Switzerland thaws out, immediately criticises Israel.

Lash wrote:

I'll rephrase.

Based on the fact that all sympathy on the thread was directed toward the Palestinians, I seem to be alone in my concern for the Israelis.

*hmph*

0 Replies

Hmph!! I'm leaving, too!!

<so insulted!!>

Laughing

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Why is there never global outcry against what the Palestinians are doing?

This is a loaded question, asking a "why" for a "fact" that's just plain untrue.

The international community regularly decries the actions of the Palestinian terrorists.

That there are more state-to-state diplomatic interactions in regard to Israel's acts is easily understood when you note that Palestine is not a state.

Think of it like a situation in which there is a gang problem and the police occasionally cross the line in response.

If a regulatory body (internal affairs or somesuch) were to caution the police officers and ask them to follow the law it should not be seen as an endorsement of the gangs. They would be cautioning a regulated entity and hoping that it's understood that the criminal actions are wrong.

The differentiated treatment in international diplomacy merely reflects that Israel is a nation that purports to uphold rule of law. When they cross some lines they are cautioned.

Issuing diplomatic cautions to stateless terrorists to the effect that they are not following the law is pointless, as they are a stateless entity that not affected by such appeals to reason.

Quote:

Unfortunately, I seem to be alone in my concern for the same types of deaths in Israel.

I disagree Lash. I care very deeply about this conflict on both sides and my reservations about Israel's actions are always motivated by my criteria of least suffering for the most people. I think we just differ in our take on what will help and what won't.

Hamas was locked in a power struggle with the Palestinian moderates and Mahmoud Abbas was threatening to call a referendum to the Palestinian people allowing peace negotiations if Hamas refused to recognize Israel.

The suspention of aid to the territories and the resumption of said aid outside of the Hamas umbrella was aimed at reducing Hamas' political power and Hamas was being forced into a corner in which recognition of Israel's right to exist was being demanded.

This seemed to be making some progress, Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails drafted a document recognizing Israel and under pressure Hamas agreed to the portions of the document recognizing Israel (there was still some disagreements on parts of the document concerning who has authority to speak for Palestinians).

Of course, then some bonehead Palestinians decided to act violently, and as always violence sets back moderates on both sides and both side's hawks have their day.

Isreal's reaction has been somewhat tempered, they haven't killed as many civillians as their reactions normally do but at the same time the escallation isn't likely to improve the situation.

They've buzzed Syrian President Bashar Assad home while he was there, breaking his windows while sending low flying jets through Syrian airspace. Fortunately Syria is not going to overreact to it and expand the scope of this conflict throughout the region but that danger was a concern.

They've destroyed power plants that can cause a very severe humanitarian crisis (as they are needed to pump water).

They have destroyed bridges and have struck the public offices of the Palestinian moderates. Israel occasionally does this, and it never makes sense for them to deliberately target their moderate counterparts in Palestine unless they really want to undermine their counterpart in negotiations.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his cabinet that "I take personal responsibility for what is happening in Gaza. I want no one to sleep at night in Gaza." and they've been trying their best by unleasing sonic booms on the Palestinian civilians.

Israel's actions are dangerous for her. Sure she's angry and understandably so, but disengagement (even if unilateral) is still their best course of action and I'm concerned that after this soldier's fate is determined that the Israeli actions may help set back their progress toward disengagement.

I don't recall the name of the Palestinian intellectual I recently read who said that if he were Mahmoud Abbas he would dissolve the P.A. and turn the administrative responsibility back over to Israel in a "you broke it you buy it" move.

This is not good for Israel. Israel seems to have finally learned that the expantionist desires of some of their hardliners would cost them a price they can't afford to pay and they need to disengage or they will have to deal with the binational state and either lose their identity or make their own apartheid.

For Israel's own good, they need a Palestinian counterpart. They need disengagment. Hamas was having their arms twisted by Mahmoud Abbas and the international community. It may have resulted in their recognition of Israel or their loss of power.

Israel's reaction to the Palestinian militants can set themselves back if they are not careful. And it's precisely this that the entire international community is cautioning them on.

