that Israel has always been subject to an extremely disproportionate amount of censure. The reasons for this constant scrutiny and vilification from the international community is varied and complex, some stemming from issues that have no relationship to Israel at all. Regardless of what the reasons are, it is patently obvious that Israel is judged very differently than other states. A glance at the history of organizations like the UNHRC or its predecessor leave little doubt about this.

In fact, if you were to look at the relationship of Israel to the UN in general a pattern of discrimination becomes overly clear. From the amount of GA resolutions passed singling Israel out for criticism to the fact that Israel stands alone as the only state denied entry to its regional group, (which prevents it from participating in key UN functions like the security council), it is plain that Israel receives less than equal consideration there.

Now none of this means that all accusations levied against Israel are baseless. There's no doubt that Israel has earned its fair share of criticism or that the discrimination it faces shouldn't absolve it of its responsibilities. However if we ignore the existence of these anti-Zionist forces when reviewing criticism of Israel then we would not be doing our due diligence. Skepticism of UN based investigations against Israel is far from simple knee-jerk propaganda. There have been more than a few accusations leveled against Israel that turned out to be somewhat less than accurate in the past. The supposed massacre at Jenin comes to mind as one example.

The fact that such anti-Zionist discrimination so blatantly exists within the international community has an effect that extends far beyond just Israeli issues. After all, it was a demented preoccupation with Israel that ultimately exposed the UN Commission on Human Rights as hopelessly biased, despite it being an organization that REALLY should have been shielded from partisan politics.

Ultimately, rejecting all skepticism of Israel's detractors as propaganda seeking to capitalize on charges of non-existent anti-semitism makes as little sense as the practice it critiques. The fact that Israel IS held to different standards and that ulterior motives DO exist in the international community are merely part of the equation that one must consider when reviewing critiques of Israel. To do otherwise is to ignore reality.

[shergald]

78. Ergo, criticism of Israel is at least partially based on anti-Semitism.

It is not difficult to understand how Israel, which has persistently engaged in ethnic cleansing in the attempt to replace the indigenous population, the Palestinians, with its own Jewish population would engage in human rights abuses that drew the attention of the UN and world community. Afterall, it was the UN that first officially recognized the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of two thirds of the indiginous population of Palestinians, roughly 800,000, in 1948, and then passed Resolution 194 six months later, the right of return, and set up UNWRA, the agency which has theretofore looked after these forcibly removed refugees from Palestine. Israel refused and ever since has condemned the UN as biased whenever it cited their human rights abuses. Israel subsequently rejected just about every UN resolution censuring it, supported by the US, sometimes alone or joined by a scattering of small South Pacific nations.

Ever since 1948, the Israel government, under right and left wing parties, has continued that ethnic cleansing, in dramatic fashion again in 1967, and then slowly since then. It goes on today. I don't know of any country today engaging in ethnic cleansing to replace an undesired population with their own, based on race or ethnicity or otherwise.

The idea that criticism of human rights abuses is anti-Semitic is an astounding proposition. The disproportionate argument is just a deflection of this criticism, just another version of the propaganda meme: criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

As for Jenin, I must disagree. It was nothing less than the worst aspect of Israel's military occupation, where bulldozer drivers admitted they were taking down houses with families inside of them. It was also a rebellion of an occupied people, which has fought in various ways since 1967 to be free.

But let's talk about the occupation. What country in these modern times has been permitted to keep another people under prolonged military occupation, now going on for 42 years? But the occupation is not the worst of it. The worst of it is its purpose, to support a modern day colonization that has been going as long. In other words, the occupation is intended to support a land grab, involving many techniques of ethnic cleansing, house demolitions, destruction of farms and orchards, olive groves, in particular, deprivation of water resources, illegal appropriation of deeded lands, etc., all for the purpose of getting rid of (ethnic cleansing) the indiginous population of Arabs, the Palestinians, further. The Zionist dream, Eretz Israel, has never ended, and it is what has preoccupied Israel, at least since the reign of Menachum Begin.

So we have one people trying to replace another people, happening for over 60 years. It is conceivable that it would not be noticed and that the world ala the UN would not condemn it? I don't think so. So is the attention given Israel's human rights abuses disproportionate, for example, compared to Mayanmar or Sudan? I don't know. Let's count the dead, then come back and debate again.

Thank heaven the US is not supporting the atrocities in Sudan. But we do fund Israel, and it is safe to say that the history of human rights abuses in Israel would never have happened except for US support and funding. So the Ugly American is still around: high, mighty and principled at home, sick, hypocritical and sociopathic overseas.

[Shaktimaan]

74. double post np

[oberliner]

71. I am talking about the rest of the world who are not American taxpayers

My claim is that the rest of the international community who are not American taxpayers are the ones who appear to single out Israel over other nations perhaps unjustly.

The UNHRC in its earlier incarnation was a pretty clear and undeniable example of this behavior.

[oberliner]

48. Calling every point made by a pro-Israel poster "hasbara" or "propaganda" is also old hat

"No need to consider any of these arguments. They are just Israeli propaganda. They are just talking points."

That's just as much a way to shut off debate and avoid serious self-reflection as the folks who in your view misuse the claim of anti-semitism.

If you are a police officer and you witness five people committing a crime but only arrest one of them and let the other four go, it seems reasonable to ask why you are only concerned with that particular criminal and not the others.

Israel can simultaneously be guilty of criminal acts, while it can also be true that certain entities are more concerned with Israel's criminal acts than those of other countries.

Those two problems are not exclusionary of one another.

[oberliner]

49. Speaking of "talking points"

The Assault on Gaza and the Occupation of Palestine: Talking Points and Resources

Though many organizers support the self-determination of Palestine, we don't always have the tools we need to explain clearly what is going on within our mass organization or among friends and family. We would like to offer some resources and talking points here for folks to draw from. We hope that this will be a useful tool.

http://www.freedomroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=606%3Athe-assault-on-gaza-and-the-occupation-of-palestine-talking-points-and-resources&catid=176%3Ainternational-solidarity&Itemid=229&lang=en

Lots of people put together "talking points" from various perspectives on this and other topics.

