Try again. What I said was that Israel had not offered any proof of their position, or felt the need to, as part of the new climate of international affairs. Repeat for effect: Not offered any proof. Hence my further statement that they me even be accurate in theri assesment...repeat, may be accurate, I don't know...is in no way a contradiction, but serves to add objectivity to my position. My point isn't that Israle is wrong...just as it wasn't that we were wrong about Iraq's WMDs pre-war...it's that neither party felt the need to make substantive arguments for their war positions backed up by evidence. Now it can be argued that Israle's way; to hell with anyone else, and not even bothering to offer evidence is at leaat morally superior to our pile of innacurate, fabricated and selective 'evidence', but neither portent good things for world peace in the coming years. [Gee, you sure are smart.] You know, it's funny, but I still haven't gotten used to this side of you, and am still usually caught off guard with these childish quips when we haven't debated for a while. My first instinct is to react with disapointment, but my mother taught me that when people act in a way you can't understand, try and put yourselves in their shoes...So I do, and I understand. With all your pre-war arguments about the virtues of unilateralism crumbling daily, with the " Give 'Em Hell' or Get Out of Our Way!' White House having had to go back to the irrelevent UN, cap in hand, asking for help...with the questions we anti-war folks asked pre-war, and you laughed at, growing louder and louder each day...with the CIA asking justice for an investigation into the White House's, er, professionalism when it comes to the war argument, with the reports of no WMDs in sight ( I know that wasn't the basis of your war claim, but you did disagree with mine that we had insifficient proof), etc...and especially living in Britain, where the war has gone so well that the government may topple for urging it...well, Hayes, I can understand your frustration, of not the forms it takes. Tell you what...next time Bush has to go the the UN and ask for help...the UN you, among others, said would serve no furhter purpose for us... or something similar,you can come on in here and call me a " Dummy Dummy Dum Dum!" I'm here for you, bud. Wow. I actually thought that the Iraqi experience...what with you having gone on ad nauseum about our right to defend ourselves, not have to subvert that right to the UN, etc. and then finding out that, OMG, there was no threat, we weren't defending ourselves, the anti-war folks were right...MacBeth's a Doo-Doo ( did it for you) would have made you less quick to jump on that wagon again...Hmmm..Ok, here goes. What does and does not constitute self-defense is outlined, in detail, by the UN. Neither our action in Iraq, nor Israel's action in Syria, unless supported by as yet unveiled evidence of the threat posed by the targets of their attack, qualifiy as self defense. We wrote those definitions, so we ought to know them. ANd we did agree to abide by them, read the UN charter we helped write, and signed. Sorry...you can't do whatever you want and call it self defense...or, if you have the guns, you can, as we did in Iraq, but it will clearly become apparent just how genuine that argument was. It sure is a good thing for the world that it's the good guys breaking the rules, invading other countries crying self defense when there was no threat, etc., huh? Imagine the dangers if it were the bad guys...ie anyone but us... I don't recall saying that I was educating anyone...or even suggesting it. ANd playing Devil's advocate does not mean taking positions you don't believe in...sorry...it's the practice of presenting a counter argument to a commonly accepted position. As the US leans strongly to one side on this argument, when taking the middle position I will often, by virtue of that tendancy, take the other side. Just as I am often fedending the US, taking Israel's position, etc. when arguing with people with an opposite bias. If you doubt the US has a tendancy towards being pro-Israel in this conflict, as opposed to the rest of the planet, idiots that they are, then say so. But if all you are going to do is try and alter what I've said to further ridicule me...wait...momma...go ahead, Hayes. I'm here for you. Whatever makes you feel better. In that I've dealt with all of these above, and shown how your rendition of them is just slightly skewed for effect, I need not even have addressed this Parthian shot...but as you use your alterations to question my objectivity, I'll just point out yours, insofar as nothing you have said I said is accurate...Perhaps the problem lies a little higher up than your stomach?
Excellent post, Lil. I'm glad that you continue to post. Lil, I must say that a couple of your statements were too anti-Jewish for me.. I believe that the tone of your subsequent posts, when being more careful, shows that you are not really anti-semitic. Of course to them it just shows how cleverly anti-semitic you really are. Interestingly their own behavior seems to be sort of like someone whose negative attitude is crystal clear toward blacks, but is careful to never use the phrase N***** The continual failure to see any commonality whatsoever between suicide bombers and the virtual certainty of killing innocent Palestinians when they shoot missiles into crowded apartment buildings to try to assassinate a Hamas member reflects this. Fortuanately we see that some of the very pilots firing these missiles do see a commonality. All of us who don't support the Israeli oppression of Palestinians, must be careful not to let the unjust policies of the defenders of Israeli oppression, that they claim is supported by virtually all Jews ,tip us into thinking that all Jews are so inhumane. This is easy to do as the defenders of Israel the Oppressor try to claim that all "real' Jews support their position. Imagine the frustration of Jews who don't support these policies. They had to start a website, Not In My Name dot Com. These Jews are termed "Self-hating" by the unjust Zionists. Your last post about the role that discrimination, stereotypes and not seeing others as fully people plays in leading to such culminating events such as ethnic cleansing, the Holocaust etc is well taken. Jewish social scientists help delineate the role of these beliefs in building up to such tragedies as the Holocaust. It is the reason for such groups as the Anti Descrimination League. Unfortunately many don't see similar dangerous attitudes toward Palestinians or Arabs among many of the defenders of Israel or Americans in general. It is the reason why an Arab Anti Discrimination League is now needed to combat such discrimination against Arabs in the Untied States.
