Proportionality and Hypocrisy

[shira]

Proportionality and hypocrisy


Why are military ops in Gaza, Kosovo judged by wildly disparate criteria?

Martin Sherman Published: 01.14.09, 23:46 / Israel Opinion

"There is always a cost to defeat an evil. It never comes free, unfortunately. But the cost of failure to defeat a great evil is far higher."


It was in these words that the official NATO representative chose to respond to criticism regarding the numerous civilian casualties incurred by the alliance's frequent air attacks during the war in Kosovo between March and June of 1999. He insisted NATO planes bombed only "legitimate designated military targets" and if civilians had died it was because NATO had been forced into military action. Adamant that "we try to do our utmost to ensure that if there are civilians around we do not attack," Shea emphasized that "NATO does not target civilians...let's be perfectly clear about that."



However, hundreds of civilians were killed by a NATO air campaign, code named "Operation Allied Force" - which hit residential neighborhoods, old-aged sanatoriums, hospitals, open markets, columns of fleeing refugees, civilian buses and trains on bridges, and even a foreign embassy.



Exact figures are difficult to come by, but the undisputed minimum is almost 500 civilians deaths (with some estimates putting the toll as high as 1500) - including women, children and the elderly, killed about in 90 documented attacks by an alliance that included the air forces of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Holland, Italy, Turkey, Spain, the UK, and the US. Up to 150 civilians deaths were reportedly caused by the use of cluster-bombs dropped on, or adjacent to, known civilian areas.

<snip>

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656420,00.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[shira]

2. Israel recognizes Palestine's right to exist

What do you think CD/Taba 2000 was all about? Or the 2005 Gaza withdrawal? Both opportunities squandered by Palestinian leadership in favore of more war.

"Final Solution"?

"Genocide"?

Please, get educated.

[patrice]

4. Re: rights. I believe my point was that this does not appear to be about Rights. nt

[Malikshah]

10. Education is the word. Taba 2000-- what was the result? O. Gaza

withdrawal? Result? Open air prison and worse.

The robotic statements must stop before an effective discourse can occur.

Wanton repetition of talking points already shown to be fallacious does not help matters.

[shira]

12. education, indeed: edited

Taba 2000 and Gaza 2005 were obvious olive branches of peace. While they weren't everything, they were clearly goodwill gestures that were flatly rejected. Doves like Shlomo ben Ami and Amos Oz both thought Taba 2000 was extremely fair. As for Gaza, that was the end of occupation and settlements there.

And there was no open air prison at the time of the withdrawal. Hamas fired significantly more rockets as a result, were then elected, reneged on all security matters that the PA had negotiated with Israel, and only then did the blockade begin. Let's not pretend the blockade existed prior to or during the time of the summer 2005 Gaza withdrawal. Palestinian leadership was given an opportunity and they chose more war. And why not? Israel kept conceding, so why not keep attacking and hope for even more concessions? The fact is, Israel's actions were geared toward peace. Palestinian leadership did not even attempt to meet Israel halfway.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. first of all, as you know, Taba was not rejected by the Palestinians

Israel unilaterally broke off negotiations on the brink of their elections which Ariel Sharon was predicted to win by an overwhelming landslide with an absolute promise to revoke any agreement reached by the Labour led government. These facts are not in dispute and are a matter of public record.

Secondly when Israel redeployed from the Gaza in 2005, Israel more than doubled its settlement expansion plans in the West Bank and East Jerusalem while maintaining total control over the air, land and sea access to the Gaza Strip. Ariel Sharon himself made it absolutely clear that his reason for the redeployment was to consolidate control over the West Bank. These facts are not in dispute and are a matter of public record.


Thirdly, based on the principle of international law and what the Palestinians versus what the Israelis are entitled to under international law; all, that's right all concessions were made only by the Palestinians. Israel made no concessions if the standard is based on international law. These facts are not in dispute and are a matter of public record.

Here is the link to the European Union notes - known as the Morantinos documents which all sides have confirmed to be a reliable record of what occurred at Taba, Egypt in January 2001.