[shergald]

60. The explanation is likely related to the realities of the IP conflict.

That anyone could invoke antiSemitism as an explanation for criticism of what Israeli soldiers did in Gaza is way off the mark. Israeli soldiers, like other soldiers, are taught to dehumanize the enemy, in this case, the "Arabs," and they come rapped in bigotry and prejudices.

Incidents like these, which occurred in Gaza, the intentional killing of children held captive, could not occur otherwise. Here's some of what Goldstone found out during his investigation, children murdered in cold blood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHDoH4hrFfs&feature=player_embedded

[Chemisse]

3. I think it is shameful for Kemp to cry anti - semitism when people disagree with Israel

Given the history of real and horrific anti-semitism, I would think it would be a slap in the faces of all Jewish people to label criticism of the attacks in Gaza 'anti-semitism'.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Is it as shameful as your strawman argument?

[Chemisse]

24. What are you talking about?

Are you saying there were not horrific acts against Jews in the past?

Are you saying those who were victimized in that way would feel that having someone accuse you of unfair attacks against the Palestinians was comparable to being tortured and murdered?

Oops, this was supposed to be a reply to the last post.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Do you know what a strawman argument is?

[Chemisse]

33. Actually I think that is what you are doing

You certainly did not grapple with my comment head on, preferring to argue instead about the type of argument it is.

It's the lazy way out.

Perhaps you would like to give it another whirl with an analogy:

If you were black and fought side by side with others during the civil rights movement, earning progress inch by inch, how would you then feel if some kid told his teacher that she gave him a bad grade because he was black? Would you not feel that that cheapened everything you had worked for?

In the same way, doesn't the cry of antisemitism become meaningless if it is used when it doesn't really apply?

I would welcome an intelligent response that actually discusses the point I was asking about.

Name calling bores me.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. So basically, no?

Go back to your orginal post and see if you can find anything remotely like what you wrote being said by anyone other than yourself. Then, you will understand. The 'type of argument' you used is a logical fallacy and not the real basis of a legitmate discussion/argument. While you are exploring the nuances of logical fallacies, also explore "false allegations."

[Chemisse]

36. LOL - I guess it's called an original idea

And you still have not responded. Aren't you personally offended that the antisemitism accusation is being used so loosely?

I get it: the best defense is a good offense. Too bad it makes for a fruitless discussion.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. That's one way of looking at a strawman.

It is an "original" idea, of sorts.

"Aren't you personally offended that the antisemitism accusation is being used so loosely?"

The way you did it? Yes, I find it offensive, but common.

"...the best defense is a good offense."

Seems to be your motto.

[Chemisse]

39. Finally you answered the question

Did it really require such a tooth-pulling?

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Because it was based on a strawman. I felt sorry for you.

But, at least you understand why I find your strawman offensive.

[Chemisse]

42. That strawman is not providing much of a cover for you

Is that your standard attack when you don't like what a poster says? I've gotta tell you, it's pretty feeble. You might want to polish up on your debating skills.

[Behind the Aegis]

44. It isn't matter of liking or not liking what you said; it wasn't true.

It was the typical response from posters like yourself; create a strawman and pretend it is factual and "demand" a response to your "analysis" and fantastic "debating" skills. Having to rely on half-truths, untruths, and just plain ol' made up shit, is not the way to engage in debate...perhaps you should brush up on your skills as they clearly are lacking as evidenced by your first post in this sub-thread which is nothing more than a strawman; that means it is a logical fallacy, not the hallmark of great debates, but perfect for propagating propaganda.

[Chemisse]

45. So here is my original statement - please point out which is 'not true'

Here is what I wrote: "Given the history of real and horrific anti-semitism, I would think it would be a slap in the faces of all Jewish people to label criticism of the attacks in Gaza 'anti-semitism'."

Now let's see where the 'not true' statement is.


1. Are you suggesting there was not horrific antisemitism in the past?

Are you a Holocaust denier? Is that what this is all about?


2. Are you saying it would NOT be a slap in the face of Jewish people?

As you can see, it was not a statement of fact, it was my suggestion. If you disagree with that, why not just say so, specifically, instead of dancing around with your strawman? It's ok to disagree with me; I would respect that a whole lot more than your 'dodge and jab' technique.


3. Are you saying that criticism of the attacks was not labeled as 'anti-semitism'?

If so, please refer back to the OP, since that is the title of the article.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. It isn't very difficult, but since you seem to be lost....

Here is what you actually wrote:

"I think it is shameful for Kemp to cry anti - semitism when people disagree with Israel"

That is the beginning of your strawman. Kemp never "cried anti-Semitism" because people disagree with Israel." What he actually said was: "some international criticism of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) was motivated by anti-Semitism." You compound your strawman with your remarks and finish with another untruth: "...label criticism of the attacks in Gaza 'anti-semitism'."" I suggest you follow your own advice and re-read the article because neither Kemp nor any article I have seen to date has said anything of the sort.

It is easy to see, the only one in this sub-thread with strawmen, is you! It was your strawman I found offensive, not the made up remarks of Kemp and the false information that ended the sentence and therefore, the 'middle' really applies to your remarks.

Given all the horrific anti-Semitism in the past, it is a slap in the face of Jews to fabricate accusations of false "cries" of anti-Semitism against someone.

[Chemisse]

52. Finally something specific - now was that so hard?

Okay, 2 statements here:

I said, "I think it is shameful for Kemp to cry anti - semitism when people disagree with Israel"

And:

What he actually said was: "some international criticism of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) was motivated by anti-Semitism."

These 2 statements are saying basically the same thing. He did cite antisemitism among those who criticize Israel. I said it was shameful. Apparently you disagree.


"...label criticism of the attacks in Gaza 'anti-semitism'."

You say, "it is a slap in the face of Jews to fabricate accusations of false "cries" of anti-Semitism against someone."

So after all this, it finally comes to light that you disagree with the antisemitism charges being false. So you do believe that criticisms of Israel's army's actions are based on a dislike for Jewish people, not for any actions they may have taken.

Why on earth didn't you just say that to begin with? We can simply agree to disagree on the whole matter.

