ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings

The Israeli army is at the centre of a second controversy over the moral conduct of its soldiers in as many days.

The revelations centre on t-shirt designs made for soldiers that make light of shooting pregnant Palestinian mothers and children and include images of dead babies and destroyed mosques.

The t-shirts were printed for Israeli soldiers at the end of periods of deployment or training courses and were discovered by Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

...

According to a soldier interviewed by the newspaper, the message has a double meaning: "It's a kid, so you've got a little more of a problem, morally and also the target is smaller."

guardian.co.uk home

Israel may face war crimes trials over Gaza

• Court looks at whether Palestinians can bring case
• International pressure grows over conflict

An injured Palestinian boy

A Palestinian man carries an injured boy into Shifa hospital in Gaza City during an Israeli attack on Gaza in January. Photograph: Khalil Hamra/AP

The international criminal court is considering whether the Palestinian Authority is "enough like a state" for it to bring a case alleging that Israeli troops committed war crimes in the recent assault on Gaza.

The deliberations would potentially open the way to putting Israeli military commanders in the dock at The Hague over the campaign, which claimed more than 1,300 lives, and set an important precedent for the court over what cases it can hear.

As part of the process the court's head of jurisdictions, part of the office of the prosecutor, is examining every international agreement signed by the PA to decide whether it behaves - and is regarded by others - as operating like a state.

Following talks with the Arab League's head, Amr Moussa, and senior PA officials, moves have accelerated inside the court to deliver a ruling on whether it may be able to insist on jurisdiction over alleged war crimes perpetrated in Gaza, with a decision from the prosecutor's office expected within "months, not years".

The issue arises because although the ICC potentially has "global jurisdiction" to investigate crimes which fall into its remit no matter where they were committed, Israel - despite having signed the Rome statute that founded the court and having expressed "deep sympathy" with the court's goals - is not a party.

The ICC, which has 108 member states, has not so far recognised Palestine as a sovereign state or as a member.

The latest moves in The Hague come amid mounting international pressure on Israel and a growing recognition in Israeli government circles that it may eventually have to defend itself against war crimes allegations. The Guardian has also learned that a confidential inquiry by the International Committee of the Red Cross into the actions of Israel and Hamas during the recent conflict in Gaza is expected to accuse Israel of using "excessive force" - prohibited under the fourth Geneva convention.

The Red Cross has been collecting information for two parallel inquiries, one into the conduct of Israel and a second into Hamas, both of which will be presented in private to the parties involved.

In the case of Israel, the Red Cross is expected to highlight three areas of concern: the Israeli Defence Forces' "use and choice of weapons in a complex and densely populated environment"; the issue of "proportionality"; and concerns over the IDF's lack of distinction between combatants and non-combatants during Operation Cast Lead. Hamas is likely to be challenged over its use of civilian facilities as cover for its fighters; its summary executions and kneecappings of Palestinians during the campaign; and its indiscriminate firing of rockets into civilian areas.

Meanwhile, sources at the ICC say it is considering two potential tracks that would permit it to investigate what happened in Gaza. As well as determining whether the PA is recognised internationally as a sufficiently state-like entity, the head of jurisdictions in the office of the international criminal court's prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, is looking at whether the court can consider war crimes allegations on the basis of the dual nationality of either victims or alleged perpetrators whose second passport is with a country party to the court.

The court's deliberations follow more than 220 complaints about Israel's actions in Gaza. "It does not matter necessarily whether the Palestinian National Authority is in charge of its own borders," said a source at the court. "Right now the court is looking at everything from agreements it has signed on education to the constitution of its legal system."

Yesterday, Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, warned Palestinian militants their continuing rocket attacks on Israel would not go unpunished. He said further strikes would "be answered with a painful, harsh, strong and uncompromising response from the security forces". More than 100 rockets and mortars have exploded in Israel in the six weeks since it ended its air and ground assault on Gaza, to which the government has responded with airstrikes.

I feel I do have an open mind, and can back up my contentions. I agree that, compared to libs, Reps and conservatives are more honest about, and supportive of, things Israel.

