Middle East...again...

[FZR1KG]

UN controlled school bombed

[brite]

Yeah... AFTER they gave the Israelis the co-ordinates so they WOULDN'T bomb the hell out of the school...

With all due respect to those who support Israel... I'm not feeling so charitable, right now. This is the 3rd UN school that they have bombed, after being told where they were. They have effectivly cut off Gaza since 2007, and the people there can't get in or out, can't get in good or services in or out. Yeah, yeah... it's to stop HAMAS from getting weapons in... But HAMAS isn't the entire population.

But funny thing... HAMAS isn't invading Israel. Israel is invading Gaza. Something that I think has been on their agenda for a long time....

[Swift]

With all due respect to those who support Israel... I'm not feeling so charitable, right now.

I know I've mentioned on here that I am ethnically Jewish. But don't confuse that for a blanket support for Israel. I despise the policies of the Right-wing parties (and the current leadership) in Israel and have for a very long time. I think some of their actions, for decades, sink to the level of war crimes or crimes against humanity. And I find it more than a little ironic that a people to whom this kind of stuff was done, just based on their ethnicity or beliefs, dish it out to others.

Now, don't take that too far the other way. Hamas and even worse groups are no innocents. But is the fact that your enemy does evil things an excuse for you to do them too?

[brite]

With all due respect to those who support Israel... I'm not feeling so charitable, right now.

Now, don't take that too far the other way. Hamas and even worse groups are no innocents. But is the fact that your enemy does evil things an excuse for you to do them too?

Nope... not at all charitable toward to Hamas.... it's the people who live in Gaza that I feel for. And the people that live where the Israelis keep pushing out to build after they keep promising that they won't. And everyone else in the world turns a blind eye. Poor little Israel... I don't deny them a right to exist, though the way it came about is bull shit... they have become as bad as the they ones they are fighting against.

[FZR1KG]

Israel has an extremist faction that is embedded in their political system.
Similar to the way Chetniks are embedded in the Serbian government.
Unfortunately they get to convince others that their way is the right thing to do.
Same sort of ideology, greater Serbia, greater Israel.

I've posted links in the past where former IDF soldiers came out about war crimes being committed, deliberate targeting of civilians and children, targeting of UN peace keepers, targeting of international journalists as well as executions etc.
This is in Israel, by Israeli citizens who were appalled at what the IDF has done and came out to respected and influential groups of reporters.
They are vilified and marginalized for coming out. Nothing is done about it other than the promise of internal investigations.

Oddly, the other day I watched Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, both had the same views I've been saying for ages and both are tired of the notion that anyone not 100% in love with Israel's policy is anti-Semitic.

This sums up how I've been feeling and getting treated any time I dare disagree with any aspect of Israel's policy
So wrong yet so true

[SciFi Chick]

Also, both of them are Jewish.

[The Supreme Canuck]

My take (which, not coincidentally, is what international law says):

Israel has the right to defend itself. It does not have the right to harm civilians intentionally, negligently, or through a reckless disregard for their safety.
The Palestinian Authority has the right to defend itself. It does not have the right to harm civilians intentionally, negligently, or through a reckless disregard for their safety.

Full stop.

Which means Israel can conduct military operations against Hamas... but it can never attack civilian targets. No, not even if Hamas is launching rockets out of them. Israel needs to take it. Because, yes, while Hamas is acting wrongly to attack civilian targets, that does not give Israel permission to also act wrongly by attacking civilian targets.

Christ, from a practical perspective rather than a moral one, Israel should just take it. What gets you more support around the world?

Position 1: "Yes, we blew up that hospital. Hamas was using it to launch rockets and hoping that we'd not blow it up just because it was full of civilians. That's monstrous! So we weren't going to let them get away with it. We blew it up, blew Hamas up, and blew the human shields up. Their fault!"

Position 2: "No, we didn't blow up that hospital. Yes, Hamas was using it to launch rockets and hoping that we'd not blow it up just because it was full of civilians. They were right - we don't kill civilians. That's monstrous! So they got away with it. Fine. They're the ones acting wrongly, here. They're putting Palestinian civilians at risk, and they're actively attacking Israeli civilians. But what are we supposed to do? Blow up a hospital. No. We have limits. They can act immorally, but that doesn't mean we need to as well."