[shergald]

5. This seems to be just another variation of: criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

Israeli Defence Force?" Read this as the "Israeli Occupation Force". The IOF does not have a reputation as a moral army by any means, as its primary role in the West Bank has always been to support the ethnic cleansing of "Arabs" (as Palestinians are known), protect the settlers, and protect their harassing antics.

Would any other British officer repeat Kemp's words?

[shergald]

9. Here's the other IDF: "Another Palestinian child bites the dust "

Reprinted from Booman Tribune:

As reported by ISM (International Solidarity Movement) this morning, a 10-Year old shot dead at Nil'in.
July 29th, 2008

A 10 year old boy called Ahmed Ussam Yusef Mousa (above) was shot dead at approximately 6pm near the Palestinian village of Nil'in. He was shot once in the head at close range with live ammunition.

According to eye witnesses a group of youths attempted to remove coils of razor wire from land belonging to the village. Without warning, they were fired upon and Ahmed was killed. Israeli newspaper Maariv reported in March that the Israeli authorities have given a new order to border police operating along the apartheid wall surrounding Jerusalem. They can now open fire directly on Palestinians who try to demonstrate near the barrier. But sniping is forbidden if there are Israeli or foreign citizens amongst demonstrators.

Demonstrations have been held almost every day for the past few weeks as near Nil'in against Israel's Apartheid Wall, declared illegal by the International Court in the Hague in 2004. The wall will deprive the village of almost 2,500 Dunums of agricultural land, and put the existence of the entirely community in doubt.

The Israeli Army and Border Police have been increasingly ill-disciplined and violent in response to the demonstrations. Link above for the rest of the article.

Six other children below the age of 18 (among 11 total deaths) have been murdered during demonstrations against Israel's Apartheid Wall.
Israeli soldier's attitudes toward Palestinian children are becoming more well-known.

This material, quoted by Lawrence of Cyberia is about Israel's targeting of civilians especially children in the West Bank and Gaza. Here you have an occupying military force colonizing Palestinian lands, and Israeli soldiers given orders to take out civilians who protest it including children.

Palestinian deaths during the first and second Intifadas were not unintentional collateral damage. It was terrorist murdering by an occupying force.

Israel's claim that its soldiers adhere to a doctrine of "purity of arms" in dealing with the Palestinian civilian population has been going on for a long time. In the first intifada, Ehud Barak was the IDF's Deputy Chief of Staff, and proclaimed: "We do not want children to be shot under any circumstances ... When you see a child you don't shoot." That was untrue then, just as Bradley Burston's insinuation that Palestinian civilian deaths aren't intentional is a lie now:

The Swedish "Save the Children" organization estimated that "23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifida," with nearly one‐third sustaining broken bones. Nearly one‐third of the beaten children were aged ten and under. It also states that 6,500 to 8,000 children were wounded by gunfire during the first two years of the Intifada.

Researchers investigated 66 of the 106 recorded cases of "child gunshot deaths." They concluded that: almost all of them "were hit by directed, not random or ricochet gunfire"; nearly twenty percent suffered multiple gunshot wounds; twelve percent were shot from behind; fifteen percent of the children were ten years of age or younger; "most children were not participating in a stone throwing demonstration when shot dead"; and "nearly one fifth of the children were shot dead while at home or within ten meters of their homes."

-cited in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (chapter 2, end note 49); by Mearsheimer and Walt.

That's how the IDF killed Palestinian civilians - children - during the first intifada. Not through a careless use of missiles or the occasional errant tank shell, but by individual Israeli soldiers pointing their guns at children in the Occupied Territories - even children under ten, even children who had turned their backs and were running away - and shooting them dead.

And the IDF's record in the second intifada is much worse. Firstly, because the IDF announced in March 2003 that it would no longer routinely investigate the deaths of civilians killed by Israeli soldiers, but would allow individual Israeli officers in the field to decide whether to call in the Military Police whenever their troops killed a civilian, or to simply declare the killing an "unfortunate incident of death", which required no investigation. A policy that has had the following, entirely predictable, result:

The IDF effectively grants immunity to soldiers who open fire illegally. Since the beginning of the intifada, the IDF has ceased to automatically open an investigation into every case in which a Palestinian is killed by IDF fire. The decision as to whether to open a Military Police investigation into each incident is now made by the Judge Advocate General's office, based on the results of the field de-briefings, which are also carried out by the army itself. In one case that was exposed by B'Tselem, it was clear that an eleven-year-old child had died as a result of the violation of procedures and illegal shooting. Despite this, the Judge Advocate General's office decided not to request a Military Police investigation. In addition, the investigations that are opened are generally protracted and based primarily on soldiers' testimonies, while completely ignoring the Palestinian eyewitnesses.

This policy has unavoidably resulted in a situation in which shooting at innocent Palestinians has practically become a routine. (B'Tselem)

And secondly, because at the very beginning of the second intifada, the IDF issued extremely broad open fire regulations, concerning who might be considered a legitimate target:

Sniper: "They forbid us to shoot at children".
Journalist: "How do they say this?"
Sniper: "You don't shoot a child who is 12 or younger".
Journalist: "That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?"
Sniper: "Twelve and up is allowed. He's not a child anymore, he's already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that".
Journalist: "Thirteen is bar mitzvah age".
Sniper: "Twelve and up, you're allowed to shoot. That's what they tell us".
Journalist: "Under international law, a child is defined as someone up to the age of 18."
Sniper: "Up until 18 is a child?"
Journalist: "So, according to the IDF, it is 12?"
Sniper: "According to what the IDF says to its soldiers. I don't know if this is what the IDF says to the media."

-- Amira Hass' interview with an IDF sharpshooter, explaining why so many Palestinian children were killed in the first weeks of the intifada, when the IDF was largely confronted by stonethrowers.

Published in Ha'aretz, Don't shoot till you can see they're over the age of 12, 20 November 2000.

Other evidence of Israeli soldiers targeting children is given in statistics reported by Alison Weir who operates the site: If Americans Knew:

The first suicide bombing in the second intifadah was on Dec. 22 (no Israelis died in it). By that time, 86 Palestinian children (<18 years of age) had been killed by Israelis. The first Israeli child was killed on Jan. 17, 2001. By that time, at least 90 Palestinian children had been killed by Israeli armed forces.