From talking to conservative friends, whom I consider honest and reasonably intelligent, I concluded that there is a physiological difference between conservatives and libs. I would love to see a scientific discussion of this. For instance, I might present a political conclusion that I think is 100 percent obvious and supportable. The conservative will, without hesitance, instinctively disagree. This is very interesting.

"Unsourced?" Is that your response? Is it too difficult for you to find the source by a little Google search? It's not important enough?

Does Israeli misbehavior justify Palestinian misbehavior? No.

But seriously, those pro-Palestinians who show ONLY anti-Israel propaganda and seem oblivious to the actions of the Palestinians (or others) that provoke the Israeli attacks don't inspire confidence in me that there is any attempt at fairness. And they rarely if ever acknowledge that Israel attacks only when there is such provocation.

And, there seems to be this idiotic notion that since Israel is the better equipped and more efficient at fighting and inflicting more casualties, then that automatically makes them the bad guys.

My opinion is that if Israel had not been pulling its punches and attempting to minimize civilian casualities as much as possible in time of war, this thing would have been over by now. It's damn hard to avoid civilian casualities in a war that the enemy requires to be fought in the middle of civilians though.

size=150]Mainstream Media Not Reporting Israel Follows International Law; Hamas Does Not[/size]
By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
Monday, January 05, 2009

The easiest way for anyone in the media to get a scoop is to write anything that is fair and balanced and with respect for the truth on the conflict in the Middle East. That’s because the mainstream media, such as The New York Times, NBC, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc., take the usual anti-Israel line, and fail to report on anything that might put Israel in a good light. So this is my scoop for today.
More here:
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/05/herb_denenberg/doc4961c29b5ed1a649711765.txt

If Hamas Didn't Use Human Shields, How Much Less Palestinian Civilians Would Have Died?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
During Operation Cast Lead, IDF forces often had to deal with booby-trapped schools, and with rocket launchers positioned near schools. In one instance, on January 18, after Israel had announced it was holding its fire, a rocket launcher was identified between two school buildings. The launcher was not attacked by the Israel Air Force because of its proximity to the schools.

Hamas stores weapons in civilian dwellings in densely populated areas, and sometimes rockets are launched near them. Both routinely and during Operation Cast Lead, when the Israel Air Force carried out pinpoint aerial attacks, aircraft cameras captured powerful secondary explosions, evidence of the presence of large quantities of weapons and explosives stored in private houses. By situating weapons and firing from residential civilian areas, Hamas knowingly endangered Gazans’ lives.

So if Hamas had not used human shields, they would have avoided 90% of the civilian deaths. But they were not interested in preventing their own deaths. (much less that of civilians)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090207134607AAOuoGc

The Blame Game: Israel, Hamas, and Civilian Deaths in Gaza
January 07, 2009
By Sam Dealey

Who bears the greatest responsibility for innocent casualties in Gaza? Consider yesterday's deaths of 39 people, many of them civilians, during an Israeli mortar barrage near a United Nations school in Gaza.

The Israeli military claims Hamas militants used the school and hundreds of Palestinian civilians sheltering around it as a cover to fire mortars at Israeli towns. The military further claims that two senior Hamas operatives, Imad Abu Askhar and Hassan Abu Askhar, are among the dead. If true, that would certainly muddy the waters as to whom the real bastards are.

But so reflexive is the blame-Israel-first mindset that many in the international community won't wait to find out"including those humanitarian souls at the U.N.

According to the Associated Press, an official with the U.N. agency that runs the school says his office is "99.9 percent certain there were no militants or military activity in its school." Nevertheless, the report continues, "the agency wants an impartial investigation of witnesses, Israeli military photographs or any other evidence."

How reassuring to hear that the U.N. agency wants an impartial investigation after asserting it's "99.9 percent certain" of the conclusion. Hopefully that scintilla of doubt includes the claims of Palestinians themselves, who now confirm Israel's assertion.

Here's an excerpt from one Associated Press report:

Residents of a Gaza neighborhood are confirming Israel's claim that Hamas militants had opened fire from the cover of a U.N. school where hundreds of Palestinians had sought refuge.

...Two residents say a group of militants had fired their mortars from a street near the school, then fled into a crowd of people in the streets.

