crackerjack
Well-known member
What's the evidence of this?
Why Israel
- Thread starter vimothy
- Start date
What's the evidence of this?
vimothy
yurp
How does bombing a bus stop prevent Israel from doing anything? In what sense is bombing a pizza shop a military operation?
vimothy
yurp
Please provde some evidence for this.
vimothy
yurp
And this.
vimothy
yurp
Link to some stats of fatalities caused by house demolition.
If you were interested, you'd already know this. It isn't controversial. For one thing, Hezbollah managed to defeat the Israeli armed forces - something that has proven beyond every other Arab army in history. They are the most powerful armed group in Lebanon, more powerful than the country's own armed forces. They are funded and controlled by Iran and Syria.
You're ignoring the context that explains these figures. Israel target military positions. Hezbollah randomly fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do the rest of the Middle East condem Hezbollah? Like hell. Nassrallah is feted as a strategic genius.
HRW:
"Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets indiscriminately and at times deliberately at civilian areas in northern Israel, ... Hezbollah's justifications for its attacks on Israeli towns - as a response to indiscriminate Israeli fire into southern Lebanon and to draw Israel into a ground war - had no legal basis under the laws of war. ... Hezbollah's explanations for why it fired rockets at Israel's civilian population utterly fail to justify these unlawful attacks."
The United Nations:
The U.N. humanitarian chief accused Hezbollah on Monday of “cowardly blending” in among Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of hundreds during two weeks of cross-border violence with Israel.... “Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children,” he said. “I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”
Fine - but I want you to tell me in what way attacks on Israeli civilians are a military response to occupation. How does bombing Israeli bus stops help end the occupation? How does bombing Israeli bus stops help protect the lives of Palestinians? How does bombing Israeli bus stops help forward the military defeat of Israel?
vimothy
yurp
Well, I suppose that's true, and Israel and USA at least implicitly recognise this and support Fatah as "moderates". The problem is that Fatah are merely corrupt and incompetent, where Hamas are jihadist psychos. It's least bad, but it's still not great.
True enough, perhaps. Why don't you post some?
Sabra and Shatila was carried out by Lebanese Christians, allied with Israel, avenging similar massacres carried out by the Palestinians (such as Damour). Anyway, it wasn't the Israeli state, which is what I'm asking for.
vimothy
yurp
1. You are saying that the bombing of bus stops is a military response to the Israeli occupation. I'm simply asking you to explain in what way it's a military response and not a terrorist act.
2. Lebanese villages were bombed because that's where Hezbollah's artillery was hidden. Hezbollah used Lebanon to protect itself from Israel's response and it worked. This is also non-controversial. According to the World Council for the Cedars Revolution,
The WCCR accuses Hezbollah and its regional allies of intentionally forcing .. the communities under the control of Hezbollah's militias to become a shield for Hezbollah's military operations. By doing so, Hezbollah is breaching international law and must respond to international responsibility. ... The Council .. strongly condemns the deployment by Hezbollah of artillery and rockets in the vicinity of civilian population centers. This tactic, which puts civilians at risk of death and destruction, is a war crime to be sanctioned by international law. The Council attributes the responsibility of the deaths of Lebanese citizens by Israeli fire, to Hezbollah's leadership and to its Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
But they acted under the blessing of the Israeli military, didn't they? Sharon's endorsement of the Phalangists is the thing most often mentioned when people talk about his war crimes.
vimothy
yurp
According to Bernard Lewis, quoted in the Wiki entry, initial media reaction was similar to today:
Characteristic features were the suspension of critical thinking by journalists who normally exercise a salutary skepticism; unhesitating acceptance and publication of what soon proved to be self-evident propaganda from partisan sources. Most striking and revealing, was the frequent usage of language evocative of the Nazis... Such words as "blitzkrieg", "lebensraum", "genocide", and "final solution" were freely used to reinforce the comparison, sometimes stated and often implied, between Israelis in Lebanon and the Nazis in conquered and occupied Europe... Most reports concentrated their whole attack on the Israelis who, as was known from the start, had not actually participated in the massacre and whose negligence or complicity had not yet been established, and almost failed to mention the Lebanese Christian militias who actually did the deed. The careless reader or viewer could have got the impression that this was a massacre unique in the modern history of the Middle East, and that it was perpetrated directly by the Israelis. Neither was true.
Read the media section, it's quite enlightening. All the responses seem to focus on the Israelis as perpetrators, rather than the Lebanese militia who actually commited it. Why is that?
But here's something even more interesting:
As the news of the massacre spread around the world, the controversy grew, and on September 25, 300,000 Israelis — roughly one tenth of the country's then-population — demonstrated in Tel Aviv demanding answers. The protest, known in Israel as the "400,000 protest" (the number of protesters was first exaggerated) was the biggest protest in Israel's history.
