When Criticism of Cluster Bombs is "Anti-Semitic"

[G2099]

The Israeli paper Ha'aretz reports that the head of Germany's Jewish community accused a minister in Angela Merkel's German government of "anti-Semitism" because of the minister's statement on Israel's use of cluster bombs. Development Aid Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul had asked for a United Nations probe into Israel's use of cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon.

Cluster bombs are delivered by a large canister and disperse over a wide area, a sort of lethal piñata. The bomblets come in many sizes. Some are tiny, even smaller than 2 inches in diameter. Kids are constantly trying to kick them or pick them up with the result in the loss an arm or leg or even death. "Every day people are maimed, wounded and are killed by these ordnance," said Egeland. The UN official based his estimate on the reports of the UN Mine Action Coordination Centre which has traveled through 85% of Lebanon. The casualty figures as of 29 August from unexploded ordnance rose to 59 people, including 13 killed and 46 injured.

Responding to a report by Human Rights Watch charging Israel with war crimes in its conduct of the war in Lebanon that was written by its director Kenneth Roth, Rabbi Avi Shafran of Agudath Israel has called Roth "loathsome." An editorial in the New York Sun accused Roth of "de-legitimization of Judaism" because his group condemned Israel's strategy as "an eye for an eye." Rabbi Aryeh Spero in Human Events Online referred to Roth as a "human rights impostor," and likened him to "Nazis and Communists."

http://counterpunch.org/heller09022006.html

[CTyankee]

1. Allied inceniary bombing of Dresden

That was a "good war." We and the other Allies waged total war on Germany and demanded unconditional surrender. We firebombed Dresden (bombs of jellied gasoline)and killed 100,000 civilians. We bombed the living crap out of Berlin, especially in the final months of the war, destroyed infrastructure and killed innocent civilians. We destroyed with huge amounts of ordnance the abbey at Monte Cassino in Italy, even tho local townspeople seeking refuge were the only inhabitants (and we were told that the Nazis had taken it over, when in fact they hadn't until it was reduced to rubble).

Germany never physically attacked the U.S. but of course attacked our European allies, which is why we declared war on Germany. I am not trying to justify anything in the name of war here. Just pointing out that most Americans, even here on DU, would probably agree that our actions in WW2 (to save democracy, our way of life and indeed Western civilization) were needed. Given Israel's very precarious position in the Middle EAst geographically, it is not hard to see its own justification. Israel sees it as precautions taken to insure its very survival.

We need to look at wars we like and wars we don't and see the similarities. If we call WW2 the "good war" and the generation that fought it the "greatest generation" let's be clear about what was done in the name of that good and greatest.

[Jim Sagle]

2. "Germany never physically attacked the U.S." but Germany did DECLARE war

on us after we declared war on Japan.

[msmcghee]

4. I'm not sure if you're just a history buff . .

. . or not.

But, a lot of posts around here have a certain consistency.

A poster will take some time to explain a point of view that he/she thinks is relevant - and will offer some useful evidence.

Someone else who doesn't like that general point - will search the post for any small part of it that could be challenged, no matter how unimportant it is to the point being made. Then, completely ignoring the point the author was making - will offer a post that challenges that irrelevant part, thus "proving" that the original post must be completely wrong.

This sure seems like one of those to me.

[Jim Sagle]

5. Youi're quite wrong in this case.

I've seen a lot of your posts, and have thought highly of all of them.

I had no quarrel at all with the op's overall point.

Peace.

[msmcghee]

7. Sorry. I've been getting a little gunshy.

I always regret cases of friendly fire. :thumbsup:

[Jim Sagle]

8. Not only that, but my reply was confusing.

I agree with the poster I replied to. The op, not so much.

[msmcghee]

10. That would be my rating as well.

Once wars start each side obviously has everything to lose, their freedom, their lives, everything - so each side will do whatever they possibly can to win.

IMO the morality that can justifiably be applied is before a war starts. It must be seen as an extremely serious breach of law - when anyone uses force or the intimidation of use of force against another. That initiating use is what causes wars and all the killing that follows. That's what must be stopped before it starts.

I know that people who want to start wars will always do their best to make it seem like they were provoked. But that's why we need an active and effective UN that doesn't take sides on that matter other than where the evidence leads - and who stays on top of those things - developing situations - with a heavy presence.

But, if you've been reading my posts then you already know that's how I see it. I can't understand why so many here seem to think that if someone does something (non-violent) that you really don't like - then it's basically OK to shoot them, or their kids. Especially if they happen to be Jews, it seems. And these folks are supposed to be liberals. Go figure.

:shrug:

[CTyankee]

13. Need clarification here

I agree with the first part of your overall statement but I can't agree that Israel didn't have provocation that was violent. Also, Israel is only trying to protect itself. It has no designs on taking over other countries. And it is a democratically run nation in a region of autocratically run, militant and radical nations. Historically, the Jews have been systematcally killed, persecuted, driven out, libeled with the vilest lies, with the Nazis Final Solution to top it off. Do you really wonder why they react the way they do?

P.S. See my post below about the abysmal failure of the Bush Admin. to do anything smart or right to stabilize the ME. It just keeps getting worse.

[msmcghee]

14. I completely agree with that.

Very good post below. :thumbsup:

It's not easy to express complex ideas in the short spaces we have here. And editing or clarification shows the good intentions of the author.

[RC]

6. Germain U boats were sinking our cargo & passenger ships before

we entered the war.

[newyorican]

11. Dresden?

I didn't realize we have learned absolutely nothing in over 60 years.

Let's bring back Latin Dictatorships, Aparthied and Whites Only water fountains.

:sarcasm:

[CTyankee]

12. I'm not sure what you are getting at but

my point was NOT whether it was "just" and "right" to destroy Nazism. Of course, I think it was. My point was that to do so we employed the same means that the Israelis have been accused of. We killed civilians and destroyed infrastructure. It was deemed necessary to win and to wipe out Nazism. What I am arguing is that Israel sees its position with regard to Hezbollah through the same prism. In fact, they see their position as much more precarious. I don't think anyone can argue that it is more precarious in the sense that Israel is a tiny country with very big, well armed surrounding countries in close range capable of wiping Israel out. No comparison capability existed with Germany vs. the continent of the United States (altho eventually Germany probably would have developed long range bombers to reach our shores).

Going a bit deeper, though, we have to look at the complete failure of the Bush Administration to get much done diplomatically to prevent the eruption of all-out hostilities that took place last month. This administration has bungled just about everything that it has gotten its hands on. The Middle East is just too dangerous a place for that to happen. It is frightening. IMHO, we have a duty to work with the UN, the surrounding Arab states, the European Union and whoever else we can creatively bring to the table, to prevent this kind of eruption and the bloodshed and destruction it has caused. We haven't done that and I doubt very seriously if this administration ever can.

[newyorican]

15. My point is...

..over 60 years ago, many reprehensible things were considered the norm.

[CTyankee]

16. Yes, sadly.

It is still a world at war, except that it's not just one big conflagration but smaller eruptions in many places. And ancient hatreds just will not die...

[jeff30997]

3. Oh please!

:eyes:

[scarletwoman]

9. "de-legitimization of Judaism" -- how about a de-legitimization of

militarism? How about a de-legitimization of "acceptable collatoral damage"?

I mean, fine -- if the Rabbi wants to equate "Judaism" with the indiscriminate injury and death of civilians, then why would anyone concerned with human rights be on the side of this sort of "Judaism"?

sw