This isn't some European thing, the White House has been repeatedly cautioning Israel throughout their reaction as well. Israel needs to be careful to temper their response so as not to hurt herself in this conflict.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Hmph!! I'm leaving, too!!

<so>

Your observation sure seems spot on accurate though. I have seen dozens (or more) posts on A2K and other tilted left boards that sharply criticize Israel every time they take any military action against anybody.

I don't believe I have ever seen the members who criticize Israel level any similar criticism against the Palestinians even when a bus loaded with Iraeli school children is fire bombed. I don't see criticism of Palestinian terrorists targeting women and children rather than military targets. I don't see criticism of the Palestinian terrorists who hide among the (silent) civilian population. This makes going after them impossible without targeting civilian neighborhoods. The Left gives lip service to condemnation of Hamas, but rarely without condemning Israel more to justify Hamas' hatred.

Israel's response to terrorist acts have at times been excessive and maybe inappropriate. But it sure appears Israel has no way to be protected without doing it themselves. And if it's my kid killed in a terrorist fire bombing, it's hard to say what I might or might not consider appropriate response.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't believe I have ever seen the members who criticize Israel level any similar criticism against the Palestinians even when a bus loaded with Iraeli school children is fire bombed.

I hold Israel in high regard, and expect them to act with as much reason as they can. I don't have such hopes for terrorists, and don't tend to point out the obvious (that their actions are reprehensible).

When discussing geopolitics, I don't think it's some kind of deep hypocrisy to criticize nations when they overreact and not make an effort to ensure that there is a similar condemnation of terrorists.

Nation states are accoutable, nation states engage in dialogue in which diplomatic criticism and cautions change their actions. Terrorists are just criminals, and it should be no surprise to you that few appeals to reason are made to them.

It would be to state the obvious and is silly political fodder to try to make the ole binary fairness an issue here. If the nation state of Israel is acting dangerously I have no intention of adding a "but the terrorists are so bad" disclaimer to any criticism I have for them.

Quote:

And if it's my kid killed in a terrorist fire bombing, it's hard to say what I might or might not consider appropriate response.

Same here. Which is why if this happened and I were heading out my door ready to bring fire and brimstone I hope that a friend has the guts to tell me I'm wrong, and ya know if he fails to add the disclaimer that the terror itself was untoward it won't change the legitimacy of his concern for my reaction.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Lash wrote:

Think of it like a situation in which there is a gang problem and the police occasionally cross the line in response.

If a regulatory body (internal affairs or somesuch) were to caution the police officers and ask them to follow the law it should not be seen as an endorsement of the gangs. They would be cautioning a regulated entity and hoping that it's understood that the criminal actions are wrong.

The differentiated treatment in international diplomacy merely reflects that Israel is a nation that purports to uphold rule of law. When they cross some lines they are cautioned.

Issuing diplomatic cautions to stateless terrorists to the effect that they are not following the law is pointless, as they are a stateless entity that not affected by such appeals to reason.
The election of Hamas doesn't change that, in your estimation? The people have a duly elected head, which is perpetrating kidnappings and terrorism. Shouldn't Hamas and it's state be held responsible? EDIT-- I see your related remarks in the balance of your post.
Quote:
Unfortunately, I seem to be alone in my concern for the same types of deaths in Israel.

I disagree Lash. I care very deeply about this conflict on both sides and my reservations about Israel's actions are always motivated by my criteria of least suffering for the most people. I think we just differ in our take on what will help and what won't.
I didn't extend that statement outside this thread. You and I disagree on several points re the ME conflict, but you always reflect concern for both sides.

They've buzzed Syrian President Bashar Assad home while he was there, breaking his windows while sending low flying jets through Syrian airspace. Fortunately Syria is not going to overreact to it and expand the scope of this conflict throughout the region but that danger was a concern.
I read that. <trying not to smile>

I appreciate your thoughts on this. I know it means as much to you as it does to me. You are just far more patient and analytical about it than I can bring myself to be. Nice to hear from you.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't believe I have ever seen the members who criticize Israel level any similar criticism against the Palestinians even when a bus loaded with Iraeli school children is fire bombed.

