Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

ISRAEL;WHEN WILL THE WEST DO SOMETHING... PART II

750 replies

UCM · 27/07/2006 23:53

Here goes....

OP posts:
mimoyello · 03/08/2006 23:49

For any one interested I found this piece from www.antiwar.com very interesting:

August 3, 2006
Rights Group Accuses Israel of War Crimes

by Jim Lobe
In systematically failing to distinguish between Hezbollah fighters and civilian population in its three-and-a-half-week-old military campaign in Lebanon, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have committed war crimes, according to a report released by Human Rights Watch Wednesday.

The 50-page report, "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon," detailed nearly two dozen cases of IDF attacks in which a total of 153 civilians, including 63 children, were killed in homes or motor vehicles.

In none of the cases did HRW researchers find evidence that there was a significant enough military objective to justify the attack, given the risks to civilian lives, while, in many cases, there was no identifiable military target. In still other cases cited in the report, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians.

"By consistently failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians, Israel has violated one of the most fundamental tenets of the laws of war: the duty to carry out attacks on only military targets," according to the report.

"The pattern of attacks during the Israeli offensive in Lebanon suggests that the failures cannot be explained or dismissed as mere accidents; the extent of the pattern and the seriousness of the consequences indicate the commission of war crimes," it concluded.

The report, which was based on interviews with victims and independent witnesses of attacks, as well as investigation of the sites where the attacks occurred, called for the United States to immediately suspend transfers to Israel of arms, ammunition, and other material credibly alleged to have been used in such attacks until they cease.

In addition, it called on United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to establish a formal commission to investigate the alleged war crimes with a view to holding accountable those responsible for their commission.

Such a commission should also investigate Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israel which have been the subject of previous HRW reports. Since the onset of the latest round of fighting July 12, Hezbollah has launched some 2,000 rockets into predominantly civilian areas in Israel, killing at least 19 Israeli civilians and wounding more than 300 others. Given the inherently indiscriminate nature of the rockets, these attacks also constitute war crimes, according to the New York-based group.

The report, whose main conclusions about Israel's failure to discriminate between civilian and military targets echo a statement by Amnesty International two days ago, was issued just hours after HRW released the preliminary results of its investigation of the July 30 Israeli air strike on an apartment building in Qana in southern Lebanon, which was initially reported to have killed 54 people, most of them children, who had taken refuge in the basement.

HRW, which took testimony from some of the nine survivors it identified, said that it had confirmed the deaths of 28 people, including 16 children, in the building and that 13 others remained missing and were believed to be buried in the rubble. It said that at least 22 people survived the attack and escaped the basement.

One of the survivors, Muhammad Mahmud Shalhoub, as well as a Qana villager who helped in the rescue effort, strongly denied initial Israeli claims that any Hezbollah fighters or rocket launchers were present in or around the home when the attack took place. HRW said its own on-site investigation, which took place July 31, as well as interviews with dozens of international journalists, rescue workers and international observers who visited Qana July 30 and 31, also yielded no evidence of any Hezbollah military presence in or around the building.

"The deaths in Qana were the predictable result of Israel's indiscriminate bombing campaign in Lebanon," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division, who called for international investigation to determine what took place.

Israel has insisted that it has tried hard to avoid civilian casualties, although the great majority of the more than 500 Lebanese who have reportedly been killed by Israeli fire have been civilians. Israel has claimed that Hezbollah's alleged practice of shielding its fighters and arms by locating them in civilian homes or areas and firing off missiles in populated areas ? allegations which HRW said are the subject of ongoing investigations ? has made civilian casualties unavoidable.

But the rights group said its own investigations of specific Israeli attacks, which included interviews with victims and witnesses, on-site visits, as well as corroboration, where available, by accounts by independent journalists and aid workers, had failed to uncover any evidence that Hezbollah was operating in or around the area during or before each attack.

"Hezbollah fighters must not hide behind civilians ? that's an absolute ? but the image that Israel has promoted of such shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong," according to HRW's executive director, Kenneth Roth. "In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by [us], the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around."

He cited a July 13 attack which destroyed the home of a cleric known to be a Hezbollah sympathizer but with no record of having taken part in hostilities. The strike killed the cleric's wife, their 10 children, the family's Sri Lankan maid, as well as the cleric himself, according to the report.