Before a single suicide bomber had entered Israel after the start of the Second Intifada, sometimes called, after Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the al Aqsa Intifada, during its first month, 27 Palestinian children had been killed by Israeli Defense Forces in the West Bank and Gaza, the youngest only four months of age, and the majority due to gunshot wounds to the head. Numerous children were also wounded. In the first three months alone, 159 children lost an eye presumably to rubber bullets shot from IDF rifles. Clearly the IDF were intentionally targeting these children, aiming at their heads with either rubber bullets or real bullets in the case of the child kills. We are talking here about a trained, mechanized army versus civilians, children participating in the Intifada, the nonviolent resistance instituted by child and teenage Palestinian boys and girls. To be fair, we did hear that an Israeli soldier lost his eye from a rock thrown by a Palestinian boy from a pretty IDF spokeswoman, but it was the only such incident reported in three years.

In addition to these children, many more innocent adult civilians were killed in the month before suicide bombings commenced. If terrorism is the intentional killing of civilians, then clearly, Israel's armed forces were deep into terrorism, the state sponsored type, long before the Palestinians engaged in it to any degree. As a people fighting a military occupation, it would seem that the ultimate cause of all of these horrors on both sides rests with Israel and the purpose for which it continues its long occupation, the colonization of Palestinian lands.

Rami Khouri, the Palestinian editor of the Beirut newspaper, the Daily Star, provided this cynical report to statements by Olmert professing his concern for Palestinian children (Ehud Olmert's Profound Ethics and Deep Lies):

"For anyone interested in the facts about the impact of Israeli policies on Palestinian children, a good place to start is the carefully checked data disseminated by the Palestinian Nongovernmental Organization Network (www.palestinemonitor.org). Their data is compiled and verified on the ground by the Ramallah-based Health Development Information and Policy Institute, which has been honored by the World Health Organization for its work in promoting Palestinian health needs. So these people know what they are talking about when it comes to health conditions on the ground in Israeli-occupied Palestine. Some of the facts they provide are as follows.

In just the first two years of the second intifada, from September 2000 to November 2002:

383 Palestinian children (under the age of 18) were killed by the Israeli army and Israeli settlers, i.e. almost 19% of the total Palestinians killed; those figures have increased since then.

Approximately 36% of total Palestinians injured (estimated at more than 41,000) are children; 86 of these children were under the age of ten; 21 infants under the age of 12 months have been killed.

245 Palestinian students and school children have been killed; 2,610 pupils have been wounded on their way to or from school.

The Israeli policy of widespread closure has paralyzed the Palestinian health system, with children particularly vulnerable to this policy of collective punishment. Internal closures have severely disrupted health plans which affect over 500,000 children, including vaccination programs, dental examinations and early diagnosis for children when starting schools.

During the first two months of the intifada, the rate of upper respiratory infections in children increased from 20% to 40%. Almost 60% of children in Gaza suffer parasitic infections.

An overwhelming number of Palestinian children show symptoms of trauma such as sleep disorders, nervousness, decrease in appetite and weight, feelings of hopelessness and frustration, and abnormal thoughts of death.

There have been 36 cases of Palestinian women in labor delayed at checkpoints and refused permission to reach medical facilities or for ambulances to reach them. At least 14 of these women gave birth at the checkpoint with eight of the births resulting in the death of the newborn infants.

The Israeli army killing of Palestinian children continues apace. In its annual report May 16, the respected global human rights organization Amnesty International accused the Israeli army of killing 190 Palestinians, including 50 children, last year (2005)."
Today, we learn that the toll on Palestinian children continues to mount.

[HeresyLives]

11. It amazes me that so many people can't tell the difference

between a nationality and a religion.

[shaayecanaan]

12. The same Kemp that said that the IDF was the most moral army in the world

and has written books and made presentations in support of Israel in relation to OCL, despite the fact that he has no experience of the IDF, Gaza, or the Palestinians.

Now he's an expert on the media. I think we have a fair appreciation of what his views are. Why should they be taken any more seriously than anyone else's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_kemp

[Prometheus Bound]

37. The man does go a bit over the top.

"And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409

[ChicagoSuz219]

13. Arabs are considered 'Semites,' as well. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Very good. Has nothing to do with OP.

[ChicagoSuz219]

18. LOL... just a piece of info I threw out there... n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

19. So, pointless information? ok

[ChicagoSuz219]

20. It's not pointless...

...you'd be surprised how many people don't know that.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. How is it relevant to this discussion?

[ChicagoSuz219]

27. It's relevant to the link on your message...

...all the anti-Semitic stories are about Jews. Made me think of what I wrote.

Now you can let it go...

[Behind the Aegis]

29. There is a reason all anti-Semitic stories are about Jews...anti-Semitism is bigotry against Jews...

...not Semites. Also, it is 'interesting' the link in my message made you think about what you wrote, considering I replied to your message.

You do know there are no eggs in eggplants, right?

[ChicagoSuz219]

31. Congratulations!

You win the Semitic Semantics Award.

You also win the Snarky Award.

I'm done now...

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Glad I could help educate you.

[Chemisse]

47. Watch out because he is never done.

He seems to have been inflicted with last-word-itis.

[Tripmann]

87. " You win the Semitic Semantics Award."

LOL Priceless :applause:

[Chemisse]

46. I didn't realize that! nt

[Behind the Aegis]

50. That's not surprising.

[Chemisse]

53. It's not surprising that I didn't know that Arabs are Semites too?

No, I don't suppose it is. Probably a lot of people don't know that, and I am weak on knowledge of history, as it is.

[LeftishBrit]

54. True - but 'antisemitic' is a term concocted by 19th century Europaean antisemites to mean

'anti-Jewish'

[classysassy]

35. American citizens

defending bad conduct by another country is just plain wrong.Deep down in their hearts(if they have a heart)they know their defense only encourage more blood letting.Wake up america and reject the people that defend terrorism.

[shira]

59. American citizens pointing 'over there' to Israel when silent about FAR, FAR worse in Afghanistan...

,...is highly hypocritical and makes one wonder just what kind of nerve they have singling out Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

55. As so often...

the rhetoric is similar at opposite extremes, and tends to detract from the major points.