I am sorry, but there is NO commonality between suicide bombers and shooting missles in an assassination attempt. When has Israel shot missiles into a crowded cafe? From what I read the other day, the female suicide bomber SHOT the security officer and then walked in to the middle of the cafe TO BLOW UP AS MANY CIVILIANS AS POSSIBLE. When there is a missile strike, the objective is to KILL THE HAMAS LEADER WHO IS TOO CHICKEN TO COME OUT AND DO THE DIRTY WORK HIMSELF. Don't get me wrong, I hate the fact that kids, women, and innocent are killed during missile strikes. As I have stated before, it is hard to determine what justice is following a suicide bombing. Israel has chosen to go after the leaders of these terror groups. All of us who don't support the Israeli oppression of Palestinians, must be careful not to let the unjust policies of the defenders of Israeli oppression, that they claim is supported by virtually all Jews ,tip us into thinking that all Jews are so inhumane. This is easy to do as the defenders of Israel the Oppressor try to claim that all "real' Jews support their position. Imagine the frustration of Jews who don't support these policies. They had to start a website, Not In My Name dot Com. These Jews are termed "Self-hating" by the unjust Zionists. Can we stereotype anymore? "Unjust Zionists?" Who said all Zionists are for occupation and for building settlements. The idea of Zionism is for there to be a jewish homeland where Jews can escape persecution. There are many races and other religions allowed in Israel, so its not as racist as Israel haters like people to believe. So you think some Jews are inhumane? What about the people going to blow themselves up? Your one-sidedness on this topic gylnch makes me want to vomit. MOST Jews will support Israel because they are worried about the people there and they want to go visit. Unfortunately, consistant suicide bombings over the past year keeps us from going to the holiest place on earth. I think Muslims would be pretty ticked off if it was unsafe to do a pilgrimage to Mecca. Your last post about the role that discrimination, stereotypes and not seeing others as fully people plays in leading to such culminating events such as ethnic cleansing, the Holocaust etc is well taken. Jewish social scientists help delineate the role of these beliefs in building up to such tragedies as the Holocaust. It is the reason for such groups as the Anti Descrimination League. Unfortunately many don't see similar dangerous attitudes toward Palestinians or Arabs among many of the defenders of Israel or Americans in general. It is the reason why an Arab Anti Discrimination League is now needed to combat such discrimination against Arabs in the Untied States. I honestly think you should try to see the majority jewish point of view on the subject, rather than just looking at selective websites where jews are against the occupation. Is the ADL not doing enough to crack down on discrimination against arabs in the US?
I am sorry, but there is NO commonality between suicide bombers and shooting missles in an assassination attempt. When has Israel shot missiles into a crowded cafe? Oh there is no commonality between shooting missiles into a crowded apartment complex and a crowded campaign? Let's see. How about: Ttey both are crowded with innocent people?
I honestly think you should try to see the majority jewish point of view on the subject, rather than just looking at selective websites where jews are against the occupation. See what I mean by trying to identify all Jews with unjust Israeli policies or even Sharon? or bombing apart;ment complexes.
True, but Israel has shown restraint in trying to kill only one person(even though others do die unfortunately) rather than a cafe full of people where the bomber wants EVERYONE to die. Nice try.
glynch, i'll name three organisations: World Jewish Congress (Elan Steinburg) Simon Wiesenthal Center (Simon Wiesenthal) Zionist Organization of America (Michael Franzlau, Morton Klein) each of these are led by nazi hunters and/or ardent israel proponents, yet also act as the leading jewish proponents of holocaust education in America. And while the anti-defamation league professes a nobler purpose, they also led the smear attacks against Kurt Waldheim at the time. i think all of them reek of hypocrisy. and you're right. when jewish scholars and leaders start questioning israel's policies. they get purged in mccarthyist fashion. for example John Roth, whom i greatly admired, being forced from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. i think the holocaust itself represent an excellent educational tool to teach the importance of tolerance, compassion, etc. However, the message that ends up getting across is all too often oversimplified into a blind hatred against "unspeakable evils" (i seriously doubt this was the intent of elie weisel). the upshot of this of course is a national policy that sees and makes enemies everywhere without asking why, and a people constantly shocked by how evil the world has become.
Points taken Lil, To add on to what I said about MOST(90+%) jews being for Israeli Policy & Zionism, I am not saying that they agree with every policy down the board. Like myself, I can't stand that Israel still builds settlements. If I hear another Jew defending them, I'd most likely call him an F'ing r****d. Now there is a weakness to your last post Lil. It is true, in certain instances, that if a Jewish scholar stands out against Israeli policy or Zionism, he/she is given the 3rd degree by many Jewish organizations. However, if a palestinian stands out against the PA or terror groups publically, he/she will most like end up hanging from town square. I respect some of your opinions lil and I have noticed that you word your arguments more carefully now. However, glynch, for years has never looked at the flip side of the coin. He is in the boat of Israel is always wrong, poor poor palestinians have no other choice but to blow themselves up. I have continually criticized Israel for settlement building and I will continue to do so.
israel may have the most disciplined most restrained army in the world (dubious at best), but it still has no business being in the occupied territories in the first place. the terrorists may commit hideous crimes once every few weeks. but israel has been commiting a crime EVERY SINGLE SECOND for the past 30 years of the occupation. as for the intent of the terrorist bombers and israeli military, i'm not sure. because last time i checked, israel's killing around 4 times more civilians than all the terrorist groups combined. oops!
however much i may irritate you and cohen, never doubt that i do admire your stand on the settlements. i think you show a heck of a lot more consideration than those framing the policies out in israel. wish there could be more like you.