In a July 16 attack on a home in Aitaroun, an Israeli aircraft killed 11 members of the al-Akhrass family, including seven Canadian-Lebanese dual nationals who were vacationing in the village at the time. HRW said it interviewed three villagers independently, all of whom denied that the family had any connection to Hezbollah. Among the victims were four children under the age of eight.

The report also assailed statements by Israeli officials and IDF commanders that only people associated with Hezbollah remain in southern Lebanon, so all are legitimate targets of attack. Israel has dropped leaflets in the region and even telephoned residents warning them that if they do not flee, they will be subject to attack.

But the report stressed that many civilians have been unable to leave because they are sick, wounded, or lack the means, such as money or gasoline, or are providing essential services to the civilian population that remains there. Still others have said they are afraid to leave because the roads have come under attack by Israeli warplanes and artillery.

Indeed, the report documents 27 deaths of civilians who were trying to flee the fighting by car and notes that the actual number of killings is "surely higher." In addition, the report cites air strikes against three clearly marked humanitarian aid vehicles.

"The pattern of attacks shows the Israeli military's disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians," said Roth. "Israeli warnings of imminent attacks do not turn civilians into military targets," he added, noting that, according to the IDF's logic, "Palestinian militant groups might 'warn' Israeli settlers to leave their settlements and then feel justified in attacking those who remained."

Amnesty accused Israel of trying to convert southern Lebanon into a "free-fire zone," which it said Monday was "incompatible with international humanitarian law."

(Inter Press Service)

Caligula · 04/08/2006 07:40

saadia lisa has answered question 1 earlier in the affirmative.

Re the closing down of debate with the accusation of anti-semitism, I've been thinking about that and I have to say that lisa's posts have swayed me. All the jewish people I've ever been friends with have been liberal and lefty and so pretty much express the same sentiments about Israel's behaviour as I do; but LL's posts have made me realise much more the sheer fear that many jewish Israelis have of being wiped off the map.

Previous to this thread, I think I would have been dismissive and unbelieving that jewish people genuinely have that fear - FFS, with America on your side, don't you think the dice are pretty loaded in your favour? You're obviously just making an accusation of anti-semitism becuase your position is indefensible and you know it - would be my attitude. But LL's posts have made the fear of Israel's demise comprehensible to me. And also reminded me of the awareness of anti-semitism that many jewish people live with every day, in terms of their family history for example. For me, anti-semitism is a bizarre historical oddity; for many Jews, it is a living reality - family members are missing as a direct result of it. So when someone who lives witht it every day (even if only as a background bit of their life) sees anti-semitism where it is not necessarily intended, that isn't all that surprising, and may not be a tactic to close down debate, it is probably an expression of an acute consciousness of jewish history. I think we should probably bear that in mind when discussing these issues and give each other the benefit of the doubt and not assume that a) people are anti-semitic just because they use ill-chosen language or b) that they are accusing others of anti-semitism in order to stop debate. I'm still not saying I agree with the substance of most of LL's posts, but tbh so much of this conflict is because people can't or won't try and see the other side's POV and it is a bit depressing to see the mutual incomprehension being replicated on mumsnet.

saadia · 04/08/2006 08:31

Caligula I think your explanation of the misunderstandings that have occurred on this thread is very true.

But to my mind lisalisa's posts express not only fear for her co-religionists but many of her posts have focussed on the nastiness of Palestinians and Arabs and how they are violently anti-Semitic and hell-bent on destroying Israel.

Probably some of them are, but I believe the vast majority are ordinary family people trying to do the best they can with what they have. I don't see much empathy from LL for what the Lebanese right now, and what the Palestinians have already and are now suffering. This is what troubles me.

Comments like:

"As for the poor Lebanese wanting to be left alone - wrong again Mimoyello. Its actually teh Isreaelis who yearn for quiet and peace"

suggest that she believes Lebanese people want war and that the Israeli's are innocent and blameless in this entire conflict and that that makes it alright to defend Israel by any means necessary. There is a blatant one-sidedness which actually makes debate almost impossible. She points out that:

"Incidentally who lost his life for signing the Sinai accords- the Egyptian President who was assassinated for betraying the arab cause and daring to make peace with Israel",

but forgets to mentions that Yitzhak Rabin also lose his life because of an extremist right-winger who objected to the Oslo Accords?

I see her trying demonise Arabs by painting a picture of them as people who only understand the language of violence, and yet taking immediate offence when Israel (the state) is criticised. There is no recognition of the unwarranted violence that Israel has perpetrated.