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip:"Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election."

snip:"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to European Union notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

--------------

Israelis, Palestinians make final push before Israeli election
January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 11:38 a.m. EST (1638 GMT) - link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

"Barak's challenger for the prime minister's post, hard-line, hawkish Likud party chairman Ariel Sharon -- who holds a commanding lead in the polls -- has said he would not honor any agreement worked out between Barak's negotiators and the Palestinians. "

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes."
_________________

Here is a neutral and dispassionate examination of what led to the break down at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in January 2001:

Vision of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/322/visions_in_collision.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F355%2Fjeremy_pressman

.

[oberliner]

21. That's not the way Dennis Ross tells it

Arafat came to the White House on January 2.
Mr. President, it was January 2, just before President Clinton left office.
Met with the president, and I was there--
``I'' being Dennis Ross--
in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

He was supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.

He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.

He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.

This is commercial aviation.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't--there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.

So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.

Dennis Ross then went on to say:

It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8165823

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. Dennis Ross was hardly a neutral arbitrator. Mr. Ross has hardly been coy

about his sympathies before, at the time or now.

At the time of these negotiations the Palestinians had witnessed the near doubling of settlements in the West Bank since the signing of the Oslo Accord. The on-the-ground realities post Oslo had actually made life much harder and more difficult for the vast majority of Palestinians. They simply had no reason to believe that things could simply be trusted to good will.

At the time of the Taba talks all parties agreed that the EU notes were an accurate picture of what had occured and all parties had initialed them accordingly. http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

But the point is, the talks were underway and the record show that actual progress was being made. It is matter of historic fact that the Israeli delegations ended the talks with the election only days away. It is a matter of historic fact that all polls showed Ariel Sharon winning by a landslide and running on a campaign promise to revoke any agreement made by the outgoing Labour government.

At the time of the Taba talks Ariel Sharon was at least 16 point ahead in all leading Israeli opinion polls to become the new Israeli Prime Minister. And the election was only days away. However, Mr. Sharon made it absolutely clear that he would not honor any such treaty with he Palestinians:

"Sharon calls peace talks a campaign ploy by Barak
Likud leader says he won't comply with latest agreements
January 28, 2001
Web posted at: 1:42 p.m. EST (1842 GMT) "

"Sharon leads Barak by 16 to 20 percentage points in opinion polls that have changed little in recent weeks." link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

"Israelis, Palestinians make final push before Israeli election
January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 11:38 a.m. EST (1638 GMT)"


"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes."

.

[shira]

27. so basically

Clinton lied. So did Dennis Ross, Ehud Barak, and Shlomo ben Ami. All progressive liberals. And we should instead believe the accounts of Arafat and his regressive cronies.

Sounds reasonable. :eyes:

[oberliner]

28. Would you agree that Arafat was not willing to compromise on right of return?

Would you agree that Arafat was not willing to accept any compromise on the status of Jerusalem?

Don't you think that Sharon would have had to accept an agreement had one been reached regardless of his campaign rhetoric?

You may think that Taba was a bum deal, but I don't think you can claim that Arafat was particularly agreeable.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. according to Shlomo Ben-Ami Arafat was willing to compromise

on the right of return. There are varying accounts on the extent of the compromise. But we know from Mr. Arafat's 2002 oped in the NYT that he recognized that Israel's demographic concerns have to be taken into account in any agreement. J

Jerusalem was Arafat's strongest point of contention. To say he wasn't willing to compromise, would simply be going way to far. Since the record show that the two negotiating teams were working away and finding an agreement and that the break down did not occur because of any impasse or point of intransigence, but because of the Israeli elections.

Mr. Sharon has a life long history of rejectionism of the most extreme sort. Considering that he was more than willing to intentionally provoke violence in order to score the point of his unwillingness to compromise on Jerusalem, I would tend to take him at his word in his promise to reject any peace agreement reached by the out going Labour government.

[shira]

40. come on now, Douglas

We're supposed to believe Arafat's narrative over Clinton, Barak, Ross, and ben Ami?

Um, why?

If you can't believe the left who work for peace with Palestinians, and you trust Arafat's account instead - I have to question whether you believe there is any serious negotiating partner on the Israeli side. If Palestinians cannot make peace with leftist doves who you believe are lying about CD/Taba, what hope is there? Ben Ami and Amos Oz are 2 of the most respected doves in Israel and here you are, in effect, trashing their accounts in favor of Arafat's propaganda.

[shira]

22. Jimmy Carter admits Taba was rejected by Arafat

of course he says Barak rejected it too, which is false. Your sources are so pro-Hamas/PLO, it's absurd. How about accounts from Israel's 2 leading doves?