Don't know why, but this line reminded me of this. Northern Irish, Serbs, Hutus Granted Homeland in the West Bank UNITED NATIONS—In a bold gambit hoped to resolve dozens of conflicts around the world, the U.N. announced Monday the establishment of Ethniklashistan, a multinational haven in the West Bank that will serve as a new homeland for Irish Protestants, Hutus, Serbs, and other troubled groups. "For far too long, these groups have been locked in prolonged strife with their former neighbors, unable to achieve a lasting peace," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said. "Now that these various peoples have a new homeland where they can find refuge, all the years of fighting and bloodshed can finally be put behind them." Former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, now presiding over a Serb settlement near the Jordanian border, was optimistic about the future. "All Muslim scum must die," he said. "Death to all enemies of Serbian purity!" The various groups, transported to Ethniklashistan by a massive U.N. airlift, will share their new homeland with the roughly two million Palestinians and Israeli settlers who currently occupy the region. U.N. officials say the West Bank site was chosen for its centralized location, opportunities for tourism, and comfortable desert climate. These factors, combined with the already diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious composition of the area, offer "a unique opportunity for many international groups to live together in peace." "This is truly a win-win situation," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said. "War-ravaged peoples from all over the world finally have a place they can feel safe. And, for the Palestinians and Israelis already there, the presence of additional ethnicities should reduce any pre-existing stresses. Arabs and Jews will enjoy exposure to a glorious, multiethnic stew, and they will, in turn, have the opportunity to lead by example, serving as role models of peaceful coexistence." Hutu leader Kagabo Ndadaye, who between 1994 and 1996 personally oversaw the machete deaths of more than 10,000 Tutsi Rwandans, echoed the positive outlook. "The glorious Hutu are the one pure race," said Ndadaye, speaking from a Hutu settlement near Hebron while eyeing a nearby Kurdish settlement. "All inferior mongrel peoples shall be put to the blade." Though hopes are high for Ethniklashistan—a name created by a team of linguists who combined 17 different languages' words for "sanctuary"—the establishment of the new homeland has proven rocky. Of the more than 500,000 people relocated there so far, approximately 97 percent have responded with violent resistance, swearing oaths of eternal vengeance against U.N. volunteers conducting the forced relocations. Bloodshed also marred the "Festival Of Human Brotherhood," a weeklong, nationwide event celebrating the founding of Ethniklashistan. On Monday, 11 people were killed in a skirmish between Basques and Sikhs near Nablus. The same day, six were killed and dozens injured on the streets of Bethlehem when Somalis and Greek Cypriots exchanged gunfire and grenades. Dozens of shifting alliances have added to the confusion and chaos. In a pre-dawn border raid Monday, Burmese Karen rebels attacked a Tamil settlement. By late afternoon, the Karens were driven back by the Tamils, who were newly armed with Israeli anti-personnel missiles smuggled into the West Bank by Zionist fundamentalists who had allied themselves—some say only as a temporary ruse—with the Tamils. On Tuesday, guerrilla fighters made up of an uneasy Palestinian-Papuan alliance attacked an Irish Protestant church near the Golan Heights, killing 121 Irish worshippers with nerve gas before being repelled by a nearby faction of Protestant-sympathizing Zapatista rebels from the Chiapas region of Mexico. The violence continued that evening, when the severed heads of 20 Chechens were paraded through the streets of Jericho by Azerbaijani extremists. The killings are thought to be in retaliation for rocket attacks by a band of pro-Armenian Chechen rebels, who have thus far evaded Azerbaijani attempts to flush them out of their encampments in the hills with prolonged shelling. Alarmed by the new nation's growing pains, world leaders have launched a large-scale international-aid effort to help Ethniklashistan get on its feet. Great Britain has pledged 12,000 peacekeeping troops, vowing to "pummel with rubber bullets, tear gas, and billy clubs anyone who dares threaten the Sons of Ulster." China has pledged 40,000 soldiers to supervise the 2,000-plus Tibetan Buddhists relocated to the region. Indonesia, Cambodia, Nigeria, and Afghanistan have also sent troops. "There is always a period of transition and upheaval in the founding of a new government," President Bush said. "That is why an international humanitarian consortium of nations, including the U.S., France, Russia, Iraq, and North Korea, has pledged $2 trillion in military aid to the new nation. This way, all Ethniklashistanis, regardless of race, color, creed, or economic background, will have equal access to the state-of-the-art ordnance they need to defend themselves and their families during this initial period of instability." Encouraged by such aid efforts, experts are confident that a lasting peace can soon be established among the rival Ethniklashistani groups. "When you take that many long-suffering, war-torn groups and put them in the same place, how can you not have peace?" asked former president Jimmy Carter, who will lead talks among the various Ethniklashistani groups. "This hatred cannot possibly last long."
About racism... I think religion is a cause for racism. The idea "I believe my values are surperior to your's and I am going the heaven and you're going to hell" breeds bigotry. People are taught their religion is right and don't trust or sometimes hate those who don't believe in the religion. For example, many Christian's despise Wiccan religions and attempt to convert them. The Wiccans not wanting to be "brainwashed" begin to hate all Christians. Christians tell the Wiccans they are the ones who are brainwashed and are fools who are going to suffer. Even the Big 3 (No, not The Dream, Glyde, and Rebound) which have similar doctrines with differences here and there have been the cause of many deaths. Does religion have to cause racism? No, but it does help.