I hold Israel in high regard, and expect them to act with as much reason as they can. I don't have such hopes for terrorists, and don't tend to point out the obvious (that their actions are reprehensible).

When discussing geopolitics, I don't think it's some kind of deep hypocrisy to criticize nations when they overreact and not make an effort to ensure that there is a similar condemnation of terrorists.

Nation states are accoutable, nation states engage in dialogue in which diplomatic criticism and cautions change their actions. Terrorists are just criminals, and it should be no surprise to you that few appeals to reason are made to them.

It would be to state the obvious and is silly political fodder to try to make the ole binary fairness an issue here. If the nation state of Israel is acting dangerously I have no intention of adding a "but the terrorists are so bad" disclaimer to any criticism I have for them.

Quote:

And if it's my kid killed in a terrorist fire bombing, it's hard to say what I might or might not consider appropriate response.

Same here. Which is why if this happened and I were heading out my door ready to bring fire and brimstone I hope that a friend has the guts to tell me I'm wrong, and ya know if he fails to add the disclaimer that the terror itself was untoward it won't change the legitimacy of his concern for my reaction.

I have no quarrel with your argument here. (Weird huh?) But the one thing that remains for the wise of the world to sort out: how do you respond to the terrorists? If they run to hide in the Mosques or among the women and children, do you allow them to do that with impunity? Especially when you know their reloading to attack again? We face the same kinds of decisions in Iraq.

Do the same rules that apply in our day to day lives apply also in times of war? Is piecemeal, surgical warfare that creates relatively small numbers of deaths but accumulates them over years somehow more humane than an overwhelming display of force that kills them all at once but stops the war in a short time?

And if somebody is criticized constantly by just about everybody when he/she/it defends against an aggresor, it is pretty easy to at least understand that since nobody understands, cares, or sympathises with the victim, the victim might as well do whatever is necessary to end the assault.

I know I don't want my country to sit on its hands and not defend against those who intend it/us harm just because some will accuse us of bad things when we do. I appreciate that sometimes means taking extreme measures in the short term to produce long term favorable results. I also don't want my country to take its vengeance against innocents just because they can't get at the guilty. But I always know that war creates casualties both for the guilty and the innocent.

I think there are no cut and dried answers here, and no easy answers.

But do you honestly think Israel is being cautioned out of concern for Israel? I admit to some skepticism about that.

0 Replies

And, MCG!!!

McG, I'm sorry. Once my first foot is on the soapbox, it's all over. Thanks!!!

0 Replies

(Personal note: the new system of not allowing edits once a response has been made has yielded good things. But it is sure frustrating not being able to go back and correct the spelling and grammatical errors when you hit the submit button too quick.)

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I'll rephrase.

Based on the fact that all sympathy on the thread was directed toward the Palestinians, I seem to be alone in my concern for the Israelis.

Lash, I also saw your other thread about the Palestinians last night. I decided to say as little as possible on the least lethal thread & just move on quickly.

0 Replies

Olga--

I must say the responses were quite a surprise. I had no inkling anyone would find my comments offensive--maybe disagreeable....

Just for future reference-- what put you off?

0 Replies

Lash said

Quote:

PS-- Nobody here is under the impression Hamas will use that mil for healthcare, are they??

It will be used to kill Israelis.

blatham quoted

Quote:

"Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz.

Lash responded

Quote:

Blatham-- I was aware of the overriding reason Hamas was chosen...
no. I don't think Hamas will spend that money on healthcare.

If Paz's statement is true (do you have other data to contest that Israeli's claim?) then your last sentence above has what as warrant?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Olga--

I must say the responses were quite a surprise. I had no inkling anyone would find my comments offensive--maybe disagreeable....

Just for future reference-- what put you off?

Really, I'd rather not continue with this thread, Lash. Craven, Blatham & others have already said the things I'd say anyway & much better than I could.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

The election of Hamas doesn't change that, in your estimation? The people have a duly elected head, which is perpetrating kidnappings and terrorism. Shouldn't Hamas and it's state be held responsible?

The distinction I was making was of state vs individuals which is a bit different, but easily confused with, individual vs government.