Here's Shlomo ben Ami's account, which is basically Dennis Ross' version:
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

And here's Amos Oz:
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=1336

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. my sources are the EU notes - which all sides agreed at the time

was an accurate picture of what occured. No, Jimmy Carter does not say that Arafat rejected Taba. Because there was simply no firm agreement to accept or reject. That is what the record shows.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. Thanks for the dispassioniate statement of the factual record, Doug.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. for a dispassionate, neutral and factually based examination of what happened

at Camp David and Taba - an account that is neither pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli - but is based on neutral sources and dispassionate analysis I can think of no finer paper than this one:

"Vision of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman

OVERVIEW

Amid continuing despair over the stalled implementation of President George W. Bush's "roadmap" for peace in the Middle East, Jeremy Pressman of the University of Connecticut offers a glimmer of hope. Pressman begins with an analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian-U.S. summit at Camp David in 2000 and the talks in Taba, Egypt, in 2001. He explicates the Palestinian, Israeli, and U.S. claims about what happened at the talks and compares each version to the evidentiary record. He concludes that although the negotiations did not produce a final peace settlement, they were not the dismal failures that Israeli and U.S. officials, in particular, have portrayed them to be. Pressman asserts that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators made significant progress on a number of crucial issues, creating "building blocks" that can serve as the foundation for an eventual peace agreement.

link to PDF file:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/322/visions_in_collision.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F355%2Fjeremy_pressman

.

[Malikshah]

32. Bull-- as others have pointed out as well. It is time to stop parroting

the robotic talking points and start thinking about what is best for reasonable discourse.
It is long past the point of being tiresome and counterproductive.

[tekisui]

3. Israel's response to killing children: Others do it, too. Some are worse!

Lame ass argument.

[shira]

6. are you generally anti-war and therefore against all other

countries involved in war, as you are against Israel?

Or is Israel somehow worse than most or all other countries at war the past 20-40 years? If not, then why the disproportionate focus on Israel - and thus the hypocrisy?

If Israel fights better (60,000 arabs killed in all Israel's wars combined the past 60 years) than all other 1st world countries at war (nevermind 2nd and 3rd world as there are no expectations there), then why not admit to that and keep the criticism in perspective?

[tekisui]

31. Israel's war is current, ongoing and armed by my government.

I am against all wars. I follow war when it is happening. Developed countries have a responsibility to avoid war when possible and NOT use tactics that Israel has used.

I think the horrible actions of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan are just as deplorable, and I have spent a lot of time being against those wars. I closely followed the Russian/Georgian war with disgust at unnecessary aggression.

Like I said, Israel's excuse, at least yours is, others kill children, so what's the big deal?

Let me ask you. Are you generally Pro-War? Do you vehemently defend all wars and acts of aggression, as you do for Israel?

Or is Israel somehow better? If not, why the disproportionate focus, and thus hypocrisy?

[shira]

41. no, I'm not of the belief that other countries kill children so it's okay for Israel

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950849061&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950869480&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Check those 2 articles out. I do not believe they are propaganda. Neither do 94% of Israelis who support this war, which obviously includes a couple million leftists. I truly believe Israel is trying their best to limit civilian casualties but war is messy and due to human error and Hamas' tactics, it's impossible to have zero civilians killed in a war like this.

I'm of the opinion that people like yourself think the 2 articles above, and others like it, are complete BS and that Israel and its military are bloodthirsty warmongers with little to no scruples who lie about their care for Palestinian innocents. Am I wrong?

[Idealism]

5. So because there have been horrible things in the past, its ok if Israel does them now

Good argument

[shira]

8. those horrible things still happen....not just in the past

USA and Britain in Iraq. Sudan, Congo, etc. Russia in Chechnya or Georgia. China.

Oceans of blood in those conflicts, with countless millions dead just in the past 10-15 years, as opposed to 60,000 Arabs killed by Israel in all its wars combined since 1948.

There really is no comparison. Just hypocrisy from those in glass houses who have the nerve to preach to Israel.

[Idealism]

9. Dictatorships have killed millions, Israel is SUPPOSED to be a democracy.

But I guess they find fascism more to their liking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x245304#245550

Israel bans Arab parties from coming election

JERUSALEM – Israel on Monday banned Arab political parties from running in next month's parliamentary elections, drawing accusations of racism by an Arab lawmaker who said he would challenge the decision in the country's Supreme Court.