Seriously. Which is the better position to take? Not the first one, I don't think.

There's a reason that Gandhi decided on non-violence. And it wasn't because it was moral - it was because it worked.

[FZR1KG]

Since we lost the links that I put up due to the great FWIS disaster, here's what I'm talking about:

An IDF whistle blower showing targeted assassinations active and false reports made that they were killed during skirmish when they were targeted and assassinated:
http://www.haaretz.com/license-to-kill-1.258378

Deliberate targeting of reporters by the IDF
http://en.rsf.org/israel.html

IDF orders to shoot anyone on roofs or bending over in a revenge killing spree, including killing kids taking laundry from a washing line:
http://www.care2.com/news/member/956805373/1091139

Former IDF soldiers accounts of deliberate war crimes carried out by the IDF:
http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/about/organization
This link also has confessions of snipers who shot civilians under clear orders and knew about the kids shot for getting their washing.
The IDF again lied and gave false reports of the incident as well as stopped investigations even though the men guilty are known.

When there are so many examples of war crimes and blatant lies to cover them I have to wonder how the standard excuse, "using civilians as shields" is even remotely believable. Anyone refusing to acknowledge such crimes when reported by the people who did them under orders of the IDF commanders has to seriously recheck their bias.

[FZR1KG]

And no, I'm not anti Semitic.
1) For a start, Palestinians are Semitic.
So I'm complaining about Semitic people being executed and mass murdered.
An ironic twist given the events in the 1940's.

2) I want peace in the middle East for everyone, especially Israel.
What I think however is that they are going about it the wrong way and I think they are doing it deliberately.

3) I'd like to see war criminals being put to trial.
Regardless of their nationality or rank.
Behaviour like the Nazi's is not on and being Jewish is not an excuse to allow it.

4) I don't want to see reporters being targeted.
That is a tactic for scum. Israel deserves better than people running their defense than these assholes.

[The Supreme Canuck]

With regard to #3 - that's why I'm a huge fan of the ICC. Of course, the US is not.

[FZR1KG]

With regard to #3 - that's why I'm a huge fan of the ICC. Of course, the US is not.

Don't get me started on that one.
I've heard every excuse under the sun for not allowing independent investigations on war crimes.
All boil down to the same stupid argument, "we're special".

[The Supreme Canuck]

Yep. Though there is the fun little wrinkle with war crimes - universal jurisdiction. It means that, as with piracy, any country that lays its hands on a war criminal can prosecute them for crimes against humanity no matter where the crimes were committed. It's just that countries tend not to like to go to the bother.

[FZR1KG]

Yep. Though there is the fun little wrinkle with war crimes - universal jurisdiction. It means that, as with piracy, any country that lays its hands on a war criminal can prosecute them for crimes against humanity no matter where the crimes were committed. It's just that countries tend not to like to go to the bother.

Trying to get your hands on a US war criminal who has the backing of the US military, isn't anyone's idea of a fun time.

[The Supreme Canuck]

That's the thing, isn't it? I mean, technically, if a U.S. official you suspect of war crimes lands in your country for a diplomatic jaunt, you can arrest him. But nobody wants to do that. Which is why universal jurisdiction has only been used to grab people from countries that are, well, less likely to invade you. Genocidaires from Rwanda, for example.

But a U.S. official? You only do that if you want a carrier group to unleash some "freedom" on your ass.

[SciFi Chick]

That's the thing, isn't it? I mean, technically, if a U.S. official you suspect of war crimes lands in your country for a diplomatic jaunt, you can arrest him. But nobody wants to do that. Which is why universal jurisdiction has only been used to grab people from countries that are, well, less likely to invade you. Genocidaires from Rwanda, for example.

But a U.S. official? You only do that if you want a carrier group to unleash some "freedom" on your ass.

Maybe, but when was the last time George W. Bush set foot outside the U.S.?

[The Supreme Canuck]

You joke, but I seem to recall that there was a push by some leftist groups to have him arrested when he visited Canada. Let me look that up...

Oh, shit. It was bloody Amnesty International who wanted us to arrest him. Christ.