Nice way to ramble and confuse the issue. This is a typical tact we've seen you take over and over, in this case you say: -it is crazy for someone to act without justification or proof. -i don't know if they had proof. -i didn't say they didn't have proof. -they didn't show anyone any proof. -this is a disasterous course because their proof may not be correct, and if its not it will be the same as others who had no proof like (name insert - USSR, Nazi Germany, Rome etc). To you that seems to be a logical leap, and I'll certainly credit you for trying to shield yourself from any possible criticism by alternating scathing assertion with caveat, but it hardly makes for a convincing, if even coherent, argument. Uh, thanks for being there for me.....bud. Please find one example ANYWHERE....EVER....of me saying the UN was worthless or would serve no purpose. ONE EXAMPLE. Again this is a typical example of the MacBeth style of argumentation. Accuse and slander and then claim to be the aggrieved. Scurry off and come up with something to back up your claim. I have often said there are situations in which the UN has not or will not act, and that in those situations individual nations or coalitions have, or must do so. Who's 'altering' who's language, MacBeth? Again you simply use faulty logic in your assessment. Whether or not Iraq has WMD has NO BEARING on whether or not Syria has terrorist camps. Zero. Nada. Zip. You try to infer a connection where there is none. This action by the Israelis will have to be judged, if it must be judged, on its own merits, not on actions in other countries BY other countries. And if you'd like we can certainly continue to argue about Iraq. I've yet to see you come up with a convincing reason to leave the Iraqi people under Saddam's boot. I dare say you'll find few Iraqis that think so anyway, although I'm sure you can find plenty of likeminded people in Toronto to surround yourself with. Again you vastly overclaim what was 'written and agreed to.' If your interpretation were correct then every intervention absent Korea and PG1 would have crumbled the international viability and credibility of the UN. They didn't, it hasn't. Sorry, but if another country harbors and trains terrorists, they are subject to action in the name of self defense. You are simply wrong, as our action in Afghanistan proves. Somehow you seem to have the misperception that the only time sovereignty is not inviolable is when there is a directive from the UN. No international political, historical, or academic figure would support such a position. It is just fiction. And I find it a clear indication of how weak your argument that you would make this yet another Iraq thread instead of actually writing about the topic of THIS thread, which is the Israeli action in Syria. No indication this has happened. No indication we are some colonial power. No indication this thread is about US, the US. HELLO? You're getting a terminal case of Glynch-itis. This thread is about an ISREALI action, not about US action in IRAQ. You've already claimed you DON'T KNOW whether there was a terrorist training facility there. And yet you act as if that is itself conclusive proof that something illegal, illegitimate, and/or immoral has been done, that is possibly has been done, lol. Sigh. "SORRY," chum. Devil's advocate - defined as "a person who champions the less accepted cause for the sake of argument." Notice the 'for the sake of argument' part. So tell us, MacBeth, why would one be the 'devil's advocate?' Now, you can say you are doing it for 'no reason,' I guess. And as I've already pointed out, your own words doom you. You repeatedly accuse me of misinterpreting you, but I'm on to your tactics, and that's why I use your own words. Let the readers decide. This is (again) what you said: Originally posted by MacBeth I myself often take the Palestinian side in here simply because the other side is the more common to Americans, and I am usually prone to playing Devil's advocate... Notice the 'simply because the other side is more common to Americans...' Well, hot damn! That sure does sound exactly like I describe you, now doesn't it? Of course, I guess I could be taking you out of context again (silly me). MAYBE you actually meant that you like to lie down on the floor, and pretend you are the Devil's attorney, or PR man? Folks, I think it may be instructive for us all to contemplate MacBeth's rhetoric here. Its really a thing of beauty. First, he declares the US 'leans strongly to one side.' Now that may be true, and fair enough, although we're not sure whether he means the people or the government or both. But his next line is awesome. He claims he is 'taking the middle position' by 'taking the other side.' Notice how he slips in the assertion that he is actually in the middle, not the extreme. Of course, the other side of an extreme is not the middle, is it? Bravo, MacBeth. It helps me illustrate why you've gotten away with your ill advised prose for so long. I use your own words, MacBeth. So I don't need to 'alter' what you've said to further ridicule you. And again I have no idea what this possibly has to do with this thread? US is more pro-Israeli than pro-Palestinian? Even if true it has no effect on this debate at all. Nor would it make any difference that the UN is more anti-Israeli than the US. But we've already had this discussion in another thread, at least until you packed you bags and ran away as usual. Uh, my belly button? My adam's apple? You're all smoke and mirrors, MacBeth.