[shira]

11. Dictatorships?

How about NATO, Britain, USA involvement in Iraq, Kosovo/Bosnia, and Afghanistan just the past 15 years? These 1st world democracies have killed millions. They're not dictatorships. They're not fascist. And Israel should be held to an even higher standard on the world stage?

There's no point getting into the 2nd and 3rd world countries. They're expected to act like barbarians, right? Low expectations and all? Those millions of victims certainly appreciate that, don't you think?

As for "Israel banning" arab parties, they banned KACH years ago for similar reasons. Do you agree with that decision? Besides, unless Israel's Supreme Court upholds this decision, and they won't, it's not happening.

Anything else?

[Idealism]

13. I like you projecting, its working well

I would love to see someone prosecute the US for war crimes, but the hegemony will continue to go on unruffled unless Mr. Holder manages to hold trials against BushCo. Israel shouldn't be held to a higher standard than other countries that have murdered people- obviously- but they should be held to the same standard, which you refuse to accept. They have committed crimes and should be found responsible.

Do you think the US to be a democracy? We don't ban the Alaskan Independence Party when they advocate leaving the Union, because we have this nice little document called a CONSTITUTION. Israel shits on their Constitution more than even the US does to ours.

Anything else?

[shira]

16. but we know full well Israel isn't being held to the same standard

as other 1st world western countries like the UK, USA, France, etc....forget Russia and China, right?

Do you see the wild-eyed, tinfoilhats here calling for the Hague or Nuremberg trials WRT the above countries for their roles in millions of deaths in just the past 15 years? And do all the 2nd/3rd world countries just get free passes?

I'm all for equal standards. How about prosecuting state-crimes against humanity in order of their magnitude and scope? Israel can stand near the back of a very long line.

[Idealism]

17. So you wish Israel's crimes go unpunished for how long?

Like 20 years? Not long enough? I would say 30 would be more than enough for the worlds anger to subside, wouldn't you? Hell, I bet the Israeli's might even agree to that-- think of the case they could build till then with IDF-sworn statements and "independent" commissions! There would be no way the ICC would convict anyone 30 years down the line for this, and you damn well know it.

Newsflash: there have been plenty of voices calling for dictators to be tried for war crimes in the past, just like their are plenty of people urging Congress to investigate Bush. No one is trying to 'pick on' Israel by saying they are committing crimes and should meet their punishment, but you seem to harp on this so-called hypocrisy.

And for your own personal knowledge, here is something you seem to not know. Pinochet escaped trial by months after succumbing to death, but he was set to be convicted upon war crimes, genocide, etc. In 2006, Miguel Etchecolatz was sentenced to life in prison for systemically killing Leftists in Argentina during the 1970s and 1980s. People have been sent to jail, or worse. Need I remind you that Saddam Hussein was tried and executed for his genocidal past?

Could there be more tried? Of course, it could always be more free and fair. Does that mean we should forgive crimes because others have gotten away with similar things in the past? If your neighbor steals from the local supermarket, but doesn't get caught, does that mean it is right for you to steal from that same store? If you decide to steal from them, then get caught, will your defense be "But my neighbor got away with this," as you are arguing Israel's defense to be now?

Anything else?

[shira]

23. how about not singling out Israel unfairly

Forget NATO, etc... for now.

How about the UN and other groups coming down at least equally as hard on Hamas, and also holding them accountable for everything - and I mean "everything". If Israel is going to be very closely scrutinized and held accountable for crossing every T and dotting every I, the least that can be done is that Hamas and Fatah are also held to the exact same highest of standards. A single standard of justice, or no justice at all.

Agree? If not, why not?

If so, you and I both know this single standard of Hamas/PLO being closely scrutinized and held accountable is NOT happening - as there is no movement to see that it does. No calls for the Hague for Hamas/Fatah. No calls for thorough war crimes investigations as we see from Israel's defamers. So why isn't it happening?

[Idealism]

37. According to your own standard they will be prosecuted later.

The crimes Hamas has done or condoned are much lesser than that of Israel according to the Geneva conventions and international law, so by your own logic they should be prosecuted after Israel. I have no problem with trying them all in the Hague.