And then:
On September 28, the Israeli Government resolved to establish a Commission of Inquiry, which was led by former Supreme Court Justice Yitzhak Kahan. The report included evidence from Israeli army personnel, as well as political figures and Phalangist officers. In the report, published in the spring of 1983, the Kahan Commission stated that there was no evidence that Israeli units took direct part in the massacre and that it was the "direct responsibility of Phalangists." However, the Commission recorded that Israeli military personnel were aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it, and that reports of a massacre in progress were made to senior Israeli officers and even to an Israeli cabinet minister; it therefore regarded Israel as bearing part of the "indirect responsibility." Among those it considered to bear a part of this indirect responsibility, the commission found that Ariel Sharon "bears personal responsibility" and recommended his dismissal from the post of Defense Minister; it also recommended the dismissal of Director of Military Intelligence Yehoshua Saguy, and the effective demotion of Division Commander Amos Yaron for at least three years. These recommendations were carried out.
So Israel examined itself, discovered a fault (though not direct responsibilty for the massacre) and fired those responsible. Have any Arab governments ever done the same? This is what I've been trying to allude to. Israel are not deliberately targeting civilians, but when they find that their allies have done so, they come out onto the streets in protest and remove the people at fault. Contrast that with the widespread support of suicide bombing in the Middle East and tell me that there is moral equivalence.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Begin (Irgun - the group blamed for the King David Hotel bombing),
Shamir (here's a delightful para from his wiki entry)
Sharon, as defence minister, allowed the Lebanese Phalangist militia to enter the camps and murder civilians. It has never been denied permission was granted to these armed psychos to enter. But Sharon claimed they claimed they wwere simply looking for PLO fighters. Te Israeil govt (led then by Begin, no hand-wringing lefty) didn't believe him and he was sacked.*
*Yes, I appreciate the sacking is to the credit of Israeli democracy. The fact that 20 years later he could return as PM isn't..
vimothy
yurp
Well, I didn't expect that to take 13 pages. Irgun and Lehi were terrorists and as condemable as any Palestinian group. Do the rest of the board recognise this? I wonder. Like I said upthread, you have to go pretty far back to find any Israeli terrorism. I think that's also to the credit of Israel. Does the existence of these groups in the past justify Palestinian attacks today?
crackerjack
Well-known member
No, but it does make the high-hand considerably less of a trump card, especially since so many people connected with those groups have had successful political careers.
Israel doesn't need non-state terrorism now, for reasons I know I don't have to explain.
vimothy
yurp
However you slice it, Israeli terrorism is a thing of the past. Certainly you have to go beyond the occupation into the country's early years.
Perhaps it doesn't need it now, but if (*) that's the case then in the absence of asymmetry and military domination Israel should have made use of it. It didn't, and you have to go pretty far back to find any evidence of it.
[* - I'm not sure I believe that terrorism works.]
I find this argument funny---it sounds very hypocritical (`should') given what you've said upthread. Though maybe you are joking? Doesn't sound like it though...
vimothy
yurp
If terrorism is necessary in asymmetrical situations (which is implict in Crackerjack's argument - asymmetry with Israel being the reason for Palestinian terrorism), then given relatively recent Israeli asymmetry (with the rest of the Middle East), the Israelis should have been committing terrorist acts (against the rest of the Middle East).
Otherwise, terrorism is not necessary in asymmetrical situations, it is still a choice. That would be my take. For instance, where are / were the Israeli funded Jewish terrorist groups attacking cities in the rest of the Middle East?
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
It's also a pretty crappy argument to claim that "it was the Phalangists who were responsible, not the IDF". The Israelis knew EXACTLY what was going to happen, and even if you believe they don't, then they are guilty at the very least of criminal negligence.
If I set a couple of savage rottweilers on you do you think I'd have a good legal claim that "it was them what chewed your face off, not me!"?
If I set a couple of savage rottweilers on you do you think I'd have a good legal claim that "it was them what chewed your face off, not me!"?
N
nomadologist
Guest
The UK was especially instrumental in fucking creating what we call "Israel" and Lebanon...jesus you're dumb.
Read this:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_husain/2007/06/with_god_on_their_side.html
Read this:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_husain/2007/06/with_god_on_their_side.html
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
And this, the history of the European involvement in Zionism, the founding of Israeli and Palestinian (what I meant was Lebanon, Syria, etc.) "states":
http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/902/Kamal-Salibi/
http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/902/Kamal-Salibi/
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
Btw, I never said Islamist fundamentalists were "justified" in performing war crimes, I simply stated that Zionists were equally guilty under internationl law. While it's not justified on either part, it sure seems understandable to me that seizing someone's homeland might rile them up and by a catalyst for all kinds of violence. Where is your sense of moral responsibility here?