That Hamas was elected is significant, but doesn't make this a case of war. Israel has flirted with characterizing this as war by calling he rocket launches "acts of war" but this is not war by anything but the colloquial definition (i.e. war on drugs).

Israel is a sovereign state, and the Geneva Conventions are meant to regulate sovereign states in conflict. Thusly their reactions in Gaza are being viewed with concern by Switzerland, as the depository state of the Geneva Conventions.

This doesn't make anything that the Palestinians do right, it's just... for lack of a better word, a different jurisdiction.

It gets tricky given that there is not real Palestinian Authority and the traditional jurisdiction for individual militants (a national legal system) is not viable.

In either case, Israel is in violation of laws that govern combat, and the Swiss response is merely them doing pretty much all that can be done to enforce them: make diplomatic noise calling for them to be abided.

Quote:

I read that. <trying not to smile>

I thought it was funny too, especially how Syria claimed their military repelled the incursion.

But it's still a dangerous play. Regardless of the very good reasons (Hamas ties) Israel has for making noise (they have made several diplomatic and tactical hints to Syria about their willingness to engage them) about military actions against Syria it is not going to help Israel to expand the scope of this conflict at this stage.

Quote:

I appreciate your thoughts on this. I know it means as much to you as it does to me. You are just far more patient and analytical about it than I can bring myself to be. Nice to hear from you.

I'm not so patient, I've long maintained that with control of either Israel or the US I would solve the conflict in a year. I actually can't stand the slow 1-step-forward-2-steps-back peace process.

I've been encouraged by Israel's relatively recent (late Sharon era) willingness to disengage, even if unilaterally and I continue to champion disengagement. But I've learned to live with how slow this process goes and how often progress disappears with one individual act of violence.

It's nice to play on A2K again, I'd been bedridden for a while (back injury) and had some time to talk politics.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But the one thing that remains for the wise of the world to sort out: how do you respond to the terrorists? If they run to hide in the Mosques or among the women and children, do you allow them to do that with impunity? Especially when you know their reloading to attack again? We face the same kinds of decisions in Iraq.

If I have to make a simple rule, I would have the criteria of least suffering for the most people govern the decisions.

I personally don't hold Mosques in very high regard and don't personally care if they are "violated" but if enough people do, and if they are considered historic sites then it may make sense to avoid them.

I don't personally consider this to be the case, but it's a common idea in many of our cultures.

The early Jews had their 6 cities of refuge, in which it was forbidden to kill refugees in revenge that was legal in the land outside of the 6 cities. This didn't make sense (there were even rules for exactly how much area the no-kill zone covered measured out to the cubit: see Numbers 35).

Christians have had the concept of church "sanctuary".

I think this kind of thing is bogus, but it's not a surprise to me anymore.

Quote:

Do the same rules that apply in our day to day lives apply also in times of war?

No, the rules of wartime apply then. And those are the rules that Israel is being accused of runnign afoul of.

Quote:

Is piecemeal, surgical warfare that creates relatively small numbers of deaths but accumulates them over years somehow more humane than an overwhelming display of force that kills them all at once but stops the war in a short time?

It depends on the effect on the civillian population. But this isn't an applicable scenario to this case.

Israel isn't making a hard rush to kill the bad guys, they are openly using collective punishment to try to make the situation untenable for the whole Gaza populace. The actions are killing more Palestinian civillians than anything else and it's a disproportionate reaction.

I don't personally think this has as much tactical value as it does a feel-good revenge effect for Israel's population.

Quote:

And if somebody is criticized constantly by just about everybody when he/she/it defends against an aggresor, it is pretty easy to at least understand that since nobody understands, cares, or sympathises with the victim, the victim might as well do whatever is necessary to end the assault.

What other people think about Israel shouldn't preclude her from acting reasonably.

The US, if anything, is the best friend Israel has got. The US is not in favor of what Israel is doing and has made its own diplomatic noise calling for Israel to use restraint.

This all started over a situation in which 2 Israeli soliders and 2 Palestinian millitants were killing in a Palestinian attack that captured an Israeli soldier.