I never said crazy. The next three points are accurate...you disagree? You have seen proof, or you feel it's ok for nations to practice military strikes against other nations because they feel it's justified? As for the 5th point...while I didn't say that, history shows your premise to be accurate...good show! Considering I made no such scathing assertions, and merely talked about accpeted internationa law that we, Israel, etc. all agreed to adhere to. Again, most of your criticism here seems empty... All right...I'll go back and do it, when I have time...but 1st, I want to clarify something. I have been asked to do this before, by johnheath, treeman, etc. And when I did, they either disappeared, or tired to deny their quotes on grounds like they didn't say proven, they said 'supported by evidence'...I am assuming that you are above that kind of thing. If I find a quote where you say that the UN is irrelevent, etc. you will admit error? Seriously, it's more work than it's worhth to begin with, particularly if the person ducks it later...And save terms like scurry, Hayes... On this one you amaze me...surely you got the context. I had said to you that I assumed that this claim you've made to justify pre-emptive military action...that nations have the right to defend themselves, not give up that right to the UN or anybody else, etc. is the exact same terminology you and others used to rationalize so doing with regards to Iraq... As I and others pointed out, pre-war, the problem with that is that it leaves it up to individual nations to determine who may or may not represent threats. But that has always been the problem with preemptive warfare, which is why we defined it in the UN as not being self-defense; because of several areas for potential misuse; faulty information, ulterior motives, etc. which occur when you leave it up to individual nations to determine, short of action by the other nation, who and where pose future threats. We had this debate pre-Iraq...and I was proven right. That's why Iraq is relevent; I thought that things coming to pass as I said they could, and the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense being exposed for the faulty and dangerous position as it has would have informed your view on again espousing just that kind of action by Israel... Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Let's take a look at wehat did happen...Say Kosovo. Remember, nowhere in the premise that unilateralism is wrong is it suggested that therefore each and every unilteral action in and of itself is wrong, only that many of them can be, but that the effect of them deteriorates the viability of, not only the UN, but global opinion as a measure of justifiable action... Ok, Kosovo. AN action which, in and of itself, was a positive one. Well handled, on the ground, etc. I said that we should have waited for international support. Knowing there would be a cost; but that in the long run, the cost of other actions would be greater... Ok; fast forward to post Sept. 11th...the uS decides it wants to attack Iraq. They present a very weak case, and the Un says no. The US, calling the Un irrelevent ( as opposed to having crumbled credibility...ahem) goes in anyway. And many among them citing the rightness of so doing...like yourself...cite what as an example of a precedent? Oh, yeah...Kosovo. See what I mean? And you are dead wrong if you don't believe that "No international political, historical, or academic figure would support ..." the position that the preceding actions undermined the Un credibility, or made situations like Iraq more likely. People have been predicting this kind of thing for a while... And my initial point ...the point I made in the post you respnded to was that this in a further example of the kind of practice we have now made acceptable; have gun, will travel...where we want. That was an offshoot of the Iraqi invasion that I predicted at the time...so for you to suggest that I cannot then, when it comes to pass as I predicted, point that out, but instead must look at every situation in isolation, is not only taking a position you don't have( the one to determine what is and what is not relevent to the discussion), but to intentionally avoid the validity of my position, backed up as it has come to be by what has happened since I said it would. It would be like taking the fact that, in the days immediately following 9-11, I predicted that Bush might use the emtional currency of the event to do something like invade Iraq, and was laughed at in here, as people said there was no connection, so it wouldn't happen. Now, were I to later, when it was happening, point out that the emotional state caused by 9-11 made Iraq possible, you could say " It's an indication of the weakness of your position that you can't argue Iraq on merit, but have to drag 9-11 into it.." etc., It would be the same kind of compartmentalization of thought, and the same avoidance of my previously stated and disbelieved point coming true... Again, I don't get your point...for the sake of argument does not invalidate the position, nor the person's belief in it, it means adopting a side to further the discussion...exactly my point. I feel that in the US one side is broadly taken and one side ignored. Comparative to the rest of the world, this is undeniable. Unless you want to adopt the idea that there are two sides, the entire planet, and the US, and each has as much probability of being accurate as the other, than this would show that we hold an innacurate perception of the situation as defined by standard social moral comprehension. As such, just like I would have when the majority of Americans were the only ones who disagreed with the stance that treatment of African Americans was a violation of human rights in the 60;s, or any other number of instances where our generally insular perspective allows for such sustained deriviation from global morality, I take the counter point...I offer the perspective of the Palestinain, generally treated with contempt here. But when I am arguing with people who tend to take the anti-Israel position, I defend Israel. In that I feel both sides are right and both sides are wrong, this is a genuine position, both ways. And done for the sake of argument...no contradiction. I honestly can't believe that you don't get this, and assume that you are just so stuck in attack mode that you're trying to make something out of nothing... Again, dead wrong. OK, in my view Israel AND the Palestians are both right, and both wrong. ANd I am honest enough to admit that, had I been born either of them, I would probably be doing exactly what each of them is doing...I have said this several times. That is what I mean by a middle position. What extreme am I supporting or representing in this, Hayes? On the other hand, the United States, in general, falls strongly and consistently on one side of this: Israel's. Politically, it is far and away our number one destination for funding. We have consistently sought to block EACH AND EVERY UN resolution against them. And to put this in perspective, when Saddam Hussein was the murdering tyrant he still is, but was on our side, and was recieving our funding, we consistently sought to block EACH AND EVERY UN resolution against him. Clearly we were looking at the Iraqi situation with the same open mind with which we review the Israeli one. Same goes for the Shah of Iran, and many others... Polls and studies show that the vast majority of Americans support this position; not that they are didiots, but, like with Iraq, they beleive what they are told. I don;t have a breakdown on this as to how many are Fox viewers believeing we have found WMDs, etc., but you get my point...Polsl and studies also show that the majority of the rest of the planet does not support our stance, but is similar to the position I have adopted: mutual responsibility. Most of the rest of the world, like myself, does not have a vested political or strategic benefit in having Israel the strongest military presence in the region, as the US does. ANd most of the resot fo the world tends to try and come down on Istael AND the Palestinains, although the latter has been somewhat difficult in that the UN refused to even ackowledge their presence for so long after creating Israel. So when adopting the contrary position, I am adopting the middle position. There is only one evidenced extreme position here, and you can counter an extreme with a middle position. I am not, lol, the onle trying to use rhetoric..." The only counter to an extreme is an extreme.." lol. I thin both sides are wrong, and both are right. I would not consistently support either side, nor would I consistently veto a resolution against either, for umpteen reasons...THAT is extreme. You consistently alter my words, as I've shown again. And what does whether we are pro-Israel or not have to do with this thread!?!?!? Did you even read the thread prior to my post that I was responding to!?!?!? I was defending Lil, who was accused of being anti-semetic...and was saying that taking the Palestinian side and being anti-Israel are not the same thing...and hence the discussion about our leanings....try re-reading. Sometimes you baffle me wioth your lack of perception... ANd I have never packed my bags and run away from you...lol..please...