As she said in an earlier post, there are two side. Does she actually realise that?

Mud · 04/08/2006 08:42

Bravo Caligula!!!!

Remember that Jews live every day with the knowledge that there are people in the world who hate them without knowing them. That there are people in the world who would happily blow up their children just because they are Jewish. Even if you choose to reject your religion, if you are totally assimilated in your culture, if you have no religious observance you and your children are classed as Jewish and are hence a justifiable target.

Look at your children in your seemingly safe British home and imagine that they are a justifiable target of a terrorist attack.

Can you imagine it? can you?

I know Jewish people who make their children take off their star of davids when visiting London.

Mud · 04/08/2006 08:43

I also agree with Saadia who posted as I was writing my own post

sorrell · 04/08/2006 08:50

So Lisa reads the Hezbollah website for 'fun'. Yeah, of course she does. I imagine she thinks that when you discuss an organisation it helps to know something about it, and particularly to find out how it describes itself. I suspect you might prefer not to do so as this might reveal some unpalatable facts about this lovely bunch. As for not wanting to invade Tel Aviv, that's not what I put. What I said was that Hezbollah would love to bomb Tel Aviv and kill its citizens, which is completely obvious. What do you think the rockets they have been firing for so long (prior to Israel's retaliation) are for? Sending birthday presents?
I think using the phrase "zionist conspiracy" to describe any aspect of the Holocaust betrays, well, let's say, a huge insensitivity at best. Why is it so important for so many people to play down the Holocaust? That really freaks me out. It's David Irving territory.
You can oppose the actions of the Israeli government without wanting to denigrate the Holocaust, talk about Zionist conspiracies or go on about 'these people (Jews?) believing their own publicity'.
I happen to believe that Israel's actions are disproportionate and wrong and this needs to stop now. I also believe that Hezbollah is a racist, terrorist organisation funded by terrifying states with a terrifying agenda.

ruty · 04/08/2006 08:52

i agree with you Caligula - it has opened my eyes too. But it does have the effect of closing down debate, and feeling unable to criticize Israel's tactics. I also think it creates a 'one rule for me, another for you' in terms of insults and feeling of outrage which is impossible to debate against. i don't expect Lisalisa to transcend her people's history, as I can see how startling relevant it is for Jewish people in events happening now. It still does not justify what Israel have done and are doing in Lebanon, and unless i agree that it does, I expect`to be insulted further, and told i have no understanding of the situation.

ruty · 04/08/2006 08:56

that is just out of order sorrell. Who the hell downplayed the holocaust? find me a quote please. I have not agreed with some of the postings here, but i have not read one comment down playing the holocaust., If people have said there have been other holocausts and genocides in history, I can see how that might be seen as insensitive, but i fail to see how it downplays the holocaust. I think you are putting words in people's mouths now.

ruty · 04/08/2006 08:59

anyway forgive me, i should have refrained from posting. I think Caligula and Saadia's last posts sum up the two positions well.

mimoyello · 04/08/2006 09:11

Caligula - every nation and race and religion has a right to be fearful of its existence. Right now the Lebanese nation is close to non-existence and many of us fear for its future.

Does Israel's fear, whether real or imagined, JUSTIFY the destruction of its neighbours ? I think not.

To most intelligent and unbiased Middle East analysts Israel's fear is implausible, for the very raeson that you mention, it is supported by the mightiest nuclear power in the world (USA). Israel itself is the ONLY nuclear power in the Middle East (I am not including Pakistan or India whose nuclear capability is aimed at each other, not Israel). If Israel wishes to use its nuclear arsenal to rid itself of the Arab/Muslim menace, it can.

It is pathetic propoganda to suggest that a few hundred Hizbollah missiles are capable of destroying Israel.

Furthermore, as far as the Arabs and Iran are concerned, none of them wish to be embroiled in a prolonged military conflict with Israel. The Arabs have been at war with Israel before, but the world stage of now with a strong nuclear deterrent provided by the USSR is long gone.

None of the Arab countries or Iran have the backing of a superpower and for this very important reason none of them wish to go to war with Israel. They have seen the disasterous results of their previous campaigns and do not wish to repeat them. Some countries choice to do their bidding through the likes of Hizbollah and Hamas because they have found these organisations to be the most effective way of opposing Israeli aggression.