And here's another, also from the AP:

Palestinian residents, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said several militants ran toward the crowd, trying to use it as cover, when the first Israeli mortar shell missed them.

... Gaza militants used to wear black or khaki uniforms, but since the start of the Israeli offensive have been operating in civilian clothing, blending into crowds, residents say.

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate which side shows such callous disregard for Palestine's civilians.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2009/01/06/the-media-coverage-of-israel-fighting-hamas-in-gaza-is-a-lopsided-war-in-itself.html

Empathy in Israel for Palestinian civilian casualties
January, 2009, 11:00

The deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including women and children, has appalled Israelis, but most want their army to push on until Hamas' military capacity is broken.

"I feel for them, especially the mothers," said Dana Ruppin, a young Israeli mother of three in Jerusalem, referring this week to residents of the Gaza Strip.

The televised scenes of death and suffering among Palestinian civilians in the current Israeli incursion have appalled much of the world and have appalled Israelis too, eliciting calls among some for an end to the fighting.

Most, however, continue to support the operation.

"I feel sorry for the people of Gaza," wrote columnist Yoel Marcus in Ha'aretz this week, "but I feel even sorrier for the civilian population of southern Israel which has been bombarded by rockets for the last eight years."

A poll published last week, ten days into the Gaza operation, showed 92 percent of the population supports it, including the week-long air force strike that took hundreds of lives. In fact, 80 percent said the operation should continue even if Hamas agreed to stop firing rockets.

However, this sentiment appears to be shifting in recent days as the percentage of civilians, particularly children, among Palestinian casualties rises substantially. Israel has made efforts to reduce civilian losses by making thousands of telephone calls to residents of buildings slated for bombing and warning them to leave " buildings targeted because they contained arms caches or Hamas commanders. In other cases, leaflets were dropped to warn residents of entire neighborhoods to leave. Despite these precautions, however, the bombing took a heavy toll of innocents.
More here:
http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-01-16/Empathy_in_Israel_for_Palestinian_civilian_casualties.html

Foxfyre wrote:

But seriously, those pro-Palestinians who show ONLY anti-Israel propaganda and seem oblivious to the actions of the Palestinians (or others) that provoke the Israeli attacks don't inspire confidence in me that there is any attempt at fairness. And they rarely if ever acknowledge that Israel attacks only when there is such provocation.

OK, however the Palestinians, including Hamas and other admittedly distasteful groups, also - with equal justification - claim that they are merely responding to Israeli provocations using the weapons available to them. They have lost most of their territory and have lived under Israeli military occupation and threat, without any political rights in the Israeli government that controls their lives and seizes their property for well over 40 years. I believe most reasonable people would consider all of that to have been a rather significan provocation - certainly greater than the occasional rocket fired into an open field or even a city.

Foxfyre wrote:

And, there seems to be this idiotic notion that since Israel is the better equipped and more efficient at fighting and inflicting more casualties, then that automatically makes them the bad guys.

My opinion is that if Israel had not been pulling its punches and attempting to minimize civilian casualities as much as possible in time of war, this thing would have been over by now. It's damn hard to avoid civilian casualities in a war that the enemy requires to be fought in the middle of civilians though.

You are duplicating the error that you are criticizing. While it is true that israel's superior arms don't make them necessarily "the bad guys" it is also necessarily true that an appropriate level of restraint in their use doesn't make them virtuous either.

But the circular argument then becomes, had the Palestinian leadership not instigating and promoting provocative hostile acts against Israel, would the Palestinians have been marginalized and forced to live under Israeli military occupation? How many markets have to be blown up or how many busses filled with mothers and little kids exploded before Israel has the moral authority to take steps to protect its own citizens?

Again if the Palestinian leadership would cease and desist trying to destroy or drive Israel out and showed good faith intent to live peacefully in coexistence with Israel, and Israel did not accommodate that, then you would see me being 100% on the Palestinian side of this conflict. As it is now, my heart aches for the innocents on both sides, but I cannot see that Israel does not have the stronger case for justification for its actions.