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/jenin0503.htm Israel/Occupied Territories: Jenin War Crimes Investigation Needed Human Rights Watch Report Finds Laws of War Violations Hebrew Français Arabic (Jenin, May 3, 2002) Evidence suggests that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) committed war crimes in the military operation in the Jenin refugee camp, Human Rights Watch charged in a report issued today after a week-long investigation. Human Rights Watch did not find evidence to support claims that the IDF massacred hundreds of Palestinians in the camp. Palestinian Authority: End Torture and Unfair Trials Press Release, November 30, 2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The abuses we documented in Jenin are extremely serious, and in some cases appear to be war crimes. Criminal investigations are needed to ascertain individual responsibility for the most serious violations. Such investigations are first and foremost the duty of the Israeli government, but the international community needs to ensure that meaningful accountability occurs." Peter Bouckaert Senior Researcher -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In its forty-eight page report, "Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority Territories: Jenin: IDF Military Operations," Human Rights Watch identified fifty-two Palestinians who were killed during the operation, of whom twenty-two were civilians. Many of the civilians were killed willfully or unlawfully. Human Rights Watch also found that the IDF used Palestinian civilians as "human shields" and used indiscriminate and excessive force during the operation. "The abuses we documented in Jenin are extremely serious, and in some cases appear to be war crimes," said Peter Bouckaert, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch and a member of the investigative team. "Criminal investigations are needed to ascertain individual responsibility for the most serious violations. Such investigations are first and foremost the duty of the Israeli government, but the international community needs to ensure that meaningful accountability occurs." A Human Rights Watch team of three experienced investigators spent seven days in the Jenin refugee camp, gathering detailed accounts from victims and witnesses and carefully corroborating and independently crosschecking their accounts with those of others to reconstruct a detailed picture of events in the camp in April 2002. The IDF has not agreed to Human Rights Watch's repeated requests for information regarding its military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza. Bouckaert, who headed up earlier Human Rights Watch investigations into wartime abuses in Chechnya, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, said that the Jenin events clearly warrant further investigation. He noted that the hallmark of a professional army is to take seriously the need to establish accountability for serious violations of the laws of war. "There have been widely divergent accounts of what happened in Jenin. A U.N. fact-finding mission could contribute significantly to the search for the truth in Jenin," Bouckaert said. "Israel should cooperate fully with whatever new U.N. fact-finding mission might be established, and there should be no immunity for persons implicated in the most serious violations of the laws of war." On April 3, 2002, the IDF launched a major military operation in the Jenin refugee camp, home to some fourteen thousand Palestinian refugees. An estimated eighty to one hundred armed Palestinians took part in the fighting. Israel claims the camp had been the launching ground for many of the suicide bombings that have killed and maimed over one hundred Israeli civilians in recent months. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly condemned this deliberate killing of civilians. Palestinian armed militants had also planted many explosive devices in the camp prior to and during the IDF incursion. Among the twenty-two civilian deaths documented during this investigation were the following: Fifty-seven-year-old Kamal Zghair, a wheelchair-bound man who was shot and then run over by IDF tanks on April 10 as he was moving in his wheelchair equipped with a white flag down a major road in Jenin; Thirty-seven-year-old Jamal Fayid, a paralyzed man, who was crushed in the rubble of his home on April 7 after IDF soldiers refused to allow his family the time to remove him from their home before a bulldozer destroyed it; Fourteen-year-old Faris Zaiben, who was killed by fire from an IDF armored car as he went to buy groceries when the IDF-imposed curfew was finally lifted on April 11; and Fifty-two-year-old 'Afaf Disuqi, who was killed on April 5 by an explosive charge that IDF soldiers had placed at her front door as she went to open it for the soldiers; In one case involving a wounded Palestinian militant, IDF soldiers for several hours prevented medical help from reaching him. The soldiers then killed the man, who had been left close to a hospital near the camp and was no longer armed or taking active part in the fighting. Human Rights Watch also found evidence of indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by the IDF. U.S.-supplied helicopters fired anti-tank missiles and other ordinance into the camp, in some cases making insufficient efforts to identify legitimate military targets and avoid hitting civilian houses. The helicopters struck many houses in Jenin refugee camp that were inhabited only by civilians, and where no Palestinian fighters were present. In one of many such cases, a tank shell and two helicopter-fired TOW anti-tank missiles hit the house of Kamal Tawalba, a father of fourteen children, on April 6. No fighters were present in the home. When Tawalba and his family tried to leave their burning home, IDF soldiers in the vicinity shot at them. In another case, a sixty-year-old woman was killed when a helicopter fired a missile directly into her top-floor apartment although there were no armed Palestinians in the building or the immediate vicinity. The IDF's campaign caused extensive and disproportionate destruction of the civilian infrastructure of the camp, particularly in the Hawashin district following an April 9 ambush of Israeli soldiers there. In contrast to other parts of the camp where armored bulldozers were used mainly to widen streets, in Hawashin they razed the entire district. Throughout the camp, at least 140 buildings were completely leveled, many of them multi-family dwellings, and more than 200 others were severely damaged, leaving an estimated 4,000 people, more than a quarter of the population, homeless. More than one hundred of those buildings were in Hawashin district. The extensive, systematic, and deliberate leveling of the entire district was clearly disproportionate to any military objective that Israel aimed to achieve. Establishing whether this devastation so exceeded military necessity as to constitute wanton destruction-a war crime-should be one of the highest priorities for any future U.N. fact-finding team, said Bouckaert. Human Rights Watch also documented cases in which Israeli troops used Palestinian civilians as human shields, a practice prohibited under international humanitarian law. In one case, IDF soldiers forced eight civilians to shield them by making them stand on a balcony while the soldiers fired at Palestinian gunmen. Kamal Tawalba and his fourteen-year-old son were among them. Tawalba described how the soldiers kept them for three hours in the line of fire, and used his and his son's shoulders to rest their rifles as they fired. "Even accepting the Israeli charge that Palestinian groups who used the refugee camp as a base were responsible for attacking Israeli civilians," said Bouckaert, "this does not excuse the IDF violations documented in this report." Bouckaert added that Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Palestinian gunmen forced civilians to serve as human shields during the battles in the camp, and no indication that Palestinian gunmen had prevented Palestinian civilians from leaving the camp. "As in our prior investigations of IDF operations, we also found numerous cases where the IDF coerced Palestinian civilians to take part in military operations," Bouckaert said. "Palestinian civilians were forced, sometimes at gunpoint, to accompany IDF troops during their searches of homes and to carry out