Any intelligent student of politics who is familar with the propoganda of the region is well able to see through the threats of Iran's current leader. He has neither the will, nor the backing of the Iranian people to go to war with Israel. Much of his warmongering is meant for internal state propoganda or is DIRCETED AT THE USA, not Israel. In his mind, his anti-American stance requires that he should also be anti-Israel. Furthermore what he says about Israel is not supported by the country's religious leader, Mr Khameini. The latter is able to veto anything and everything. Even if Ahmadinejad fancied a war with Israel, the main levers of power in the country would preventing him from going ahead.

Ahmadinejad has been slammed down on numerous occassions by high ranking Iranian officials and his own parliament for his dangerous and irresponsible warmongering langauge vis a vis Israel.

Again one needs to study the motives of the region's states properly and not just be swayed by their propoganda.

mimoyello · 04/08/2006 09:22

sorrell - I don't need to read the Hizbollah website in as much as I don't need to read the Mossad website (is there one ?).

I am not interested in propoganda as I have said ad nausum. Reading the Hizbollah website would give me no valid information whatsoever about the current conflict.

Talking to ordinary Arabs (Muslim and Christian and aethist) and liberal Jews gives me a better perspective on life.

mimoyello · 04/08/2006 09:27

ruty - don't you see ? any criticism of Israel is seen as downplaying the holocaust. Israel is a direct result of the holocaust, therefore in the eyes of its supporters it can do no wrong.

Caligula · 04/08/2006 09:37

Mimoyello, I agree with that but as you yourself say "Any intelligent student of politics who is familar with the propoganda of the region is well able to see through the threats of Iran's current leader". Precisely. Any intelligent student of politics. However, most people aren't intelligent students of politics, they're just normal people trying to live their lives and are influenced by what they see around them and what cultural/ social etc. influences they've had, rather than a study of politics. I just think you have to cut people some slack and take into account their cultural, psychological etc., influences when discussing things with them, rather than dismissing those influences as irrelevant and therefore attributing motives to them which may be wide of the mark. I'm going to post the link Peacedove posted further down, because I think it's worth a look for those who haven't already seen it - though I don't agree with its conclusions (let the bloody clerics take over, no thanks) I think it makes some valid points about why people are intransigent.
washington post link

mimoyello · 04/08/2006 09:51

Thanks Caligula, very interesting article. Sometimes reading a book or two can get one away from the emotional/irrational which is why I referred to people who study politics.

I feel that the pro-Israelis on this website are overly emotional and this gets in their way of logical debate.

ruty · 04/08/2006 09:54

i'm sorry i didn't see that link when PD posted it Caligula, thanks for posting it again. Very helpful.

sorrell · 04/08/2006 10:33

I think stating that it is only because of a 'zionist conspiracy' (vile phrase) that the Holocaust is considered particularly awful very much downplays the seriousness of the Holocaust.
As for ignoring propaganda, so when Hezbollah itself states it wishes to destroy the state of Israel and all Jews, that's just propaganda (rather than, say, a mission statement or a policy document) so we can safely ignore it? How surreal. Given that Hezbollah is the organisation firing rockets at Israel, which has provoked this terrible retribution, understanding the organisation might be slightly more helpful to understanding the current conflict than chatting with your mates, I suspect. If there was such a thing as a Mossad website stating its aim was to kill every Arab/Muslim on earth, I suspect it might well be mentioned on this thread, don't you? And, I imagine, not just be dismissed as 'propaganda'.
Nobody has said the current missiles that Hezbollah is using can destroy Israel. What people have pointed out is that if they had missiles that could destroy Israel, Hezbollah would delight in using them.

hub2dee · 04/08/2006 10:39

Just as a point of interest, could someone please clarify something ? I understand Iran has been identified as a source of cash / weapons for Hezbollah. Is that wrong ? Thanks.

Caligula - Thank you for your earlier post. I think it does touch on some of the reasons why I'm still reeling from the 'wtf ?'

ruty · 04/08/2006 10:41

i don't know who said that sorrell, but I accept someone did and that it is not an acceptable thing to say.

With regards to your second point, others have pointed out Israel is an elected democracy and as so must act within international law. Terrorist organizations are usually pretty disgusting in what they say and do, but I just don't think the Lebanese people should be punished for it.

bluejelly · 04/08/2006 10:44

Hub2dee
Hezbollah was set up with Iranian money after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982.
It was a resistance force to an Israeli occupation-- the Israelis killed 18,000 Lebanese in 88 days.
Not saying Hezbollah are good guys, but in a way they were created by Israeli agression.