[FZR1KG]

She knew that.
It's why she reference it.
We had a good laugh about it when it was reported.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Ah, didn't catch that, sorry.

[FZR1KG]

Stop apologising.
Damned polite Canadians!

[SciFi Chick]

You joke, but I seem to recall that there was a push by some leftist groups to have him arrested when he visited Canada. Let me look that up...

Oh, shit. It was bloody Amnesty International who wanted us to arrest him. Christ.

Exactly. I wasn't joking. But I also wasn't arguing with you. You have to do some serious shit to get someone outside the U.S. willing to take the risk of arresting a former U.S. official. The fact that he hasn't left the country makes me think he isn't at all confident that we would back him up, which to me, speaks volumes about his guilt.

[FZR1KG]

Or that he has no need to travel outside the USA because it is the best after all.

[brite]

Well... what do you know.... sounds like a reason to invade... don't you think?? Here's an addendum... In researching this... I can't find much... BUT -- that being said, one thing that I have noticed... the incident that started this - the kidnapping and killing of the three Israeli students, supposedly by Hamas, was never claimed BY Hamas. In fact, Hamas has consistently denied doing it. 350 - 400 Palestinians were arrested, 5 were killed in a MILITARY round up. But when it was a Palestinian boy that was beaten and burned to death, it was civilian police that was used to find the perpetrators, and no one thought to accuse the IDF or the military. Bibi declared that Hamas would wiped out.

“Hamas is responsible, and Hamas will pay,” Netanyahu said in reference to the kidnapping. However, Inspector Rosenfeld’s statements, along with a number of reports concerning the identities of known police suspects, seem to indicate that Hamas leadership was not involved in the vicious crime.

I repeat what I have said before... I'm not rooting for Hamas. But when do the Gazans get to stand up for themselves and NOT be called terrorists? It's been 7 years since Israel has blockaded them. 7 years of being on the "Israeli diet" and having their water contaminated. 7 years of having their electricity messed with. So when does it become more like ethnic cleansing, than just trying to "clear out a terrorist nest"?

[FZR1KG]

Well little pixie, it is about the fog of war.
Let me explain.
If we know that the three were dead but don't tell the public and thus increase the public desire for us to go into action, are they really dead?
Certainly not as far as the public are concerned. That's why we had to go hard core to try to save the lives of these three young boys.
The minor matter of us not telling the public that they were already dead is inconsequential to the public's desire to have us go kill Palestinians.
The fog of war.

Like wise our great fearless leader calling Hamas responsible for the deaths of the three.
Once he did that, the pubic wanted revenge on Hamas and more Palestinian deaths.
Naturally, we did what the public wanted. Go in, kick some ass and hope we can secure the land in Gaza for ourselves out of this.
Once again, the minor issue that we knew it was not Hamas but blamed them anyway is neither here nor there.
It's what the public wanted and we delivered.

The fog of war is very confusing as you can see.

One more example.
When we shoot a child in cold blood for taking washing of a clothes line, telling the public that we did it deliberately will just upset them.
So we tell them that we killed some terrorists in a firefight.
It makes the public far more pleased with our performance. Same goes when we perform illegal targeted killings against what the court of Israel ruled.
If we admit to that, then the public will be upset with our defense force and that is no good for the country.
So we must lie you see. It's for the greater good and makes us look awesome.
I mean, which sounds better, we shot two unarmed innocent kids in the head at close range for picking up their laundry, or, we got into a fire fight and killed two trained kids that the Hamas use to kill Israeli's, being the despicable scum that they are training kids to fight. I mean, what kind of low life does that. Or hides behind civilians. Which is why we shoot so many civilians.

So you see, it's the fog of war. We're not really lying to the Israeli people about our deliberate executions of unarmed women and children, reporters, doctors,UN troops or bombings of schools and hospitals, it's just that we aren't telling the truth. That's all.

It's the fog of war.
Thankfully most Republicans agree with the fog of war principle so we get to keep our funding and keep doing it over and over again, for the benefit of all.

Hope that makes sense now why it is totally necessary.

[SciFiFisher]

Because.

[brite]

Because.

You know damned well why....
Z... because you post was too long... I'm not quoting but... You know why too...

I get that... and that is what pisses me the fuck off.