'international media including the BBC are being exploited by "dark forces" who want to harm Israel'.

And on the other side, 'international media including the BBC' are supposedly being manipulated by 'dark forces' of Zionism, etc.


'some international criticism of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) was motivated by anti-Semitism.'

Yes, some is. And some international criticism of Arab states is motivated by Islamophobia. And LOTS of criticism of immigration policies in the British tabloids is motivated by racism. Etc.

Media in Britain and elsewhere is very varied. It is important to recognize when reports may be influenced by prejudice or bigotry; but sensationalist rhetoric about 'dark forces' doesn't really help the cause.

[shira]

58. so how do you explain the silence WRT what is happening in Afghanistan compared w/ Israel?

[LeftishBrit]

62. First of all, there is no SILENCE. There are lots of criticisms and protests about what is happening

in Afghanistan.

What is being said here is not that the media are *silent*, but that they don't emphasize legality/international law issues when discussing the matter.

Possibly because people tend to be more reluctant to say that *their own* countries are acting against the law - especially while a war is actually going on. Yes, it's a form of hypocrisy.

But see the following for example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/24/soldier-protest-war-afghanistan-london

[shira]

65. comparatively speaking, there's silence. Dubai is a much bigger story now than Afghanistan

Also, WRT legality issues within the UK/US and people not wanting to criticize their own, the fact is that Israel has a much more self-critical media than either the US or UK, which of course means that they are FAR more likely to act accordingly, make adjustments, and "do better" the next round.

The UN and other countries outside the US/UK are also comparatively silent about Afghanistan, in comparison to Israel. What's their excuse? The fact is Afghanistan is seen as a 'just' war, so the US and UK are given the benefit of the doubt. No wars are ever just where Israel is involved, no matter the threat to Israel's civilians - as though 6 years of rockets day and night with 15 seconds warning doesn't merit a harsh reaction (more hypocrisy, since NO other country would sit on its hands for 6 years and thousands of rockets).

[LeftishBrit]

79. The UN tend to scapegoat Israel but I'm not sure that's the whole story

The UK media is in fact pretty critical of our governments, but sadly, often from the Right.

The Iraq war came in for a lot of criticism; Afghanistan much less so, at least till recently.

Actually right at the moment, the media *are* giving a lot of attention to possible British violations of international law; but not mainly with regard to Afghanistan - mostly with regard to rendition and torture, and most notably the case of Binyamin Mohamed.




'as though 6 years of rockets day and night with 15 seconds warning doesn't merit a harsh reaction (more hypocrisy, since NO other country would sit on its hands for 6 years and thousands of rockets).'

No other country? It's estimated that the IRA killed nearly 2000 people during the Troubles, and that 630 of them were civilians. They were responsible for injuries to about 14000. (This is not counting the Protestant 'paramilitary', i.e. terrorist, groups, who were just as nasty but on the whole not the same threat to the *mainland*.)

In Spain, ETA is estimated to have killed about 800 people and injured thousands.

There were indeed harsh reprisals. England mostly interned and imprisoned IRA members, but did at times open fire and kill people, e.g. 'Bloody Sunday'. Spain has imprisoned and killed actual and suspected ETA members, and there have been proven cases of torture. But in neither case was actual *war* declared on a region - at least, not in relatively recent times (English war with the Irish in the past was indeed a dark backdrop to the Troubles).

This is not saying that England or Spain were wonderful examples of pacifism. Thatcher may not have declared war on the Irish, but she did on the Argentinians for example! And it's more than possible that an Irish DU-er would say that I'm being too kind to the English government even with regard to the Irish. Regardless, they did not actually bomb them.

Part of what helped to end the Troubles was active negotiations and peacemaking errors. Part, I think, is that the IRA and Protestant organizations both ended up acting more and more obviously like ordinary gangsters, and their own communities got fed up with them. I think that the same is likely to happen with Hamas - and perhaps would have already if Israel had *not* bombed Gaza; who knows.

Don't get me wrong; I am not implying that Israel is any *worse* than other countries (and the Iraq war is certainly worse than anything that Israel has done); just that it's not unique in its restraint either.



As regards media portrayals: there are lots of conflicts that get very little coverage in the media at all. I doubt that attention to Israel is deflecting from these; but there ought to be FAR more attention, for example, to the civil wars in Congo, Sri Lanka, etc.

[LeftishBrit]

80. Oops! I must have been half-asleep when I referred to 'peacemaking efforts' as 'peacemaking errors'!

That must be the worst posting ERROR I've ever made. Peacemaking was not an error, and I am very glad that the Troubles have ended, with thanks to lots of people in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and England, and others including Bill Clinton and George Mitchell!

[shira]

56. Gaza and Afghanistan: 'War Crimes' versus 'Hearts and Minds'

Colonel Richard Kemp, a former British Army commander in Afghanistan, described on Monday what he regarded as the different responses in the international media to the military actions of British and Israeli forces. Speaking at an event in London, and quoted the next day by the BBC, Col Kemp argued that Israel faces greater and more instinctive criticism of its military operations than Britain does.

‘When we go into battle we do not get the same knee-jerk, almost Pavlovian response from many, many elements of the international media and international groups, humanitarian groups and other international groups such as the United Nations which should know better... of utter automatic condemnation. We don't have to put up with that.’

Reports from Afghanistan this week make a good test case for Col Kemp’s assertion. At least 27 civilians were killed in a NATO air strike in the Afghanistan province of Uruzgan on Sunday 21 February. Airborne units opened fire on what was believed to be a group of insurgents, but which was actually a travelling party of civilian ethnic Hazaras, prompting a personal apology from General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan. Separately, 12 civilians and three Taliban were killed in a strike in Marja as part of Operation Moshtarak – NATO’s latest offensive in neighboring Helmand province.

‘Hearts and minds’

Characteristic of the UK media's response to these reports has been a widespread concern about the negative impact civilian casualties might have on support amongst the Afgan people. However, none of the recent news reports have raised questions about the legality of these actions. In particular, references to International Law’s requirements of proportionality and the need to distinguish between combatants and civilians have been absent in the coverage of these strikes, in clear contrast with the way similar actions by the Israeli military have traditionally been treated. Rather, the possible effects on the popularity of the military campaign seem to have taken precedence.