some of the most dangerous tasks during these searches." During most of "Operation Defensive Shield," the IDF blocked emergency medical access to Jenin camp. Soldiers repeatedly fired on Red Crescent ambulances, and in one case shot to death a uniformed nurse, twenty-seven-year-old Farwa Jammal, who had come to the assistance of a wounded man. In another case, fifty-eight-year-old Mariam Wishahi died in her home thirty-six hours after she was injured by shrapnel; IDF soldiers repeatedly prevented ambulances from reaching her home, located just a few hundred meters from Jenin's main hospital. During the period the IDF had control of the camp, the Israeli authorities had responsibility under international humanitarian law for the welfare of the civilian population. Yet Israeli authorities denied humanitarian organizations access to the camp during their offensive, and continued to prevent humanitarian access to the refugee camp for days after military operations had ceased, despite great need. Human Rights Watch has investigated and reported on violations of international humanitarian law by governments and armed groups in conflict situations around the globe, including most recently in Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya, eastern Congo, Indonesia, Afghanistan, and Colombia. Human Rights Watch is preparing a separate report on those responsible for suicide bombings directed against Israeli civilians. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937387.stm Low Graphics Thursday, 18 April, 2002, 20:01 GMT 21:01 UK Jenin camp 'horrific beyond belief' The UN envoy likened Jenin to an earthquake zone A United Nations envoy has said that the devastation left by Israeli forces in a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank is "horrific beyond belief". I think I can speak for all in the UN delegation in saying that we are shocked Terje Roed-Larsen Terje Roed-Larsen, who toured the Jenin refugee camp on Thursday, said it was "morally repugnant" that Israel had not allowed emergency workers in for 11 days to provide humanitarian relief. The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has asked the Security Council to consider sending an armed multinational force to the region, under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter which authorises military force to impose council decisions. US President George W Bush said on Thursday that he believed an Israeli withdrawal was under way and that it was going to schedule. Click here to see town-by-town update Desribing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as "a man of peace", Mr Bush said Mr Sharon had begun his promised withdrawal and it was being done "quickly". "He gave me a timetable and he's met the timetable," Mr Bush said. Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat called Mr Bush's comments "a gift, a reward for Sharon's policy of state terrorism and war crimes". Israel pulled its forces out of Jenin town and part of the refugee camp before dawn on Thursday. Officials said they were also withdrawing from Nablus and that over the next three days troops would leave most West Bank areas apart from Ramallah and Bethlehem. Search and rescue The BBC's correspondent said Mr Roed-Larsen was highly regarded in the region and his criticism would put more pressure on the Israelis to fully withdraw. Palestinians claim hundreds of bodies are buried beneath the rubble, but Israel says the numbers of dead are far fewer. An independent forensic expert says evidence suggests that a massacre has taken place. Mr Roed-Larsen said the top priority was to bring in search-and-rescue teams. The only rescue efforts currently under way are residents digging though the ruins looking for survivors. "It is totally destroyed, it looks like an earthquake has hit it," he said. Aid agencies now have access to Jenin "I am watching two brothers pull their father from the ruins, the stench of death is horrible. We are seeing a 12-year-old boy being dug out, totally burned," he said. "We have expert people here who have been in war zones and earthquakes and they say they have never seen anything like it," he added. Mr Roed-Larsen, who is the UN's Special Co-ordinator for the occupied Palestinian territories, was visiting the camp with Red Cross and UN workers. He added: "It is totally unacceptable that the government of Israel for 11 days did not allow search and rescue teams to come." Kofi Annan made his appeal for armed intervention at a closed session of the Security Council. Israeli spokesmen swiftly rejected it while Mr Erekat said it was the "right way to start fighting Israeli aggression" Mr Annan said there was a need for a force large enough to take "decisive action" to end the deadly cycle of attacks. The multinational force should be assembled by countries willing to supply troops and should have "a robust mandate," he said, adding later, "I expect the United States to play an important role." Israel 'concerned' Israel invaded the Jenin camp on 3 April, saying it was a hotbed of Palestinian militancy and declaring it a closed military zone. Palestinian claims of an Israeli massacre in the camp have been denied, although British forensic expert Prof Derrick Pounder has said that the evidence points to large numbers of civilian dead. Prof Pounder is part of an Amnesty International team granted access to Jenin. The Israeli forces are pulling back "according to the timetable" Danny Ayalon, the chief foreign policy adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said that Israel shared the humanitarian concerns and was already allowing some aid teams to operate. The partial pull-out by Israel came a day after the departure of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who left the region without achieving a ceasefire or a full withdrawal of Israeli troops. Israel says troops will continue to surround the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where a group of armed Palestinians are among more than 200 people who have been holed up for more than two weeks. Israel launched its assault on Palestinian towns on 29 March after a suicide bomber killed 28 people celebrating the Jewish Passover. Israel says it will also continue to surround the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah
Woofer, Israel should not have blocked the UN research. It indicates to me that there were potential war crimes. I also discount the final UN Report that was completed (that concluded that no massacre occurred, but little else other than he-said she-said, I believe) ... since they were not allowed to visit the scene. * * * To your hrw article... ... U.S.-supplied helicopters fired anti-tank missiles ... Thank goodness they appear entirely without bias. ...Palestinians claim hundreds of bodies are buried beneath the rubble, but Israel says the numbers of dead are far fewer. An independent forensic expert says evidence suggests that a massacre has taken place. ... Palestinian claims of an Israeli massacre in the camp have been denied, although British forensic expert Prof Derrick Pounder has said that the evidence points to large numbers of civilian dead. Prof Pounder is part of an Amnesty International team granted access to Jenin. ... As mentioned, this was totally debunked. The number of civilian deaths was 7-22, depending on who's definition is used, not the 500 reported by the PLO. Calling this a 'Stalingrad' was ridiculous. But many people will chose to remember this as originally reported...hundreds dead...a massacre. Yet few will probably remember the 28 civilians blown-up during passover celebrations that prompted the action in the first place. But then folks would argue that Israel is a nation, bound by laws. Maybe that's why they haven't sponsored terrorist-like bombings in retaliation. I believe that it's unlikely that Israel hasn't made mistakes and broken laws in individual instances by individual elements, but if they applied the same logic that their enemies use, Palestinians would not hear tanks or helicopters rolling in before an attack. They would be sitting in a restaurant with their family eating dinner when someone intentionally blows it up. The Israelis actually foiled a plot by individual Israelis who wanted to blow-up a Palestinian school. Have we heard any such reports from the Palestinian side? If you haven't noticed, these people are at war. Both sides kill civilians. How much of that is intentional?