As part of the process the court's head of jurisdictions, part of the office of the prosecutor, is examining every international agreement signed by the PA to decide whether it behaves - and is regarded by others - as operating like a state.[/[/size]quote]

I wonder if the PA truly wants to go down that road.
It seems to me that if the court decides the PA is a state, then they (the PA) would have opened their own leaders up to war crimes charges also.
I seriously doubt they want that.

georgeob1 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

But the circular argument then becomes, had the Palestinian leadership not instigating and promoting provocative hostile acts against Israel, would the Palestinians have been marginalized and forced to live under Israeli military occupation? How many markets have to be blown up or how many busses filled with mothers and little kids exploded before Israel has the moral authority to take steps to protect its own citizens?

You forget that the visible programs and the various political manifestos of the Zionist leaders of Israel, from its very beginning, have consistently called for the creation and expansion of a Jewish state - not a Palestinian or multicultural state, but a Jewish one. It is true that Israel tolerates a large minority of Palestinian citizens, who have substantial, but not equal rights to Jewish citizens. However, Israel is very clearly intent on forever preserving its Jewish majority and the essentially jewish character of the state, and has repeatedly demonstrated it will go to great lengths to preserve it - including the ethnic cleansing of areas of the West Bank that it wished to expropriate.

Implicit in all of this - even to the most naive of observers - is the inevitable intent to destroy or further compress and restrict the Palestinian people and their culture - in their own land.

You and other Zionist apologists dfend Israel by noting the unambiguous and clear assertions of Palestinian extremists (and some of their allies) that the state of Israel must be destroyed. However, you ignore the obvious but equivalent intent of even moderate Israelis (and their allies) to do precisely the same to the Palestinians. Indeed it is the Israelis and their sympathizers who have to date beed the most successful in achieving that destruction.

It is fairly clear that peace will not be achieved until the zealots on both sides give up their hateful ambitions. That will require the creation of a new state able and willing to accomodate both populations on equal terms. That is the side of justice and that is the position I fervently wish my country would adopt.

I understand that this is your position George and we do have a philosophical disagreement here.

I see the Jews as having suffered sufficient persecution, discrimination, displacement, and genocide to justify allowing them having one teeny tiny plot of ground in the world where they don't have to worry about the people they live with persecuting them, discriminating against them, displacing them, or attempting to exterminate them.

You see that as an unreasonable and somehow evil Zionist wish.

I have no problem with recognizing also a nation of Palestine if the Palestinians would ever agree to that and agree to leave the Israelis alone.

You seem to think that impossible unless the Israelis take in all the Palestinians who want in as equals which, given the Palestinian support from Syria and Iran, et al, would, I think, ensure the rapid and effective elimination of Israel.

I don't look at the Israeli conduct through rose colored glasses and I don't ignore their past or present sins. Lord knows the United States has to live with its past sins as do all nations of the Earth. But all deserve to be judged on what they have become, not what they once were.

And judging what the Israelis have become and what the Palestinians have become, I still believe that the Israelis have the moral justification for their current policies.

It was their land too.

Foxfyre wrote:

Again if the Palestinian leadership would cease and desist trying to destroy or drive Israel out and showed good faith intent to live peacefully in coexistence with Israel, and Israel did not accommodate that, then you would see me being 100% on the Palestinian side of this conflict. As it is now, my heart aches for the innocents on both sides, but I cannot see that Israel does not have the stronger case for justification for its actions.

Interchange the words Israel and Palestine or Israeli and Palestinian and you have an equivalent statement.

I see the Jews as having suffered sufficient persecution, discrimination, displacement, and genocide to justify allowing them having one teeny tiny plot of ground in the world where they don't have to worry about the people they live with persecuting them, discriminating against them, displacing them, or attempting to exterminate them.

I disagree. You cannot interchange the words and come out with anything accurate. Israel has agreed to numerous plans and proposals for peace since the very first UN solution. On the rare occasion that the Palestinian leadership has agreed to anything, they subsequently violated their own agreement. A cease fire to the Palestinians seems to be interpreted as an interval in which they can regroup and resupply their rocket launchers, plot more kidnappings, recruit more suicide bombers.

Again, if it is your kids who are awakened terrified most morning by the wail of the air raid siren, who run for their lives to the bomb shelter, who cannot safely play outdoors, or your wife who cannot go to the market because too many rockets are falling that day, what do you deem the appropriate response of your country?