Isreal's reaction was to take somewhere around 100 Palestinian's hostage and to react with measures that have resulted in 25 Palestinian's killed and 1 more Israeli.

I don't think Israel's angry reaction is wise, and I don't think it's wise for Israel, regardless of what it's doing to the Palestinian population.

Quote:

But do you honestly think Israel is being cautioned out of concern for Israel? I admit to some skepticism about that.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But I don't think it matters. The US, for example, is cautioning Israel for what I belive are moral beliefs against what the actions can spiral into as well as geopolitical strategic reasons.

But regardless of the motive, Israel should find a way to de-escalate this situation for her own good. I'm hoping that the soldier is returned and that Israel stands down.

After that, I have a slim hope that the power struggle against Hamas and other Palestinian hardliners has not now swung against the Palestinian moderates.

Each time Israel does this, the Palestinian moderates are set back yet again. This gives too much power to the individual lunatics to disrupt 2 peoples peace process.

The only way out is for the responsible parties to control the actions that can be controlled.

Palestine can't control it's individual lunatics just yet, neither can Israel control them. But they can control their responses and their history teaches them that some responses are more effective than others.

Their hard efforts to disengage (i.e. their wall that so many complained about) have shown better results.

Heck, their withdrawal from Gaza after over 30 years of occupation came with the lowest levels of violence in the region since we've been debating it on A2K. The less time they spend in Gaza the better IMO.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And if it's my kid killed in a terrorist fire bombing, it's hard to say what I might or might not consider appropriate response.

Interestingly Noam Shalit, the father of the Israeli solider held by Palestinian militants, is actually calling for restraint and for Israel to give the Egyptian effort to negotiate his son's release conderation (Israel has publically rejected it).

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

If Paz's statement is true ...

To begin, that's a substantial "if."

Can we back up his assertion?

0 Replies

Why does the aid from the Swiss matter? Throughout this thread it's being misconstrued as being provided to Hamas, but that's simply not what's actually happening.

Just about every nation involved in this mess is giving aid to Palestinians (there would be a significant loss of life otherwise) and the international community is providing it outside Hamas' umbrella for the explicit purpose of undermining them.

Israel gives money routinely to Palestinians (but it's actually theirs, as Israel holds taxes from the territories), so does the US.

It's not about the political side of the conflict when it comes to this aid, it's about preventing millions of civillians from a severe humanitarian crisis. Gaza is pretty much the most miserable spot on earth even with the aid provided.

I don't think we should let the armed conflict affect out thoughts on what is essentially alms to the poorest of poor.

0 Replies

I can't help but to think in the Oil For Food era--if money or assets are dispersed to terrorists in the middle of active hostilities, it feeds the violence.

Iraqis died because Saddam spent his Oil For Food kickbacks on something other than the medical supplies, for which it was intended.

I know Hamas has a history of benefitting the people. I just don't think that is their priority at present.

It does matter to me that the country with the power Switzerland has over the situation is also sending money to one side--but I guess I've said that. I wish they'd just airlift people out to safe locations or hospital compounds or safe housing. That assistance can't be diverted. I do't want to prevent medical assistance--just the diversion of...

0 Replies

The territories are suffering due to their isolation and military operations in the territories, the isolation may be needed given the violence emanating from it, but it's only human to want to aid the innocent population that are inevitably affected. And it's not just critical medical needs but every aspect of a social infrastructure.

They need education, roads, electricity, water and all the things a government provides. They need the bridges that Israel just destroyed back one day... this isn't just a matter of some critical care in medicine.

The collective punishment really hurts innocent people, when havoc is wreaked on a people in the process of curbing the acts of a violent minority it's only fair to try to find ways to support the existence of the innocent majority.

How efficiently the aid can be provided is, to me, a question on how it should be provided and not whether it should.

In any case, I do understand the confusing inner conflict that aid to Palestine can cause, but it's just a sad footnote in this whole mess. It's only going to start being fair when Palestine acheives true statehood and inherits responsibility to pull itself out of the hole they helped dig themselves.

0 Replies

Switzerland thaws out, immediately criticises Israel.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know