Mud · 04/08/2006 10:44

Sorrell

There are posters on here who are open to debate and provide worthwhile points to consider (Saadia and Lisalisa have entrenched views but have the strength to enable us to see the emotions on both sides of the fence)

Others add to and learn from the debate like Caligula

Then there are those who have the shutters up and really cannot see when and how they are being offensive. Nor do they care when it is pointed out, nor will they consider their entrenched views as anything but right and non-racist. I think you are wasting your time, breath and energy communicating with one particular poster who's posts speak volumes to intelligent readers. Do what the rest of us are doing and ignore it.

Mud · 04/08/2006 10:55

ruty just to round out your comment of Israel invaded Lebanaon in 1982

.. from palestinefacts.org

"In July of 1981 Lebanese-American Philip Habib was sent by the Reagan Administration to negotiate a more lasting cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel. On July 24 Habib announced agreement that all hostile military action between Lebanese and Israeli territory in either direction would cease. For the next eleven months the cease-fire was in effect as a formality, but the PLO repeatedly violated the agreement. Israel charged that the PLO staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders. Twenty­nine Israelis died and more than 300 were injured in the attacks. In April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer, the rocket attacks and air strikes recommenced.

Israeli strikes and commando raids were unable to stem the growth of the PLO army which built camps, trained thousands of fighters, and stockpiled arms in south Lebanon. The situation in the Galilee became intolerable as the frequency of attacks forced thousands of Israeli residents to flee their homes or to spend large amounts of time in bomb shelters. Israel was not prepared to wait for more deadly attacks to be launched against its civilian population before acting against the PLO terrorists.

The final provocation occurred in June 3, 1982 when a Palestinian terrorist group led by Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israel's Ambassador to Great Britain, Shlomo Argov. The IDF subsequently bombed PLO bases and ammunition dumps in Beirut and attacked other targets in Lebanon on June 4-5, 1982. The PLO responded with a massive artillery and mortar attack on the Israeli population of the Galilee. It was the PLO shelling, and not directly the Argov shooting as is sometimes assumed, that triggered the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

On June 6, 1982, under the direction of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel invaded Lebanon with a massive force, called Operation Peace for the Galilee, driving all the way to Beirut and putting the PLO and residents, as well as the Lebanese civilian population of that city, under siege. Israel justified its breech of the Habib cease-fire by citing the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London and a build-up of PLO armaments in South Lebanon. Israel was also concerned by increasing Syrian involvement in the Lebanese civil war and wanted to forestall a hostile, Syrian-backed government developing in Lebanon.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said of the operation:

No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids. (Washington Post, June 16, 1982)"

hub2dee · 04/08/2006 11:07

That article does bear some interesting and striking resemblance (IMHO) to the current situation whereby a seemingly over-proportionate reponse was triggered by years of smaller incursions / attacks IYSWIM.

May I also please make a point (from an emotional perspective rather than a well-reasoned, well-educated position) that when you say Hezbollah was "in a way created by Israeli agression," it sounds rather like you are blaming Israel for Hezbollah's ideals and actions. I would suggest they are big enough to assume responsibility for these themselves !

Greensleeves · 04/08/2006 11:10

I think if you are going to call somone a racist, Mud, you ought at least to have the guts to do it directly. Which particular poster are you referring to?

bluejelly · 04/08/2006 11:18

Hub2dee
I see what your are saying. I don't approve of Hezbollah tactics and politically couldn't be further from their aims.

However, if the French invaded England and killed 18,000 people in 80 days, and the world did nothing, I would seriously think about taking up arms against them.

I think there is an argument that if the Israelis hadn't invaded in 82 there would be no hezbollah.

hub2dee · 04/08/2006 11:32

I haven't attempted to confirm your numbers but assume they are correct, bluejelly. A massive loss of life not to be dismissed indeed. The thing I think is always important though is to consider what led to this ? I think Mud's posted artcile gives some background and it suggests there were YEARS of attacks prior to 82. I am not attempting to excuse or explain (I am not a political beast and am sorely lacking in historical knowledge), but I can also understand why 'there is only so much one can tolerate' IYSWIM before someone cracks. (I appreciate this metaphor is on a personal, not a state level but I'm sure you get my drift).

I think what is also interesting is that if one ponders a world without Hezbollah (which you suggest was created as a result of 82), I imagine the PLO would be the ones currently accused of being terrorists.... ie. someone else would fill their shoes.

Swipe left for the next trending thread