The Independent’s Julius Cavendish opened his report on Tuesday by writing that: ‘A bungled airstrike in Afghanistan has dealt NATO's effort to woo hearts and minds the third such blow in a week, with Kabul claiming the bombing killed 27 civilians, including women and children’. Similarly, The Guardian news reporters Mathew Weaver and Jon Boone in Kabul concluded their report the day after the incident in Uruzgan with: ‘The continued loss of civilian lives will make it harder for NATO as it attempts to win the support of local Afghans against Taliban militants in the south.’ Nick Paton Walsh ended his broadcast for Channel 4 news with: ‘Whatever progress NATO makes, both against the Taliban and in cleaning up its own tactics, it’s these enduring mistakes that still threaten to loom large in Afghan minds.’

The emphasis on this feature suggests that many journalists are more focused on the levels of support for the war in Afghanistan than on the deaths of civilians themselves. This focus was also observed in the reporting of what may have been the deadliest NATO attack involving Afghan civilians. This took place in May 2009 in the Farah province and, according to the Afghan government, killed as many as 140 people in misdirected airstrikes on three villages. Patrick Cockburn reported at the time for The Independent: ‘The killing of so many Afghan civilians by US aircraft is likely to infuriate Afghans and lead to an increase in support for the Taliban in the bombed area.’ And Martin Patience echoed this sentiment in an analysis for the BBC news website: ‘Ultimately, the international community and the Afghan government need to win over ordinary Afghans. Every time there is an incident like this, it sets back the whole agenda.’

Israel also appears to have an interest in communicating the purpose of its operations to local civilians as well as the international community, and its potential failure at convincing these civilians about its objectives can be considered damaging for Israel. Then Prime Minster Ehud Olmert stated in December 2008: ‘You - the citizens of Gaza - are not our enemies. Hamas, Jihad and the other terrorist organisations are your enemies, as they are our enemies.’ But when the country’s military operations harmed civilians, the consequences on the operation’s popularity were sidelined, as many journalists focused instead on the legal implications of the harmful incidents. In this respect, the media’s response does appear to be different in the two contexts.

Operation Cast Lead

The circumstances of the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel between December 2008 and January 2009 obviously differ from those in Afghanistan, and respective conditions in which the media can operate in the two regions vary. However, the distinctive media focus on issues of legality where Israel is concerned is not clearly explained by these differences.

The Guardian notably published the results of a month-long investigation in Gaza in March 2009. Diplomatic editor Julian Borger and correspondent Clancy Chassay claimed to have ‘compiled detailed evidence of alleged war crimes committed by Israel during the 23-day offensive in the Gaza Strip’. A key claim of the investigation concerned the use of drones in military operations:

‘Israel has pioneered a new type of all-seeing precision weapon: the armed drone. The capabilities of this hunter-killer, which can track a person walking along a street and strike with precision, are a military secret. To use these weapons against civilians is a war crime. But a Guardian investigation has uncovered evidence from the Israeli military themselves, that proves just how clearly these weapons can see. So why did one of these drones kill an entire family having tea in their courtyard?’

Yet during the same month as the investigation in Gaza, the Guardian also reported about civilian deaths caused by the US military’s use of drones in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan - but without raising the spectre of war crimes in that context, let alone embarking on an investigation. William Dalrymple wrote in the newspaper’s G2 supplement:

‘The tribal areas have never been fully under the control of any Pakistani government, and have always been unruly, but they have now been radicalised as never before. The rain of armaments from US drones and Pakistani ground forces, which have caused extensive civilian casualties, daily add a steady stream of angry foot soldiers to the insurgency.’

Another example of the inconsistent focus on legality relates to the question of military incidents’ proportionality and the distinction between civilians and combatants. The BBC’s Heather Sharpe, reporting in the midst of the Gaza Conflict last January, explored in detail the questions surrounding Israel’s efforts to distinguish civilians from combatants, and the proportionate use of force, offering both the Israeli perspective, and that of other contributors who voiced criticism of Israel’s operation (‘Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?’). In this context the journalists discussed the Israeli strike on Gaza police stations that killed at least 40 trainees, and the deaths of members of the Balousha family in a strike on a nearby Hamas-linked mosque in the Jabaliya refugee camp.

By contrast, the BBC’s report on last September’s NATO airstrike on two fuel tankers that had been commandeered by Taliban did not raise these concerns. The airstrikes reportedly killed at least 90 people, including civilians and Taliban, prompting a statement from Afghan President Ahmed Karzai that ‘targeting civilians in any form is unacceptable’. Despite making clear that civilian casualties were numerous, even if ‘Taliban leaders were among at least 90 killed’, the BBC did not raise the legal questions that were asked about Israel’s offensive in this report nor in any of the recent reports about civilian casualties since Operation Moshtarak began earlier this month.

Objectivity

These examples suggest that Col Kemp may be correct in his assessment of the differences between the media’s reaction to British and Israeli military campaigns. Concerns about the legality of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan do not materialize in the reporting of that conflict. Rather, the primary focus of the media is on the degree to which incidents involving such deaths are damaging to the way the campaign is perceived by local people. Whether or not the media’s response to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead was ‘knee-jerk’ and ‘almost Pavlovian’, the scrutiny did focus extensively on the legal implications of cases of civilian deaths.

This raises questions about the objectivity of the British news outlets and their international news coverage. If journalists have a goal of identifying illegal military malpractice in the reporting of other conflicts, as seemed evident during the Gaza conflict, then the coverage of the present NATO operations underway in Afghanistan may not be penetrative enough. If civilians are harmed or killed in war, the same questions should be asked - irrespective of the parties involved.
http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/gaza-and-afghanistan-war-crimes-versus-hearts-and-minds

[shira]

57. Where is Goldstone now?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3853821,00.html

But now, after all of the above had been said, we a have a small question; a tiny question, a minor one, something wholly insignificant: Where are you, Goldstone?