International law neither invalidates unilateral action, nor does it invalidate action in self defense. Again you repeat a false premise as if repeating it will make it true. Yep. Go ahead. You will find me saying in many places that there are situations where the UN has not acted, that it should or should have, and in those situations unilateral action is perfectly acceptable (like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq). You will not find me saying the UN is irrelevant, we should pull out of the UN, or anything closely resembling your accusation. Nope. This is just faulty logic. Even if Iraq was not justified as self defense (although I'm not conceeding that) that is does nothing for you when examining whether or not Israels action. There are two possible outcomes, (1) Israel is right and (2) Israel is wrong. The US being wrong about Iraq is irrelevant to that determination. First, saying unilateral actions can be wrong does mean the unilateral action we are talking about in this thread is wrong. Second, you assume 'global opinion' (as embodied by the UN) is the only way to figure out if an action is 'justifiable.' I disagree. Putting of for a moment the possible effect it may have on the UN, an action may be justified even when there is not 'global opinion' behind it. Kosovo is a great example of this. If the UN will not act, then arguing that we shouldn't undermine the UN because they are needed to act seems circular. And pointless. In addition, your argument that unilateral action outside the UN undermines it to noticable effect cannot be true. There are simply too many unilateral actions throughout the UN's existence for it to be true. Well, you assume 'international support' was forthcoming, and i'm not sure what you base that on. It didn't come in Rwanda, nor in Bosnia, for example. And indeed both interventions, Iraq and Kosovo, were justified. When those, such as myself, cited Kosovo, it was for the exact same reason: stopping genocide is justification for unilateral intervention. Especially when UN action is not forthcoming. 'International law' recognizes this as a justification for intervention. No, my argument is that no one would support the stance that sovereignty is supreme unless the UN agrees otherwise. My argument is that 'if a country harbors and trains terrorists' that attack another country, then it is self defense to react to that country's actions. Afghanistan is a good example of this. It was self defense and it was outside the UN. Neither of those things are outside the scope of a state's rights under international law. Ah, so only you can determine what is and is not relevant? Interesting. Again, arguing that the US was wrong does not validate your assertion that Israel is wrong. It begs the question of whether or not Israel has a right to in this situation. In addition, claiming that US intervention in Iraq would increase the propensity of Israel acting is a stretch as well. Israel has taken these actions many times BEFORE the US intervention in Iraq. My original answer was that we are lucky to have you to educate us. You responded that you never insinuated any such thing (that you were trying to educate us). Yet you continue to do that. 'People in the US only see one side, and I (MacBeth) take the other side to change that.' And you argue that you take different sides at different points, furthering my point that readers of your posts should consider that you often make arguments for reasons other than the truth or falsity of a position, rather you to do 'for the sake of argument,' 'to play Devil's advocate,' 'to further discussion,' or however many other ways you can couch it. If you also took the stance that violating human rights of African Americans was ok, then it would be a good analogy. But it would also show that your conclusions should be suspect. It would be genuine to argue they are both right and wrong in the same thread, as you do here. It is not genuine to say Israel is right in one place and wrong in another. If you purposely leave out half of your conclusion so you can 'further the discussion' then your post is not a statement of your true opinion, it is a post with some other motive. I'll give an example. I'm sure we've all met the academic who liked to shake the beliefs of their students. They have found that the student hold certain perspectives and so they take the opposite point of view. They may actually hold the same beliefs, but feel there is a benefit to challenging the students with a new perspective. Their motivation is not truth seeking, it is critical thinking. You, similarly, take a position to force more critical thinking of those you consider ill advised or informed. So when someone looks at your post they ought not to feel you necessarily believe what you are writing, because by your own admission you often to it for reasons other than you believe it. And the UN consistenly takes an anti-Israel position. So is the US also in the middle, doing the MacBeth tap dance by vetoing anti-Israel votes and condemning Israeli settlements? Pretty much not true. If we measure 'global will' by UN action, there is clearly more anti-Israel action than anti-Arab/Palestinian. And it is irrelevant to the question of whether Israeli intervention in Syria is ok, legal, justified, whatever.