Israel is being scrutinized for killing innocent civilians because they have the most advanced technology in the world, yet there are more civilians killed than militants in Gaza. I wonder why we would ask questions after knowing this? Everyone must just be anti-semitic, right?

They have the most sophisticated bombs, missiles, and aircraft, yet they bomb UN schools, the UN headquarters, several shelters, hospitals, mosques, and even go after journalists- I guess so they can 'control the message' better, as one Israeli official seemed to say.

They use white phosphorous willingly on civilian shelters and start fires in UN compounds. Do you wish to justify that, too?

[shira]

42. you cannot prove intent

Hamas intends on inflicting as much damage on Israelis AND Palestinians as possible. They have admitted as such, celebrate it when it happens, and continue to do it.

Israel, OTOH, is busy doing this:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950869480&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950849061&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Call Israel delusional for believing they can fight a clean war, but the fact is with info. like in the above 2 articles you are facing an uphill battle trying to prove Israel has very ill or evil intent towards Palestinian civilians. To say that Israel is acting worse than Hamas is absurd. The historical record proves you wrong too. In 60 years, 60,000 arabs killed in all Israel's wars combined does not constitute evil or malicious intent. It's actual proof of Israel's restraint. We're talking the 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 2 Lebanon wars, and 2 Intifadas. Israel had MAJOR national security concerns in nearly all those wars. Compare to NATO, whose civilians faced no threat in the past 20 years, and the numbers they kill - and it's obvious Israel is far more restrained than 1st world Western powers. It's not even worth comparing Israel to 2nd and 3rd world banana republics who are far, far worse.

Seriously, how do you KNOW Israel and its IDF are deliberately trying to kill children and are not just making human errors and tough decisions in wartime situations? You DON'T know....but what's worse is that it appears you give Hamas every benefit of the doubt despite evidence showing their intentions are the epitome of evil. And you wonder why your views are not more mainstream, or why Obama does not buy into that crap, and why Int'l tribunals (not consisting of 3rd world judges hostile to Israel) would never find Israel guilty in a fair trial.

[Idealism]

45. Keep contradicting yourself

You say you want them to be held up to equal scrutiny, yet you don't believe they committed any wrong. The world disagrees with you.

[Shaktimaan]

18. Democracy is messy.

The US also balances what it views as threats against individual freedoms, it is no different than any other nation in that regard. We didn't ban the AIP, but we have refused entry into the country based on individual's personal political views. Communists, Fascists, etc... they have all been denied. France and Germany have limits on their freedom of speech forbidding Holocaust denial. Just because Israel's democracy is slowly, messily engaging with its own internal issues is hardly a reason to disregard it as a democracy. The process that Israel is now undergoing regarding this issue is actually a testament to its democracy's strength, not the opposite.

Anything else?

Um, yeah. Israel can't shit on their constitution because they don't actually have one. This isn't really meant as a "gotcha" post, but I do find it a little disturbing that you actually voiced an opinion about something so specific, (and a strong opinion at that), based totally on an assumption. You assumed Israel had a constitution, that you knew what was in it, that Israel had betrayed these tenets, and even to what degree, as compared to the US.

I realize that this wasn't deception, it was just a small mistake. Still, I feel like so many people have misconceptions about this conflict because of a tendency (that we all have) to "fill in the blanks" by relating our own experiences to given situations. They assume similarities where they might not really exist and in a conflict this complex that can lead to misunderstandings.

[Idealism]

38. Israel does have guiding principles

Just because they didn't write them down, doesn't mean they have no rights of citizens. Their Israeli High Court is much like the SCOTUS, with judicial review and all. The rule of law is well established.

[shira]

43. you're contradicting yourself

if Israel's high court is like SCOTUS (actually it's even better, as they rule in real-time during warlike situations - in favor of Palestinians many times)....then with a rule of law that is well established, Israel and its IDF cannot count on getting away with literal murder, if that's what you believe they are trying to do in this war. Israel's supreme court has a remarkable way of keeping the IDF in check, moreso than probably any other supreme court worldwide - considering the circumstances.

94% of Israelis support this war and you want us to believe they have their own Supreme Court in their back pockets, lapping up the propaganda and lying to the rest of the world about trying to act restrained WRT civilians? Or is everyone just duped into thinking their own IDF (which most of them serve in or have close friends/relatives who do) is more ethical than it really is?