Here is an unintelligent guess: The world that cries out and weeps for every scratch suffered by a Palestinian child (and we are opposed to even such scratch,) the same world that portrays the State of Israel every morning (in newspapers) and every night (on TV) as the killer and butcher of children and as a state that fires into homes only to find bleeding bodies later on, that world will be silent, or at most offer some lip service in respect to the incident described above.

World overcome by paralysis
Instead, the BBC will suddenly suffer constipation that would halt its chatter, the New York Times will go blind for a day or two, leftists at Berkeley will happen to be away on vacation, and the professors at Oxford and Cambridge will be spending the next few days playing cricket.

And so, the world is silent and will keep silent. It has good and justified reasons for this silence: After all, these are not Jews who fire at Palestinian babies; it is not Israel defending the lives of its children.

[LeftishBrit]

63. The 'world' is not ignoring Afghanistan...

It is true that the UK is at present involved in electioneering; that countries involved in the war are not so ready to criticize themselves; that there has generally been more ambivalence even on the left about Afghanistan than Iraq.

But...

The BBC have been reporting the incidents regularly, e.g:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8527627.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/01/death_of_british_journalist_in.html

There has been increasing opposition in Europe, in particular in the Netherlands. Note that some of these reports do bring up legality issues:

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=54693

http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/opinion1/4641.html

(I don't generally regard the Daily Mirror as a very good source, but this particular article seems to have been well-sourced)

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/as-dutch-quit-afghanistan-will-other-nato-allies-follow/19367632

And there are protests and demos, e.g.

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1535/186/

http://wcco.com/local/protest.rally.afghanistan.2.1502520.html

I am not a great fan of the Socialist Workers; but at least the following shows that the far-left are hardly ignoring Afghanistan:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20251


Human rights organizations are speaking out:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18631

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18086

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/accountability-needed-civilian-casualties-afghanistan-20090226

Human Rights Watch was concerned with the issue for some time:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/14/afghanistan-us-should-act-end-bombing-tragedies


Here is an article from Salon:

http://open.salon.com/blog/kevin_gosztola/2010/02/17/afghan_civilian_deathshuman_shields_or_unfortunate_targets


Is there enough opposition, and did it start early enough? No. But to say that no one in the world cares unless it's Israel that does it is simplistic.

[shira]

64. still, the hypocrisy is astounding and there is silence comparatively speaking

If what has happened in Afghanistan the past few months were happening in Israel, we know very well the outcry would be at least 10x greater.

That's hypocrisy.

And comparatively speaking, the world is silent when comparing US/UK actions in Afghanistan to Israeli actions. In fact, Israel's alleged "disproportionate" use of passports in Dubai is at least 10x the story worldwide than US/UK actions in Afghanistan. The usual anti-Israel bigot brigade is FAR louder WRT Dubai right now than Afghanistan and that's a fact.

[shergald]

67. The UN Goldstone Report is not bigotry.

It demonstrated clearly that war crimes were 'intentionally' committed in Gaza, such as the intentional killing of families and children, which is correctly described as 'murder,' and the bombing of civilian infrastructure.

I don't believe that the deaths of civilians in Afganistan by allied forces can be considered intentional, although most people abhor the idea that the were caused by that old excuse, the 'fog of war.'

Here's a video of testimony I just caught on MyDD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIpA6sXksNw&feature=player_embedded

Nothing like this is happening in Afganistan.

[shira]

72. strawman much? But if you wish to debate whether Goldstone's Report is bigotry, I'm game

I understand how much the Goldstone Report means to you and your types. You feel you must defend it at all costs b/c if it's shown that the report is nothing less than bigoted propaganda (blessed by HRW, AI, etc..) your house-of-cards falls down and you have to admit a HUGE problem exists in the way in which Israel is portrayed in this conflict.

That said, here we go...

1. Here's pure bigotry from Colonel Travers, the military 'expert' on Goldstone's team (let's see if you can at least admit it's bigotry)...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x300594#300640

=======================

2. I've commented before on the flour mill incident and the manner in which Goldstone intentionally suppressed evidence...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x299129#299155
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x299129#299461

3. I've also commented on the Mosque incident...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x301058#301298
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x301058#301313

Would you like to debate either one of those, since they're Goldstone's top two no-brainer, Israel-is-guilty-as-hell incidents he uses in interviews and debates that prove "intent"?

[shira]

76. difference b/w Goldstone criticism and Goldstone demonization

Evidence was severely lacking for Goldstone's claim that Israel intentionally targeted and deliberately punished Gazan civilians - or that Israel did not react in self-defense but in order to kill civilians and 'teach them a lesson'. At best, Goldstone could have claimed that Israel did not do enough to save civilian lives, compare Israel to NATO efforts in similar situations; recommend reasonable alternatives for the IDF that would lead to fewer civilian deaths; show the ratio of civilians to combatants killed in similar NATO efforts and then compare to Israel; admit that like the Taliban, Hamas does use human shields and this impacts the legality of the situation greatly. Of course, Goldstone did none of this and the result of his perverted attempt is that Israel CANNOT defend its citizens in any reasonable military manner from Hamas terror.

[pelsar]

75. my coffee was spilt again....

I don't believe that the deaths of civilians in Afganistan by allied forces can be considered intentional

why not?.....they intentionally targeted, launched some missiles and killed many civilians..

and about your constant claims about the events pre gaza...would you be interested in some facts?..i suspect your not interested but i'll start with the basic one and see what your reaction is:

there was no cease fire...the correct definition was "lull or calm" with a lowering of the intensity of the fire. Note that it is not a cease fire nor was there one on the ground....nor was anything written down, so you really have no idea what was said or wasn't when the agreement was agreed to..... Now, were you aware of these facts or do you believe that the local agreement (by the locals), that doesn't really have a good translation to western culture to be irrelevant and your still going to claim that your western culture and definition is the "real one?"

perhaps you need a translation of the arabic word used in the agreement.....i'll make it easier for you: تهدئة Tahdiya

we'll start with that (are you going to try to explain that hamas use of the word is "propaganda?)

[LeftishBrit]

77. Hold on

Why give our countries the benefit of the doubt, and not Israel?

'I don't believe that the deaths of civilians in Afganistan by allied forces can be considered intentional, although most people abhor the idea that the were caused by that old excuse, the 'fog of war.'

Same goes for Israel.

Start a war in an area where there are civilians; place your war goals ahead of protecting civilians (an almost inevitable consequence of war) - and civilians will be killed. It's almost semantic whether the killing is intentional or not. In general, the primary aim is not to kill civilians just for the sake of killing them. But nevertheless, all our countries are placing themselves, deliberately, in a position where killing civilians is inevitable.

I'm not excusing Israel; I'm blaming all our countries.

[shira]

81. Civilians Killed as U.S. Troops Fire on Afghan Bus (April 2010)

KABUL, Afghanistan — American troops raked a large passenger bus with gunfire near Kandahar on Monday morning, killing and wounding civilians, and igniting angry anti-American demonstrations in a city where winning over Afghan support is pivotal to the war effort.

The shooting, which killed as many as five civilians and wounded 18, occurred on the eve of the most important offensive of the war. In coming weeks thousands of American, NATO and Afghan troops are expected to try to take control of the Kandahar region, the spiritual home of the Taliban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/asia/13afghan.html

Imagine world reaction if Israeli troops had fired on that bus.

[IndianaGreen]

82. The man is having a free meal courtesy of a pro-Israel lobby group

of course, he is going to say what his audience wants to hear. Anything for a free lunch!

[shira]

83. U.S. responsible for missile attack that killed dozens of Yemeni civilians

U.S. responsible for missile attack that killed dozens of Yemeni civilians
Half of the 52 killed by the banned cluster munitions were women and children
By Kosta Harlan | June 8, 2010

A report by the human rights group Amnesty International linked the U.S. military to a missile attack in south Yemen on Dec. 17, 2009. The cruise missile attack resulted in the deaths of 55 people, including 14 women and 21 children, according to an investigation by a Yemeni parliamentary committee. The committee has called for the perpetrators of the crime to be brought to justice.

===========

If Israel is evil, has no right to exist as a country and is clearly beyond the pale for what it does, then the USA is _________? :shrug:

[polly7]

86. Don't you ever get bored with labelling people 'anti-semitic'

for believing Palestinians deserve better? I'm not sure how ignoring the facts of home demolitions, collective punishment, daily land theft, purposeful denial of basic necessities for life such as food, access to medical care, livlihoods ..... gives anyone the right to label anyone anything. Some of us have done the homework. Your nasty name-calling is a real turnoff for anyone who wants to discuss the subject seriously.

[shira]

90. Just pointing out hypocrisy, double standards, and deliberate slander

Antisemitism appears to be the best explanation for this irrational hostility towards Israel.

I'd be delighted if you could come up with another reason Israel is held to a higher or different standard and demands more outrage and disgust for its actions than any other nation on the planet, including the USA, UK, France, etc..

[polly7]

96. Millions across the globe protested loudly and long before

and during the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe you just need to change your news channel. Links have been posted here though showing you the numbers so if you were really concerned about the world's reaction you could just 'click'.

[shira]

97. We're talking apples and oranges. Start here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x325140#325708

Explain that if you can.

Or go to #1 above here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x301819#301820

[Tripmann]

88. "Quick, look over there"

Thats all you got shira, comparing israels atrocities in relation to americas atrocities to show how moral they are??

:rofl:

[shira]

89. Actually, it's Israel being scapegoated by every other nation by "looking over there".

[Tripmann]

92. Scapegoated for malnourishing the women and children of gaza, scapegoated

for boarding a boat in international waters executing 9 people and kidnapping hundreds more, scapegoated for shooting children in the head for throwing rocks, scapegoated for using white phosphorous in densely populated areas, scapegoated for not allowing the people whos homes they bombarded to rebuild.....

Poor israel, always the victims of being scapegoated......:eyes:

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE, WHAAAAAA!!!!!

[shira]

93. See, even there you couldn't help but use hyperbole and exaggeration

If Israel's crimes are so repulsive, why the need to go overboard by portraying Israel's actions as worse than they are?

That's racism if it were directed at Blacks, Arabs, or Muslims but it's perfectly okay when directed at Jews, right?

[Tripmann]

94. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE! LOL!!

[shira]

95. If the case against Israel is so clear cut, why resort to hyperbole and slander?

[Tripmann]

98. Says queen of slander, finger pointing and accusations. Too funny

[shira]

99. Your deflection is duly noted.

[Tripmann]

100. As is your failure to actually prove a point

[shira]

101. Your inability and unwillingness to answer difficult questions proves my point well

[Tripmann]

102. I've always answered your questions on the rare occasions that they weren't loaded.

Which wasn't very often.

[shira]

103. LOL.....shameless.

[Tripmann]

104. LOL...Proofless

[whosinpower]

105. He is speaking to a pro israeli lobby

What would you expect him to say?!?

Of course he is going to sing to a tune that the lobby would approve of.

Interesting that he acknowledged the "invaluable" help the IDF gave UK forces - so much that they rewrote the army guidelines.....but uh....you know....Afghanistan is not exactly a "STELLAR" operation. Well - if you wanted a never ending occupation with no end game - what better place to get advice than from the IDF.

And now suddenly things get clearer in terms of the legitimacy of assymetric warfare. The ASSES are all for it - but after so many years of trying to make it somehow effective - it still fails in one critical objective....peace.

But that was never the objective at all was it?

[shira]

106. You don't expect someone of that caliber to say this about another military...

"During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."

========

He's clearly saying that Israel's conduct in war is better than NATO's. That's one hell of an admission by someone of his rank.

You think he was lying?

[whosinpower]

107. Puleeze

He is talking to a lobby group. He is singing EXACTLY what they want to hear. Do you think he is going to say something uncomplimentary to this particular group? Of course not.

[shira]

108. Kemp has repeatedly said it to different audiences, including the UN

I believe his interview on BBC is the first time he ever said it publicly...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WssrKJ3Iqcw&feature=player_embedded

Here he is at the UN...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo

You think he's lying?

It couldn't be more clear. This military expert is saying the iDF does a better job than NATO, including his own UK forces, at trying to prevent civilian casualties in war.