Either most of the country consists of liars or else they're ignorant dupes. Is there another choice for you and what is it?

Do you think I'm a dupe for thinking Israel is trying hard to fight a clean war, maybe just stupid for thinking it can happen, or just a liar who tries desperately to cover up known Israeli crimes and their intent to carry out such crimes? I won't get mad at your answer. I just value honesty, that's all.

[Idealism]

44. Just because they have an established rule of law

doesn't mean illegal things don't happen in the country.

Most people in this country thought we should go into Iraq too, after 9/11. Over 60% of Americans still think Saddam had links to 9/11. Are they stupid? No. Just ignorant, ignorant because the media is owned by the same people who own our governments whom keep the population in the dark: transnationals. They own Israel, too, and if you don't understand that then I can't help you.

Their High Court issues mandates that don't get followed often, especially in times of conflict. They have yet to reach High court decreed levels of industrial diesel into Gaza, totally ignored the courts rulings on allowing journalists into Gaza, and have repeatedly banned Arab parties from upcoming elections (even though the court overturned these in the past after many months of bitter appeals).

It seems pretty obvious that Israel is attacking civilian structures to cripple whatever resistance they may face now or in the future. You don't bomb a dozen schools, over 30 mosques, many shelters, refugee camps, media outlet office buildings, hospitals, and markets without knowing full well you are mostly killing civilians. The death toll bears this out.

Israel needs to change their strategy in this conflict, you cannot kill an idea no more than you can kill thoughts. If Israel keeps on oppressing the Palestinians in such a blatant way, they will always have these resistant and disobedient thoughts. You won't rid them of these by bombing their homes.

[razors edge]

15. The Iraq invasion was never

sold or supported as an ethnic or religious war, and as such, the initial popular support for it from the majority was a knee jerk reaction to lies about 9-11.

Those of us who knew better were as much, if not more so, against it than we are against what Israel is doing now.

Short of an attack from an outside sovereign no nation has the right to initiate a massacre on anyone, including those they occupy.

My tax dollars do not fund the military forces of the other conflicts you mention, and as such it is not my place to expect my government to involve themselves in the fray. I can refuse to buy products from those nations just as I do and encourage others to do when it comes to Israel.

Israel was all for the American invasion of Iraq just as they all for an American attack on Iran, and for an Israel supporter to point out what took place in Iraq as justification for Gaza as though Israel had nothing to do with it is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

[okiru109]

7. the traditional aggressors argument

fortunately most folks don't buy it.

[shaayecanaan]

14. Almost all of those deaths were Albanian...

and the Albanians deliberately discouraged criticism of civilian deaths for the simple reason that the Americans were intervening on behalf of the Albanians (in their effort to kick the Serbs out of Kosovo).

Its not a very good comparison, IMO. If the British had fought on behalf of the Jews against the Arabs in the 1948 war and in so doing inadvertently bombed a few Jewish settlements I doubt the Jews would have complained much either.

[EFerrari]

19. More gross self-justification.

[Vegasaurus]

33. of course there is hypocrisy, by the bushel full

11 million Muslims have killed each other, but those deaths are excused, because what?

They don't know any better?

They can't be held to a higher standard?

Millions have been murdered in genocides all over the globe.

There is a current genocide in Darfur that people ignore, because it is more Muslim fanatics.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

[tekisui]

34. Who is excusing those deaths?

Just because one group commits atrocities, it does not excuse Israel or another group from committing atrocities. This is the lamest of justifications.

Should every post criticizing Israel contain a criticism of every act of war to be fair? C'mon. This is a current, ongoing war, using American made weapons and funding. With America's blessing.

[Vegasaurus]

35. THe point people seem to be missing

is not that they can't criticize Israel for this latest action.

It's that the criticism is disproportionate, considering the number of hideous atrocities that no one bats an eye at.

I have said it before, but I don't mind repeatng it.

Either one cares about human rights abuse and decries loss of human life, or one doesn't.

But this picking and choosing, only against Israel, gets really tiresome.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

39. how exactly are you being stifled?

if you mean that your views arent accepted by all...i would say thats you being intolerant of other viewpoints....the OP is in fact about proportionality and hypocrisy (and its comparisons.....) perhaps your posting in the wrong discussion and should move over to israeli war crimes discussions or something like that where you wont have to argue so much